First Samuel Chapters 18-20 We should ponder how God has been and will continue to be providentially preparing David for the throne. “David had served as a shepherd in the fields and had the loving, protective heart of a shepherd , a fitting attribute for a king. He had learned responsibility and courage by confronting and slaying wild beasts that threatened his flock (17:34-36). He had learned to play the harp, a skill that would make him sensitive to the aesthetic side of life, and that would help him compose the stirring psalms which extol the Lord and celebrate His mighty exploits. David had been brought into the palace of the king as musician and warrior so that he might acquire the experience of statecraft. Though an uninitiated novice at the time of his anointment, he was eminently equipped some 15 years later. But his education was not always pleasant” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 449). The following chapters (18-20), will describe David’s service in Saul’s court. Chapter 18 True Friendship 18:1-2 After the slaying of Goliath, David went to live with Saul in the royal place at Gibeah on a permanent basis. Although David continued to serve as court musician (18:10), he also functioned as Saul’s armor bearer (cf. 16:21), and or one of Saul’s generals (18:5). Jonathan was immediately impressed with David. Literally, the word “knit” in verse 1 means, “knotted”. It was a relationship characterized by loyalty, love, personal devotion, and self-sacrifice (John 13:34-35). “This was understandable because David and Jonathan had much in common; they were both courageous and capable young warriors who possessed profound faith in the Lord. Both had initiated faith-motivated attacks against militarily superior Philistines that had resulted in great victories for Israel” (Bergen p. 199). Sometimes people worry about not having enough friends. Here we learn a valuable lesson about a real and healthy friendship. People who have integrity and faith will naturally find others with the same qualities. The lament of David after the death of Jonathan
1
reveals the bond between them (2 Samuel 1:17-27). “Many in recent years have viewed this ‘male bonding’ between David and Jonathan as some kind of homosexual covenant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Both men were married and had children. David was later lured in an adulterous act by the sight of a naked woman. This is hardly conduct typical of homosexuals” (Smith p. 300). 18:3 “If we press the verb (‘made a covenant’), the bond was inaugurated by severing an animal and by both parties passing between the pieces as if to say, ‘If I am unfaithful to my word in this covenant, may I end up in pieces as this animal’” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 52). 18:4 “Jonathan stripped himself of his robe and gave it to David, as well as his war coat or armor, his sword, bow, and belt. All this was both significant and surprising; significant because the clothes signify the person and his position—hence Jonathan renounces his position as crown prince and transfers, so far as his own will goes, the right of succession to David” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 52). Jonathan is not controlled by the culture in which he lives. In that culture, one eliminated all rivals, rather than giving them an honored position. Jonathan seems humbled by what David had accomplished against Goliath, maybe even ashamed of his own lack of courage. I see Jonathan in this act saying, “David, you deserve to be king, and I am stepping aside and giving up my right to the throne”. “This deed on his part was an act of faith. Only faith makes us willing to be the lesser. Faith causes us to surrender the rights we pretend to have over against the Christ, who is truly Israel’s king” (Dale Ralph Davis pp. 52-53). “In an apologetic vein, it (this text) also provides an explanation of how David came to possess these coveted tokens of power” (Bergen p. 200). 18:5 David succeeded in every military assignment given to him. “In a manner reminiscent of Joseph, another man who prospered because the Spirit of God was with him (Genesis 41:38-40)” (Bergen p. 200). The Jealousy of Saul 18:6 “David’s---and thus Saul’s---phenomenal success was celebrated by all. After the Philistine campaign was concluded and the army was returning, grateful mothers, wives, and daughters met them with expressions of appreciation” (Bergen p. 200). Apparently, the following song was composed, not only after David killed Goliath, but also after some of the mopping up battles that followed, when the army finally returns home. 2
18:7 “In accordance with an ancient Israelite custom (cf. Exodus 15:21; Judges 5:1-31), the women composed songs that memorialized the men’s military successes” (Bergen p. 201). 18:8 Saul hated this new folk song. “Even more than angry, it ‘was evil in his eyes’ (‘galled him’)” (Bergen p. 201). Perspective is everything. Saul is threatened by David, but in reality, without David I’m not sure if Saul would still be king. What if no one had met Goliath in battle? Where would Saul’s popularity be without David’s courage? Saul should have realized at the very least, that with David, he would always be a popular king. Like Jesus, His ancestor David, had the same knack for being either loved or hated (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19; Matthew 10:35). “Verse 8 contains a note of irony. To Saul it appeared that there was nothing left for David to obtain but the kingdom. That was no mere conjecture, but rather a foregone truth” (Laney p. 61). 18:9 The phrase “with suspicion”, can be translated, “kept a jealous eye”. At this point Saul may have guessed that David was the man that Samuel had alluded to, the man who would replace him (1 Samuel 13:14). Hence, all of Saul’s anger against David, is really anger against God! 18:10-11 “Naturally, some readers will wonder about that last statement. How could David swivel twice from Saul’s flying spear and not think he was in danger (18:10-11)? David was playing his lyre because Saul was having one of his ‘spells’. That may well have been how Saul’s attendants talked about him in such times: ‘The king’s really bad today, David’. They may well have thought of Saul’s condition as something not quite under his control. More likely they were construed as outbursts of Saul’s recurring madness. Dangerous but not malicious” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 54). Yet, Saul is viewed as responsible for his actions. The text doesn’t say that Saul wanted to love David but was unable. Or, that Saul loved David at all times, except when he was having one of his spells. Saul hated David even before this evil spirit came upon him. ”Ironically, the spear episode incited fear—not in David, but in Saul” (Bergen p. 201). 18:12 Saul isn’t crazy, even when he is in the midst of one of these moods. Saul perceives that God is with David. So why doesn’t Saul yield to God’s choice? Let him say it again, the real object of Saul’s hatred is God, if Saul could, he would hurl a spear at God, instead of David. 18:13-17 To get him out of his sight, Saul made David the captain of a thousand men. Yet David continued to prosper, which only fueled Saul’s resentment. It appears that the only person in Israel who does not like David is Saul. Having failed at killing David, Saul tried a different tactic. “David was removed from the protected confines of the royal residence and was sent to lead Saul’s troops in battle. These circumstances clearly posed risks for both David’s reputation and his well-being. Failure to perform his duties successfully even once on the battlefield would reduce or erase David’s 3
prestige and popularity and perhaps end his life” (Bergen p. 203). Note, these are not the plans of a man who is insane, rather, they are deliberate and thought-out. Saul understood that David’s chances of being killed increased in proportion to the amount of time spent on the battlefield. 18:17-19 Saul cunningly offered his daughter Merab (MEE rab) to David, but David was a very humble man, and he did not consider himself worthy to marry into the royal family. “Saul found some pretext to give her to another. This, no doubt, was intended to humiliate David” (Smith p. 301). We should note that the reward for killing Goliath was the hand of Saul’s daughter (17:25), and material wealth, but Saul hadn’t kept either promise, since David is still single and poor (18:23). Merab was given to Adriel (A drih el) the Meholathite (meh HO luh thite). 18:20-23 Saul viewed his daughters as nothing more than tools that he could use to bring about the downfall of David. Saul’s daughter Michal (MY kul) loved David. But David didn’t have the sufficient funds for a dowry, neither did David take such a marriage lightly. Saul was quick to offer a creative alternative. Since no Philistine would willingly submit to circumcision, the foreskins would serve as tangible proof that one hundred Philistines had been slain. 18:24-30 David brought back double what Saul had asked. David is still unaware of Saul’s evil intentions, and yet that doesn’t matter. Be impressed with God’s quiet protection of David. Saul, with all his cleverness and resources is doing everything he can to bring about David’s downfall, and yet everything that Saul tries only backfires. By offering his daughter in marriage to David, Saul has only succeeded in bringing David that much closer to the throne! How often does God protect us when we are completely unaware that people are trying to undermine our efforts and influence? David’s “men” mentioned in verse 27, apparently became his loyal companions during the days of their mutual flight from Saul (23:3,5; 24:3; 25:12-13). Chapter 19 19:1-6 “Finally Saul made public in his court what he had been thinking in his heart for some time. He wanted David dead!” (Smith p. 301). Jonathan, a true friend, placed David (and God) before his allegiance to his Father (Matthew 10:37). We need to be impressed with Jonathan’s impassioned plea. Jonathan saw the situation clearly, David was not only innocent, but David’s successes had only helped his father (19:4). Jonathan had the courage to call his father’s actions for what they were, that is, sinful. Jonathan also remembered the past, for he had been a innocent man that at one time his own father had determined to kill and others protected him (14:39-45). “Jonathan conferred with Saul, pressing 4
rational, moral, and theological considerations upon him: David has not wronged you; he risked his life for Israel when he killed Goliath; Yahweh saved us and you were so glad; ‘why will you sin against innocent blood by putting David to death for nothing’” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 55). Note that Saul makes an oath in the name of the Lord that he won’t harm David. 19:7-10 After another round of successes, Saul, filled with envy and jealousy tried to kill David again. Saul’s spells appear to come when he gets upset over David’s popularity. Indicating that the real problem is not demon possession or insanity, but intense jealousy. 19:11-17 At this point in time, Michal places love and loyalty for David ahead of her love and loyalty to her father. “To give David time to put sufficient distance between himself and his pursuers, Michal fashioned a crude dummy to take his place in his bed. She further stalled for time by telling Saul’s men that her husband was ill” (Gaebelein p. 715). Michal’s dummy is described as a “teraphim”, which is usually translated “idol” or “household idol”. “Michal’s use of household idols doubtless reflects pagan inclination or ignorance on her part” (Gaebelein p. 716). In addition, Michal is like a young Rachel, who was willing to do anything to protect her husband, including stealing Laban’s household idols and lying in the process (Genesis 31:19, 34-35). David may have escaped through the window, because his house may have been built on the city wall. “Ominously, the prophet Samuel previously had suggested that Saul’s rebellious acts were equitable to the ‘evil of teraphim’ (15:23). Through the present compelling scene and without the intrusion of didactic commentary, the writer suggests that Michal was as much a spiritual rebel as her father. This observation foreshadows an outcome for Michal’s life that is the feminine counterpart to Saul’s. Michal’s father lost his opportunity to establish a dynasty; Michal lost her opportunity to establish a family (2 Samuel 6:23). Michal’s action creates a strong contrast with those of her husband; whereas Michal trusted in a teraphim to save David, David trusted in the Lord” (Bergen p. 208). See Psalm 59:9-10, 1617. Saul’s messengers returned to him, because such men had to respect the socially powerful daughter of the king (19:14). Note Saul’s cruelty, he was willing to kill David, even if David was completely unable to defend himself (15). While Michal lies a couple of times to save David, we tend to forget that God has been able to protect David without such tactics. “Sad to say, the presence of a household idol, usually kept in a small shrine in the home, also reflects (if David knew about it), some compromise in David’s faith. That example would later have devastating consequences for his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-8)” (Laney p. 63).
5
19:18 Give David credit, he knew where he needed to turn. He fled to a man who could counsel him spiritually. “Naioth” (NAY oth). Apparently, Naioth was not a separate village but a section of Ramah. The Bible speaks four times of “Naioth (dwellings/habitations) in Ramah” (1 Samuel 19:19, 22-23; 20:1). The term Naioth may refer to a religious compound within Ramah, where Samuel taught and other prophets lived. 19:19-21 Consider how Saul is really fighting God. Even when he can clearly see that God is on David’s side, Saul still tries to kill David. 19:22-24 The word ‘naked’ in these verses may mean that Saul removed his outer robes. People were stunned once again by the apparently religious devotion of Saul. “By the great manifestation of the Spirit of God at Naioth, Yahweh was demonstrating how he could disarm the most determined foe” (Smith p. 303). Some suggest that the removal of his clothing under the influence of the Spirit, manifests that God has rejected Saul and therefore Saul isn’t permitted to wear his royal clothing. Someone noted that this bestowal of the Spirit may have been God’s attempt to bring Saul to repentance. God’s Spirit doesn’t always overwhelm His prophets (1 Corinthians 14:32), but this is an exceptional case, where God is putting His Spirit on the enemy to keep them from hurting one of His servants. “David’s back is to the wall; Saul will not grant him sanctuary even in Samuel’s company. So God sends forth His Spirit in raw, irresistible power on Saul’s police forces and compels them into helplessness” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 57). Chapter 20 20:1 David is completely perplexed by Saul’s hatred. David is perplexed because he does not have such a hatred in his heart. In fact, David even thought that maybe he might be the one at fault, “Have I committed some sin of which I am ignorant?” 20:2 “Although Jonathan expressed his certainty that Saul was not seeking David’s life (20:2-3), he may have been unaware of the events of 19:8-24 and was trusting in his father’s solemn oath not to harm David (19:6)” (Laney p. 64). 20:3 Yet David seemed to see what Jonathan could not see. Jonathan thought he knew everything his father was doing (20:2), and yet David sees otherwise. “The cold facts of the situation pointed to only one conclusion: Saul was passionately determined to kill David. In fact, at that moment David was ‘only a step’ ahead of ‘death’” (Bergen p. 213). 20:4 Jonathan is willing to face the truth, he will submit to whatever plan David comes up with. 20:5-7 “At the New Moon celebration if Saul should ask about his absence, Jonathan would tell his father that he had gone to Bethlehem 6
for the annual family sacrifice. If Saul became angry about this excuse that would signal that Saul still harbored murderous thoughts toward David” (Smith p. 303). The new moon was celebrated with a sacrificial meal and served both as a religious and civil festival (Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15). “David’s family apparently got together for an annual family reunion that coincided with one of those monthly celebrations” (Laney p. 64). 20:8-9 David wants to make sure that he is innocent and so asks Jonathan to put him to death if he has done something wrong. “David voiced his preference for dying at the hand of his covenanted friend Jonathan instead of his sworn enemy Saul” (Gaebelein p. 721). 20:11-23 Is plan is worked out whereby Jonathan can inform David of Saul’s intentions without actually meeting David. We need to be impressed with 20:14-15. Jonathan knows that David will be the next king, and not himself. Jonathan also knows that his decision to side to David may result in the loss of his own life (20:14). Jonathan knows that this rift between the popular David and his father may result in civil war and if that happens, David will win. Typically in such situations, the winner would then completely kill all the male descendants of his conquered foe. Jonathan asks David to take care of his family and children if Jonathan doesn’t survive through these years of turmoil. Davis makes a good application here. Such loyalty is also missing in our covenants, and yet Christians can still manifest this form of kindness and loyalty. “I have seen it in my own family: in my mother’s care of my father in his last years as his health but particularly his mind began to slip. Nine months after my father died my mother died, perhaps because she felt she could. She had accomplished her mission: taking care of her husband. Not sensational or glamorous---just covenantal. It had something to do with ‘in sickness and in health’---something about a covenant” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 68). 20:24-33 Friendship may require that we stick our neck out for a friend. At this time nothing is said about an evil spirit coming upon Saul, and yet he is still furious. Instead of admiring Jonathan’s integrity, Saul verbally abuses then tries to kill his own son. The statement, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman” is very hard to render without making the statement even more vulgar. “You son of a rebellious slut”, would come close. Saul is a classic example of a worldly person. He tries to intimidate those who are trying to do what is right and he accuses godly people of being the ones in the wrong (1 Peter 2:12 “So that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers”). Yet when people start thinking like Saul, they 7
refuse to understand the choices being made by righteous individuals. Seeking first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33); counting others better than yourself (Philippians 2:4), were not empty cliché’s for Jonathan. “Which is precisely why Saul could not fathom Jonathan, why he thought him so dim-witted and dense, why with blue veins bulging in his neck and red flush rising in his face he shouted at Jonathan the only four words that mattered: ‘You and your kingdom’” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 70). The example of Jonathan teaches us a valuable lesson: “That true life does not consist in securing ‘you and your kingdom’ but in reflecting Yahweh’s faithfulness in covenant relationships. There is something liberating about that! Jonathan had acknowledged that the kingdom was Yahweh’s and therefore David’s, so his life did not need to be centered in his ambition (what can I get) but in God’s providence (what Yahweh has given). Even as a believer and not as a crown prince my reigning passion is not to make my way, my living, or my mark; not to gain my place or to get ahead. That may be costly; but it is certainly liberating. Life does not consist in achieving your goals but in fulfilling your promises” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 70). 20:34-42 The two friends part after Jonathan’s farewell speech. Apart from one other brief meeting (23:16-18), this was the last time they would see each other. “Given the circumstances Jonathan’s words could seem almost laughable. ‘Go in peace’. But we know he’s serious. Go in peace while Saul stalks your life?…Biblical peace is not often a general tranquillity but rather a rightness at the center in the midst of much turmoil (Romans 5:1,3; John 16:33)…The Christian then does not have peace because things are peaceful. He has peace because a greater one than Jonathan has pledged his friendship to him” (Dale Ralph Davis pp. 71-72).
8