Deeper Commentary
1Sa 18:1 When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of
Jonathan became bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his
own soul-
The same phrase is used of Jacob’s love for Benjamin in Gen.
44:30: “seeing his soul is knit up with the lad’s soul". This phrase
does not therefore speak of any homosexual love between David and Jonathan.
We note that David was both hated and loved by many people. Jonathan and his
sister Michal, even Saul at one point, all Israel, all Saul's servants
(:22)... but David is never recorded as loving anyone. This perhaps all sets
him up for his sin with Bathsheba.
See on 1 Sam. 17:1; 23:16,18. Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him (1 Sam. 16:23), and the very special relationship between the spiritual helper and the helped had fully developed. Yet in such cases it isn't uncommon for there to arise a bitterness between the convert and the converter; exactly as happened with David and Saul. In response to his victory over Goliath, "Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house" (18:1,2). This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. See on :20.
It must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (1 Sam. 18:1,3). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after his victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and
gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle", pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of his victory without those things (cp. 1 Sam. 17:39). A good example of how the souls of David and Jonathan were spiritually knit together is shown by the identical style of prayer they had (1
Sam. 20:12 cp. 23:10; the question arises: Who influenced whom?). After Christ's victory on the cross,
He entered into a covenant with us His church. The intricately related friendship between David and Jonathan thus becomes typical of that between the Lord Jesus and ourselves. The idea of souls being knit together occurs in Col. 2:2,19, concerning how our hearts and souls are knit together with
the Lord Jesus Christ. This alone encourages us to see Jonathan as typical of ourselves.
1Sa 18:2 Saul took him that day and would not let him go home to his
father’s house-
This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with
Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an
indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him
to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as
his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a
strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his
son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that
strange dowry. David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too
was "pleased" at the prospect (1 Sam.. 18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is
used); this indicates the complexity of the relationship.
1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as
his own soul-
See on :1,2. We are not told what were the terms of that covenant,
but I suggest it was that Jonathan as the heir to the throne resigned that
to David, aware that God had chosen David and not himself to replace his
father. This shows a great humility towards God's word, requiring the
resignation of human advantage in this life. The covenant was
reaffirmed in 1 Sam. 20:8. This was the nature of Biblical covenants, and
we reaffirm the new covenant [which is what Jonathan and David's covenant
pointed forward to] each time we take the cup of the covenant in breaking
bread.
1Sa 18:4 Jonathan stripped himself of the robe he was wearing and gave it
to David with his tunic and even his sword, his bow and his belt-
The robe was his royal robe. Jonathan was resigning all power
and hope for future kingship to David. I suggested on :3 that the covenant was to the effect that Jonathan
agreed that David should replace Saul as king, rather than the throne
going to himself.
To give clothes to another suggests giving of an office, as we see in
the experiences of Joseph and Daniel. He gave the clothes appropriate to
the next in line to the throne to David. For
his / the robe- see on 2 Sam. 1:23. Jonathan stripped himself of his "robe... and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1 Sam. 18:4
AV). The triple phrase "and / even to..." indicates the totality of this stripping. "Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (Gen. 48:22; Josh. 24:12; 2 Kings 6:22; 1 Chron. 5:18; Hos. 1:7). Not only did he give David the weapons of his human strength (cp.
1 Sam. 13:22), but he appears to have stripped himself almost physically bare (cp. Mic. 2:8). Stripping like this is almost always associated with shame. The same word occurs in relating how the Philistines stripped Jonathan of his clothes and weapons, as he lay slain on Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:8,9). This all seems to suggest that Jonathan was saying to David: "I deserve to have been killed by Goliath (cp. the devil), so in a sense I will 'die' now by entering into a covenant with
you, knitting my life / soul with yours. Rather than the Philistines (cp. our sins) killing, shaming and stripping me, I'll do it to myself'. Isn't this exactly our response to the cross in the ongoing 'baptism' we commit ourselves to? And of course we shouldn't miss the connection with Israel stripping themselves, deeply conscious of their sins, and then entering into covenant with God (Ex. 33:6). Yet does the cross of Christ really fill us with that sense of shame, that desire to throw away all our human strength and knit our souls with that of Christ...?
1Sa 18:5 David went out wherever Saul sent him and behaved himself wisely,
and Saul set him over the men of war, which pleased all the people and
Saul’s servants-
We get the sense that David pitted his
wisdom against Saul's anger and bitter persecution; David's wisdom is
mentioned in tandem with Saul's anger against him (1 Sam. 18:5,11,15,30).
"David behaved himself wisely (AVmg “prospered”) in all his ways; and the
Lord was with him" runs like a refrain through 1 Sam. 18:5,14,15,30. These
words are referring back to Dt. 29:9: "Keep therefore the words of this
covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" . David's
charmed life and prospering despite all manner of plotting against him was
due to his single-minded devotion to the Law; to those very chapters which
tired Bible readers are wont to skip over as boring and not motivating.
Yet David found something immensely inspiring and practical about the Law.
The word made him wiser than his foes (Ps. 119:98), and Ps. 119 was
written at the time of Saul’s persecution.
1Sa 18:6 When David and the men returned from the slaughter of the
Philistine the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and
dancing, to meet King Saul with tambourines, with joy, and with
instruments of music-
See on 2 Sam. 1:23. The women were of course attracted to David, the
young, handsome bashful hero. Yet ostensibly they came out to greet Saul;
whereas the focus was clearly upon David. It was a perfect set up for
Saul's jealousy.
We could read this as out of sequence with :1-5. Now the narrative addresses Saul's jealousy and explains how it arose. David returned from killing Goliath; the women come out to congratulate David, all apparently in love with the classic handsome hero; and Jonathan also loves him. Possibly David alludes to this when he laments that Jonathan's love for him surpassed the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26).
1Sa 18:7 The women sang one to another as they played, Saul has slain his
thousands and David his ten thousands-
It became a kind of proverb in Israel that David was worth ten
thousand; it was said right towards the end of his life (2 Sam. 18:3).
This further developed Saul's jealousy, because he failed to perceive that
the whole conflict was about the glory of God and not the human channel
through which that was achieved. "His ten thousands" may
refer specifically to Goliath through the idea of a plural of majesty;
hence David is said to be worth ten thousands of Israelites (2 Sam. 18:3).
1Sa 18:8 Saul was very angry; this song displeased him and he said, They
have ascribed to David ten thousands and to me they have ascribed only
thousands. What more can he have but the kingdom?-
We have a record here of what he said in his heart. He kept recycling
those words in his mind, and it made him jealous and bitter. We too must
beware of recycling upsetting words in our hearts. Saul was "displeased",
the word used in Is. 15:4 of how "life shall be grievous unto him". But it
was the fault of his own jealousy and lack of humility towards God's plans
for David. What should Saul have done? Accepted Samuel's
statements that he would not continue as king, because a replacement had
been found. And walked humbly with his God the rest of his days.
1Sa 18:9 Saul eyed David from that day and onward-
Saul was precious in the eyes of David (1 Sam. 26:21 s.w.), although
Saul's eyes were only to destroy David. We see the chasmic difference in
outlook, in "eyes", or worldview between these two men.
1Sa 18:10 The next day an evil spirit from God came mightily on Saul, and
he prophesied in his house. David played his harp, as he did day by day.
Saul had his spear in his hand-
It could be that we have here a case of both the evil and
holy Spirit working upon Saul. For prophesying is a term always used about
the work of the Holy Spirit with men, and we recall how the holy Spirit
had earlier made Saul prophesy (1 Sam. 10:10). His jealousy complex was
confirmed by God's evil spirit. But Saul was given strength from the Holy
spirit to resist this. It was as David was singing Psalms, a source of the
Holy Spirit for Saul, that this was confirmed by a special outpouring of
holy Spirit. And it was a strong influence insofar as it made him prophesy
or speak forth God's word. But Saul allowed his jealousy complex,
confirmed by the Lord's evil spirit, to triumph.
In Old Testament times, an evil or unclean spirit referred to a
troubled mental state (Jud. 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10); and in every Old
Testament reference to evil spirits, they were sent by God, not an
orthodox ‘Devil’. In New Testament times, the language of evil
spirit/demon possession had come to refer to those suffering mental
illness. The association between demons and sickness is shown by the
following: “They brought unto him (Jesus) many that were possessed with
demons: and He cast out the spirits with a word… that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our
infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (Mt. 8:16-17). So human infirmities
and sicknesses are described as being possessed by “demons” and “evil
spirits”.
1Sa 18:11 and he threw the spear saying, I will pin David to the wall!
David escaped from his presence twice-
The javelin or spear was like a diadem, the emblem of regal
authority. Kings of the time are portrayed holding a spear or javelin as a
sign of their kingship. So as with dressing David with his own clothes to
fight Goliath, Saul was again inadvertently handing or throwing the
kingship (represented by the javelin) to David. And later Saul would have
reflected on this. He should have just humbled himself, resigned the
kingship voluntarily, and lived at peace with God the rest of his days in
hope of future salvation.
We note Goliath also had a javelin, which David was saved from. Again
circumstances repeat in the lives of God's servants. We are taught and
then the lesson is repeated. David returned to Saul after the first
javelin incident presumably because he was sure that if it happened again
(which it did), then surely God would again save him from a javelin. We
note too that Saul's final end was to be pinned to the wall of Beth Shan.
We are judged as we judge.
See on 1 Sam. 17:58. As noted on :8, the Biblical record states the self talk of people as if it is their actual spoken words. As the Lord Jesus was to later teach, thoughts are as culpable as the words and actions. Samuel’s comment about Eliab was presumably to himself (1 Sam. 16:6); Saul’s “I’ll strike [David] to the wall” was surely said to himself (1 Sam. 18:11); likewise his explanation of his plan to trap David through his daughter Michael was all hatched out within his own brain (1 Sam. 18:21); other examples in 1 Sam. 27:12; 1 Kings 12:26 etc. Only God knew what those men ‘said in their heart’; and yet He has recorded it in His inspired word for all generations to see. In this alone we see how ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i.e. in our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (Lk. 12:3).
1Sa 18:12 Saul was afraid of David because Yahweh was with him but had
departed from Saul-
Saul came to this conclusion from observing things great and small in
his life, as well as in his internal awareness of God's presence; and his
watching of David (:9) revealed to him that the Spirit of Yahweh was
surely with this man and not him. David was the fulfilment of Samuel's
words to him about a replacement being raised up. To try to murder him was
therefore not only futile but a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, going
against God's clearly demonstrated intentions. And yet David in depression
felt that Saul would one day kill him (1 Sam. 27:1), despite all the
evidence in the bigger picture that God's Spirit was working to establish
him.
1Sa 18:13 Therefore Saul sent David away from him and made him his captain
over a thousand, and David went out and came in before the people-
See on :16. The idea perhaps was that he sent David off with some
symbolic responsibility, to some outpost where he would not be in the
public eye. To fire him from kingly service would provoke the wrath of the
masses.
1Sa 18:14 David behaved himself wisely in all he did, and Yahweh was with
him-
That Ps. 119 was written at this time is evident. It mentioned David
as a young man devoting himself to the word rather than riches(:72)- the
riches which could have been his if he mentally surrendered to Saul, or if
he killed Saul and took the kingdom. He often laments how he is in exile
from Yahweh's word (:43,46,54), which would have been on account of his
being away from the sanctuary at Gibeah. He pleads the promise of the word
that he would be preserved from Saul's persecution (v.41,58), and several
times mentions Saul's attempts on his life (v.87,95,109,110). The
following verses are evidently relevant to this period: 61,63,67,79,84 (=
1 Sam. 27:1),95,98 (= 1 Sam. 18:14,15),110 (cp. the 'snaring' with
Michal),119 (the emphasis is on 'You will destroy the wicked like Saul-
one day),125 (David is often called Saul's servant),150,154 (= 1 Sam.
24:15),157,161,165,176. Therefore in the face of such hatred and pain,
feeling he must be careful of every step he took, emotionally and
physically, David could rejoice: "I will walk at liberty (AVmg. 'at
large'): for I seek thy precepts".
1Sa 18:15 When Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he stood in
awe of him-
Saul's jealousy was on account of David's spirituality and victories, especially over
Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (1 Sam. 18:7,8;
19:8,9), and his subsequent popularity with the people. This was because
these things were potentially possible for Saul, but he had refused to
rise up to them. Saul watched
David's spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (1
Sam. 18:15,28). The Jews were jealous of the evident moral perfection of
the Lord Jesus, and his popularity with the people which he seemed to
effortlessly achieve. Joseph's brothers had a similar motivation to Saul.
David as a type of Christ comes out clearly here. But "stand in awe" is
also translated 'gathered together' in the context of Saul's persecution
of David (Ps. 56:6; 59:3).
1Sa 18:16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came
in before them-
The people wanted a king to "go out before us and fight our battles"
(1 Sam. 8:20), but they were disappointed in Saul ultimately. For it was
effectively David who went out before the people to fight their battles
(s.w. 1 Sam. 18:13,16). And David was only successful because he recognized
that it was Yahweh who 'went out before' to fight his battles (s.w. 2 Sam.
5:24), rather than any human king or leader. The victories granted him
were clearly setting him up to be a popular king.
Saul would've reflected how he himself had set David up for this, by
letting him fight Goliath and then making him a military commander. He
thereby was showing he himself was not fit to be Israel's king, whereas
David was.
1Sa 18:17 Saul said to David, here is my elder daughter Merab; I will give
her to you as a wife. Only be valiant for me, and fight Yahweh’s battles-
"Yahweh's battles" is a repeat of David's phrase in 1 Sam. 17:47,
where he triumphed that "the battle is Yahweh's" and therefore would not
be won by human valiance or strength. Saul again is shown to be alluding
to spiritual ideas, but getting things absolutely the wrong way around.
Saul asks David to “fight Yahweh’s battles”. This was the job
description of Israel's king, and so Saul is effectively showing himself
not fit for purpose as king, and suggesting David is better as king. It
was only pride that made him want to cling on to the throne. He should've
accepted he was not the man to be king, and lived humbly with his God and
let David be the king.
Saul thought, Don’t let my hand be against him, but let the hand of
the Philistines be against him-
Again as noted on :8 and :11, we have recorded the inward words, the
self talk, of a man who lived thousands of years ago. The thoughts of Saul
are recorded in Heaven, and in this case are recorded in God's inspired
word. Our self talk is no less significant to God. Saul tried to
kill David by sending him into dangerous battle; and that is what David
did to Uriah. David failed to remain impressed by the grace shown him at
this time- that he survived by grace. He ends up acting like Saul his
abuser, as so many do, instead of being humbled by God's grace so that
they break the cycle.
1Sa 18:18 David said to Saul, Who am I, and what is my clan or my father’s
family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?-
This reflects David's humility. He could easily have argued that by
slaying Goliath, Saul should have given him his daughter for free as
promised. But humility often involves not making the obvious argument,
true as it may be.
1Sa 18:19 But when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to
David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife-
There's a repeated circumstance of a woman promised in marriage to a
man being given to another- in the lives of Samson and David.
Circumstances repeat between the experiences of God's children; and if we
perceive that, then we will realize that man is not alone. No experience
is so awfully unique or without precedent. This is the value of the
histories God chose to record in the Bible. Perhaps David was
being warned by this not to be like Samson, for whom women were his
downfall. And he failed to perceive that. It could possibly be inferred
from :25 that Adriel paid Saul a large dowry for his daughter.
We could infer from :25 that Saul was paid a large dowry and this avarice is what led him to break his word to David.
1Sa 18:20 Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David, and when they told Saul he
was pleased-
The statement that Michal loved David in 1 Sam. 18:20 is about the only example of love marriage in the Old Testament or a statement that a woman fancied a man. We note how by 2 Sam. 6:18 she watches David out of her window and "despising him in her heart". And she is punished for that by barrenness. She let him out of a window in loyalty to him (1 Sam. 19:12) but in 2 Sam. 6 she watches him from a window and despises him. The other women who watched from windows in the Bible are both bad- the bad woman of Proverbs 7 who watches a man from her window and goes out to seduce him; Jezebel (2 Kings 9:30-37) and Sisera's mother (Jud. 5:28,29). Infatuated love turned to hatred, and so again we see how psychologically credible are the Biblical histories. Her possession of teraphim and falsely telling her father that David had threatened to kill her... all suggest an unspirituality. We could assume that although her father was now dead by the time of 2 Sam. 6, Michal had moved from love of David to the love of her father Saul and what he stood for. Therefore in 2 Sam. 6:16 as she looks out from her window, Michal is described as being "Michal daughter of Saul". In the previous window scene she is called "David’s wife Michal" (1 Sam. 19:11). And again we see this so often- one partner with a mission becomes hated by the other partner when they no longer support the mission, and return to the loyalties of their youth. Both Michal and her brother Jonathan are described as loving David with the same Hebrew word ahab. But her love didn't abide the test of time; Jonathan's did. David may well have this in mind when he laments at Jonathan's death that Jonathan’s love was more wonderful to him than the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26).
David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of the relationship. See on :1,2. As Jonathan's close friend, it was inevitable that David got to know his sister, Michal. David and Michal began their relationship on this basis. Jonathan's spiritual side would have had some reflection in his sister. For even Saul their father had a spiritual side, and it is fair to assume that Jonathan's mother was also a spiritual woman. It is easily overlooked that David later married Saul's wives (2 Sam. 12:8)- including the mother of Jonathan and Michal. So now we can reconstruct the complex spiritual and emotional situation. David without doubt experienced a state of 'in-loveness' with Jonathan. His lament of 2 Sam. 1 is proof enough of this. The spirituality which was in Jonathan was also seen in Michal his sister. And David loved Saul, too. Again, his lament over him is proof of this- it shows that David's loving respect for him was not just the result of a steely act of the will, forcing himself to patiently respect Saul. There was something in him which he loved. And we can assume that David did not just marry women whom he didn't spiritually love. There was therefore something in Saul's wives which was spiritual. And the whole thing was not just one way. Jonathan loved David, "Michal, Saul's daughter loved David" (18:20), and Saul clearly had love-hate feelings for David; there was something about him which he deeply loved and respected. The intensity of his hatred of David must have been psychologically connected to a deep-seated love. "He loved him greatly" is the comment of 16:21. The seeds of the love between David and the house of Saul would have begun early on. The reason why all this information is included is to provide comfort for us in the incredible emotional and spiritual complexities which we find ourselves in. In the flesh, David cannot have known which way to turn, mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Yet in the Spirit he could turn to his Heavenly Father, whose mind can totally fathom our pain, who can know in totality our every situation.
Michal has many similarities to Rachel in the book of Genesis.
They each had an older sister who was set up to be their husband's wife.
The fathers were both obsessive and unpleasant, and both fathers pursued
after their husbands. Both women present as not very spiritual in that
they had teraphim [household idols], which they both use to deceive their
fathers to save their own skin, and to help their husbands save their
lives from the murderous intent of their fathers. They both lie to their
fathers. In the teraphim incident, Rachel claims to be sick and Michal
claims David is sick. Both have husbands who work for their father, who
deceives their husbands. Both had to chose their husbands over their
fathers. Both had an older sister, Leah cp. Merab. The fathers of both
women made an agreement with the sons in law [David and Jacob] to give
them their daughters in marriage for a dowry [years of labour, killing
Goliath], but deceived them. David effectively paid two dowries in order
to marry Michal- slaying Goliath, and then 100 Philistine foreskins. Jacob
also pays two dowries, each of seven years labour. Each woman had a time
of infertility. In Michal's case this is recorded in 2 Sam. 6:23 "Michal,
daughter of Saul, had no child to the day of her death". That could imply
she had a child the die she died- she died in childbirth. Which would be
another parallel with Rachel. This verse however stands in tension with 2
Sam. 21:8 "the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to
Adriel" (NEV). The translations squirm around this by translating "bore"
as "brought up for", or by appealing to a changed text which read "Merab"
for Michal. But the Hebrew is simply as NEV- that Michal had five children
by the man whom her older sister was married off to rather than David, and
then she marries David. All spaghetti junction in terms of relationships,
and all reminiscent of the Jacob-Rachel-Leah mess. All so mixed up and
intertwining it's hard to get any mental map of it. Apparently both Michal
and Merab were at one point married to the same man, Adriel. By the
intrigue of their father. Just as with Laban and his daughters Rachel and
Leah.
Clearly Jacob, Laban and Rachel are reflected in David, Saul and Michal.
All these connections cannot be mere coincidence. We naturally enquire why
such similarities constantly occur between the lives of God's people. We
see the same thing today, the deeper we engage with other believers and
get to know them. The repeated circumstances occur over time [between us
and earlier believers we meet in the Bible] and also horizontally between
us and present believers whom we know. We see the same Divine hallmark and
way of operating in our lives, as comfort that indeed man is not alone-
not least because our apparently unique situations aren't in fact so
unique.
1Sa 18:21 Saul said, I will give her to him so that she can be a snare to
him, and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Therefore
Saul said to David, You shall this day have a second opportunity to be my
son-in-law-
See on :11. By describing his daughter as a "snare" to a righteous
man, Saul shows his insensitivity to the way the law of Moses warned
against women who were as snares. Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in
Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their
root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in Ecc.
7:26 goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (1 Sam.
18:21). And the whole description of old age in Ecc. 12 is based on his
father’s experience with Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:35). The lack of
true faith amongst many raised as believers may be related to all this too. We
each need to seriously examine ourselves in this connection, and know the
meaning of personal conversion.
1Sa 18:22 Saul commanded his servants, Speak to David secretly and say,
‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and all his servants love you; now
therefore be the king’s son-in-law’-
All this intrigue was so far from the shepherd boy who simply loved
God. See on 1 Sam. 20:13. It is quite clear that David distrusted Saul,
and so he communicates through his servants. But it is all rather
simplistic and primitive as it was obvious they had been set up by Saul.
And if Saul were genuine, he would have fulfilled his promise and given
David his daughter freely.
1Sa 18:23 Saul’s servants told David this. David said, Does it seem to you
a light thing to be the king’s son-in-law, since I am a poor man-
They only had a "few sheep" (1 Sam. 17:28); David was not from a
wealthy family, he was "a poor man" as he says himself. His later abuse of
the "poor man" Uriah once he was rich (2 Sam. 12:3 s.w.) was therefore the
more culpable.
The young David in Saul's court in 1 Sam 18:23 calls himself a poor and lightly esteemed man; and he uses these words "poor and lightly esteemed" about himself in Ps. 119:141, suggesting Ps. 119 was written as reflection on this period of David's life. David's thought was that although he was poor, he believed Yahweh's word of promise that he would become king.
And
little known?-
"Lightly esteemed" is the word David will later use in Ps.
38:7 about being "loathsome" after his sin with Bathsheba. What had been
mere words expressing theoretical humility were now translated into actual
ownership. Our expressions of humility likewise are brought into reality
by God's hand, often working through our own sins.
1Sa 18:24 The servants of Saul told him what David said-
Saul had a network of spies watching David (1 Sam. 18:20,24; 19:11,19;
23:7,13,25; 24:1; 27:4). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to Mk.
3:2; Lk. 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Jn. 11:57.
1Sa 18:25 Saul said, Tell David, ‘The king desires no dowry except one
hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged on the king’s
enemies’. Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines-
This could possibly suggest that Saul had given Merab to Adriel
rather than David because Adriel paid a large dowry. That David casually
killed 200 men instead of 100 reflects his failure to perceive the value
and the meaning of the human person, even if they were Gentiles.
1Sa 18:26 When his servants told David this, he was pleased to be the
king’s son-in-law. Before the allotted time-
David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was
"pleased" at the prospect (1 Sam. 18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is used);
this indicates the complexity of the relationship. See on :2.
There can be few men who do not have at least some attraction to the father and family of their wife. David really loved Saul's daughter, indeed the prospect of marrying her may have been a large motivator behind his zeal in fighting Goliath and the Philistines (1 Sam. 17:26,30; 18:26). Saul was not a totally unspiritual man; there are many hints that he had a spiritual side. It's rare indeed that a totally unspiritual person can love a highly spiritual person like David. And yet this fine relationship ended in an intense love-hate affair. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (Ps. 27:12; 31:13; 109:23 cp. 1 Sam. 26:19). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind.
"Before the allotted time" is as AV "And the days were not expired". The days not expired may refer to the days he was given to bring the 100 foreskins. Or they could be the days during which he was supposed to have married Merab. By the end of those days he did in fact end up married to one of Saul's daughters. And so Saul had kept his side of the deal, to give David a daughter within a certain time period; and smugly thought how smart he was, seeing he had presumably received a big dowry from Adriel for Merab.
1Sa 18:27 David arose and went with his men and killed two hundred of the
Philistine men, and David brought their foreskins-
We see here the beginning of hints that David sunk into blood lust,
culminating in the comment that he couldn't build the temple because of
his attitude to shedding blood. He need not have murdered these men in
order to get their foreskins. And he did so "that he might" marry Michal.
Rather than for any more spiritual motive. If he had circumcised them
rather than murdering them, he might have brought them within the hope of
Israel.
And gave them in full number to the king so that he might be the
king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him Michal his daughter as his wife-
A more arrogant man than David would have insisted that Saul keep his
offer, that the man who slew Goliath could freely marry his daughter. He
could likewise have insisted that Saul give him Merab as promised. But he
instead is zealous to meet Saul's new demands, bringing 200 and not just
100 foreskins, and doing it earlier than the deadline given (:26).
1Sa 18:28 Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David, and Michal, Saul’s
daughter, loved him-
See on 1 Sam. 17:58. The fact his own daughter was one of the many
daughters in Israel who loved David was all so hard for Saul. If he had
accepted God's rejection of him as king, he could still have built a
personal relationship with God and lived in sure hope of eternal salvation
in the Kingdom. But he didn't, and only hoped that he would somehow be
able to destroy David and establish his own kingdom, despite God's word to
the contrary.
1Sa 18:29 Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul was David’s
enemy continually-
The more Saul perceived the hand of God in David's life, the more he
feared and hated him. He realized, as he thought about it, that the man
set to replace the king... was now the king's son in law. But by the
king's own device and encouragement. It seems that spiritual jealousy, the
cancer which stalks churches and Christian relationships, is the worst
form of jealousy. It knows no bounds.
1Sa 18:30 Then the princes of the Philistines went forth and whenever they
did so, David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul,
so that his name was highly esteemed-
David's commentary upon this is in Psalm 8, written in reflection
upon his victory: "Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!"
(Ps. 8:9). It was David's name which was much set by (1 Sam.
18:30); but David's desire was it should be Yahweh's Name which was now
made majestic after the defeat of Goliath, and not his name. The idea seems
to be that David was more successful in the field of battle than the other
servants of Saul; instead we read that he behaved himself more wisely than
them. This is to equate his victories with his wisdom, rather than his own
strength or felicity in combat.
Previous Chapter
