First Samuel Chapters 21-25 These chapters begin David’s long period of separation from the royal court. Most of that time was spent fleeing from Saul. “Through David’s adventures as a fugitive he learned lessons on prayer, trusting the Lord, and how to praise God. That is evidenced by many of the Davidic psalms that have their background in chapters 21-31 (cf. Psalms 18; 34; 52; 54; 56; 57; 63; 124; 138; 142)” (Laney p. 65). “When most people think of the life of David, they forget this long ‘down’ period of his life. It would be nice if we could go from his anointing by Samuel (16:13) to his being anointed king by the people (2 Samuel 2:4) with nothing in between. David’s meteoric rise to fame would then make a nice fairy tale—rags to riches without pain. We harbor these same fantasies about our own lives—that we can build marriages, rear children, or succeed in careers without any reversals or any ‘down’ periods. There are even ‘health-and-wealth’ preachers who attempt to define the Christian life as immune from trouble” (Williams p. 170). Chapter 21 21:1 The city of Nob (knob), was located about two miles NE of Jerusalem, and about two and one-half miles SE of Gibeah of Saul. From the text it is apparent that the tabernacle was now located at Nob rather than at Shiloh. However, the Ark of the Covenant, was still in the house of Abinadab in Kirjath-jearim (7:2 with 2 Samuel 6:2-3). “Ahimelech” (a HEM eh leck), was the son of Ahitub (22:9) and therefore a great-grandson of Eli (14:3). “Ahimelech the priest smells something wrong. Otherwise, why ‘tremble’ to meet David?” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 74). Apparently, Ahimelech may have known of Saul’s hatred of David. 21:2 David informed the priest that he was on a secret royal mission. His entourage would meet him at a designated spot. “Most commentators bluntly accuse David of lying to Ahimelech about his mission and his men, and that Saul had assigned to David some mission prior to his departure from the court is not inherently impossible” (Smith p. 316). Others argue that the “king” to which David refers, is God.
21:3-6 According to the Law, the showbread was only to be eaten by the priest and only in the holy place” (Leviticus 24:9). At this point a number of commentators argue that this is an example of where the moral obligation to preserve David’s life superseded the ceremonial regulation concerning who could eat the consecrated bread. Yet, in commenting on this very text, Jesus noted that what David did was wrong (Matthew 12:3-4). In Matthew 12:1ff, Jesus is not trying to justify the actions of the disciples which the Pharisees erroneously supposed violated the Law, rather He is showing how inconsistent the Pharisees were in their interpretation of the Law. The disciples were completely innocent, and their actions did not violate the Sabbath (12:7). The Pharisees condemned the disciples for plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath (12:1-2), yet they had justified David’s actions in 1 Samuel 21. In addition, their definition of what constituted work on the Sabbath, would condemn their own priests (12:5). It is sad that Ahimelech, a priest, did not even know the rules which governed the use of this bread, and thus comes up with his own requirements (21:4). Consider the following comment: “He assumed that the situation was of such a nature that the greatest good could be accomplished by getting good for his men at the cost of truth… The very fact that these sins were recorded are an evidence of divine inspiration of Scripture since they involve some of the great heroes of the Old Testament. As in the case with many lies (and compromises), they seem to meet the immediate need of a given situation, but have ultimate effects which perhaps were not foreseen by the one lying. Such was the case of David’s experience, for this lie led to the ultimate destruction of the city (cf. 22:22ff)” (Davis p. 77). Laney argues, “God’s moral law is inviolable, ceremonial regulations can be superseded by moral obligations and service to God. That is considerably different from situation ethics, which holds that God’s moral law can be disobeyed, depending on the circumstances” (p. 66). That sounds good, until you ask the question, “Where is the passage that distinguishes moral law and ceremonial law?” In addition, Uzzah will be struck dead for violating a ceremonial law, even though he had a good end in mind (2 Samuel 6:67). 21:7 Yet while David is here he is spotted by one of Saul’s henchmen. “Doeg” (DOE egg), the Edomite. “Earlier Saul had fought against the Edomites (14:47); perhaps Doeg was a prisoner of war who had proven unusually useful to Saul. Alternatively, he may have been a mercenary” (Bergen p. 223). Apparently he was here because of some ceremonial impurity. 21:8-9 David takes the sword which had belonged to Goliath, which in many respects did belong to David.
21:10 “With a subtle appreciation for humor, the writer records that David went right to Gath, Goliath’s hometown, wearing the giant’s old sword. Perhaps he had intended to enlist as an unknown soldier in the service of Achish (A kish)” (Laney p. 66). 21:11 Even though the anointing of David as king would not be known to the Philistines, he considered him the king in Israel, because of his well-known military exploits. He had acted like a king on the field of battle. 21:12-15 David realized that he had been discovered, so he pretended to be insane. “He dabbles nonsense graffiti on the doors to the town gate (more maintenance for Gath’s Parks and Recreation Department) and let his spit run down his beard. A little exposure to the constant scratching and soaking convinces Achish he’s got another crazy around him, as if, in his view, he doesn’t already have his quota of such folks. Apparently confinement ceased and David was permitted to go slobbering on his way” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 77). The reason that Achish lets David go, is that pagan cultures in the ancient world regarded the insane as being in some sense an evil portent and so exempt from harm lest the gods be provoked” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 451). Psalm 34 and 56 recall God’s deliverance on this occasion. In those Psalms, I do not see David boasting of his cleverness, rather, I see David realizing that the only one who really could deliver him was God. It is my impression that in this chapter, David has been trying to live by his wits, and many of this plans seem to only backfire in the end. David is resourceful, but far more importantly, God is providentially protecting him. In the Psalms, David doesn’t say, “I am lucky” or “I am clever”, but rather, “God delivered him from my fears” (see 34:4). Christians need to pause and reflect, “Has God delivered us, in spite of our foolishness?” “Have we been spared from suffering the consequences of some of our clever plans?” Chapter 22 22:1 Leaving Gath, David came to a cave near “Adullam” (a DULL um), possibly about ten miles east-southeast of Gath, and about twelve miles west of Bethlehem. There his relatives joined him. 22:2 The word translated “discontented” means, “bitter of soul”. David’s army consisted of those who were living on the ragged edge of society. Eventually this army will swell to 600 men (23:13). 22:3-4 The word “Mizpah” means “watchtower”, and was apparently located on one of the heights of the tableland east of the Dead Sea. “It was understandable that David should seek refuge for his father and mother in Moab, since Moabite
blood flowed through the veins of his ancestors on his greatgrandmother’s side (Ruth 4:13, 16-17)” (Gaebelein p. 732). 22:5 As the prophet Samuel had helped and advised Saul, so from now on the prophet Gad, among others, would perform the same functions for David (2 Samuel 24:11). The “forest of Hereth” (HEAR eth), was apparently located a few miles southeast of Adullam. The word “stronghold” (2:5), “may refer to Masada, the mountain fortress towering 1,320 feet above the Dead Sea (cf. Psalms 18:2; 62:2)” (Laney p. 67). 22:6-8 “The persecution complex from which Saul suffered was very much in evidence in his speech to the Benjamites” (Davis p. 80). “Appealing to their tribal loyalty as well as to their greed, he suggested that they had much to lose if the son of Jesse---a Judahite—became king in Saul’s place. Through the use of two rhetorical questions he indicated that a nonfamily member would not grant them such favors as he had done” (Bergen pp. 227-228). In verse 8, Saul had learned about the agreement between Jonathan and David. It sure looks like Saul believes that the real threat isn’t necessarily David, but Jonathan, who he believes may have hired David like a hit-man, so that Jonathan could take the throne from him. 22:9-10 “Listening to that speech was Doeg, the Edomite, who at this point saw a perfect opportunity for political advantage and further advancement” (Davis p. 80). “According to its traditional title, Psalm 52 contains David’s tirade against Doeg on this occasion” (Gaebelein p. 735). 22:11-15 “Stunned by the king’s insane accusations, Ahimelech gave a four-pronged response. First, he provided a fivefold defense of David: far from being Saul’s enemy, David was (1) ‘your servant’, (2) ‘loyal’, (3) ‘the king’s son-in-law’, (4) ‘captain of your bodyguard’, and (5) ‘highly respected in your household’…Finally, Ahimelech declared his noninvolvement in any plot against Saul: he ‘knows nothing at all about this whole affair’” (Bergen p. 229). Observe the courage of Ahimelech, “He could rightly have contended that he had been deceived by David and as a result was innocent of any wrongdoing. Rather, like Jonathan had done before, he tried to reason with Saul concerning David’s loyalty to the king” (Williams p. 180). Yet Saul would not be persuaded by the truth (16). 22:16-19 What Israelites were unwilling to do, Doeg willingly performed. “Thus Saul enforced against the innocent populace of Nob the ban which he refused to execute against the Amalekite sinners” (Smith p. 307). Not satisfied with killing 85 priests, Doeg extends the slaughter by putting the entire town to the sword. “This is now the second recorded instance
where those under Saul’s leadership refused to carry out a foolish royal order (14:44-45)” (Bergen p. 229). “Saul’s stunning inversion of the revealed will of the Lord in this instance is consistent with the text’s portrayal of Saul as a king ‘such as all the other nations have’ (8:5)” (p. 230). 22:20-23 One survivor escaped this slaughter, “Abiathar” (a BY uh thar). When David will become king, he will appoint Abiathar and Zadok as priests in the royal court (2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chronicles 18:16). During the struggle over who would succeed as king when David died, Abiathar supported Adonijah. When Solomon emerged as the new ruler, Zadok was appointed priest, while Abiathar escaped execution only because of his earlier loyalty to David. He and he family were banished to Anathoth, and his rights and privileges as a Jerusalem priest were taken away (1 Kings 1:7-25; 2:22-35). The text also seems to infer that David now looked back on his activities in chapter 21, in a different light. “David recognized how his own sin had precipitated in the slaughter of the priests at Nob (22:22)”….As priest, Abiathar carried the ephod with which David could inquire of the Lord (23:2,6,9)” (Laney p. 68). “If David were interviewed following that news, he probably would have had a different view on the propriety of telling a lie for the sake of a single situation. The modern proponents of situational ethics fail to look beyond a given situation. Very rarely is a single situation of life an end unto itself. For this reason, the teaching that a deed is right or wrong in the light of that situation alone is most tragic and misleading” (Davis p. 81). Saul might have raw power, but that’s all he has. Consider how Saul is continuing to isolate himself. “He has pushed away his own son (20:30-42), exterminated Yahweh’s priests, and repulsed his closest servants (22:17). Saul has had all but is in the process of losing everything. How he can only say, ‘Doeg is for me’….When only Doeg is for me, I am in trouble” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 88). Powerful and evil men may persecute the people of God, but they can never wipe them out. Pharaoh was unable to kill the baby Moses, Jezebel with all her influence and power couldn’t destroy the seven thousand faithful during the time of Elijah and Herod was unable to get his hands on He who was born king of the Jews. David protects the servants of God! (22:23) “We must not downplay Abiathar’s escape. We would be wrong to think it insignificant. Joseph Stalin prohibited the movie version of The Grapes of Wrath from being shown in the Soviet Union. The intent of the filmmakers was to depict the downside of American life. What problem could Stalin possibly have with showing the Soviet people a dreary picture of life in the States? Ah, but the movie showed that in the United States the poor had trucks and could go
wherever they wanted. That was, in a word, too ‘political’. We may think nothing of poor folks in the thirties having a beat-up truck, but it was too significant for Stalin” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 90). Chapter 23 23:1 While in the Hebron area, word came to David that the Philistines were attacking the city of Keilah (kee EYE luh). This city was located in the lowland plain of Judah, about 18 miles SW of Jerusalem. Apparently, the Philistines were raiding the threshing floors after the Israelites had harvested and processed the grain. These verses show how David served Israel even during the days of his exile from the royal court. 23:2-3 “One might wonder why David inquired of the Lord twice. Perhaps it was because his men were fearful and needed the assurance that victory would come through God’s help” (Laney pp. 68-69). “David’s men were not so sure—trying to jockey out of Saul’s path in Judah is one thing but is it really sane to attempt a direct hit on the Philistines?” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 94). 23:4-5 In addition to saving Keilah, David and his men seized a good number of Philistine livestock which they desperately needed. 23:6 This verse constitutes a “for-your-information note, explaining how it was that David could ask direction from Yahweh…and get such clear guidance” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 94). Remember this ephod (Exodus 28:625), contained the Urim and Thummim (see Numbers 27:21). 23:7-13 Saul still thinks that God is with him! “Saul mistakenly assumes that since he had the opportunity to capture David, it must be God’s will” (Laney p. 69). Even though David had saved the city (where was Saul when the Philistines were attacking?), he was not able to remain there because of the loyalty (or fear) of many of its inhabitants to Saul. 23:14-15 “The rugged mountains in the wilderness of Ziph (ziff) just south of Hebron provided a good hiding place for David, whose life was in danger every day as a result of Saul’s pursuit” (Davis p. 83). 23:16-18 Not only is God protecting David, but David also receives greatly needed encouragement from Jonathan, he “encouraged him in God”. Jonathan knew he was not giving comfort and aid to a rebel, but rather to a man who was doing the will of God. Jonathan also knew that David would be king over Israel, and Jonathan was happy simply to be next to David. “Jonathan exemplifies the attitude of servant-hood Paul encourages in Philippians 2:3-11. Although he knew his position as Saul’s heir to the throne, Jonathan was content to take second place to God’s anointed king” (Laney p. 69). “The Lord’s plans for David were not hidden, nor were they the product of David’s imagination: even Saul
knew them” (Bergen p. 235). Clearly, Jonathan does not view David as an “outlaw”. “We best encourage not by being cuddly with people but by reminding them of the promises of God. Encouragement from God for the people of God comes from the word of God. I am not depreciating the helpfulness of the personal touch or care, but in an age that wallows in ‘caring’ and ‘sensitivity’ on every hand believers need to know that solid encouragement comes not from emotional closeness but from God’s speech” (Dale Ralph Davis pp. 97-98). The location of “Horesh” (HOE resh) was somewhere in the wilderness of Ziph. 23:19-29 Once again, David was betrayed by human beings. David’s noble reaction to his betrayal by fellow tribesmen is recorded in Psalm 54 The wilderness of Maon (MAY ahn), is the wasteland along the western shore of the Dead Sea. The word “Jeshimon” (juh SHIGH muhn) means “wasteland”. Here it appears that God providentially delivered David, as Saul was closing in, it just so happened that the Philistines had struck in the north. “The confrontation almost came to a head when Saul and his men arrived at David’s desert mountain sanctuary and began scaling ‘one side of the mountain’ (26). A deadly battle pitting Israelite against Israelite seemed inevitable, and yet it probably was David’s to win. After all, he was Israel’s greatest military leader, and he and his troops held the high ground in the battlefield of their own choosing. Nevertheless, David had no desire to risk killing Yahweh’s anointed king (24:10; 26:9). Consequently, David had his troops abandon their advantageous site and begin a militarily foolish but theologically wise retreat” (Bergen pp. 236-237). Following this narrow escape, David and his men traveled east to the rugged hills west of the Dead Sea and lived in the strongholds of En Gedi (in GEH die). This was an oasis on the barren western shore of the Dead Sea about 35 miles SE of Jerusalem. Here there was a plentiful supply of fresh water and rich vegetation. Chapter 24 24:1-2 The name “En Gedi”, means “spring of the wild goats”. 24:3 “As the troops made their way down a path cut by shepherds driving their flocks, they came to a series of sheep pens along the way, suggesting a favorable campsite for Saul’s men and a nearby cave. Saul went into the cave to relieve himself (use the bathroom), and it just so happened that David and his men were hiding farther back in the same cave. 24:4-7 “Readers have long known that David is the man after Yahweh’s own heart (13:14), and chapters 24-26 show that the man after Yahweh’s
heart does not seize the kingship Yahweh promised but waits for it to be given to him” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 103). What “seemed” so providential, wasn’t! David’s men are sure that this is a stroke of providence, they are operating by feelings and sight (Proverbs 16:25). “Let us punch the rewind button and go back to the cave. There sits helpless Saul. David squats down on his haunches watching him. Words flow through David’s mind, ‘See! I am giving your enemy into your hand’. Was this providence or temptation? For David, however, it was one thing to have the promise of the king; how the kingdom should come to him was another matter. Yahweh’s will must be achieved in Yahweh’s way; the end that God has ordained must be reached by the means that God approves….This kind of test is not confined to David…it comes again and again to most all Yahweh’s servants. It is the temptation of the short cut” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 106). “David immediately recognized the powerful implications of his act and was conscience stricken…This was more than an act against the king; it was rebellion against the Lord, who had commanded the Israelites not to curse their rulers (Exodus 22:28), and had previously punished the Israelites who had expressed a rebellious attitude against constituted authority (Numbers 12:2-15; 16:1-35)” (Bergen p. 239). Let us also remember, that elders are also God’s anointed (Acts 20:28). 24:7 The word “persuaded” here literally means, “tore apart”. To restrain his men, David had to rebuke them severely or resort to violent and threatening language to cool their blood. 24:8-15 David then takes a huge chance. This action was risky, since it betrayed the location of David and his men. Note how David treats his enemy, rather than falling upon Saul in a murderous attack, David fell upon the ground. “David uttered what is perhaps the most passionate and eloquent plea for reconciliation between persons recorded in all ancient literature” (Bergen p. 240). David offered proof that Saul’s suspicions were completely groundless. More importantly, he also declared his motive for sparing the king: it was because he respectfully recognized that Saul is the Lord’s anointed. “David treated the king properly, not because of anything the king had done or might do, but because of what the Lord had done. David’s respect for human authority was based on his respect for divine authority” (Bergen p. 240). Yet, David does not whitewash Saul’s actions. David will not take vengeance upon the Saul, but the Lord will. “Thus David was actually pleading for Saul to save himself, not just to spare David” (Bergen p. 241). In addition, David notes that Saul was squandering national resources and wasting his time pursuing David, because he was no more a threat than a single flea on a dead dog. The proverb quoted in 24:13, is David’s way of saying, “If I didn’t act wickedly
against you when I had the ideal chance, such proves that there is no evil in me”. To me this speech is a great example of turning the other cheek and leaving room for the wrath of God (Romans 12:19-21). “Leaving judgment in God’s hands and committing vengeance to God’s calendar is no pale, sedate, anemic affair. Check some of the biblical prayers (Psalm 54:5; 58:6-9; 139:19-24). Some folks seem to reel in shock before such ‘harsh’ and ‘vindictive’ prayers. They never get past the words themselves but are held captive by their own western sentimentality. Certainly, these are passionate, volatile, high-temperature prayers. And obedient prayers. What is the person praying doing except what Scripture commands him to do, namely, committing vengeance to God? If Yahweh’s crushed and afflicted people cannot place their case in His hands and expect Him to bring just vengeance in their behalf, what hope can they have? Only a God who rights the wrongs inflicted on His people can be their well-proved help in troubles” (Dale Ralph Davis pp. 108-109) 24:16 For the moment Saul was crushed and convicted by what David had said. 24:17-22 Saul still has a conscience. He can still be saved. He can still see many truths. Sadly, this confession was only temporary (26:16). And yet it proves that Saul does have a choice. Saul acknowledged that David one day would be king. He concluded by requesting an oath from David that he would not wipe out the family of Saul, an action frequently taken when a new dynasty came to power. Yet David didn’t return home. Accepting someone’s apology is one thing, placing immediate trust in them, is another. Chapter 25 25:1 The fact that all Israel grieved indicates that Samuel was very popular in Israel. 25:2-3 The town of Carmel is located about three miles south of Hebron in the territory of Maon. Nabal, whose name means “fool”, was a very wealthy man, but he certainly did not possess the disposition or his ancestor Caleb. Unlike Caleb, Nabal was harsh and cruel in his dealings. Yet his wife Abigail is the exact opposite. The fact that Abigail is called “intelligent” goes contrary to the view that the Israelite culture viewed women as property or mere objects. 25:4-9 When David heard that Nabal was shearing sheep in Carmel, he sent ten of his men to request a donation. “Sheep shearing was a festival time in which the spirit of generosity prevailed. All the time he had been in that area David’s men had never taken any of Nabal’s livestock. In fact the presence of the small army of men probably kept thieves and
raiding parties at bay” (Smith p. 310). “As David saw it, Nabal may have had far fewer sheep to shear had David’s men not served as voluntary protectors of Nabal’s flocks and men” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 114). 25:10-11 Nabal was extremely rude to David’s messengers. He regarded David as nothing more than an ordinary rebel. Consider how many times Nabal says, “I” and “my” in this section. “A clear indication that the writer is emphasizing the wealthy man’s sinful self-centeredness in this affair” (Bergen p. 247). 25:12-13 David is determined to take revenge. 25:14-17 Yet it just so happened that one of the servants informed Abigail of how her husband had insulted David, when in reality, David and his men had been a great blessing to Nabal and his flocks. “The entire household was facing danger. Yet no one could approach the know-it-all Nabal” (Smith p. 311). 25:18-22 Yet Abigail could do smart things in a hurry—and just in time, for she would meet David on his way to exact revenge on the entire household. Abigail quickly gathered a sizable amount of provisions from all the good things which had been prepared for the festival. 25:23-31 What a speech! Without excusing her husband’s acts, she nevertheless accepted the blame for David’s mistreatment by a member of her family. Nabal was known to be a “fool” and he had lived up to his name. “Abigail implied to David that since she knew these facts about her husband, she should have been more watchful to protect her husband from himself” (Bergen p. 249). To encourage David to choose the path of peace and forgiveness in this matter, Abigail reminded David of his destiny. 1. He was God’s anointed, and his task was to fight the Lord’s battles, rather than redressing petty wrongs (28). 2. He was a man who should be above doing evil, i.e., killing the innocent servants of Nabal’s house. 3. David doesn’t have to take revenge, because God will fight for David (29). God will deal with David’s enemies! 4. Executing vengeance upon Nabal and his household would only bring many regrets later and tarnish David’s rule as king (30-31). “Since David would surely someday be king, he should not sow future trouble for himself by placing on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed” (Bergen p. 250). “Abigail’s brilliant use of the sling metaphor no doubt brought to David’s mind a sling the Lord once used to dispense with an enemy much more imposing than Nabal (cf. 17:47-50)” (p. 250). 25:32-35 Instead of being stubborn and headstrong, David praises God for providentially intervening and warning him before he did something that he would of later regretted. Be impressed that God can providentially warn us from doing something sinful or stupid—but we must heed the warning!
25:36 While Abigail had been pleading for the life of her wicked husband, Nabal had been drinking himself into a drunken stupor. 25:37-38 “The text appears to be describing a paralyzing stroke triggered by rage. Nabal lingered ten days. Then Yahweh struck him, i.e., he had another seizure, and he died” (Smith p. 312). David did not need to exact vengeance upon Nabal—God was able to do it just fine on His own and that without any innocent people getting hurt in the process. While a modern-day autopsy would have concluded that Nabal had died of natural causes (i.e., a serious stroke or a massive heart attack), the text is clear that God had struck him. God can use natural causes to execute His judgments against the unrepentant. 25:39 I think that when David heard about the death of Nabal, that he once again saw the wisdom of leaving room for the wrath of God. After being chased so much by Saul, in this chapter David almost becomes a little like Saul. I believe that these events taught David a greatly needed lesson about trusting God. It is so hard for anyone with power to avoid becoming a tyrant. 25:39-44 Consider Abigail’s attitude. Though David asked her to become his wife, she did not offer herself for that honorable role…instead, she made herself a slave who would assume the lowly responsibility of washing the feet of David’s servants. She was a wealthy woman (in fact she probably had more than David at this time), yet she was very humble. The text informs us that previous to this chapter, David had married “Ahinoam” (a HEN oh am) of Jezreel. She became the mother of David’s firstborn son, Amnon (2 Samuel 3:2). Meanwhile, Saul had taken David’s first wife Michal and given her in marriage to “Paltiel” (PAL tih uhl). “Being married to the richest widow in the area of the Calebites both eased his financial dilemma and solidified his support in the area” (Williams p. 202). Yet this multiplication of wives, or getting into the habit of falling for attractive women, will eventually land David into serious trouble (2 Samuel 11).