# comment

text:
<p>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-</p><p>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 <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>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’- </p><p>All this intrigue was so far from the shepherd boy who simply loved God. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. 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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>They only had a "few sheep" (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>); 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 (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a> s:w:) was therefore the more culpable.</p><p>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.</p><p>And little known?-</p><p>"Lightly esteemed" is the word David will later use in <a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a> 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.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Saul told him what David said- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>When his servants told David this, he was pleased to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the allotted time- </p><p>David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship. See on :2.</p><p>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 (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>). 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 (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David’s mind.</p><p>"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.</p>


text:
<p>David arose and went with his men and killed two hundred of the Philistine men, and David brought their foreskins- </p><p>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.</p><p>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- </p><p>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):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David, and Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. 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.</p>


text:
<p>Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul was David’s enemy continually- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>David’s commentary upon this is in Psalms 8, written in reflection upon his victory: "Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!" (<a href='B:230 8:9'>Psa 8:9</a>). It was David’s name which was much set by (<a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>); 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.</p>


text:
<p>Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David- </p><p>The simple appeal was that if David was no more, then Jonathan would be king, and the existing courtiers would remain in power. Whereas David, from another tribe, and with every reason for bitterness against Saul, would not remove them from power. But Samuel's words about David were surely known by Jonathan, and he had himself made a covenant to give the kingdom to David (see on <a href='B:90 18:3-4'>1Sa 18:3-4</a>). It could be that Saul "told" them to kill David in a mad outburst of anger whilst throwing one of his tantrums. But those words are here recorded. It could be that Saul was sharing with them a specific plan of killing David the next morning (:2); and I note on :11 that it seems his servants go along with it. Saul had been told that David would be king and he was no longer to be king. To seek to murder David was a foolhardy refusal to accept God's word. Had Saul humbly accepted he was not to serve as king, he could've walked humbly with his God in sure hope of eternal salvation. And saved himself all his mental health issues that clouded the rest of his life and led to his tragic death by suicide.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan told David, Saul my father seeks to kill you. Now therefore, please take extra care of yourself in the morning; hide in a secret place and stay there- </p><p>This is the same word for "hiding place" as in <a href='B:230 119:114'>Psa 119:114</a>: "You are my hiding place and my shield. I hope in Your word". When hiding from Saul in the wilderness [s:w. of David’s "hiding places" at this time in <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:20'>1Sa 25:20</a>], David hoped in the prophetic word that one day Saul would be no more and David would be king. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are and I will talk with my father about you, and if I find out anything, I will tell you- </p><p>The idea seems to be that Jonathan would walk with Saul in the field, the open countryside in Gibeah where David also lived with Michal; and then Jonathan would tell David as soon as possible what he had learned. To facilitate this, David needed to be in the same "field" or area of countryside, so that when Jonathan had finished his chat with his father, he could immediately inform David. Presumably Jonathan wanted to talk with his father out of earshot of anyone else.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, Don’t let the king sin against his servant David, because he has not sinned against you and he has worked well for you- </p><p>Jonathan's intensity of relationship with David meant that he was not ashamed to speak up for him: "Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king&nbsp; sin against his servant... because his works have been to thee-ward very good: for he... slew the Philistine" (19:4,5). Note how he calls Saul "the King", suggesting a certain detachment from him. The vision of David standing triumphant over Goliath still motivated Jonathan, to the extent that he could stand up in that hostile environment and testify to the love of David, the extent of his selfless victory, and the urgent need for this to be recognized by men. The spirit of our preaching only occasionally matches this example. No wonder the record stresses Jonathan as being typical of ourselves. &nbsp;</p><p>19:5 David’s confident words that God would deliver him from the Philistines were evidently inspired by Samson, the renowned one-man deliverer from Philistine armies. Both Samson and David wrought "great salvation" for Israel (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>he put his life in his hand and struck the Philistine- </p><p>David lived permanently in the intensity of that victory (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:109'>Psa 119:109</a>).</p><p>And Yahweh worked a great victory for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced- </p><p>Yahweh had earlier "worked deliverance in Israel" through Saul (s:w. <a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>); but now it was worked through David. It could have been through Saul. It was because David had the faith and humility to do what Saul potentially could have done, that Saul fell into a complex of spiritual jealousy against David. See on <a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a> for another example.</p>&nbsp;<p>That Jonathan saw David as his personal hero, succeeding where he failed, can be found in the following consideration. Jonathan seems to have seen Gideon as his hero [compare <a href='B:90 14:10-20'>1Sa 14:10-20</a> with <a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a>; <a href='B:70 7:10-11'>Jdg 7:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:14'>Jdg 7:14</a>; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon']. Yet in 19:5 he says that "David put his life in his hand", exactly as Gideon did (<a href='B:70 9:17'>Jdg 9:17</a>). In other words, Jonathan saw David as the perfect fulfilment of all he spiritually wished to be, he felt that David&nbsp; lived up to the example of his hero Gideon, whereas he did not. Is this how dynamically and intensely we relate to our Lord Jesus?&nbsp; For this is what the David and Jonathan relationship points ahead to.</p><p>But there are similarities also with Samson. The Spirit came on David as it did on Samson (<a href='B:90 16:13'>1Sa 16:13</a>); they were both empowered to kill lions, whilst keeping the fact a secret. And in both those acts they were taught that they would deliver God’s people from the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:34-37'>1Sa 17:34-37</a>). Indeed, David’s confident words that God would deliver him from the Philistines were evidently inspired by Samson, the renowned one-man deliverer from Philistine armies. Both Samson and David wrought "great salvation" for Israel (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>). As Samson was characterized by his love of that riddle (the word occurs nine times in <a href='B:70 14:12-19'>Jdg 14:12-19</a>, and <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a> Heb. is also some kind of riddle), so David uses the same word to describe how he chose to put forth a riddle (<a href='B:230 78:2'>Psa 78:2</a>). Psalms 3 is full of reference to Samson's fight at Lehi. It was also written at a time when David was betrayed by his own people. And his failures with women would make another parallel.</p><p>Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?-</p><p>The desire to slay innocent blood points forward to the Jewish desire to do the same to the Lord, articulated through Judas (<a href='B:470 27:4'>Mat 27:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death- </p><p>Yet Saul did try to kill David. He is here taking the Yahweh Name in vain.</p><p>Saul obeyed the voice of the people and the voice (s.w.) of the sheep and oxen that he covered (1 Sam. 15:24,24). Later he obeys the voice of Jonathan and promises not to kill David (1 Sam. 19:6) the voice of the witch and of his servants who persuade him against his will to eat (1 Sam. 28:22,23). We have the impression of a man readily persuaded by voices. If he had had a fundamental commitment to obey the voice of Yahweh as he was repeatedly asked, he would not have listened to these other voices. Nor the voices in his own head. Likewise those without a fundamental commitment to God's word are open to all the other voices around them, and likewise have no moral compass nor ethical direction.  The Hebrew for 'to hear' is the same as 'to obey'. Samuel had told Saul he would be made to hear or obey God's word (1 Sam. 9:27 "that I may tell you the message of God" uses the word for to hear / obey, the hint being 'that I may make you hear / be obedient to the message'). But he failed to make use of this because he found the voice of other things more attractive to hearken to. </p>


text:
<p>Jonathan called David and told him all this:&nbsp; Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as before-</p><p>We may consider both Jonathan and David to have been naive in believing this. But the situation was nuanced because all of them loved each other. Saul had loved David and told Jesse he wanted David as his son. Saul's daughters loved David and he likewise. It was all so interwoven, just as relationships are today, resulting in people doing things or trusting people when to onlookers, this is ridiculously unwise and naive. The record here has absolutely every verisimilitude to real life and is absolutely psychologically credible.</p>


text:
<p>There was war again. David went out and fought the Philistines and killed them with a great slaughter, and they fled before him-</p><p>The next verse records Saul suffering from an evil spirit. Clearly what is in view is the spirit of jealousy, arising from his own lack of faith, pride, refusal to accept Yahweh's word about the passing of the kingship to David, indeed a whole nexus of unspirituality. But Yahweh's Spirit worked to confirm that spirit, those wrong psychological positions which Saul allowed to operate and progress within him. Just as the Holy Spirit works positively in the heart / spirit / mind of the spiritual. Likewise in <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>, the 'evil spirit' also comes to Saul after a military incident which provoked his jealousy of David. Clearly 'spirit' is being used to refer to the spirit / mind of Saul, and not any external cosmic being. But then we will go on to read how the Spirit of God came upon Saul to influence him to repentance. We see God's careful balancing and working with men's hearts, always leading them to salvation. It's possible, from the use of the terms "that day" and "the morning", that all the events of this chapter up to :18 occurred on the same day and night. We could equally translate that "there had been war again" and David had done these things. The memory of David's recent victory kept re-playing in Saul's mind. And was confirmed by the evil spirit from Yahweh, although through David's psalms, which were of God's Spirit, He sought to ameliorate that. </p>


text:
<p>An evil spirit from Yahweh came on Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing his harp- </p><p>Saul's jealousy, confirmed by God psychologically confirming him in it through the Spirit, was on account of David’s victories, especially over Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (<a href='B:90 8:7-8'>1Sa 8:7-8</a>; <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>), and his subsequent popularity with the people. Saul watched David’s spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (<a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). 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.</p><p>Saul was gripping his javelin or spear, the symbol of his kingship. By doing so his body language was reflecting his desire to grip on to power rather than resign it to David. Perhaps Saul also carried a javelin and held it in his hand at home because he was paranoid he might be assassinated and thus lose his kingdom.  If he had humbly resigned power, he would have avoided all the mental and spiritual health issues.  </p>


text:
<p>Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear- </p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>).</p><p>But he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and the spear went into the wall. David fled, and escaped that night- </p><p>Compare this with the Lord Jesus Christ slipping away from Jews bent on killing him, <a href='B:500 8:59'>Joh 8:59</a>; <a href='B:500 7:19'>Joh 7:19</a>.  The stress on "that night" suggests the events of this chapter all happened on the same day and night. David fled- but just down the hill to his own house, because Saul later asks for him to be brought "up" to him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning- </p><p>We wonder why Saul wanted to wait until morning to arrest and slay David. Possibly the plan was to do as was done to Nabal, to falsely accuse him before a court and slay him. This would explain David's frequent complaint in the Psalms that he was the victim of false accusation. </p><p>LXX "It came to pass in that night, that Saul sent messengers to the house of David to watch him, in order to slay him in the morning". "That night" means the same night after the morning referenced earlier: "please take extra care of yourself in the morning". The events of this chapter all happened the same day. Saul had planned to murder David in the morning, Jonathan knew that and warned David of what would happen "in the morning". But then Saul repented and Jonathan and David believe this, and David stays at his home that night. This is psychologically credible; because Saul had loved David, he was a family member and friend, and Saul's behaviour against David would have been brushed off by them all as one of his bad turns caused by his mental illness. 
</p><p>They presumably didn’t charge into the house and murder David there because Saul feared a public uproar if he did so. David’s escape to his house implies he didn’t think Saul would follow him there; he assumed this was just another temper tantrum. Psalms 59 refers to this time, and seems to speak of Saul's thugs roaming the streets looking to kill David. For the first time, the servants of Saul become proactively aggressive, having accepted his charge to kill David given in :1.</p><p>Michal, David’s wife, told him, If you don’t save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed- </p><p><a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> seems to allude here: "My soul longs for the Lord more than watchmen long for the morning; more than watchmen for the morning". Watching for the morning is the phrase used about the plot to slay David by morning (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>). <a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> would therefore have originated with David’s reflections that whatever the careful watchings of man to destroy him, his focus was upon longing for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>So Michal let David down through the window. He fled and escaped- </p><p>Escape through a window and down a wall is something experienced by the spies in Jericho (<a href='B:60 2:15'>Jos 2:15</a>), and Saul in Damascus (<a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a>). Again we note how 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. See on 1 Sam. 18:20. It is circumstantially likely that the house was on the town wall, repeating the situation of Rahab and Saul.  For surely the house was surrounded by Saul's men. </p>


text:
<p>Michal took an idol and laid it in the bed- </p><p>This speaks so much of her unspirituality and that of her father. The use of teraphim was common in Israel at the time (<a href='B:70 17:5'>Jdg 17:5</a>; <a href='B:70 18:14'>Jdg 18:14</a>) and continued until the time of Josiah (<a href='B:120 23:24'>2Ki 23:24</a>) and then were used even in exile (<a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>). These teraphim were often life size male images. Michal was barren (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a> implies she never had a child), and she may well have had this particular one as an idol for fertility, which involved using it as a kind of sex toy. Yet David, the man after Go's own heart, had fallen in love with this unspiritual woman and married her.</p><p>Put a pillow of goats’ hair at its head, and covered it with the clothes- </p><p>Heb. "Put the quilt of goat’s hair at its head, and covered it with the coverlet". She wrapped the head of the image in a hairy rug to resemble a man’s hair, and then covered it with a square piece of woollen cloth.</p><p>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.</p><p>
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. </p>


text:
<p>When Saul sent messengers to take David she said, He is sick- </p><p>LXX adds: “they [the messengers] brought word that he was sick”. This sounds a rather lame response by men who had been sent by Saul to kidnap David from his own home and then murder him somewhere (see on :1,11). Clearly they baulked at actually performing what they had agreed to do.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying, Bring him up to me in the bed so that I can kill him- </p><p>"Bring him up" may mean that Saul's home / palace was on the hill of Gibeah, and David’s in the lower town. Saul now wanted to personally murder David; whereas it seems from :1,11 that the plan originally had been for his servants to do the job, and that is also the impression given in Psalms 59, which has a title assigning it to this time. We sense Saul drunk with the obsession of jealousy, with the hatred in his heart which leads to murder.</p>


text:
<p>When the messengers came in, there was just the idol in the bed, with the pillow of goats’ hair at its head- </p><p>After this incident, circumstances repeat for Saul. He again sends messengers to take David at Naioth, but they are overcome by the Spirit; and then he goes himself. And still doesn't get David. He was unwilling to perceive the clear patterns in his life which reflected Yahweh's Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Michal, Why have you deceived me like this and let my enemy go, so that he has escaped? Michal answered Saul, He said to me, ‘Let me go! Why should I kill you?’- </p><p>We are surely intended to compare her response to that of her brother Jonathan, who stood up for David (:1) and was prepared to die for it at the hands of his father. "Why have you deceived me?" is word for word what Saul was later asked by the witch at Endor on the last night of his life (<a href='B:90 28:12'>1Sa 28:12</a>). Saul's words were to return to him, placed in the mouth of another woman. For by our words we are judged. The deceiver was deceived, as happened with Jacob. </p>


text:
<p>Now David fled and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. He and Samuel went and lived in Naioth- </p><p>"Naioth" means "the dwellings" and seems to refer to a kind of college of instruction Samuel had built up at his home in Ramah. The Targum renders the word “house of instruction”. It would have been the first of the schools of the prophets. This would account for the prophets appearing at that place (:20).</p>


text:
<p>Saul was told, David is at Naioth in Ramah!- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying and Samuel standing as head over them, the spirit of God came on the messengers of Saul and they also prophesied- </p><p>As explained on :18, there was a school of the prophets at Naioth, headed up by Samuel. This incident is looking ahead to the experience of the enemies of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:500 7:46'>Joh 7:46</a>. These messengers were those mentioned in :1 and :11, the servants of Saul who had agreed to murder David. They, Saul and everyone involved is here given a taste of the power of God’s Spirit. He is able to take over the human mind by His Spirit, and make us spiritual; but as discussed on :24, He will not treat us as robots, overpowering us so that we have no choice but to be saved. We are to follow onwards in the path His Spirit sets us upon.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul was told, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. Saul sent messengers again the third time and they also prophesied- </p><p>We wonder if the content of the prophesy here mentioned was that David would be king.</p>


text:
<p>Then he went himself to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu, and he asked, Where are Samuel and David? Someone said, They are at Naioth in Ramah- </p><p>LXX "the well of the threshing-floor that is in Sephi (or, the hill)". If we go with the LXX, we note that a well is not usually on a hill [LXX "the hill"], whereas a threshing floor is typically in an elevated area where the wind can blow the chaff away; the Hebrew can equally mean a cistern, perhaps for gathering rain water. And threshing is associated with judgment. He was brought to realize that in his attitude to David, he was facing judgment. And there was, unusually, water next to it, the symbol of cleansing. For there was a well or cistern next to this threshing floor. It was a nudge towards his repentance, and he apparently followed this for a short time and was confirmed in it by the Spirit.  Or if Secu is the same as Shocoh of 1 Sam. 17:1, this was the scene of David's victory over Goliath. Again this would have prodded Saul's conscience, and the Spirit confirmed him in responding to this prodding. </p><p>Saul ought to have learnt from experience. He had sent messengers to take David from his own house and murder him, but when they failed, he went himself; and failed to find David. Now circumstances repeated, as they do in lives where God is at work. When he is calmly told that David is at Naioth, and realizes that his messengers have been overcome by the Spirit; he ought to have realized that he would not prevail alone. But he continues; and despite his headlong folly, by pure grace, God’s Spirit attempts to yet again burst into his life and turn him around.</p>


text:
<p>So he went towards Naioth in Ramah. Then the spirit of God came on him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah- </p><p>See on :24. This overpowering by the Spirit was not due to encounter with people or some kind of group psychology. We get the impression Saul had come alone; and now on the final stage of the journey, he was overcome by the Spirit in a deeply personal meeting with God. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>He stripped off his clothes and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?- </p><p>The Spirit of God usually confirms the human spirit in the way the person wishes to go. But here we see how God at times makes a direct entrance into a person's life through His Spirit, as He had initially with Saul as he was out looking for lost donkeys. Twice God had told him that he was rejected from the kingship for his disobedience. But God dearly loved Saul, and really wanted their relationship to work, despite his mental illness and unspirituality. We marvel at God’s desire to save and not to condemn, to accept rather than reject; and His tireless attempts to work even with the proud who have apparently turned away from God. For here God yet again comes into Saul's life and tries to almost force him to be humble.</p><p>To take off his kingly clothes before Samuel represented his willingness to resign the kingship for the sake of Samuel's prophetic word about David replacing him. We noted how Jonathan had willingly done this of his own initiative. But time and again, Saul refuses to follow on from the path God’s Spirit placed him upon. Although the kingship had been removed from him, Saul still could have been saved and lived a Spirit filled life. But he was now obsessed with retaining what he had, his status as king, and personal salvation and relationship with God simply didn't figure in his thinking. But God at this point forces Himself again upon Saul by giving him His Spirit, so eager to still have him as His child. And David seems to have recognized this abiding involvement of God's good Spirit in Saul's life, in that he refuses to kill Saul when given the opportunity- exactly because he is still Yahweh's anointed, the Spirit is still on him, as it were. We must remember that when dealing with God's fallen people; His Spirit is still working with them, nobody is totally abandonned by Him, He will still be trying with that person.</p><p>Although the kingship had been removed from him, Saul still could have been saved and lived a Spirit filled life. But he was now obsessed with retaining what he had, his status as king, and personal salvation and relationship with God simply didn't figure in his thinking. But God at this point forces Himself again upon Saul by giving him His Spirit, so eager to still have him as His child. And David seems to have recognized this abiding involvement of God's good Spirit in Saul's life, in that he refuses to kill Saul when given the opportunity- exactly because he is still Yahweh's anointed, the Spirit is still on him, as it were. We must remember that when dealing with God's fallen people; His Spirit is still working with them, nobody is totally abandoned by Him, He will still be trying with that person. So we see God on one hand pushing Saul downwards through His evil spirit, and yet countering that push with the influence of His spirit the other way. The question of course is how strong are those respective movements or pushes or influences. We cannot measure them as we have no metric for them, but we are assured that their respective strengths are in a perfect balance and proportion that can only be called Divine. </p><p>
Saul removed his royal clothes and laid on the earth in penitence, moved by the Spirit. I suggest this was what happened and not some ecstatic trance or being slain in the Spirit in the style of modern Pentecostalism. This explains why in 1 Sam. 20, Jonathan believes his father now has no malice towards David as he's over it, and why David was even willing to come near Saul's court.</p>


text:
<p>David fled from Naioth in Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father- </p><p>David was clearly upset that Saul's oath before Yahweh not to kill him had been broken so unashamedly (<a href='B:90 19:6'>1Sa 19:6</a>). He quotes the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 31:36'>Gen 31:36</a>; perhaps not because the surrounding context was relevant, but because God’s word and Biblical precedent was ever on David’s mind. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. This all recalls "You seek to kill me... which of you convicts me of sin?" (<a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 8:46'>Joh 8:46</a>). Again, we see clearly David as a type of Christ.</p><p>These three questions are all tantamount to saying "I have done nothing wrong and I am being unfairly persecuted". Psalm 7 appears to be relevant to this time. Especially Ps. 7:3: "Yahweh, my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands...". This is one of those powerful incidental proofs that the scriptures are accurate and inspired; it is circumstantially credible that a man would use the same turn of phrase both to God and to his close friend. It was this experience of false accusation which perhaps led David to be over confident of himself spiritually, and is all part of the backdrop for the shameful failure with Bathsheba. Most people have experienced false accusation, and we must beware that this doesn't lead us to fail to perceive that we are sinners and liable to fall to temptation in other areas.</p><p>That he seeks my life?- </p><p>Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David’s sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David’s patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge:&nbsp;&nbsp; And yet his bitterness with Saul must be balanced against his treating Saul's life as "precious" when he had the chance to murder him, twice. And his totally genuine weeping for him when he died. As with many strands in David's personality, the balance between the good and the bad was only lightly tipped towards the good in the overall analysis.  </p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Far from it; you shall not die. Look, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me, so why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so- </p><p>In the type of Christ, this is <a href='B:500 7:20'>Joh 7:20</a>. We see the complexity of the situation, psychologically. Jonathan loves David more than he does his father Saul, but he also doesn't want to believe that his father is an inveterate liar who would take Yahweh's Name in vain by making an oath and then breaking it (1 Samuel 19; 1 Samuel 6). Clearly his father did do things without disclosing them to Jonathan. But he is in denial at how bad his father really was towards David, the man and brother he dearly loved and respected. We see precisely the same kinds of apparently contradictory behaviours in relationships all around us. As observers we may see how people are obviously naive to believe others... but within those relationships, vision is not at all so clear. It was all so interwoven, just as relationships are today, resulting in people doing things or trusting people when to onlookers, this is ridiculously unwise and naive. The record here has absolutely every verisimilitude to real life and is absolutely psychologically credible.</p><p>Jonathan was persuaded Saul would not now harm David, despite all the evidence so far. Perhaps the gift of the Spirit at Naioth had led to Saul saying that he accepted David as king, and he had stripped off his kingly robe. But this intensity of spirituality was but for a moment as it is today with those who don't refill themselves with the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>But David took an oath and said, Your father knows well that I have found favour in your eyes, so he says, ‘Don’t let Jonathan know this, or he will be grieved’; but truly as Yahweh lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death- </p><p>As Saul had sworn by Yahweh not to kill David (<a href='B:90 19:6'>1Sa 19:6</a>), so David swears in response that Saul does want to kill him. The way Saul had broken that oath was clearly distressing to David. Yet David’s faith in the message of Samuel that he would become king is now at maximum stretch. He feels Saul is about to kill him, and gives in further to these feelings when he says he will surely be killed by Saul (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>).</p><p>LXX "the space is filled up between me and death". Here we have a slip in David's faith that he would in fact become king. We see it again when he flees to the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said to David, Whatever your soul desires, I will do it for you- </p><p>Jonathan recognizes that what David has said in :3 is true, and as noted on :2, he realizes that indeed he is just refusing to see evil in his father. His loyalties were torn between David and Saul, and now by saying this he comes down on the side of David. "Soul" is the word for "life" in :1, and Jonathan surely means 'Whatever it takes to save your life, I will do'. As noted on :3, we might wish to see at this point more faith by both of them in Samuel's prophetic word that David shall become king. Their faith in that word went up and down, with <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a> being a high point in it.</p><p>We naturally ask why David was even willing to accept an invitation to Saul's court, after all that Saul had done. Surely it was because Saul had removed his royal clothes and lain on the earth in penitence, moved by the Spirit. I suggest this was what happened and not some ecstatic being slain in the Spirit. David was willing to accept this as legitimate only if there was abiding evidence that Saul of his own will wanted to continue in that path.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Jonathan, Look, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to dine with the king; but let me go so that I can hide myself in the field until the third day at evening- </p><p>This dining was presumably to keep a peace offering and eat together of the sacrifice. Saul for all his unspirituality continued an outward semblance of religious obedience and peace with God- as we can through partaking in the breaking of bread (the Christian equivalent of the peace offering), whilst harbouring obsessive hatred against our brethren in our hearts. The breaking of bread is our peace offering... but do we slip back into the lack of peace with God and our brethren afterwards?</p>


text:
<p>If your father misses me at all then say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem, his city, for it is the yearly sacrifice there for all the family’- </p><p>This was a lie, as David was in the field (:5). It raises the question as to whether a lie is acceptable at times. We think of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt and Rahab, whose lie was an act of faith. It is also the same lie that God encouraged Samuel to use when he went to Bethlehem to anoint David as Saul's replacement, under the guise of offering a sacrifice there. Possibly David was seeking to provoke Saul to recall this and to react badly, because he wanted to demonstrate to Jonathan that his father Saul hadn't really changed his attitude.  </p>


text:
<p>If he says, ‘Very well’, your servant will have peace; but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by him- </p><p>The reference to "peace" is appropriate if as suggested on :6 a peace offering celebration is in view. This is appropriate language given that context, and confirms us in believing that we are reading the actual words spoken by men millennia ago.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Yahweh. But if there is iniquity in me, kill me yourself; why should you bring me to your father?- </p><p>As discussed further on :9, there is an element of doubt now in David as to Jonathan's loyalty. He reminds him that their covenant that he should be king was before Yahweh. And he entertains the fear that Jonathan might bring David to Saul to be murdered by him; again, a lack of faith in the prophetic word that he would become king. See on :4. We note too that David calls Jonathan his master, recognizing that his life is completely in Jonathan's hands.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said, Never! If I should know that evil were determined against you by my father, wouldn’t I tell you?- </p><p>We are reading a realistic record of the conversation between two friends, one of whom has conflicted loyalties, and the other naturally fears the integrity and trust in the relationship is thereby under threat. For :8 appears to be David somewhat doubting Jonathan, and Jonathan responds with passion, coming down on David’s side with his loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said to Jonathan, Who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?- </p><p>Clearly the two of them were not to be seen together. And it seems Jonathan had not even one trusted servant who could take a message to David; they had to somehow meet so that Jonathan could tell David in person. This is a tacit reflection of the anti-David feelings amongst the courtiers of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, Come, let us go out into the field. They both went out into the field- </p><p>Presumably they had this conversation in the field because they were scared of being overheard; see on :10. They also wanted to map out exactly the place where they would meet for Jonathan to share the news with David.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, By Yahweh, the God of Israel, when I have sounded out my father, by this time tomorrow or the third day, if he is favourable toward you I will send and tell you-</p><p>- see on <a href='B:90 18:1-3'>1Sa 18:1-3</a>. AV "Jonathan said unto David,&nbsp;O Lord God of Israel...". He was aware that he was speaking to Yahweh, or before Yahweh, when speaking to David. And we should be likewise aware. Jonathan is seeking to allay the understandable fears of David, that Jonathan would sacrifice his loyalty to David for the sake of that to his father Saul. But Jonathan swears before Yahweh that his loyalty has come down solidly on David’s side.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh deal with me severely, if my father intends evil against you and I don’t disclose it to you so that I can send you away safely. May Yahweh be with you, as He has been with my father- </p><p>The last phrase reflects the continued struggle of feeling within Jonathan, torn as he was between loyalty to Saul and David. Perhaps he is putting in other words the Biblical comment that the Spirit departed from Saul and came to David; God’s providential working to make Saul king was transferred to David, and Jonathan here recognizes that. The meaning in practice of the Spirit being with someone is that they have God "with" them. The promise of the Comforter is likewise of presence. But the Hebrew seems to imply that Yahweh had been with Saul and would continue to be with him. This surely bespeaks a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of Saul's apostasy. Despite Saul commanding Jonathan by clear pronouncement to kill David (<a href='B:90 19:1'>1Sa 19:1</a> Hebrew), Jonathan assures David that Saul is not really intending to kill him; the implication is that he felt David’s fear of Saul was somewhat exaggerated (<a href='B:90 20:1-2'>1Sa 20:1-2</a>). David gently pointed out, in the spirit of Christ, that Jonathan did not realize how deceptive Saul was (<a href='B:90 20:3'>1Sa 20:3</a>). Saul gave the impression that he 'delighted' in David (<a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>), using the very same word as in <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>: "Jonathan... delighted&nbsp; much in David". In other words, Saul and our surrounding world can appear to have the same attitude to David / Jesus as ourselves. The massive difference between the world's attitude to Christ and our own should become more and more apparent to us, despite the external similarities between us and them. Jonathan's familiarity with his father led him to overlook the manic danger which he posed for David, although at other times Jonathan seems to have faced up to it squarely. Our sense of the seriousness of sin likewise tends to blow hot and cold.</p>


text:
<p>But while I live, show me the grace of Yahweh so that I will not be killed- </p><p>Jonathan here reverts to a stronger faith in the prophetic word that David would indeed be king. He imagined that this would typically involve the slaying of the family of the former king. David feared Jonathan would betray him to death at the hands of Saul; Jonathan feared David would kill him when he became king. It is all so absolutely credible as a psychological narrative, although at this point Jonathan appears to have more faith in the prophetic word of David becoming king than David himself does.</p>


text:
<p>Also, do not cut off your kindness from my house forever, not even when Yahweh has cut off all the enemies of David from the surface of the earth-</p><p>Jonathan through faith in Samuel's prophetic word is sure that David will become king, and he sees this as requiring the cutting off of Saul and all David’s enemies. He may use 'cutting off' in the sense of cutting off their descendants and family name, and he begs David to show mercy to his own line. As David is nervous of his friend Jonathan, so Jonathan here and in :42 seems also to have almost feared that David would take revenge or punish him in some way, on account of his close relationship with his sinful father. It must have seemed impossible to Jonathan, living at a&nbsp; time of kinship-based revenge, to believe that ultimately David would not react strongly against Saul's hatred of him. And we too, ever conscious of our sinful associations, struggle to reassure ourselves of the&nbsp; love of Christ that passes knowledge, just as Jonathan must have looked deeper and deeper into the malice-less love of his friend David.</p><p>The covenant between Jonathan and David was an eternal one ("for ever", <a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>), and was reconfirmed during their brief meetings together, during which they earnestly looked ahead to the Kingdom (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). And as we are all too painfully aware, our friendship with the Lord Jesus reflects the frustration of the Jonathan / David relationship, the accumulated tension of being unable to express their spiritual communication with each other, the pain of physical distance, Jonathan not knowing David’s geographical location, having to live up to appearances and expectations in the David-hating court of his bitter father, struggling for the courage to stand up for his best friend:&nbsp; The sheer human pain of it all is so thoroughly revealed to the sensitive reader of the records. There is a purpose in this: it is to take us further in appreciating the true nature of our relationship with Christ.</p>


text:
<p>So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Yahweh will require it at the hand of David’s enemies- </p><p>Jonathan proposed it, but David agreed to it. Jonathan accepts that Saul his father would have their behaviour against David "required" of them, at the hands of David. But the covenant was that Jonathan and his family would be spared.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan made David swear again, for the love that he had for him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul- </p><p>We might think that the motive for Jonathan requiring David’s oath was more for the sake of his own security. But we are told here that the motive was love for David. Hence LXX "And Jonathan sware again to David". A double oath before Yahweh was the strongest kind of oath they could enter between them. Jonathan's love for David was based upon his respect for him and conviction that he would rightly be the next king instead of himself. It's as if in the tension of the storyline, with both sides distrusting the other despite their friendship, the Divine narrator steps in to assure us of Jonathan's absolute sincerity for David.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said to him, Tomorrow is the new moon and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty- </p><p>This implies that David regularly sat at the new moon peace offering feasts with Saul. Despite all the bitterness Saul felt toward him, he went through the motions of eating at the same religious table with him, in the name of celebrating our common peace with God. Those who complain of insincerity at the communion meal, with brethren hating brethren as they sit there, must realize that there is nothing new under the sun. Faithful men have passed this way before.</p>


text:
<p>When you have waited three days, go down quickly to the place where you hid yourself when this started, and stay by the stone Ezel- </p><p>Ezel is literally 'to go' and may refer to a stone set up as a signpost. LXX "heap of stones".</p>


text:
<p>I will shoot three arrows to the side of it as though I shot at a mark- </p><p>This whole intricate plan was because Jonathan lacked a single faithful friend or messenger through whom he could communicate with David. He had to do so himself directly. We see here his very difficult situation within the household of Saul, and the extent of opposition to David there.</p>


text:
<p>Then I will send the boy saying, ‘Go, find the arrows!’. If I tell the boy ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them’, then come, for you are safe, as Yahweh lives- </p><p>As noted on :20, Jonathan lacked even one faithful messenger. He couldn't even trust this "boy"; see on :39.</p>


text:
<p>But if I say this to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you’, then go your way, for Yahweh has sent you away- </p><p>The plan was originally that Jonathan and David would not meet each other. But such was their love for each other, that we see that they did briefly embrace. It has all the makings of a wonderful story with every bit of psychological credibility, and the closer we analyze it we are left with no doubt that what we are reading actually happened. Histories and records of the time all tend to embellish events with so much extra that it is hard to know what really was said or done. But the Biblical record shows such powerful internal evidence of being what it claims to be, the inspired word of God.</p>


text:
<p>Concerning the matter which you and I have spoken of, behold, Yahweh is between you and me forever- </p><p>Jonathan is at pains to persuade David of his loyalty, as well as continuing to harbour just a slight fear that in the day of David’s exaltation, he might be tempted still to wipe out the entire family of Saul including Jonathan and his family.</p>


text:
<p>So David hid himself in the field, and when the new moon had come, the king sat down to eat- </p><p>I have suggested that eating at the new moon festival meant eating the peace offering, which Saul hypocritically did.</p>


text:
<p>The king sat on his seat by the wall as usual and Jonathan sat opposite and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was empty- </p><p>We enquire why the detail that Saul's personal seat was "by the wall". A king and leader would usually sit in a central place in the room. Perhaps the detail reflects how Saul feared someone might come behind him and kill him, and so in his paranoia or intense anxiety, he insisted that his seat was to be by the wall. Clearly Saul was ill, but those mental issues were intertwined with his moral issues and lack of heart for Yahweh. His mental illnesses or conditions were not ultimately a justification for his wrong behaviours towards David. </p><p>The Divine cameraman zooms in close up. "As usual" again shows that these peace offering feasts, the rough equivalent to the breaking of bread service under the new covenant, were held regularly. And David was usually in attendance at them, despite Saul's obvious insincerity towards him. See on :18. The fact Abner and not Jonathan sat by Saul's side, with Jonathan opposite Saul, would suggest a distance between them, with Abner now hoping to be next in line to the throne after Saul; an honour which Jonathan had resigned to David.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Saul didn’t say anything that day, for he thought, Something has happened to him. He is not clean. Surely he is not clean- </p><p>This reinforces the suggestion that the new moon feast was a religious feast, and the eating together was eating the peace offering, even though Samuel wasn't present to bless it. We note too how David was well known for his observation of the Mosaic law; for it was not allowed to eat the peace offering whilst unclean (<a href='B:30 7:20-21'>Lev 7:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>On the next day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was empty again. Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why didn’t the son of Jesse come to eat, either yesterday or today?- </p><p>In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>. If David had been unclean, he would have been clean by sundown. If the excuse of :28 was true, it should have been presented at the start. Jonathan therefore clearly comes over as lying. "The son of Jesse" may suggest Saul found it hard to frame the word "David", meaning "beloved"- of God.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem- </p><p>As noted on :27, this was obviously a lie as the excuse would have been given at the start of the feast. Jonathan's lie could be justified, but he might as well have been honest with Saul, and explained that David was frightened of Saul because of his erratic behaviour against him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, ‘Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city. My brother has commanded me to be there. Now, if I have found favour in your eyes, please let me go away and see my brothers’. That is why he has not come to the king’s table- </p><p>This would have restimulated Saul's memories of his daughter Michal saying that David had asked her "Let me go away...". He would have felt both his children were lying to him because of their greater loyalty to David. Jonathan's lie was really without any credibility, for nobody in Israel, let alone a Saul supporter like David’s brother, would have demanded David’s presence at home rather than with Saul at the palace. "Go away" is the word for 'flee'. It was again designed to probe the sincerity of Saul's apparent repentance when he took off his kingly robes and lay in penitence all night before Yahweh in the previous chapter. The expected response from Saul, if he were penitent, would have been 'Flee back home? No, he's safe here, I'm so sorry for what I did to him but I've repented now'. But instead we see Saul's angry reaction, showing how he had reverted to type. He failed to have what Paul would later call 'repentance not to be repented of'. So often one observes this in pastoral exeperience- someone is baptized, or has a deep spiritual experience at some point in their life, displays amazing spirituality and commitment- and then reverts to the previous mentality. They have failed to walk in the Spirit, to be refilled by the Spirit, to totally surrender their heart.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, You son of a perverse rebellious woman, don’t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the confusion of your mother’s nakedness?-</p><p>David loved Saul, his daughters and his son Jonathan; and later David was to marry Saul's wives. These wives were given into David’s bosom (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>); in other words, they were really close in their relationship; so close, <a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a> implies, that David had no real emotional need to take Bathsheba. Even while Saul was alive there was probably some attraction chemistry going on between David and those women. This may well be reflected in Saul's fury with Jonathan, which hints at least two things: firstly, Saul had a bad relationship with his wife; and secondly, he suspected some kind of unfaithfulness in her with David, perhaps only on a mental level. His paranoia would have led him to suspect all his wives of unfaithfulness. Saul perhaps feared that when David became king and he was deposed, then David would marry his wives, including Jonathan's mother. Just as Absalom took David’s wives and lay with them as a sign of his taking of power from David. Even if this were to be how David exercised his kingship, Saul was struggling against the prophetic word which said David was to replace him as king.  Literally "son of a woman that is snatching away a man" [as in the Vulgate, "traitorous woman" LXX]. We are familiar from Proverbs with the image of a whore snatching away a man into her clutches. Saul is cursing his own wife as a whore. NLT renders "You son of a whore". Possibly she had already had an affair by David and had had a child by him.</p>


text:
<p>As long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth you will not be established, nor your kingdom. Therefore now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die!- </p><p>Saul assumed that Jonathan was to replace him as king, and assumed Jonathan would want this. He was deeply aware of Samuel's words that Saul's kingdom was not to be established, and was to be given to David. And yet he reasons as if this is not going to happen. This is typical of man's denial of the truth of God’s word. The king of God's intention would only have his children as kings, i.e. become a dynaty, if he was devoted to Yahweh's ways. Thus Dt. 17:20: “That his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel". Saul didn't do this; and yet like most human kings, he was desperate for a dynasty. He refused to accept that a dynasty of kings was conditional on his spirituality. Rather he assumed the dynasty must happen.</p><p>All of us in Christ experience a massive sense of paradox. We live and work in this world, doing the things of this world in our daily occupations, yet in the more important side of our lives we have this high spiritual relationship with the Lord Jesus and the Almighty Sovereign of this universe. This is - or ought to be- part of our hour by hour experience in this life. A little imagination of Jonathan's situation soon shows that our dilemma was exactly matched by his experience. He was the King's son, heavily taken up with the day to day running of the Kingdom, clearly tipped to succeed the King, and possibly take over as regent on Saul's retirement. Saul effectively says as much during his explosion at Jonathan for befriending David. So there was Jonathan, going up the ladder towards Kingship, when he had no real interest in this, and when he had firmly decided that David would be king, not himself , when the Kingdom was established (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). There must be hundreds of Christians-come-high flying executives worldwide who can identify completely with this scenario.</p><p>The bitterness underlying Saul's words in <a href='B:90 20:30-31'>1Sa 20:30-31</a> indicates a certain element of love-hate in Jonathan's relationship with Saul. We can sense this in the record of 1 Samuel 14, when Jonathan overcame the Philistine garrison whilst his father cowered away in nervous faithlessness. How jealous Saul must have been! Jealousy was one of Saul's characteristics, and it is subconsciously a major feature of the world's aggression towards us; for the world is&nbsp; passively aggressive (cp. <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>), if only we manifest Christ as we should. Saul almost seems to have contrived his command not to eat on pain of death in order to incriminate his son, whom he knew would not have heard his prohibition. The way in which he says that even if it were Jonathan who had eaten, then he must die (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>), seems to suggest that Saul was actually looking for an excuse to kill Jonathan. This love-hate relationship between Jonathan and Saul is exactly typical of ours with the world and our own flesh.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Saul his father, Why should he be put to death? What has he done?- </p><p>We notice that when Saul tried to put Jonathan to death when he had done no wrong, Jonathan accepted it (<a href='B:90 14:43'>1Sa 14:43</a>). But he protests strongly when his father treats David the same way. This reflects his deep humility, accepting his own death as he felt a sinner even if innocent of what he was accused of. But he stands up for David, as we should for the Lord Jesus. The answer to Jonathan's question was "Because Saul is jealous of him". When people are pressed to answer the hard questions which they cannot answer, they often become aggressive. And this is just what happened here (:33). Again and again, the record has every psychological verisimilitude and reality.</p>


text:
<p>Saul cast his spear at him to strike him. By this Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death- </p><p>Saul was potentially enabled to free Israel from the Philistines, but he failed to have the personal faith required. The main victories against them were by Jonathan (1 Samuel 13, 14) and David. And this explains his great jealousy against them both, even planning to slay Jonathan at least twice (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>; <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>). See on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>.</p><p>A sensitive heart will constantly be looking to the Lord Jesus for inspiration. For its hard to maintain the intensities of which we have written. Consider how Jonathan suffered the same suffering as did David, in that Saul tried to kill him with a javelin. Jonathan felt the shame of David, and grieved for him. David is set up in the record as a type of Jesus, and Jonathan as a type of those with whom Jesus has made a covenant after His defeat of sin on the cross [cp. the fight with Goliath]. Jonathan lived in an environment which was bitterly opposed to David; yet he stuck up for him, at the risk of embarrassment and opposition, and certain damage to his own prospects; as we should in this wicked world. As Saul cast a javelin at David, so he did at Jonathan (<a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>); as we should fellowship the sufferings of David’s greater son. Saul's hate of David resulted in Jonathan being "grieved for David, because his father had done him shame" (<a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a>). Is this not our response to our world in its' ceaseless blasphemy of Christ?</p>


text:
<p>So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully- </p><p>If as suggested this feast was a kind of peace offering celebration, this refusal to eat with them on the second day was a sign of refusing religious fellowship with his own father. To eat with someone, or not do so, was a major statement in ancient society. It was as good as quitting relationship with Saul. See on :33.</p><p>The Hebrew implies Jonathan felt shamed for the sake of the shame put on David, and was angry because of it. This again bears the hallmark of psychological credibility; for there's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a>). Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God’s grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (<a href='B:510 19:27-28'>Act 19:27-28</a>). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).  But if we are saved from God's wrath through Him, if our sin is dealt with, we can live in this world without shame. Because all anger is dealt with.</p>


text:
<p>In the morning Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little boy went with him- </p><p>As noted on :39, Jonathan was driven to use a child because he didn’t want to use anyone who might just guess something was going on in this apparent archery practice.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his boy, Run, find now the arrows which I shoot. As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him- </p><p>This apparent missed shot was to give Jonathan the excuse to shout out words to the boy which were really addressed to David.</p>


text:
<p>When the boy had come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan called after the boy, Isn’t the arrow beyond you?- </p><p>The boy ran to where the arrows had fallen, near the target. But the arrow shot beyond him was purposeful, so that he could shout the words of :38 which were really intended for David.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan called after the boy, Go quickly! Hurry! Don’t delay! Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows and came to his master- </p><p>These words were intended to be heard by David, who was to not delay in fleeing. But Jonathan's love for David led him to change plans at the last minute; which is completely imaginable in such a relationship and emotional moment. The whole ruse with the archery practice had been in order to relay these words to David. But then the plans change- and Jonathan meets David face to face, because love overpowers him.  For if Jonathan had shot the arrow not "beyond" the boy, and had instead called out something like "Come back to me", David would have understood that all was good and he could return to the palace and Jonathan. But still Jonathan insists on meeting David.</p>


text:
<p>But the boy didn’t know anything. Only Jonathan and David knew the matter- </p><p>As noted earlier, this whole intricate plan was because Jonathan lacked a single faithful friend or messenger through whom he could communicate with David. He had to do so himself directly, and it was critical that even "the boy" didn’t perceive what was going on. We see here his very difficult situation within the household of Saul, and the extent of opposition to David there.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to him, Go, take them to the city- </p><p>As discussed on :38, this was a change of plan at the last minute.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as the boy had gone David got up from the south side of the stone, fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself three times. They kissed one another and wept one with another, and David wept the most- </p><p>They agree that if Jonathan shoots arrows well beyond David, then David should flee. Obviously they did not intend to meet if this were the case; otherwise there would have been no point in the arrangement about the arrows. David did need to flee, so Jonathan shot the arrows beyond him. Yet&nbsp; somehow Jonathan and David took a chance and crept towards each other. David went towards Jonathan, somehow hoping that he would meet him. And Jonathan went to find David, hoping against hope that he wouldn't&nbsp; flee immediately, as they had arranged. This explains the intensity of their meeting together: "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (AV). "Until David exceeded" defies complete translation and interpretation. It clearly does not mean that David cried until he stopped crying. David "exceeded" in that he went somewhere beyond; Strong defines the Hebrew word as meaning 'to be made larger in the mind'. In a sense David broke down emotionally, and yet on another level he went beyond, into a level of relationship which was beyond normal emotional experience. In like manner he commented that his love for Jonathan was beyond the love of women; the love of David for Jonathan pointed forward to that special emotional and spiritual bond in Christ which passes the human experience of love (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, because we have both sworn in the name of Yahweh, saying, ‘Yahweh shall be between me and you, and between my seed and your seed, forever’. David arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city-</p><p>See on <a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>. We are of course invited to see the two friends returning to such different lives. David to the outlaw life of the free scrubland, and Jonathan walked alone uphill back to the court life, fraught as it was with political tensions, anger and frustration. Both lives were equally serving Yahweh, and many servants of God in different situations have reflected upon this truth. We are all called to different situations.</p>


text:
<p>Then David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, Why are you alone and no-one with you?- </p><p>The same expression is used in 1 Sam. 16:4 of how the elders of Bethlehem feared when Samuel came to them. Saul's fear and paranoia had spread to the whole land. And that is psychologically credible. We see those on God's side, Samuel and David, rising above this spirit. Alternatively we can understand the priest's "trembling" as out of respect for David. The word is usually used in this sense; "Eli was trembling for the ark of God” (1 Sam. 4:13), and men trembled at God's word (Ezra 9:4; 10:3; Is. 66:2,5).</p><p>This Ahimelech could be the Ahijah descendant of Eli of <a href='B:90 14:3'>1Sa 14:3</a>:&nbsp; ["Ahijah the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of Yahweh"]. He was the son of Ahitub (1 Sam. 22:9). As Ahitub's son, he was in the line of Eli. Yet Eli's family had been cursed in 1 Samuel 2, 3. It could be that this person in later life experienced the curses. But it would be far from the only time in Bible history where a curse is pronounced but not carried out. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap.</p><p>The Lord refers to Ahimelech as "Abiathar the high priest" (<a href='B:480 2:26'>Mar 2:26</a>). There were times when two high priests held the office at the same time (<a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a>; <a href='B:130 24:3'>1Ch 24:3</a>; <a href='B:110 1:45'>1Ki 1:45</a> cp. <a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a>). Or His idea may have been "Abiathar who was the high priest later on", just as we read of Jesse begetting "David the king" (<a href='B:470 1:6'>Mat 1:6</a>), not immediately, but only later was he king. Or "Rahab the harlot" (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), "Mathew the publican" (<a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has charged me with a task and has said to me ‘Let no-one know anything about it or what I have commanded you’. I have told the young men to go to a meeting place- </p><p>The LXX makes the last sentence part of Saul's supposed command, and makes it purposefully unclear what their mission was, giving it a code name which Ahimelech would not perceive: "and I have charged my servants to be in the place that is called, The faithfulness of God, phellani maemoni". But we wonder whether David’s lie was right or even necessary. He was simply desperately hungry and needed help for his men. If he had told Ahimelech the truth, he likely would have helped him. But he clearly doubts Ahimelech's loyalty to him and therefore makes out that he is still working for Saul, and just needs some help whilst on a secret mission for the king. I noted throughout 1 Samuel 20 that David struggled with elements of distrust even for Jonathan. He must have felt so lonely, and must have had the impression that every man's hand was potentially against him. This again is absolutely how a man going through his experiences would have felt. It is absolutely psychologically credible, and such internal harmony gives us every reason to believe this record is true and is indeed inspired by God. Or it may be that he was seeking to preserve the priest from trouble with Saul.</p><p>We have to note that this was a lie, and that lie caused the deaths of men, even priests of Yahweh. There are so many lies in David's life. He told Jonathan to lie to Saul about why he was absent from Saul's table, pretends he is having a mental breakdown in order to get out of Gath, he deceived Achish later about his activities, killing innocent villagers so none would be left alive to reveal his lies, and then the whole deceptive mess over the death of Uriah... In those days, as in some areas today, lying your way out of something was seen as effective diplomacy. And yet David bleats on about his integrity and how he is innocent and has served God in truth... whilst on balance he seems to emerge as God's man, he undoubtedly was a mixture of good and bad. Even if the good just about triumphed, and the bad was ultimately trumped by his having a heart for God. We wonder about things so often with David. Did he lie in order to save Ahimelech from trouble with Saul or from Doeg? Did he lie from lack of faith? Was he giving Ahimelech a hidden message- that he was on a job for the real king, Yahweh? As so often, there is no clear answer and we are left to conclude David's motives were mixed. </p><p>
"What I have commanded you" is literally "what I have appointed you to do". The same word was used by Samuel when telling Saul that Yahweh had found another man to be king, whom He would "appoint" or "command" to be prince over His people (1 Sam. 13:14). It's possible that David is being subtle, or deceitful, by actually having in view that "the king" he speaks of is not Saul but Yahweh, who has appointed or commanded him. David so often refers to Yahweh as the true king (Ps. 5:2; 20:9; 24:7-10; 29:10; 68:24; 145:1). 
I have argued on 1 Sam. 22:9 that David is lying to Ahimelech all through this encounter; see notes there.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore what do you have to hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever there is here- </p><p>We wonder if David had only four men with him. Hence he asks for five loaves of bread. We note how although David was at a low point here, he still represented the future Lord Jesus- who was the only other man in scripture to have "five loaves", and who gave them to those who were "with Him".</p>


text:
<p>The priest answered David, There is no common bread here, but there is holy bread, if the young men have kept themselves from women- </p><p>It has often been said that there were no Mosaic restrictions upon how the shewbread could be used after it had been taken out of the holy place. But Lev. 24:9 is clear: "It shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place". But we note Ahimelech calls it "holy bread", and his condition that the men had not slept with women would've been irrelevant if it were now not "holy bread". I suggest this was an ad hoc decision to give the holy bread to non Levites, but he sets this condition to at least give some semblance of sanctity. He surely knew what was going on, and that David's story about being on a mission for Saul was untrue. He knew surely these men hadn't slept with women recently. The Lord interprets the incident this way, commenting that Ahimelech gave these men the bread which was meant only for the priests, and so he did that which was "not lawful". It could be that Ahimelech perceived that David and his men were a new king-priesthood. Who had no sanctuary and served God spiritually rather than through ritual. We know that at this time, Ahimelech enquired of Yahweh for David (1 Sam. 22:10), so probably he asked whether David could have the hallowed bread- and got a positive answer. </p>


text:
<p>David answered the priest, Truly, women have been kept from us for about three days. When I go on an expedition the bodies of the young men are holy; they are even for an ordinary journey; how much more so today?- </p><p>We again note David’s careful observance of the Mosaic law, even when on the run from Saul; and he often refers to this in Psalms 119, the Psalm he wrote at this time. It could be that David had last slept with Michal three days ago, before fleeing Gibeah. Or maybe he means that for sure, he could vouch that his men had been with him for three days without women nearby. Or maybe "three days" is a general statement.</p><p>David's argument seems to be that he was on a special journey, perhaps hinting at a holy journey; and "how much more so today?" could suggest this was a Mosaic feast day. We wonder why Ahimelech apparently has "no bread" at all to give David. How come they had no food? Possibly this was the day of atonement, the only fast required under the Mosaic law. David's assurance that his men hadn't slept with women recently would then be behind his exclamation that it was bizarre to even think they had been sleeping with women on the day of atonement. That would well explain the force of "how much more so today?". David later asked Nabal to give his men food because they were asking on a feast day (Heb., 1 Sam. 25:8 NEV "at a good time"). This is a parallel with how he asks Ahimelech to give his men food because, he implies, it is a feast day (see on 1 Sam. 21:5). So circumstances had repeated. David's request for food from Nabal on a feast day ought to have reminded him of how at a low spiritual point, he had asked the priests of Nob for the same. And it led to their death. We likewise are to perceive the connections between our life experiences, and to learn the lessons. "How much more so today?" may also mean that it was the Sabbath, which would explain perhaps why Ahimelech couldn't prepare more food for David, rather than him implying they had not a morsel of food in the house. And it is in this context that the Lord uses the incident, in justifying His men for 'working' on the Sabbath. </p>


text:
<p>So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there apart from the Bread of the Presence that had been taken from before Yahweh, to be replaced by fresh hot bread- </p><p>The Lord Jesus speaks of how David ate the shewbread unlawfully, seeking to demonstrate that the spirit of the law replaces the letter. Some have argued that the bread they ate was not the actual shewbread, but the old shewbread; and there was no legislation governing what might be done with this. We could assume that true to the spirit of Jewish midrash, the Lord was making an exaggerated point. Or it could be that He meant that it was "not lawful" to eat the used shewbread according to the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it. However Lev. 24:9 is clear: "It shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place". “Aaron and his sons shall eat…the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of meeting… but an outsider shall not eat them, because they are holy. And if any… of the bread remains until the morning then you shall burn the remainder with fire. It shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Ex. 29:32-34). And the Lord is clear too that David "ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat" (Mt. 12:4). We also note that the Lord stresses that David himself entered the holy place and took the bread and himself gave it to "those with him", just as Mark records how the Lord chose His men to "be with Him". Lk. 6:4 is clearest: "he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone". But David's entry into the holy place is stressed in the other records: "he entered into the house of God" (Mt. 12:4), "he went into the house of God" (Mk. 2:26). Luke's language recalls the Lord taking bread and giving to His disciples. The priest "gave" him the bread, but nathan can mean he assigned him or permitted him to take the bread. Perhaps his enquiry of Yahweh for David had been specifically about whether to permit David to do this. "So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread" would seem to be saying that the bread was still holy or hallowed at the point the priest gave / allowed David to take it. We are thereby led to think that David's action was not so much because he was hungry, but because he wanted to take the bread and give it to his men as a religious act, acting as their priest. The loaves of shewbread weren't large- the table of shewbread, on which the shewbread was to be arranged in two rows of six, was only three feet long and one and a half feet wide. The loaves weren't large and could hardly have seriously met a hunger need. They were "cakes" (Lev. 24:5) rather than loaves. Rashi translated "How much more then today, when there shall be holy bread in their vessels" i.e. bodies. This would confirm the suggestion that David's men ate "holy bread".</p>


text:
<p>Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before Yahweh; his name was Doeg the Edomite, the best of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul- </p><p>In the type of the things concerning the Lord Jesus, in some way Doeg may point forward to Herod, who was also an Edomite. We note that he was "detained before Yahweh", he was obedient to parts of the Mosaic law. So was Saul; and so were the wicked men who crucified our Lord, David’s greater son. Or his being 'detained' may have been because it was the day of atonement (see on :5) and he was unable to travel over the feast. Saul had defeated the Edomites (1 Sam. 14:47), so Doeg had perhaps betrayed his own people and joined Saul. We have perhaps an insight into his character just because of this. Or Doeg being detained before Yahweh may have been because he had made a vow, or possibly, was becoming a proselyte. This then adds more background to David's ranting against him in Ps. 52:1-4 as being a liar, using deceitful words. What were these words? No specific lie of Doeg is recorded, but the accusation of being a serious liar makes sense if he had made false vows to Yahweh. Psalm 52 was likely later rewritten, under inspiration, during the exile; for Edom was a much hated ally of the Babylonians who eagerly destroyed Jerusalem and murdered the priests (Lam. 4:21,22; Mal. 1:2–5; Joel 3:19; Ez. 25:12; 35:3,15; Ps. 137:7; Obadiah 11). </p><p>
"The best of the herdsmen" is LXX "tending Saul's mules / donkeys". In this case we see again how Saul was obsessed with donkeys. He is introduced to us like this, and Samuel warns that Saul when king would take Israel's donkeys. It seems this streak of petty materialism continued with Saul throughout his life.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Ahimelech, Don’t you have here a spear or sword? I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me because the king’s business required haste- </p><p>Scoring David out of ten for spirituality, he scores sadly here. He had turned down spear and sword when fighting Goliath, and had confidently stated that as the battles are Yahweh's, these weapons give no defence. And he lies about things in order to get them. And we even wonder whether he was correct to pretend to be a servant of Saul as king, when Yahweh had clearly rejected Saul as king and chosen David. But despite this weak point in his faith, he still also asked Ahimelech to enquire of God for him (<a href='B:90 22:10'>1Sa 22:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine whom you killed in the valley of Elah is here, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you will take that, take it; there is no other except that here. David said, There is none like that. Give it to me-</p><p>David’s eager taking of the sword of Goliath (“There is none like that; give it to me”) contrasts sadly with his earlier rejection of such weapons in order to slay Goliath. And David later reflects how he knew that his faithless taking of that sword and the shewbread would lead to the death of Abiathar’s family (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>). But still he did it. This was one reason why he is criticized by God as having shed too much blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p><p>Without doubt we have David here at a low point in his faith. But overall he was still seen by the Spirit in NT times as the man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). Stephen positively comments about David that he found grace before God (Acts 7:46), and often subsequent kings are judged according to whether they walked in the ways of David (2 Chron. 17:3; 7:17; 29:2; 34:2; 1 Kings 11:6; 14:8; 15:11). This is quite some benchmark. The fact his dynasty continued for 467 years is amazing, and surely some sign of God's acceptance of him. Positively, we think of David's valuing and respect for Saul's life as "precious", on two occasions refusing to kill him;  his refusal to let Abishai kill Shimei; his anger over the murder of Ishbosheth, Saul's son; his grace to the crippled Mephibosheth; his insistence that soldiers too weary to go on fighting should still be equally rewarded; his appreciation of the men who risked their lives to bring him water from the well of Bethlehem; his love for Absalom; his desire to put things right for the Gibeonites whom Saul had wrongly abused, his mourning for the death of Abner- and Saul, for that matter. And there is the comment that he ruled with justice and equity (2 Sam. 8:15; 23:3). </p><p>
Negatively, we think of his apparently casual slaying of 200 Philistines to get their foreskins;  the whole mess with Bathsheba and Uriah; his request for the sword of Goliath and faithless flight to live with the Philistines; his ethnic cleansing of villages to save his own image with the Philistines; his hot blooded desire to kill Nabal and his family; his insistence on taking the census which led to judgment on Israel; his breaking up of Paltiel and Michal's marriage; his bloodthirsty desire for vengeance on his enemies portrayed in the Psalms, offsetting his grace to them in practice; his strange absence from the faithful listed in Hebrews 11. </p><p>
The end synthesis of all this is that God saw him as having a heart after His own, and he found grace in God's eyes (Acts 7:46).</p>


text:
<p>David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath- </p><p>Ahimelech confirms to Saul that he had enquired of Yahweh for David (1 Sam. 22:10), and that he had also done so previously. We wonder what at this point David enquired about. The fact he went to Gath right afterwards makes it likely that it was something to do with this. But I suggest it was unlikely that Yahweh would have confirmed David in that decision, nor that He required David to take Goliath's sword. So we may well imagine David being disobedient to the answer to his enquiry. </p><p> 
Why did David take Goliath's sword to Gath, the home town of Goliath? Surely as an act of repentance. But to gift a sword was understood as a request for something or the permission to use something. Even as recently as the coronation of King Charles III in the UK, the practice persisted. The Crown's official website explained: "The Sword of Offering, which symbolises the protection of good and the punishment of evil, will be delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury and will be placed in The King’s right hand. The King will rise, and the Sword will be fastened at His Majesty’s waist using the Sword Belt. The King will offer the Sword at the Altar, where it will be received the Dean. The Sword will then be redeemed with the offering of 100 newly minted 50ps, by the Lord President of the Council, who will carry it before The King for the remainder of the Service. Traditionally, the Sword is offered to Westminster Abbey in payment for hosting a Coronation Service, and redeemed by offering a symbolic payment". Egyptian art likewise depicts the gift of weapons as a sign of submission and dominance on the part of the recipient. David was surrendering to the Philistines. We recall how Jonathan gave his weapons to David as a sign of this and his surrendering of power to David. What was David requesting? Safety and protection from Saul. What property was he asking to use? Presumably somewhere for him and his men to live in Gath. 
</p><p> We sense he was utterly desperate to do this, he was not thinking straight. We wonder if he took Goliath's sword back to Goliath's home town in an attempt to make peace with the Philistines and live with them. They seemed the only people he could feel safe with. He would rather risk torture and death at the hands of the Gentiles than persecution from God’s own people. His decision making here bears all the hallmarks of a man at the very end of his emotional and nervous ability to cope.</p><p>Many of the Psalms appear to be paired; Psalms 56 and Psalms 57 are an example. They are very similar. The title of Psalms 56 ["when seized by the Philistines in Gath"] therefore provides a context for Psalms 57, which was "A poem by David, when he fled from Saul, in the cave" (<a href='B:230 57:1'>Psa 57:1</a>). David’s time when seized by the Philistines in Gath could refer to some unrecorded capture and detention of him in Gath- the home town of Goliath, whose sons&nbsp; / relatives had also been slain by David’s men, and David had slain "ten thousands" of Philistines. Or it could refer to the time when he was serving Achish king of Gath and had to feign himself mad in order to get released. Perhaps things were far tougher for David at that time than recorded in <a href='B:90 21:10-15'>1Sa 21:10-15</a>. Whatever, David took comfort from his rescue from Gath (Ps. 56) and reapplied it to the situation with Saul (the subject of Psalm 57). And this is how we too pass through life- experiences in one situation strengthen us for another.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Achish said to him, Isn’t this David the king of the land? Didn’t they sing one to another about him in dances saying, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands?’- </p><p>By going to Goliath's home town, David should have known this was a foolish decision and this was going to happen. As noted above, David’s decision making here bears all the hallmarks of a man at the very end of his emotional and nervous ability to cope. We notice how the Philistines were not in close contact with the Israelites, and assumed David was the king; when this was far from the case. These words would have been potential encouragement to David to perceive that God’s purpose with him, to make him king, would ultimately succeed. That passing encouragement was given to him at a time when all seemed hopeless for his cause. And God likewise works with us today.</p>


text:
<p>David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish the king of Gath- </p><p>This is the very phrase used of how Israel were "much afraid" of Goliath of Gath, whereas David wasn't but had calm faith (<a href='B:90 17:24'>1Sa 17:24</a>). The implication is that David’s faith was at a far lower point than it had been then.</p>


text:
<p>He changed his behaviour before them and pretended to be mad, scrabbled on the doors of the gate and let his saliva fall down onto his beard- </p><p>Going down South to Achish of Gath and playing the mad man has sad connections with the patriarchs going down to Egypt in times of weak faith. I have noted that David was under extreme nervous stress at this time. Although he was acting, we sense he was not far off actually experiencing a mental breakdown; for his decision making was really very confused and desperate in running to Achish.</p><p>Psalm 34 was written as reflection upon his deliverance from Gath (Ps. 34:1). But in that Psalm, David reflects that it is good not to tell lies (Ps. 34:13 "Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking lies"). But David himself has been noted for how many lies he told, not least in this context both to Ahimelech [resulting in his flight to Gath] and then in Gath (Ps. 34:1). So here we have some kind of repentance for his behaviour in Gath. And this leads to his higher point of faith as discussed on 1 Sam. 22:23.</p>


text:
<p>Then Achish said to his servants, Look, you see the man is mad. Why then have you brought him to me?- </p><p>We wonder whether Achish realized that David was acting, for he speaks of him 'playing the madman' (:15). In this case, he was trying to do David a favour by letting him get away from Gath, knowing that his people were close to murdering David. The reason why he should do this isn't clear, but David’s desperate prayers were heard through God manipulating circumstance and situation to enable Achish to want to release David, the public enemy number one for his own people.</p>


text:
<p>Do I lack madmen that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?- </p><p>See on :14. Achish says he doesn't want David in his palace, but for David to get from the palace to safety in the wilderness would have required a further display of God’s saving providence. Psalms 34 [title] says that Achish "drove him away"; but we sense that this may have been an appearance by Achish, because he may well have actually wanted to save David (see on :14). See on Psalms 34 for more on David’s situation at this time.</p>


text:
<p>David therefore departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him- </p><p>As noted on <a href='B:90 21:14-15'>1Sa 21:14-15</a> and Psalms 34, this was all an amazing deliverance by God through raising up situations in Achish's life where he apparently wanted to help David escape. David’s brothers had originally been followers of Saul and appeared jealous and dismissive of David. Perhaps Saul's irrational obsession had led him to persecute them, even though they were his supporters, simply because they were David’s family:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt and everyone who was discontented gathered themselves to him and he became their captain. About four hundred men were with him- </p><p>We could assume that the distress and discontent was with Saul, and the debts due to his excessive taxation of them. David was therefore their logical captain. "Distress" is the word usually used of suffering for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:55'>Deu 28:55</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>; <a href='B:300 19:9'>Jer 19:9</a>). But all the same, they were driven by their disobedience towards David. The lesson for the exiles was that despite their suffering "distress" in exile in response to their breaking of covenant, there was a way out- if they accepted the greater son of David.</p><p>"In debt" is translated 'taxed' in <a href='B:230 89:20-22'>Psa 89:20-22</a>: "I have found David My servant, I have anointed him with My holy oil, with whom My hand shall be established; My arm will also strengthen him. No enemy will tax him, no wicked man will oppress him". By being on the run from Saul, David paid no tax; and this attracted those who were heavily taxed by Saul.</p><p>"Discontented" is literally 'bitter of soul'. The same phrase is used of Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a>); these were her spiritual descendants.</p><p>David’s men represent the followers of the Lord Jesus (cp. <a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a>). David’s motley crew were bitter men, "them that are set on fire... whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword" (<a href='B:230 57:4'>Psa 57:4</a>). It was push factors [such as the debts created by Saul's merciless taxation] rather than pull factors which led them to David, as it is sometimes with those who come to the Lord Jesus today. So rough were they that David says that having to live with them almost destroyed him spiritually (<a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This typology would explain why the body of Christ seems [at times] full of mixed up men and women with hard words- who eventually will be the rulers in Messiah's Kingdom, after the pattern of David’s men.</p>


text:
<p>David went from there to Mizpeh of Moab, and he said to the king of Moab, Please let my father and my mother come and stay with you- </p><p>Samuel had commanded Saul to wait until God would show him what he must do (the very same phrase is in <a href='B:90 10:8'>1Sa 10:8</a>). Then in <a href='B:90 16:3'>1Sa 16:3</a>, God was telling Samuel to do what Samuel had told Saul to do. And Samuel had observed Saul's testing, his initial obedience and his later failure. This is how God works, repeating circumstance between the lives of people, bringing people into our lives from whom we are to learn; and then we are tested just as they were. David may have reflected on this, for he in turn uses the phrase of how he was waiting for God to lead him further. He would have remembered how Samuel had come to his father’s house and likewise waited for God to show him what he had to do. We recall that David was descended from Ruth, a Moabitess. At the time of the Assyrian onslaught upon Jerusalem, "Let My outcasts dwell with you, Moab" (Is. 16:4) alludes here- and thus reflects how God saw Saul as being as bad as the Gentile, hate filled Assyrians.</p><p>Until I know what God will do for me- </p><p>This phrase is used in <a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a> about waiting for a prophetic revelation. David had only been told that he would be king; the path there was not revealed to him, rather like our path to the Kingdom. Again it is hard to know David's level of faith here. He could on one hand be seeking God's guidance; or he could be overlooking the obvious plan of God that he should be king. "Know" can mean to understand or know, or, to experience. Again we are invited to ponder whether this was a calm statement of trust that he would experience what God would do for him in making him king; or whether he means that he has no idea what God has in store for him. Which would reflect a low point in his faith in God's promise to make him king. Time and again we have these invitations to ponder David's real spiritual strength, and to conclude that his strength was only made perfect through much weakness.  </p>


text:
<p>He brought them before the king of Moab and they lived with him all the while that David was in the stronghold- </p><p>The singular "stronghold" may suggest that throughout David’s time running from one hiding place to another, he was in fact in one great fortress provided by God. But "the stronghold" in :5 seems to refer to a fortress in Mizpeh.</p><p>We must compare Moab's apparent help of David with 2 Sam. 8:2 "And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts". This could be because Moab had murdered or betrayed David's parents, or it could be another example of David just using people and being ungrateful. Despite his being a loyal friend to Jonathan and Abiathar, rewarding them for their loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>The prophet Gad said to David, Don’t stay in the stronghold. Depart, and go into the land of Judah. Then David departed, and went into the forest of Hereth-</p><p>This could be the time of Ps. 63.  This was completely counter instinctive, just as many of God’s directions are to us. They appeared to finally have found refuge in Moab, and the king had accepted David’s parents. But now they were bidden return to Judah. There was to be an exact equivalent in the Lord's experience (<a href='B:500 11:7-8'>Joh 11:7-8</a> cp. <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>).</p><p>David’s whole experience with Saul was of course led and arranged by a loving Father. The sensible thing would have been for David to get out of Saul’s way and lay quiet- and this is what he tried to do, by going to Moab. But then God tells him to go back into Judah. This was political suicide. It made no human sense to expose himself to Saul again. And then God tells David to go and fight with the Philistines in order to rescue the people of Keilah (<a href='B:90 23:2'>1Sa 23:2</a>). Yet the men of Keilah weren’t allies worth having- even they were prepared to betray David to Saul, and by this action he made the Philistines hate him yet more, so refuge amongst them was no longer possible. Again and again, God led David into situations that were politically suicidal, that only made things worse for him… because He wanted David to trust in Him alone. And so it happens in our lives. Time and again.</p>


text:
<p>Saul heard that David and his men had been discovered. Now Saul was sitting in Gibeah under the tamarisk tree in Ramah with his spear in his hand, and all his servants were standing about him- </p><p>Again the Divine cameraman zooms in close up upon this man Saul, just as the record does as he sat under a pomegranate tree in <a href='B:90 14:2'>1Sa 14:2</a>. However the Hebrew eshel is the usual word translated "grove", which has associations with idol worship. Saul's daughter Michal had an idol in her home and we suspect Saul was not totally averse to idolatry despite his obedience to parts of the Mosaic law. "Ramah" may be better translated "on the height", unless we take "Gibeah" as the name of the general district.</p><p>"With his spear in his hand" is the image we are repeatedly given of Saul in the records. It was the symbol of his kingship, and he was desperately gripping hold of it rather than giving it up as he should have done. Whether at home, sitting under a tree (1 Sam. 22:6)... he is pictured as madly gripping on to it. He even sleeps with the spear in the ground next to him (1 Sam. 26:7). In this lies the significance of David taking the spear from Saul but then returning it to him. What should Saul's response have been? To tell David to keep the spear and be king, whilst he retired and walked quietly with his God (1 Sam. 26:21,22). And it was that gripping on to power that was his death. If the Amalekite is to be believed, he said that Saul at his last end "was leaning on his spear" (2 Sam. 1:6), presumably before falling upon his own sword in suicide (1 Sam. 31:4). David by contrast had learnt from his victory over Goliath "that Yahweh can give victory without sword or spear” (1 Sam. 17:47). </p><p>David had a stronghold [s.w. fortress] in the cave of Adullam. But he was told by the prophet Gad to leave it and go into Judah, which seemed totally counter instinctive. As soon as David does this, his location is reported to Saul- but all this was to teach him that God was his stronghold / fortress, and Psalm 62 is perhaps his reflection upon that, leading him to conclude that God alone is his stronghold (1 Sam. 22:4-6). But David only got to that realization of Ps. 62:2 through losing his natural stronghold. We may lose a home, a relationship, use of a body part... all under God's hand, to bring us to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to them, Listen now, you Benjamites!- </p><p>Saul had failed to unite Israel into one nation as was intended for the king of Israel. He may have reasoned that although he was not to be king of Israel, he could still be king of Benjamin his tribe. Or his focus upon his own tribe reflects how Saul never really seriously wanted to act as king of all Israel, but only sought his own benefit. Thereby he himself showed that he was not fit to be king of Israel; his attitude asked for his rejection, just as the fool's mouth asks for the strokes of condemnation.</p><p>Will the son of Jesse- </p><p>Saul finds it impossible to speak of "David", the "beloved" of God. His despite of Jesse explains why Jesse had to flee to Moab as we have just read.</p><p>Give each of you fields and vineyards? Will he make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds?- </p><p>The idea is that this is what Saul claims to have done for the men standing around him.</p>


text:
<p>Is that why all of you have conspired against me- </p><p>"None of you... You all conspired" reflects the extreme loneliness of the obsessively jealous man. This is where it leads to.  We see here how his paranoia developed to such an extent that he felt so terribly alone. He had cursed his wife, Jonathan's mother, and had seen his children Michal and Jonathan defending David from his intentions.</p><p>So that there is no-one who tells me when my son makes a treaty with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you who is sorry for me or tells me that my son has stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as he does today?- </p><p>Saul's cursing of any who didn’t feel sorry for him is repeated by David, who often in his Psalms brings down curses upon any who don't feel pity for him in his brokenness, even if that brokenness was a consequence of his own sins. See on <a href='B:230 109:22'>Psa 109:22</a>. What Saul says here is conspiracy theory gone wrong, but this is what happens when jealousy takes a grip upon the human mind. They come to see everyone as suspicious and somehow against them.</p><p>We have an example here of conspiracy theories breeding other ones and becoming established in the mind as fact. Saul decides that his son Jonathan wants the throne from him, and was using David's rebellion to get it. But Jonathan had made it clear he didn't want the throne, and was loyal to David. And Samuel had made it clear to Saul that his dynasty wouldn't continue.  </p><p>
It seems the covenant Jonathan made with David in 1 Sam. 20:16 he had now spoken openly of. And that is indeed how it is, our secret covenant relationship with the Lord we inevitably speak of to others, even if initially we intend to keep it secret. </p>


text:
<p>Then Doeg the Edomite, who stood by the servants of Saul, said- </p><p>"Doeg" means 'the fearful one', and his name immediately suggests a connection between him and the paranoid Saul.</p><p>I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub- </p><p>The fawning courtier Doeg describes David as Saul does, "the son of Jesse". He gives Ahimelech's full name, which means "Brother of the king". He may even have somehow been Saul's relative by marriage. But jealousy leads to the destruction of every relationship.
In Psalm 52, David rants about Doeg being a liar. The historical record shows Doeg as being strictly truthful in what he said to Saul about David. "David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest" (1 Sam. 21:2) and this is exactly what Doeg says: "I saw the son of Jesse come to Nob to Ahimelech the priest." (1 Sam. 22:8). Doeg informs that the priest gave David the sword of Goliath. That is exactly what happened: "The sword of Goliath... is here... David said, "There is none like it; give it to me"" (1 Sam. 21:10). Doeg informs Saul that the priest provided David with food, and that was the case: "The priest gave him holy bread" (1 Sam. 21:7). But David repeatedly claims that Doeg was a liar and had a "deceitful tongue". We could assume that in fact Doeg said other things about David which aren't recorded, and here we have a typical case of where the Biblical evidence must be put together in order to get the complete picture. Or it could be that even by saying things which are truthful, we can do so in a way that is in fact proactively destructive ["devouring", :4) and deceitful- in the sense of being unfaithful to David. We wonder why David's anger is not so much with Saul but with Doeg. It was Saul who commanded Doeg to kill Abimelech and the priests because of Doeg's informing on him. Possibly he as it were forbad himself to curse Saul- and so he redirects his anger with Saul onto Doeg. Rather than taking a more spiritual attitude. We also wonder why David's anger is with Doeg for being a liar, rather than a murderer: "The king said to Doeg, You turn and attack the priests! Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five people who wore a linen ephod. He struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword, men, women, children and nursing babies, and cattle, donkeys and sheep" (1 Sam. 22:18,19). David apparently never mentions this, but rather rants about Doeg being such a liar. Possibly Doeg had become a proselyte, and therefore was deceitful to then kill Yahweh's priests.  
We also observe that it was David at this time who was the liar. But he likes to focus on Doeg as a liar. Doeg was more a murderer, seeking to ingratiate himself to Saul his boss in return for power and wealth- than a liar. I suggest that David is making Doeg out to be a liar and punishing him because this is what David is guilty of. Rather like the pastor committing adultery who beats up on a member of his congregation for falling into sexual sin. The evidence for David's lying at the time is significant. He lies to Abimelech: "The king has commissioned me with a matter and said to me, "Let no one know anything of the matter with respect to which I am sending you and about which I have commissioned you" (1 Sam. 21:3). David was in fact fleeing from Saul, who was determined to kill him (1 Sam. 20:30-42). He totally fabricates words which he claims Saul had spoken and that he is quoting verbatim. Neither did he receive any commission from king Saul. This was all deliberate deception. When asked why he is travelling alone, David lies by saying that his "young men" are going to meet up with him soon at a pre-arranged location: "And as for the young men, I have made an appointment for such and such a place" (1 Sam. 21:3). David wants the priest to believe that David is accompanied by an entourage from the king. When asked by the priest if the young men for whom he asks food are ceremonially clean, David tells another lie: "Indeed women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?" (1 Sam. 21:5). The record is clear that David was alone and didn't have these "young men" actually with him. David comes to Nob alone (1 Sam. 21:1,2), and leaves Nob alone (1 Sam. 21:11). Then he alone flees to Philistine territory unaccompanied (1 Sam 21:11-16), and he leaves Philistine territory alone (1 Sam. 22:1). No one joins him until we learn from 1 Sam. 22:1,2 that after reaching the cave of Adullam, "his brothers and all his father's house heard and came down there, and there were gathered to him any man in distress".  David's reason as to why he had no sword is so blatantly untrue that surely Abimelech must have wondered whether David was being truthful: "I took in hand neither my sword nor my weapons because the king's commission was urgent" (1 Sam. 21:9). If indeed he was commissioned by Saul to do something that needed a weapon, surely he would have taken the weapon with him. Quite possibly Ahimelech was telling the truth to Saul when he claimed that he knew nothing of David's rebellion. David's lies therefore led Ahimelech to a position which cost Ahimelech and his family their lives. Hence David later rues that he was responsible for their deaths, and we could even argue that Psalm 52 is David's self hatred over this matter, condemning himself as a liar.
</p>


text:
<p>He inquired of Yahweh for him, gave him food, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine- </p><p>We only learn at this point that Ahimelech enquired of Yahweh for David. When David visited him, David was at a very low point spiritually. Scoring David out of ten for spirituality, he scores sadly here. He had turned down spear and sword when fighting Goliath, and had confidently stated that as the battles are Yahweh's, these weapons give no defence. And he lies about things in order to get them. And we even wonder whether he was correct to pretend to be a servant of Saul as king, when Yahweh had clearly rejected Saul as king and chosen David. But despite this weak point in his faith, he still also asked Ahimelech to enquire of God for him; we see here how complex is human faith and spirituality. Faith and unbelief can coexist, and only God can form the final judgment of men, simply because we cannot.</p><p>Ahimelech confirms to Saul that he had enquired of Yahweh for David (1 Sam. 22:10), and that he had also done so previously. We wonder what at this point David enquired about. The fact he went to Gath right afterwards makes it likely that it was something to do with this. But I suggest it was unlikely that Yahweh would have confirmed David in that decision, nor that He required David to take Goliath's sword. So we may well imagine David being disobedient to the answer to his enquiry. It was also likely that this enquiry was about whether David should be given the shewbread.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub and all his father’s house, the priests who were in Nob; and they all came to the king- </p><p>Clearly it was Saul's intention to destroy the priest and all his family; the verdict was decided well in advance. That they all came to the king, unsuspecting, indicates their loyalty to him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Listen now, you son of Ahitub. He answered, Here I am, my lord-</p><p>Again we see Ahimelech's loyalty to Saul. It is a sad feature of jealousy that it leads men to destroy even their best supporters, so blinded do they become by the objective of destroying their enemy.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to him, Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, in that you have given him bread and a sword, and have inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as he does today?- </p><p>Again, we see how jealousy leads to an obsessive 'guilt by association'. And beyond that, an imagination of things which are simply not the case, e.g. that Ahimelech and David had made a conspiracy to murder Saul. And we see this sad nexus of broken down spirituality going on in groups of believers worldwide.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ahimelech answered the king, Who among all your servants is as faithful as David, who is the king’s son-in-law, and is taken into your council, and is honourable in your house?</p><p>Ahimelech like Jonathan bravely speaks up for David, as we should for Jesus, despite knowing the consequences he faced. For he was accused of treason and conspiracy to murder the king. We note that David had been so close to Saul that he had once been in his inner council, the group of men who now stood around Saul. And David was still respected in Saul's family. Ahimelech is bravely trying to make a desperate appeal for David and for his own life. He begins by justifying David before he moves to justify himself as innocent of any plan to kill Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Is this the first time I have inquired of God for him? Be it far from me! Don’t let the king accuse his servant or any of the house of my father, for your servant knows nothing at all of all this- </p><p>He protests that it is strange indeed to condemn David and Ahimelech for inquiring of God. But so we see happening today; if you break bread with this one or that, then you are guilty by association. And worthy of spiritual death.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, You shall surely die Ahimelech, you and all your father’s house- </p><p>Saul is quoting the words of Yahweh concerning Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (<a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>). We have observed this earlier with Saul; he quotes Biblical phrases or alludes to Biblical characters, but far out of context. It's as if he wants to justify his own native jealousy and pride beneath a veneer of spirituality and vague Biblical allusion. And the same thing can happen today.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to the guards who stood around him, Turn and kill the priests of Yahweh because they have sided with David, and because they knew that he fled, and didn’t tell me- </p><p>What began as a passing suspicion in Saul's mind, that David was planning to murder him, developed into something grotesque. Saul now assumed Ahimelech was in league with David; and so were all the priests with him. And so they must all be slain for conspiracy to murder him. There was no Mosaic legislation calling for the execution of those who conspire to murder, if it doesn't come to pass. And the unspiritual mind will go the same path; fantasy and unpleasant imagination about someone is dwelt upon, until it actually becomes true in the person's mind.</p><p>But the servants of the king wouldn’t put forth their hand to strike the priests of Yahweh- </p><p>This reflects the tension which so many have felt, torn between loyalty to the politico-religious leadership of the time, and true spirituality. The same phrase "lift up the hand against" in the context of murder is used of how David refused to lift up his hand against Saul as Yahweh's anointed. But this family of Ahimelech were also that; for they too were anointed as priests. Yahweh's anointed referred to His priests as well as His kings. We see here how even Saul's inner circle had some conscience and were unhappy with Saul's position. But still they passively went along with him and legitimized his hold on power. </p>


text:
<p>The king said to Doeg, You turn and attack the priests! Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five people who wore a linen ephod- </p><p>Clearly ephods were worn apart from the high priestly ephod. We noted this when discussing how Samuel wore an ephod as he ministered to Yahweh as a child. LXX has 305 people. "Turn" may suggest he was to surround them, to round them up, and then murder them.</p>


text:
<p>He struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword, men, women, children and nursing babies, and cattle, donkeys and sheep- </p><p>This may account for the figure of 305 slain, according to :18 LXX. We see how guilt by association is like a disease which spreads. Saul had assumed Ahimelech was guilty by association with David, and he then made the other 85 priests guilty by association. And now in turn, Doeg extends this guilt to include the entire town, including newborn babies and animals. Guilt by association is one of the most insidious sins of the Christian life. And yet it so easily becomes somehow sanctified and made respectable by church policies. This total destruction of everyone in Nob suggests Saul kidded himself that he was called to practice the 'ban' of total destruction upon them. But this was precisely what he had failed to do with the Amalekites, as he saved their cattle and many of the people. It was for this that he had been rejected as king. We have an insight here into his psychology, and it is an absolutely psychologically credible picture. He has transferred his guilt over not totally destroying the Amalekites, and now is totally destroying the people of Nob- imagining that in fact he has to do this in obedience to God. In a perverted way, he is seeking to overturn the reason for his rejection as king.  </p>


text:
<p>One of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled to David- </p><p>If Doeg acted alone, as we have the impression he did from :18,19, the escape of at least one would be unsurprising. Again we see how the whole situation is so circumstantially credible.</p>


text:
<p>Abiathar told David that Saul had killed Yahweh’s priests- </p><p>Doeg slew them, but clearly Saul was the one counted responsible. Just as it was the Jews and not the Romans who slew God’s Son. To slay such a large community of priests shows how Saul was not interested in true spirituality; for they would have been a major loss to God’s people, and service of Yahweh would have been so much the harder without them.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abiathar, I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul- </p><p>Yet again, the record has every semblance of absolute credibility. For this is the kind of premonition which is true to real life. Contemporary histories are full of flourishes and embellishments, in stark contrast to the truth of God’s word.</p><p>I am responsible for the death of all the people of your father’s house- </p><p>As with his feeling of unnecessary guilt over the plague that struck Israel for refusing to pay the required tax when they were numbered, so here again we mull whether David was rather too emotionally taking at least some false guilt. But constantly we are left to ponder things with David- because the overall judgment of him appears to be that he was indeed a man after God's heart, a believer, but the good side in him only just tipped the balance against the other side. It would appear from <a href='B:230 18:45'>Psa 18:45</a> that Saul was supported by foreign mercenaries in his campaign against David. When Saul is no more, David therefore exalts that "The foreigners shall fade away, and shall come trembling out of their close places". This alludes to how Saul's persecutors of David included "foreigners" such as Cush (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>) and Doeg the Edomite.</p><p>David’s eager taking of the sword of Goliath (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a> - “There is none like that; give it me”) contrasts sadly with his earlier rejection of such weapons in order to slay Goliath. And David later reflects how he knew that his faithless taking of that sword and the shewbread would lead to the death of Abiathar’s family (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>). But still he did it. This was one reason why he is criticized by God as having shed too much blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Stay with me, don’t be afraid, for he who seeks my life seeks your life. With me you will be safe- </p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>; <a href='B:500 15:4'>Joh 15:4</a>; <a href='B:500 15:20'>Joh 15:20</a>. David’s men are clearly presented as the disciples of Jesus, and ourselves. Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David’s sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David’s patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge.</p><p> "You will be safe" implies David was now confident that he would be kept safe from Saul until he became king and Saul was dead. David has been through a very weak period, taking Goliath's sword, fleeing to Gath, lying to Abiathar... but now his faith rallies and he is again confident that he will indeed be preserved from Saul. 1 Sam. 23 goes on to picture David as strong in faith again. This resurgence of faith was triggered by his repentance for his visit to Nob, and by his commitment to Abiathar, his looking out of himself to the salvation of another. </p><p>
Psalm 34 was written as reflection upon his deliverance from Gath (Ps. 34:1). But in that Psalm, David reflects that it is good not to tell lies (Ps. 34:13 "Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking lies"). But David himself has been noted for how many lies he told, not least in this context both to Ahimelech [resulting in his flight to Gath] and then in Gath (Ps. 34:1). So here we have some kind of repentance for his behaviour in Gath. And this leads to his higher point of faith as discussed here on 1 Sam. 22:23. </p>


text:
<p>David was told, The Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are robbing the threshing floors- </p><p>A lesser man would have considered that he had so many issues that he just couldn't possibly get involved in the issues of others. But like the Lord looking beyond His own immediate pain to the fate of the women lining the via Dolorosa, so David looked beyond his immediate circumstance to the needs of others- even those who would later betray him. This grace is the more wonderful because the people of Keilah were for Saul and against David (see on :7); it was grace indeed on David’s part, and he was confirmed in it by God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Therefore David inquired of Yahweh, Shall I go and attack these Philistines? Yahweh said to David, Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah- </p><p>The Hebrew phrase "attack... and save" is used in <a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a> of the judge Shamgar, also in the context of attacking Philistines. David is being pointed back by this allusion to the zeal of Shamgar the son of Anath, 'the answer'. The answer to David’s question was in Shamgar. David was spiritually and mentally exhausted at this time, and God’s way forward for him at this time was to get up and be proactive for others. That is not always the right answer for us in our low moments, but when it is, we will be directed to it by God, perhaps through allusion to Biblical characters.</p><p>'Attack the Philistines' is the same phrase used seven times of 'killing the Philistine' when David killed Goliath (1 Sam. 17:26,36,46,49,50,57; 18:6). God was calling David back to his higher self- when he had just offered Goliath's sword back to the Philistines. The same term was used by the priest in reminding him that this sword had been taken when "you killed / slew / attacked" the Philistine. </p><p>We recall that just prior to this, David had taken Goliath's sword to the Philistines and sought to get onside with them against Saul. This was displeasing to God and yet he was saved by grace from the situation (see on Psalm 34). Now God seeks to help David never do this again, by sending him to fight the Philistines and kill them- the very people David has just been asking to help him and trying to live with. But despite God's arrangement of things, David will fail again when in 1 Sam. 27 he again flees to them for help against Saul and again tries to ingratiate himself to them.</p>


text:
<p>David’s men said to him, Look, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then, if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?- </p><p>David’s whole experience with Saul was of course led and arranged by a loving Father. The sensible thing would have been for David to get out of Saul’s way and lay quiet- and this is what he tried to do, by going to Moab. But then God tells him to go back into Judah (<a href='B:90 22:5'>1Sa 22:5</a>). This was political suicide. It made no human sense to expose himself to Saul again. And then God tells David to go and fight with the Philistines in order to rescue the people of Keilah. Yet the men of Keilah weren’t allies worth having- even they were prepared to betray David to Saul, and by this action he made the Philistines hate him yet more, so refuge amongst them was no longer possible. Again and again, God led David into situations that were politically suicidal, that only made things worse for him… because He wanted David to trust in Him alone. And so it happens in our lives. Time and again. There was to be an exact equivalent in the Lord's experience in returning to Judah (<a href='B:500 11:7-8'>Joh 11:7-8</a> cp. <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then David inquired of Yahweh yet again. Yahweh answered him, Get up and go down to Keilah, for I will deliver the Philistines into your hand- </p><p>Like Gideon, David’s faith wavered and he wanted a second confirmation. He "inquired of Yahweh" as he had done through Ahimelech (<a href='B:90 22:10'>1Sa 22:10</a>), so presumably he did so through Ahimelech's son who had fled to be with David with the ephod (:6). "Get up and go" could be read as a slight rebuke of David’s inaction; for God loves a "yes straight away" attitude from His children. Perhaps David was being directed back to Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>) and Moses, who were addressed by God with the same words (<a href='B:50 9:12'>Deu 9:12</a>). He would have earlier seen Moses as Judaism does today, the unreachable acme of spirituality and closeness to God. But now he was being taught, as we are, that no Biblical character is a mere Sunday School figure; but rather our real practical inspiration. Elijah was addressed in the same way in <a href='B:110 21:18'>1Ki 21:18</a>, directing him back to Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), David (<a href='B:90 23:4'>1Sa 23:4</a>) and Moses (<a href='B:50 9:12'>Deu 9:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David and his men went to Keilah and fought against the Philistines and carried off their livestock and killed them with a great slaughter. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah- </p><p>By doing so, David was burning any possible bridges he had with the Philistines; for he had taken refuge with Achish in Gath before and nearly perished because of it. When he again goes there in <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>, he is really going against God’s education of him and intention for him. For God had sent him against the Philistines in 1 Samuel 23 to help him realize that he was not to consider refuge with them again.</p>


text:
<p>When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, he brought an ephod with him-</p><p>Here we have an example of how a statement is given either before or after a historical description, explaining how that historical situation came about. Here, the fact Abiathar was with David with the ephod explains how David had inquired of Yahweh in :4, and how he would inquire now in the next verses.</p><p>We can conclude that the priest brought the breastplate too- for the breastplate was not to be parted from the ephod (Ex. 28:28; 39:21). This therefore meant a mobile sanctuary, making everywhere they went holy ground. </p><p>The other reference to a town with gates and bars is in Jud. 16:3 [the same words used], where Samson is miraculously delivered from entrapment in Gaza / Gath, the very town from which David was graciously delivered. We keep seeing connections with the Samson story; David is being nudged to 'learn the lesson of Samson!', for whom women were his downfall. But he didn't ultimately do so; all these nudges went unheeded by him. </p>


text:
<p>Saul was told that David had gone to Keilah and he said, God has delivered him into my hand, for he is trapped by going into a town that has gates and bars- </p><p> Again we have an example of Saul's inner thoughts being described as his spoken words; because this is how God reads our words in our hearts- as if we spoke them. The Hebrew for "delivered" also means 'rejected' [s.w. "forsaken", Jer. 19:4]. We have an insight into how Saul justified his persecution of David. He liked to think that God had rejected David, and therefore David's thought to be king was treason. Of course it was Saul whom God has rejected, but in a classic case of psychological transferrence, Saul transfers this on to David as the rejected one, and sees it as his job to judge David for it. Otherwise it is hard to understand how Saul persecuted David, knowing that God had told him that he was rejected as king, and that God had chosen David to be king. Saul assumes that the people of Keilah are going to be on his side and will agree to betray David. David presumably knew this when he was first told about their calamity, and wondered if he should go and save them. His decision was therefore an example of him showing extreme grace. The pain of it was all the more tragic in that Keilah was in Judah and these people were from David’s own tribe.</p>


text:
<p>Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men- </p><p>Keilah had just been attacked by the Philistines, and now it had Saul's army marching towards it; thus Saul is shown to be no better than the Philistines. He as the king of Israel ought to have saved Keilah from the Philistines; for Israel wanted a king to save them from their enemies. The fact David had saved them would have provoked Saul's jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>David knew that Saul was plotting evil against him, so he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring the ephod here- </p><p>"Plotting evil" is the phrase only elsewhere used by Solomon, when repeatedly he condemns those who "plot evil" in his Proverbs (<a href='B:240 3:29'>Pro 3:29</a>; <a href='B:240 6:14'>Pro 6:14</a>; <a href='B:240 12:20'>Pro 12:20</a>; <a href='B:240 14:22'>Pro 14:22</a>). All Solomon writes is true, but he always harnesses God’s truth to the agenda of his own self justification through knocking down the enemies of his father. And the house of Saul were still around and feared by Solomon as potential threats to his kingship. We can misuse Divine truths in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said, O Yahweh the God of Israel, Your servant has definitely heard that Saul intends to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 18:1-3'>1Sa 18:1-3</a>. Saul had come to besiege Keilah and force them to deliver David to him. It could be that his guilt by association complex was so strong that Saul was wanting to destroy all Keilah because David had saved them and was living with them. But another possibility is that David is being as it were manipulative with God, alluding to the situation with Lot and Sodom, exaggerating Saul's desire to destroy him into Saul wanting to destroy all Keilah.</p><p>David's conscience was clearly dwelling on how 85 priests at Nob had been killed by Saul and Doeg for his sake. He was careful to learn his lesson and didn't want this to be repeated. </p>


text:
<p>Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? Yahweh, the God of Israel, I beg you, tell Your servant. Yahweh said, He will come down- </p><p>"The men" is 'the lords'. The logical order of the questions would seem to require that David would first ask whether Saul would come down. Perhaps David assumed that Saul would come down, for after all, Saul was pursuing him. So we see some humility in David asking for confirmation of what appeared obvious. "Deliver me up into his hand" is a repeat of the situation in the life of Samson (Jud. 15:10-13), when again "the men of Judah" 'delivered [Samon] into the hand' of the Philistines. The similarity is clear- and so often we note how situations in David's life were directing him back to Samson. It's as if God was warning him about a weakness for women- and in the matter of Bathsheba, David failed to learn the lesson of Samson which God had been gently trying to teach him for many years previously. </p><p>
We note the play on the idea of 'delivering'. The men of Keilah had been delivered by David from their enemies, but they wanted to deliver him into the hand of his enemies (:11,12,20). This is a classic cameo of human ingratitude. Grace didn't find any response, in this case. But David is taught to deal with it by simply accepting it, and not trying to force gratitude. Which is really how God deals with human ingratitude. Saul will now be 'delivered into David's hand' and he spares him (1 Sam. 24:18; 26:8). David learnt the lesson. We share God's grace to us with others, regardless of their response. Because this is how He sheds His grace upon men. And understanding that removes all the angst we would otherwise feel about human ingratitude. Likewise although we aren't saved by good works nor earning points, it is also so that "God is not unmindful to forget" our labours of love. The natural desire for human appreciation and gratitude is felt strongly by parents, by carers for old people... by those in Christian ministry. The cross is the answer. There we see God's grace lavished upon all men. With so little response, appreciation and gratitude. David had been "delivered" from Goliath, so he was asked to "deliver" Keilah, but the men of Keilah didn't appreciate that but thought to  "deliver" him to Saul. David is then delivered by grace from Saul on the conical hill, he is not "delivered into Saul's hand" (1 Sam. 23:14), indeed in the Psalms he often marvels at how God had not "delivered me into the hand of my enemies" (Ps. 31:8 etc.); and Saul is then "delivered" into David's hand so that he may release him by grace.  </p><p>David had "definitely heard" that Saul would come down. But he doesn't trust his own intelligence or the hearing of his own ears. He wants this confirmed by God. Perhaps he was entertaining the dream of living safely with the grateful people of Keilah and thereby being safe from Saul. For surely his experience should have told him that Saul would come down. He probably got the impression that some of the people of Keilah would hand him over to Saul, but he struggled to believe that people he had saved from death at the risk of his own life... could be so ungrateful. And so he asks God to show him.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? Yahweh said, They will deliver you- </p><p>God appears to only answer one request at a time. And then the other request has to be repeated. This would be understandable if the ephod contained the stones of urim and thummim, which flashed out only a binary, yes / no response to a question. Therefore only one question could be answered at a time. There seems something similar in 2 Sam. 2:1, when David had to ask twice before being told into which town he should move to establish his new kingdom: "'Shall I move into one of the towns in Judah?' The Lord answered, 'Yes!' David asked, 'Move where?' 'To Hebron' He answered". And possibly "Hebron" was an answer given after many other requests for God to choose between various towns. </p><p>We note that both the propositions which God said would happen [Saul coming to Keilah, the men of Keilah delivering David to him] never actually happened. But in God's purpose they would have happened- had David not acted in the way he did. But we note that God didn't add any condition, such as "Unless you flee". David had to work that out. We see here how God's purpose is in a way open ended [cp. Nineveh's predicted destrution in 40 days]. But in the gap between pronouncement and actualization, human freewill can change the outcome on the ground. We marvel at God's knowledge- He knows how things would have worked out contingent on things like David chosing to trust the people of Keilah since he had saved them. He knew that if David remained in Keilah and if Saul had besieged Keilah with David inside the city, then the people of Keilah would have surrendered David to Saul. That scenario didn't happen, but God knew how things would have gone if it had happened. His knowledge of all potential scenarios makes His knowledge vast beyond words. He not only knows everything now happening, but all the possible situations. His pain at human failure is thereby the greater, as well as His joy when we respond rightly. For He sees all the dimensions surrounding human behaviour. He has 'middle knowledge', the contingent knowledge of everything on the scale in between the possibility of being and that of not being. </p><p>David here experienced extreme ingratitude- those he saved would turn against him. But he simply moved on from them. And this paved the way, in God's spiritual education of him, for him to show grace to the ungrateful Saul in 1 Sam. 24- and then moving on from him.</p>


text:
<p>Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and left Keilah, and went wherever they could go. Saul heard that David had escaped from Keilah so he gave up going there- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>. If the people of Keilah had appeared grateful for David saving them, and were vowing total loyalty to him even if Saul besieged their town, then David’s actions here would have seemed foolish. People didn’t know Saul was thinking of coming against Keilah. They would have wisely crowed after the event that David ought to have remained with the grateful people of Keilah. But the ways of God are always geared ultimately toward our salvation, and involve our doing things which seem counter intuitive and not the humanly smart thing to do.</p>


text:
<p>David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds and in the hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. Saul sought him every day- </p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>).</p><p>But God didn’t deliver him into his hand-</p><p>The contrast is with the men of Keilah, who would have delivered David into Saul's hand. Yahweh is presented as kinder than men; and any undue fear of Him as a hard God must always remember this.</p>


text:
<p>David saw that Saul had come out to seek his life when he was in the wilderness of Ziph, in the forest- </p><p>Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David’s sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David’s patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan, Saul’s son, went to David into the forests and strengthened his hand in God- </p><p>We observe how he is called "Saul's son", emphasizing the extreme difficult of their relationship and their very different environments. And yet faithfulness to God was possible in both. Only occasionally could Jonathan and David meet, brief moments of intense fellowship away from the rest of the world, strengthening each other's hand in the Lord, re-confirming their covenant together (<a href='B:90 18:3'>1Sa 18:3</a>; <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>). No wonder their goodbyes were so hard: "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (<a href='B:90 20:41'>1Sa 20:41</a>). Not surprisingly, they looked forward to the promised day of David’s Kingdom: "Thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee" (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). Our communion meetings with the Lord Jesus during our wilderness journey must surely mirror those meetings.</p><p>Just the same phrase is used of how David later strengthened himself in Yahweh, with 600 of his own men against him and wanting to kill him (<a href='B:90 30:6'>1Sa 30:6</a>). It happens with us too that the encouragement others give us, we later have to give to ourselves when alone and isolated.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Don’t be afraid, for the hand of Saul my father will not find you; you will be king over Israel and I shall be next to you. Saul my father well knows that- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a> and <a href='B:90 20:30-31'>1Sa 20:30-31</a>. As noted on <a href='B:90 20:3'>1Sa 20:3</a>, when David feels Saul is about to succeed in killing him, we might have wished to see at times more faith by both of them in Samuel's prophetic word that David should become king. Their faith in that word went up and down, with <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a> being a high point in it, and <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a> being the low point in it. Jonathan totally believed Samuel's prophetic word, even though it meant that he would not be king himself. And Saul too knew this. His efforts to kill David were therefore futile, for he was thereby seeking to as it were disallow that prophetic word coming true. But knowing all this, Saul still tried to murder David. His jealousy blinded him to such an extent that he was simply blind to the implications of the Divine word which on another level he believed. We can know things on one level, but act totally contrary to that knowledge. Jonathan's utter faith in the prophetic word surely encouraged David, whose faith in that word [that he would survive to become king] often wavered. Jonathan's extreme, self sacrificial loyalty to David contrasts with the fickle disloyalty of the Ziphites. God does counter negative experiences with positive ones, if we have eyes to perceive.</p>


text:
<p>They both made a covenant before Yahweh, and David stayed in the forests but Jonathan went home- </p><p>The record powerfully presents the picture of David and Jonathan as two men living in totally different worlds, and yet being bound together, despite the tangles of their lives, by the hope of the Kingdom, and the pure intensity of their spiritual bond with each other in the Lord. The love of David for Jonathan is surpassing. The juxtaposition of their lifestyles is shown by passages like this, where Jonathan goes to "his house" (Heb:) whilst David is in the forests; and <a href='B:90 20:42'>1Sa 20:42</a>, where Jonathan returns to the city and David goes into the scrubland.</p>&nbsp;<p>"Jonathan Saul's son (note the emphasis again!) arose, and went to David into&nbsp; the wood" (<a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>). We are invited to imagine Jonathan walking into the wood, stumbling through it, until he found David, concealed in some deep thicket; and then, after brief but intense fellowship, stumbling back through the undergrowth, brushing himself down, and returning to his stately home. The same impression is given by <a href='B:90 20:42'>1Sa 20:42</a>: "We have sworn both of us... and David arose and departed (to his den): and Jonathan went into the city". There seems more than an echo here of Abraham and Lot parting company in <a href='B:10 13:8-12'>Gen 13:8-12</a>. How many of us, coming out of a memorial meeting and returning to the world, have gone through the same emotions. The clandestine nature of the David: Jonathan friendship is surely replicated between us and Christ. The love of David for Jonathan is Christ's love for us. Their souls were "knit", a Hebrew word also translated "conspire", hinting at the secretiveness (<a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>):&nbsp;Yet as Jonathan became too involved in his surrounding world (so it seems), so we run a similar gauntlet. The question arises: Should Jonathan have run away from his situation, and gone to join David in the wilderness, like others did? Should we? To close down a career, move down the property ladder, change our eating, travelling, holiday habits…. or stay where we are in Saul's court, to some degree living out a lie, hoping Gilboa won't come for us?</p>


text:
<p>Then the Ziphites came to Saul in Gibeah saying, Isn’t David hiding among us in the strongholds in the forest, on the hill of Hachilah, which is on the south of the desert?- </p><p>These people come over as proactively seeking to betray David. Doubtless Saul had been offering major incentives to people for information leading to the capture or destruction of David. That David could later weld these people together into one kingdom was only achieved thanks to his great grace and forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, O king, come down when you are ready; our part will be to deliver him into the king’s hand- </p><p>Saul's spies aimed to deliver&nbsp;David into Saul's hands, looking ahead in the type of Christ to <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>. We are intended to compare this with :14: "But God didn’t deliver him into his hand". The men of Keilah likewise would have delivered David into Saul's hand. Yahweh is presented as kinder than men; and any undue fear of Him as a hard God must always remember this.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Yahweh bless you, for you have had compassion on me- </p><p>David’s later criticism of&nbsp;Saul's blessing of the greedy (<a href='B:230 10:3'>Psa 10:3</a>) may refer to his blessing of the Ziphites for betraying David to him. They were "greedy" in that they did so in hope of reward from Saul. Saul doesn't become an atheist. Rather he likes to think that Yahweh's blessing will be with those who take his side in his obsession against David. This is how extreme jealousy can totally unbalance and pervert the perspective of the believer who gives in to it.</p><p>In 1 Sam. 23:21 Saul thanks the Ziphites for their "compassion" to him by informing him of David's location. "Compassion" translates the Hebrew word for 'spare'. Saul felt the Ziphites had spared him. But in 1 Sam. 24:10 he finds that it is in fact David who spares him. So God continued to work with Saul, despite having rejected him as king- for He still wanted to lead Saul to repentance and ultimate salvation. This is an amazing reflection of how God never gives up working with men. </p>


text:
<p>Please go and make sure and find out where his haunt is and who has seen him there, for they tell me that he is very crafty- </p><p>The "they" refer to Saul's network of spies seeking to inform on David. Perhaps this desire for the names of those who had reported sightings of David was because Saul had promised a reward for every sighting. "His haunt" is literally 'his foot'; the idea is they were treating him like a wild animal they were tracking and hunting.</p>


text:
<p>So find out all the hiding places he uses and come back to me with definite information, and I will go with you. If he is in the area I will search him out among all the thousands of Judah- </p><p>This sounds like some kind of 'final solution' to eliminate David by listing all his possible hiding places in the area. We note Saul's personal obsession: "I will go with you... I will search him out". Jealousy can progress to a point where a man becomes shameless in his addiction to personal hatred.</p>


text:
<p>They set out and went to Ziph ahead of Saul, but David and his men were in the wilderness of Maon, in the Arabah on the south of the desert- </p><p>"Arabah" is GNB "a desolate valley"; "to the south of Jeshimon" (ESV). "The wilderness of Maon" is the conical hill of Maon, identified as Tell Main about 10 km. south of Hebron. It was around this that Saul chased David.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and his men went to seek him. When David was told, he went down to the rock and stayed in the wilderness of Maon. When Saul heard that, he pursued David into the wilderness of Maon- </p><p>"Stayed in the wilderness of Maon“ is LXX "which is in the wilderness of Maon”, i.e. the conical hill (see on :24). We could read this trust in a rock or hill as a denial of David's oft proclaimed trust in Yahweh as his rock. We may love the words of scripture, or the words of hymns or songs, but still not get the reality of them when tested. As will be explained on :26, it seems David thought this rock was an area where he could hide undetected from Saul. Perhaps he saw in it a kind of representation of God whom he often calls his rock. He would have really felt God was no longer his rock when that rock appeared to be his destruction (see on :26). But then when he was saved, he would have understood that God is a "rock" not in the sense of some obvious and visible fortress of defence; but in more subtle yet more powerful ways.</p>


text:
<p>Saul went on one side of the mountain and David and his men on the other, and David hurried to get away for fear of Saul, for Saul and his men surrounded David and his men to take them- </p><p>"Surrounded" is 'encircled'. It's also the word for 'crown', as if Saul was crowning David as king. Just as casting his spear at David was giving him the symbol of kingship. David had been encircled in Gath, and had learnt there that Yahweh's Angel encamps around those who fear Him- for Ps. 34:8 is his commentary upon that deliverance. Now he is to learn the lesson again. And it will give him strength for his next life episode, in 1 Sam. 24, when he sees Saul encircled by his soldiers camping around him- and realizes that this is no barrier, because Yahweh's Angel encamps around him [David]. Perhaps the "messenger" that came to Saul in :27, and thus spared David's life, was indeed a malak in the sense of an Angel, the Angel encamped around David. In Ps. 5:12 David had expressed his faith and understanding that the righteous are encircled by God's gace: "For You will bless the righteous. Yahweh, You will surround him with grace as with a shield". But as with us, our theoretical understanding of grace, enshrined in the words we say to others, the words we sing, even in our statements of faith... has to be tested in practice. And this is really what so much of life is about, translating our head knowledge to felt experience, engrained in our core personality.</p><p>David bore a charmed life from Saul's persecution; humanly, he should surely have perished at this point (<a href='B:90 23:26-27'>1Sa 23:26-27</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). This looks ahead to <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a> in the type of Christ. The "rock" or "mountain" was a cone shaped hill. David went one way around it and Saul another, chasing him; this is the idea behind "surrounded". David with his large company of men must have felt unable to stop and fight Saul because they were so outnumbered. David originally intended to hide out there. But now Saul was on him, and as David moved ever higher up the tracks towards the top of the cone shaped hill, it was only a matter of time before Saul caught up with him at the top. David was very close to death at this point; but his desperate prayers as he went higher up the cone shaped hill received a truly miraculous answer (:27).</p>


text:
<p>But a messenger came to Saul saying, Hurry and come, for the Philistines have made a raid on the land!- </p><p>The way Saul returns from pursuing David because of a rumour of invasion is so similar to Rabshakeh’s retreat from Jerusalem after rumours of incursions. Circumstances repeat within our lives and between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not alone.</p>


text:
<p>So Saul returned from pursuing David and went against the Philistines. Therefore they called that place Sela Hammahlekoth- </p><p>ESV "The rock of escape", GNB "The rock of division", LXX "The divided rock", perhaps connecting with how Moses divided the rock in the desert to bring forth water whereby Israel survived when otherwise they would have died.</p>


text:
<p>David went from there and lived in the strongholds of En Gedi- </p><p>This verse appears to belong to the next chapter. The Bible's chapter divisions were not inspired and were added some time after the originals were written.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul had returned from pursuing the Philistines he was told, David is in the wilderness of En Gedi- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel- </p><p>They were not all Benjamites. They were doubtless chosen for their loyalty to Saul, even if that loyalty had been bought. That David could later weld the kingdom together was only achieved by his great grace and forgiveness.</p><p>And went to seek David and his men- </p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>).</p><p>On the rocks of the wild goats- </p><p>LXX "in front of Saddaeem"; GNB "east of Wild Goat Rocks". Even in these desperate straits, David still had time to reflect that as "the high hills are a refuge for the wild goats" so Yahweh would be for him (s:w. <a href='B:230 104:18'>Psa 104:18</a>). Goats were unclean and a symbol of the rejected. And yet Yahweh is a refuge even for the unclean. This was how David appears to have felt. Or we could note that Saul and his men were scampering over the rocks like goats, whereas David and his men were near the sheep pens, in a cave as if they were sheep (:3). The separation between sheep and goats is therefore being made clear.</p>


text:
<p>He came to the sheep pens by the way, where there was a cave, and Saul went in to relieve himself. Now David and his men were hiding in the innermost parts of the cave- </p><p>David and his men were temporarily living [“hiding” is a poor translation] &nbsp;in the cave, and must’ve watched Saul and his men drawing near. And then, Saul walks away from the men and starts walking right towards them. They withdraw deeper into the cave. As when being chased ever higher up the conical hill in <a href='B:90 23:26'>1Sa 23:26</a>, it must have seemed that the end had now come. Saul puts his cloak down and goes further into the cave, to relieve himself and maybe have a rest; presumably he wasn’t feeling well and just wanted to be alone. He was after all an elderly man now, if indeed he reigned a literal 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>).</p><p>It must’ve been so very weird; there was enough time for David to discuss with his men whether to kill him or not. But by the nature of the situation, the discussion lasted only a few seconds; for in the time it takes a man to go to the toilet, David cut off the skirt of Saul's robe. There are times when in a few seconds we end up acting according to our true inner convictions. This was clearly no coincidence; it was all too weird. Likewise the way circumstances repeated in 1 Samuel 26 was so strange. Again David stands over the weak Saul, again his men urge him to murder him, giving the same reasoning as before, and again David resists. And again David calls to Saul and demonstrates his sincerity and integrity. Our lives aren’t random chance; circumstances repeat in order to give us the opportunity to learn from mistakes, i:e. to not make the same mistake again; or even when we respond properly, the circumstance can repeat in essence so that we have our right choice reinforced by repeated experience:&nbsp; Just as a teacher makes students repeat exercises so that they ‘get the point’. This gives extra point to David’s warning of Saul in <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a> - that if Saul were doing what he was doing against David just because other men had stirred him up to it, then this was especially culpable. For David twice had been stirred up by his men to slay Saul, and had not done so.</p><p>Saul had 3000 warriors with him, and David and his few men were trapped in a cave. But Saul had a call of nature, the need to defecate, a moment when man is totally isolated, alone and vulnerable. It was at that point that God was trying to teach Saul something of His grace. And in essence, this is His style of teaching to this day. Saul would have removed his kingly robe to defecate and left it on the cave floor whilst he went to defecate. And it was then, as Saul was alone, vulnerable and defecating, that David cut off a corner of the kingly robe. Saul would have later reflected upon this.</p>


text:
<p>The men of David said to him, Look, the day of which Yahweh said to you, ‘I will deliver your enemy into your hand and you can do to him whatever you wish’. Then David got up and cut off a corner of Saul’s robe secretly- </p><p>There is no such oracle recorded; this doesn’t mean it wasn’t said e.g. by Gad or some other prophet. In this case, we might focus upon the phrase “That you may do to him as it shall seem good unto you”. There are times when there is no moral right or wrong in a situation; but what matters is the motive behind the decision we reach. God Himself slew Saul, so perhaps it wouldn’t have been a sin for David to have killed him; for David had never been told specifically that he was not to kill Saul just because Samuel had anointed him. But this was the position David came to in his conscience, and he therefore had to uphold it. We so often hanker after a right/wrong, black or white, this is a sin or it isn’t. But often the choices are left to us to exercise our conscience, so that the choice is made by us, from the heart, rather than as a matter of legalistic obedience. David had to do what ‘seemed good unto him’. In <a href='B:100 18:4'>2Sa 18:4</a> there’s a sad contrast with David’s resoluteness here – for he uses the same Hebrew words in saying that “whatever seems good unto you I will do” at the time of Absalom’s rebellion. We are called to do what seems good unto us rather than what seems good to those around us.</p><p>There are times when we can assume too quickly what God's word or will is. Perhaps David's men assumed that surely God meant them to kill Saul at this point, and went on to assume that this was the word of the Lord. We think of Nathan too quickly telling David that his plan for a temple was indeed God's will. Or the disciples warning Paul, through the Holy Spirit, that he would suffer at Jerusalem- but then telling him that therefore he should not go there. When Paul had had revelation that he should in fact go to Jerusalem. The simple lesson is that we do need to pray and meditate before assuming we have Divine direction in a matter. And it is that process which leads to intimacy with Him.</p><p>Another reading would be that God hadn’t said this at all (<a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a> Heb. could be read as a denial that God had said this), but David’s men urged him to see providence at work, as if to say ‘This is the day that God is saying to you, that you can now kill Saul’. Trying to work out what providence is telling us is quite a challenge. There are some who claim to have 'had a word from the Lord' when as in this case, it is their imagination and flawed interpretation of circumstance. Even those within the ecclesia can urge us against our conscience, and David is presented as standing alone in his decision making. This is very hard when we’re surrounded by those who have stood with us in hard times, our friends and faithful supporters. We risk alienating them by our insistence upon following our conscience and the principle of respecting the value and meaning of persons, even if they are our abusers and enemies.</p><p>The&nbsp; skirt was the hem of blue which was to remind the Israelite of their dedication to Yahweh’s holiness. <a href='B:40 15:38-39'>Num 15:38-39</a> decreed that this was to be done so that they remembered to keep all the commandments of Yahweh; but Saul is noted for not having done this (<a href='B:90 15:22-28'>1Sa 15:22-28</a>). David forgave Saul but didn’t naively blind his eyes to Saul’s unspirituality; and he didn’t trust Saul again. Forgiveness isn’t the same as reconciliation. Often people needlessly beat themselves up that they've not forgiven because they don't trust. It could be argued from the ambiguous Hebrew of that Samuel had torn Saul's kingly robe earlier- to show that his kingdom had been torn from him. David was clearly aware of this and was seeking to remind Saul of God's word. His intention was that Saul would humble himself before God's word and let David be king. We can imagine David approaching Saul with a knife in his hand. His thoughts were surely struggling within him as to whether to stab Saul to death, or use the knife to just teach Saul a lesson and appeal to him. And to David's credit, his better thinking triumphed.</p>


text:
<p>Afterwards David’s conscience smote him, because he had cut off a piece of Saul’s robe- </p><p>David’s heart smote him- but David hadn’t done anything wrong. Indeed it could be argued that what he did was right and commendable in spiritual terms. Conscience isn’t ultimately reliable (<a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a>); we will be judged in the light of God’s word, and not whether we have felt OK or not about our actions in life. His sensitive conscience appears again in <a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>, where again his heart smote him for doing something which wasn’t wrong in itself, i:e. to number Israel. His conscience was aware, perhaps, that we can do things which aren’t wrong in themselves but which were performed with a wrong attitude. And this is no bad example for us to take. Perhaps we have another example when he said that he had caused the death of all the priests at Nob. The blame for that was surely more with Saul and Doeg than with David. I don't think that David is being presented as unusual in this; after all, we have more information about David than about any other OT character. Such fluctuations in the accuracy of conscience are normal to any man. </p><p>The only other time we read of David’s heart smiting him is in <a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>, where he speaks of himself as a lonely bird in the wilderness, chased by his enemies, but with a heart so smitten that he feels like dying:&nbsp; “My heart is smitten, and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread” (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>). It would appear that David’s heart didn’t just smite him for that moment; but it was an ongoing feeling he had during that period of his wilderness life. This was the power of false guilt for David. The lesson here is that we shouldn’t just let our conscience smite us, do something about it at the time, and then forget all about the issue. Believing and feeling God’s forgiveness may take a period of time; and the receipt of that forgiveness shouldn’t necessarily take away our sense of failure, just as it doesn’t within human relationships.</p><p>David’s extreme respect for Saul is shown in the fact that Yahweh had explicitly told him that he would deliver Saul into David’s hand, and David was free to do as he wished to him; but because of his genuine respect for Saul, David didn’t take the liberty of killing him; indeed, he even felt guilty at cutting off the blue ribbon from Saul's coat (<a href='B:90 24:4-5'>1Sa 24:4-5</a>). Such was David’s respect for Saul. It’s shown again in the way that David fairly evidently wanted to fight against Saul with the men of Achish, evidently wanting to turn against them and fight for Saul- as they correctly guessed (<a href='B:90 29:8'>1Sa 29:8</a>). This would have been suicidal. For Saul wanted to kill him, and the Philistines also would have tried to kill David as a result of this. He would have had no place to run. But even to the point of political suicide and the serious risking of his own life, David so loved his enemy. This true love leads to and is related to true respect. This kind of respect is&nbsp; sadly lacking in our society, and has rubbed off upon our relationships within families and churches. David's love for his enemy was perhaps shown in the way that cutting off the skirt of the robe, ripping Saul's kingly garment, showing him grace, was all angled towards leading Saul to repentance. And that is what we must wish for our worst enemies, sincerely and from the heart.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his men, Yahweh forbid that I should do such a thing to my lord, Yahweh’s anointed, to lift my hand against him, since he is Yahweh’s anointed- </p><p>We are all anointed in that we are in Christ, the anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). The same radical respect which David showed, we should show to each other. David’s attitude seems to have influenced Saul’s men, for his armour bearer refused to slay Saul (<a href='B:130 10:4-5'>1Ch 10:4-5</a>). But David’s attitude towards Saul was actually an encouragement to himself. For he too was Yahweh's anointed, and no hand could be lifted against him unless Yahweh allowed it. The same phrase "lift up the hand against" in the context of murder is used of how Saul's guards refused to kill the priests of Nob (<a href='B:90 22:17'>1Sa 22:17</a>). For they too were anointed as priests. Yahweh's anointed referred to His priests as well as His kings.</p><p>Often David calls Saul his lord or master, describing himself as Saul's servant (<a href='B:90 17:32'>1Sa 17:32</a>; <a href='B:90 17:34'>1Sa 17:34</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:90 26:16'>1Sa 26:16</a>; <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>; <a href='B:90 29:3-4'>1Sa 29:3-4</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>). This was no formal "Sincerely your brother and fellow-servant". This was a real conscious putting of himself down, as the Lord Jesus felt he was a worm rather than a man (<a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>). If only we would concentrate upon our own status and show some true respect for others on account of their being in the ecclesia, having even been anointed spiritually at their baptism (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>) as Saul was.</p><p>David has a clear belief that the man anointed by God is not to be slain. But he himself was God's anointed king. His respect of Saul's anointing was therefore the guarantee that he himself would not be slain, as God's anointed. We could wonder whether David's extreme emphasis upon not killing or harming Yahweh' anointed was because he hoped that this would be a guarantee that he too, as Yahweh's anointed, would not be harmed or slain. We are left to ponder such motives in Biblical characters, because we must likewise ponder our own motives. In 1 Sam. 26, David mocks Abner for not guarding Saul, Yahweh's anointed, and proclaims him worthy of death; but Abner had been struck by a deep sleep from Yahweh so he was innocent really of this. Likewise when the Amalekite comes to David with the news that he had slain Saul in his death throes, David has the man killed because he had killed Yahweh's anointed. This appears extreme. David certainly had no value for human life by behaving like this. So... we ponder whether his extreme position about "Yahweh's anointed" was purely motivated. As suggested above, he may possibly have been thinking that if he displayed respect for Yahweh's anointed, then Yahweh would not allow him to be slain- as he too was Yahweh's anointed. And possibly he was seeking to inculcate in Israel a respect for Yahweh's anointed, in order to safeguard himself [as also Yahweh's anointed] from ever being murdered by his own people. Human motivation is rarely pure. Perhaps this is why we have the idea of our very conscience being cleansed in Christ. And there is nothing like meeting the crucified Lord Jesus at the memorial meeting to elicit self examination of motives.</p>


text:
<p>So David restrained his men with these words, and didn’t allow them to attack Saul. Saul got up out of the cave and went on his way- </p><p>David could easily have reasoned that if his men killed Saul, then he had not done it. But his ethics and spirituality were far higher than that. He realized his men were under his control, and so he restrained them. "Restrained" or "rebuked" is Heb. ‘to tear apart’. David had to really ‘lay into’ his men to stop them killing Saul. By going the way of grace, he ended up falling out with his own friends and supporters. This frequently happens when we seek to live by grace in reality; it can be a very lonely path. It’s clear from Abishai’s attitude in <a href='B:90 26:8'>1Sa 26:8</a> that David failed to totally convince his men to share his attitude to Saul. For David’s grace towards Saul was a hard act to follow.</p><p>David had restrained or withheld his own men from murdering Saul, but Abigail perceives that over and above his own mental effort to do this, Yahweh had confirmed David in it (<a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a> ""since Yahweh has withheld you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hand""). And she sees her appeasement of David as likewise controlled by Yahweh to preserve David as innocent from avenging himself, so that he could indeed become king.</p>


text:
<p>David also got up afterwards and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, My lord the king! When Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the earth and showed respect- </p><p>David’s respect to Saul simply because he was the anointed king is really remarkable. He could easily have reasoned that Saul had twice been told by Samuel that his kingship had been removed and transferred to David, and therefore it was questionable whether Saul really was the anointed of Yahweh; for David had been anointed king in his place. But grace always falls on the side of giving a man the benefit of the doubt. And in practice, David’s grace, like all grace, was motivated by a simple love of Saul as a person. We are all anointed in that we are in Christ, the anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). The same radical respect which David showed, we should show to each other.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Saul, Why do you listen when men say ‘David is trying to harm you?’-&nbsp; </p><p>We get the impression from the record that it was Saul who was creating this false accusation, as part of his paranoid mindset that had jumped from one conspiracy theory to another. It was Saul who was influencing men to think like that. But David had clearly chosen his words carefully for this brief speech. He seeks to give Saul the benefit of the doubt, as grace does (see on :8), and to make it as easy as possible for Saul to repent. He sets us a stellar example for behaviour in interpersonal conflict.</p><p>Part of the reason for Saul's obsessive conspiracy theories about David may have been that there were a group of Benjamites who wanted David dead. Because they didn't want the kingdom to go to a man from Judah. They fed Saul theories about David seeking his life. We noted earlier that Saul listened to the voices of many people rather than of God through Samuel- and here we have an example. </p>


text:
<p>Look, today your eyes have seen how Yahweh had delivered you into my hand in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, I will not lift up my hand against my lord, for he is Yahweh’s anointed- </p><p>David is seeking to build psychological bridges with Saul. He is supposing for a moment that Saul only hated him because he listened to what others said about David (:9), and David is saying that he too had people in his life who told him to kill Saul, but he refused to listen to them. As discussed on :8, David could have reasoned that Saul was no longer Yahweh's anointed and the anointing had passed to him. And indeed it had. But by stressing that Saul is Yahweh's anointed, he may be following the position of Samuel, that despite all his rejection by God, Saul could still pull round and be Yahweh's anointed king. Grace includes this element of determined hopefulness for the repentance even of those who appear far gone.</p><p>"I spared you" reflects the fact that had David killed Saul, it would in a way have been legitimate. David was faced not so much with a choice between obedience and disobedience, but between showing a high level of grace and, on the other hand, doing what was politically expedient and legitimate. And it is in these choices that spiritual maturity is shown. </p><p>In 1 Sam. 23:21 Saul thanks the Ziphites for their "compassion" to him by informing him of David's location. "Compassion" translates the Hebrew word for 'spare'. Saul felt the Ziphites had spared him. But in 1 Sam. 24:10 he finds that it is in fact David who spares him. So God continued to work with Saul, despite having rejected him as king- for He still wanted to lead Saul to repentance and ultimate salvation. This is an amazing reflection of how God never gives up working with men. </p>


text:
<p>Moreover, my father- </p><p>Seeking to remind Saul of how he had asked Jesse to let David come and live at the court and effectively become his son.</p><p>Look, here is a piece of your robe in my hand; by the fact that I cut it off and didn’t kill you, you can know and see that I have no desire to hurt you and have not sinned against you- </p><p>"I have not sinned" was to later become "I have sinned" when confronted by his sin with Bathsheba. This is the same phrase as David later uses when he confesses his sins regarding Bathsheba, in <a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a>: "For I acknowledge my transgressions". This very phrase is here used by David in insisting that he did not acknowledge any transgression in him whilst in exile from Saul. What he said and felt then may have been relatively true, compared to the unspirituality of Saul and the false accusations against him. But perhaps there was an element of the overly self righteous in his words, and the sin with Bathsheba made him realize this. When we experience abuse, false accusation and downright evil from others, this can result in our failure to realize that we too our sinners. We become fixated upon the sin of the other. David it seems fell into this trap.</p><p>Though you hunt me to take my life- </p><p>Despite all his radical grace toward Saul, David was not naive and he refused to slip into denial of the obvious misbehaviour of the object of his grace. Saul was trying to kill David; he was lifting up his hand against David as Yahweh's anointed, whereas David didn’t do so.</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh judge between me and you, and may Yahweh avenge the wrong you have done me; but my hand shall not be against you- </p><p>Despite the amazing grace shown, David cannot resist this reference to inevitable judgment which faced Saul for his behaviour. David at this time was meditating deeply upon the Mosaic law, as Psalms 119 makes clear. Perhaps a critical verse for him was <a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a>: "You shall not avenge... but love your neighbour as yourself". God had already termed David and Saul neighbours (<a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a>). Perhaps David took a cue from those words, and started thinking of Saul as his neighbour. And then his mind went to <a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a>; if Saul was his neighbour, he was to love him as himself, and not take vengeance.</p>


text:
<p>As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness, but my hand shall not be against you’- </p><p>Alluded to in <a href='B:230 5:4'>Psa 5:4</a>, where the same word for "wickedness" is used: "For You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness, evil can’t live with You". Despite showing such wonderful grace to Saul, David did not justify his wickedness but names it for what it is. Grace is not naivety.</p>


text:
<p>Against whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom do you pursue? A dead dog? A flea?- </p><p>This reflects the broken down psychological state of David. He felt himself as good as dead, powerless, tiny and insignificant as a flea. <a href='B:90 17:43'>1Sa 17:43</a> LXX adds "David said, Nay, but worse than a dog". This would reflect his deep humility, which we also see in his later reflections in Psalms 8 and Psalms 144 that he was most unworthy to have attained the victory. We note that here in <a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> he also likens himself to a dog. He had a low self image.</p><p>"A flea" is literally, one flea. Saul and 3000 of Israel's warriors were chasing one flea. This is how low David felt, and likewise "a dead dog" is a figure of a man who has run out of highway and is no longer what he once was. David's self perception was very low at this point. On one hand, he felt that he need not slay Saul as God would take care of this and be true to His word to him. But at one and the same time, he felt so low in his self image. And so it is oftentimes with man in Christ. This is not hypocrisy, nor necessarily weakness of faith. It is what it is to be human. And our creator "remembers that we are dust".</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh therefore be the judge and give sentence between me and you; may He plead my cause and deliver me out of your hand- </p><p>See on Psalms 119 (introduction). Solomon alludes here in <a href='B:240 3:30'>Pro 3:30</a> "Don’t strive with a man without cause if he has done you no harm". To strive or plead a cause is the very phrase used of the opposition of Saul (<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>) and Nabal to David (<a href='B:90 25:39'>1Sa 25:39</a>); and in both cases, David had done them "no harm", the phrase used of David’s innocence before Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:21'>1Sa 25:21</a>; <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>) and Saul (<a href='B:90 24:11'>1Sa 24:11</a>). Clearly Solomon has these incidents in view, and again his statements of truth have a subtext of justifying his father David, with whom he was psychologically obsessed.</p><p>That Psalms 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 (= <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>),95,98 (= <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>),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 (= <a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>),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".</p><p>Legal language is disproportionately common in the Bible. The idea of a Divine, heavenly court is common. God is the judge who upholds the weak, those who are condemned by human judgment (<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>; <a href='B:230 9:4'>Psa 9:4</a>; <a href='B:230 43:1'>Psa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:230 140:12'>Psa 140:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:58'>Lam 3:58</a>; <a href='B:400 7:9'>Mic 7:9</a>); He is even portrayed as the one appealing for justice (<a href='B:230 74:22'>Psa 74:22</a>). If God is the only and ultimate judge, then His judgment is all that ultimately matters, and in this sense human 'sentences' or judgment from the court of human opinion are reversed by Him (<a href='B:240 22:22-23'>Pro 22:22-23</a>). Yet the pain of being judged by those around us is highly significant to us mortals; and time and again, Scripture is reminding us that we should not pay deep attention to this, because God’s judgment is what ultimately matters; and the Divine court is sitting in session right now, at the very same time as those around us are judging us with their meaningless human judgments. This, then, is the ultimate answer to the pain of being slandered and defamed, being misunderstood and misrepresented, or feeling that persecution by worldly powers is not noticed by God.</p>


text:
<p>When David had finished saying this to Saul, Saul said, Is this your voice, my son David? Saul wept aloud- </p><p>The shame with Saul is that he did have a conscience and a spiritual side. He thereby becomes an even stronger warning to us all; for obsessive jealousy can enmesh any of us if we allow it to. We wonder why Saul queries whether this is really David’s voice. Perhaps there was a considerable distance between them; or David’s voice was strained by emotion; or Saul so wished this was all a dream and this hadn't really happened. Again, each of these options has absolute credibility and reflects that this record is true and accurate as to what really happened and was said. It is no cunningly devised fable.</p>


text:
<p>He said to David, You are more righteous than I, for you have been good to me, whereas I have done evil to you- </p><p>God's goodness to David was what empowered him to do good to Saul. 'Doing good' is the word used in <a href='B:230 13:6'>Psa 13:6</a> "I will sing to Yahweh, because He has been good to me", written by David reflecting upon the pain of Saul's persecution of him. Like us, our faith that God will finally come through for us in the future should give us joy now. This faith in God finally 'being good' to David led him to be the same to Saul- the word is used of how David was 'good' rather than evil to Saul, not slaying him when he had the opportunity (<a href='B:90 24:17'>1Sa 24:17</a>). Just as we deserve to die, but experience God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>You have declared this day how you have been good to me, because when Yahweh had delivered me into your hand, you didn’t kill me- </p><p>David doing good to Saul is alluded to by him in <a href='B:230 119:65'>Psa 119:65</a>: "Do good to Your servant according to Your word, Yahweh". </p><p>The doing good would specifically refer to the fulfilment of the prophetic word that David would be king and Saul's persecution would end. "Do good" is the phrase used of how David did good to Saul by not killing him, but rather trusting in God’s word about Saul's destruction. And on that basis, David in <a href='B:230 119:65'>Psa 119:65</a> appeals for God to do him good, by ending Saul's persecution and establishing David as king.</p><p>It seems God would have given Saul into David’s hand when “a deep sleep from the Lord” fell upon Saul at the very time David intended to kill him (<a href='B:90 26:12'>1Sa 26:12</a>). Saul himself realized that the Lord had delivered him into David’s hand to kill him (<a href='B:90 24:18'>1Sa 24:18</a>). God thus confirmed David in his intentions- and yet at the last minute, it seems, David chose an even higher level; of love and deep respect for this spiritually sick man.</p>


text:
<p>For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away unharmed? Therefore may Yahweh reward you with good for what you have done to me today- </p><p>Saul knew of courses that Yahweh's reward for David would be that he would be made king in Saul's place (:20). Saul recognizes that David’s grace is absolutely and radically different to all secular wisdom and ways of behaviour. Saul was out seeking to find David; and David had found Saul. "Unharmed" is literally "the good way". It is the term used of how Samuel taught Israel "the good way" despite their choice of Saul (<a href='B:90 12:23'>1Sa 12:23</a>; also <a href='B:110 8:36'>1Ki 8:36</a>). David alludes to this when he says that God teaches even sinners the good way (<a href='B:230 25:8'>Psa 25:8</a>). This was relevant to the exiles, whom God also sought to teach the good way (<a href='B:300 6:16'>Jer 6:16</a>). The idea is that even at this late stage, by preserving Saul's life, David was hopeful that he would still go in the good way. And Saul perceived this.</p>


text:
<p>Now I know that you will surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hands- </p><p>Saul is alluding to Samuel’s words of rejection to him, “But now your kingdom shall not be established” (1 Sam. 13:14). Saul now at this point perfectly understood God's word to him. But he relapsed into his other narratives and continued to persecute David. The truth of Samuel's words about David replacing Saul now became apparent to Saul- when he perceived how gracious David was. This was to be the lead characteristic of a king, a man with God’s own gracious heart. Yet Saul's understanding was just theoretical, for he continues trying to murder David. Again we see how understanding God’s word in crystal clarity is not of itself enough; it must be acted upon, and not just held in the mind for a few brief moments when the penny drops and we see everything clearly.</p>


text:
<p>Swear now therefore to me by Yahweh, that you will not cut off my seed after me, and that you will not destroy my name out of my father’s house- </p><p>It was usual for a new king to destroy the family of the king he had usurped, and there are Biblical examples of this. Jonathan was likewise concerned about this. We note that Saul sees swearing by Yahweh as a binding oath, but earlier he had sworn by Yahweh to Jonathan that he would not kill David- and totally disregarded it. He must surely have been aware of this big paradox. We may wonder why David having the upper hand as he did at this point, didn’t ask Saul to swear by Yahweh not to kill him. He was aware Saul had earlier made such an oath and broken it. Perhaps in love he didn’t want to lead Saul yet further into sin, for he knew that Saul was likely to break such an oath. We can apply that principle too in our dealings with those in spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>David gave his oath to Saul. Saul went home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold-</p><p>This continues the theme developed in the descriptions of David’s meetings with Jonathan; one returns to their house, whilst David goes out into the scrubland again. Forgiveness is not the same as trust being restored. We must forgive, but we are not obligated to trust until that trust has been credibly restored.</p><p>It was usual for a new king to destroy the family of the previous dynasty. Through the incident with the Gibeonites in 2 Sam. 21, God took care of this. For there was a famine that was blamed upon Saul having slain the Gibeonites, and God judged that the bloodguilt rested upon Saul's descendants and they had to be executed: "There was famine during the reign of David, year after year for three years. David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord replied, “It is because of the bloodguilt of Saul and his house, for he put some Gibeonites to death” (2 Sam. 21:1). We ponder how there was bloodguilt on Saul's descendants. Saul's sins were not to be visited upon his descendants (Ex. 18:2; Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29) and Num. 35:33 is clear that Saul personally was responsible: “Blood pollutes the land and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it". When asked what can make amends, the Gibeonites naturally ask for the blood of Saul's family. But this is apparently in line with what Yahweh Himself had told David here. It seems rather politically convenient for David that here we have the destruction of the potential claimants to his throne. That is what David humanly would have wanted, but grace and his honouring of his promise to Saul stopped him from killing the descendants of his enemy, the previous king. Usually a new king destroyed the family of the previous dynasty. But God through the incident of the Gibeonites works to ensure that this happens anyway, as some kind of reward for David's attempt to live by grace and integrity in the matter.</p><p>We note that the two occasions when David spares Saul's life by grace are in 1 Sam. 24 and 26. In between them is the Nabal / Abigail story in 1 Sam. 25, where David is wildly eager to murder Nabal and his family and then is calmed down by Abigail. We see here how David, as every man, may reach peaks of grace and wisdom, and yet in between them act ungraciously. This is psychologically credible, and reflects the struggle of every man to live on a level of high grace to others. But we wonder whether David's grace to Saul was possibly only achieved by psychologically transferring his anger onto another, in this case Nabal, and madly seeking to murder him rather than Saul. David resisted taking revenge upon Saul, but he over eagerly seeks to take revenge on Nabal- a man who unlike Saul was not seeking to chase and destroy him. In this case, Abigail becomes David's alter ego, the voice of his own better conscience speaking through another. David relents and repents of his desire to murder Nabal, and God then slays Nabal. But that is just what Saul did, relenting for a moment of his desire to kill David, and then being removed by God in God's good time. And God works thus oftentimes with man, putting our better side and better inner voice into the mouth of another... in my own case, often the mouth of my wife.</p><p>We reflect that Saul also had spared a king [Agag] whom he should have killed. And had lost the kingdom because of it. Now Saul is in Agag's position. For all time we see that the same action can be performed by men with totally different motives, just as David later acted as a priest when Uzziah was condemned for doing so.</p>


text:
<p>:1 Samuel died, and all Israel gathered together and mourned for him, and they buried him at his home in Ramah. David went down to the wilderness of Paran- </p><p>In the type, we see a foretaste of the death of John the Baptist, the Lord's first teacher, and how He goes out afterwards into a deserted place. We note too how Israel loved Samuel and respected him, although they did the very opposite of what he had taught them. We can have an emotional, sentimental attachment to the things of our religion, whilst having hearts far from God’s word in practice. Paran is LXX Maon, as in :2.</p>


text:
<p>There was a man in Maon who had property in Carmel, and the man was very wealthy. He had three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and he was shearing his sheep in Carmel- </p><p>Nabal meaning "fool" is one of the sources for the Lord's parable of the rich / wealthy fool. Maon was a mile north of Carmel, and they are mentioned together in <a href='B:60 15:55'>Jos 15:55</a>. The complete geographical and historical agreement of the books of the Bible, clearly written at different times, is such that there must have been a higher, singular hand behind them all. And that hand was that of God, through His inspiration of the entire volume.</p><p>The sheep shearing festival was known as a time of payment of debts. David was hungry, and recalled Nabal was in his debt. As David's men had guarded Nabal's sheep and servants without payment. So it was the logical time to ask for some payment in the form of food. The refusal was therefore especially irksome to David.</p><p>There are clear connections between Nabal and Saul, signposted to us by the comment that Nabal sat down to eat a meal like a king (:36 "like the feast of a king"). Probably subconsciously, David allows himself to be led by these connections into transferring his anger with Saul onto Nabal. Rather should be have perceived the similarities, and also allowed God in His own time and according to His will, to deal with Nabal. "Nabal" means "fool" and Saul has been called foolish by Samuel ("You have done foolishly", 'been a Nabal', 1 Sam. 13:13), and he will later admit to David "I have done foolishly", 'been a Nabal', 1 Sam. 26:21. David calls himself Nabal's son (1 Sam. 25:8). But David also refers to Saul as his father (1 Sam. 24: 11) and Saul calls David his son four times (1 Sam. 24: 16; 26: 17,21,25). Nabal lived in Maon and Carmel (25:2), places associated with Saul (1 Sam. 15:5, where Saul built a monument to himself, so it was very Saul-associated territory; 1 Sam. 23:25). Both Saul and Nabal refer to David as the “son of Jesse” (1 Sam. 25:10; cp. 1 Sam. 20:30; 22:7), and both ask "Who is [he]?". Both Nabal and Saul repay David “evil for good” (1 Sam. 25:21; cp. 1 Sam. 24:17). David graciously overlooked this for Saul, but he counts Nabal's drunken refusal to help David as a huge "evil". The evil done by Saul was far greater than that by Nabal. But David wants to requite the evil of Saul ad so he transfers it onto Nabal.  Nabal’s servants betray him to Abigail (1 Sam. 25:17), just as Saul's servants apparently did- for he complains that they “have conspired against me” (1 Sam. 22:8). As Saul’s daughter isn't loyal to him and is on David's side (1 Sam. 19:11–17), likewise with Abigail to Nabal (1 Sam. 25:19.36‒37). Nabal has three thousand sheep (1 Sam. 25:2), and Saul has three thousand chosen men (1 Sam. 24:2; 26:2).</p><p>Saul describes himself as a "fool" (1 Sam. 26:21) and Samuel likewise calls Saul a fool (1 Sam. 13:13). So we can see here how David's desire to kill Nabal was a reflection of his desire to kill Saul. He had restrained himself from killing Saul, but transfers that death wish onto Nabal; rather like an addict quitting one addiction but moving to another one. He is restrained from killing Nabal by Abigail, who seems to imply that if he were to do so, then his own kingship would be somehow impugned. This is exactly how David had reasoned about why he refused to kill Saul when he had the chance to. And so Nabal dies by God's hand rather than David's sword, just as Saul would. The incident was to surely underline this lesson to David. This is why in the next chapter, 1 Sam. 26, David again is given the chance to kill Saul just as he was in 1 Sam. 24, and he refuses to. He needed the lesson from his near failure in 1 Sam. 25 in order to maintain his resolve not to kill Saul. We marvel at how God works through human weakness in order to strengthen His people. </p>


text:
<p>His name was Nabal and his wife’s name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but the man was harsh and mean; he belonged to the family of Caleb- </p><p>Continually in Biblical history we encounter good men with bad descendants, and the opposite. This is to be expected, because true spirituality is not genetic; each must forge their own relationship with God, and Godly parenting is but setting a person on the right path, for them to later exercise their own freewill. "Harsh" is LXX "hard", and is the basis for the "hard man" of <a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a>. Continually we discern the Lord's mind saturated in Old Testament history, and consciously or unconsciously forming the characters of His stories from those He had encountered in the scriptures. Caleb's family had settled in Hebron in the south (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>; <a href='B:90 30:14'>1Sa 30:14</a>), but it seems Nabal had separated from them and gone to live alone in the north near mount Carmel- although it makes more sense to understand Carmel as a place in Judah. Nabal the fool is alluded to in <a href='B:230 14:1'>Psa 14:1</a>; <a href='B:240 30:22'>Pro 30:22</a>. Solomon writes the truth in Proverbs, but he likes to allude to the enemies of his father, ever seeking to use God’s truth to justify himself and his family.</p>


text:
<p>David heard in the wilderness that Nabal was shearing his sheep- </p><p>David had been glad for just five loaves of bread from Abiathar. And now he was desperate for food again. Survival was based on a hand to mouth existence amongst the peasant class, and for those on the move without land to farm, just getting enough food would have been a major issue.</p>


text:
<p>David sent ten young men and said to them, Go up to Carmel and go to Nabal and greet him in my name- </p><p>David obviously knew Nabal, and had effectively worked for him as a kind of security service for his flocks and shepherds. He apparently hadn't been paid for this, and yet had not taken the liberty of helping himself to Nabal's flocks. Nabal's claim he didn’t know David’s name (:10) was in response to these greetings in David’s name.</p>


text:
<p>Say to him, ‘Long life to you! Peace to you and to your house and to all that you have- </p><p>These were standard terms of greeting, perhaps consciously omitting the name Yahweh because David considered that Nabal was effectively an atheist, the fool who said in his heart that there was no God (<a href='B:230 14:1'>Psa 14:1</a>). One theme of the records is the invitation to consider the sincerity of motive in even the best of God's servants, in this case David and Abigail. David here wishes peace to Nabal and his family ["house"]. But very soon, he is charging off to murder them all. His statement here that he wished peace to Nabal's family is immedicately shown to be lacking in integrity. It is mere formalism. </p>


text:
<p>I have heard that you are shearing your sheep. Your shepherds have been with us, and we didn’t hurt them, nothing of theirs was missing all the while they were in Carmel- </p><p>This may be a way of saying that David and his men had not been paid for their protection services, and yet had not helped themselves to anything from Nabal's flock.</p>


text:
<p>Ask your young men and they will tell you. Therefore let my young men find grace in your eyes, for we come at a good time. Please give whatever you can to your servants and to your son David’- </p><p>"Good time" is a phrase used about a feast day, and it is thus rendered in GNB. The Mosaic feasts were to celebrate God’s saving grace, and implied that the memory of that was to be reflected in our giving / grace to others. And yet instead of demanding wages, David asks for "grace". David asked Nabal to give his men food because they were asking on a feast day (Heb., 1 Sam. 25:8 NEV "at a good time"). This is a parallel with how he asks Ahimelech to give his men food because, he implies, it is a feast day (see on 1 Sam. 21:5). So circumstances had repeated. David's request for food from Nabal on a feast day ought to have reminded him of how at a low spiritual point, he had asked the priests of Nob for the same. And it led to their death. We likewise are to perceive the connections between our life experiences, and to learn the lessons. </p>


text:
<p>When David’s young men came they said this to Nabal in the name of David, and waited- </p><p>It is emphasized that they spoke in David’s name (:5), and this was to elicit Nabal's denial of that name; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Nabal answered David’s servants, Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse? There are many servants who break away from their masters these days- </p><p>As noted on :5, David and Nabal knew each other. To claim not to know a man's name was a great insult, for all that a man was and stood for was bound up in his "name". This is the significance of the Yahweh Name. Nabal clearly knew that David had been a servant of Saul, and he likes to believe the narrative that David was a runaway slave. He uses the same phrase as Saul contemptuously used of David, "the son of Jesse".</p>


text:
<p>Shall I then take my bread, my water and my meat that I have killed for my shearers, and give it to men who come from I don’t know where?-</p><p>We note all the personal pronouns, "I", "my". He presents as the classic narcissist.  Nabal did know from whence they were, and he knew the name of David. This idea of 'I don't know your name, nor where you are from' is common in Semitic languages, and may explain why the Jews in Rome claimed not to know Paul. It is the language of absolute rejection, and was used about the Lord Jesus. We note all the personal pronouns in this sentence, just as in the parable of the rich fool, which is based upon Nabal. David later reflected that bread, water and meat was provided for Israel in the wilderness (<a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a>); he saw his wilderness experiences as similar to theirs, being led towards the same kingdom of God.</p>


text:
<p>So David’s young men turned and went back and told him all this- </p><p>David sent messengers to Nabal meaning well to him, and they were rudely rebuffed, resulting in his anger which only Abigail’s grace and wisdom saved him from (1 Samuel 25). And yet the same situation repeated in its essence when he sent messengers to Hanun who were likewise misinterpreted and rebuffed (<a href='B:100 10:3'>2Sa 10:3</a>). Again, David got angry- but there was no Abigail to restrain him, and he did get into an impossible fight… from which by grace God delivered him. Could it not be that David failed to learn from his previous experience…? Circumstances repeat within our lives and between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not alone.</p>


text:
<p>David said to his men, Every man put on his sword! Every man put on his sword and David also put on his. About four hundred men followed David and two hundred stayed by the baggage- </p><p>The same word is used of David girding himself with Saul's sword, and then rethinking and taking it off. Abigail has jogged his memory by speaking of his enemies being cast out as sling stones. He has the humility to take off his sword. And it is that humility to admit error which was really his saving grace.</p><p>David has slipped from the day when he had fought Goliath without a sword, insisting that Yahweh saves without swords. And it was not so long ago that there was no sword amongst the Israelites apart from with Saul and Jonathan. This is clearly a low point of faith for David. "Hundred" may mean a family or military division. To have had 600 males with him would have meant that along with accompanying family, David’s group would have been several thousand strong. They would have been very vulnerable if they were this many. David’s anger and intention was wrong, but it can be understood very easily in terms of psychological transference. His repressed anger with Saul was transferred onto the family of Nabal. Again, the record is absolutely psychologically credible.</p><p>Taking 400 armed men to slay Nabal and his family was reflective of Saul coming with 3000 men to hunt David, "just one flea" in the desert. David's apparent forgiveness of Saul was not totally pure; because clearly he has transferred his anger with Saul onto Nabal, and now David the abused is the abuser. </p>


text:
<p>But one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, Look, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to greet our master, and he railed at them- </p><p>There is quite a theme of servants bringing blessings or good news (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 16:16'>1Sa 16:16</a>; <a href='B:90 25:14'>1Sa 25:14</a> cp. <a href='B:10 41:10'>Gen 41:10</a>; <a href='B:120 5:3'>2Ki 5:3</a>). This may be to reflect God’s interest in the significance of the lowly.</p>


text:
<p>But the men were very good to us and we were not hurt, nothing was missing as long as we were with them in the fields- </p><p>The reason they praise David’s men for not taking anything is because they realized Nabal hadn't paid for their services. They could legitimately have helped themselves to some animals for food. And yet the men of David hadn't taken this out upon them, because they recognized that they were not Nabal.</p>


text:
<p>They were a wall to us night and day all the while we were with them keeping the sheep- </p><p>We think of Jacob keeping the sheep day and night (<a href='B:10 31:40'>Gen 31:40</a>), sustained by God’s protection. The gift sent to pacify David in :18 is also an allusion to Jacob doing the same to Esau.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore consider what you should do, for evil is determined against our master and against all his household; he is such a worthless fellow that one can’t even speak to him- </p><p>As on :25, we note that this is an unusual way for servants to speak about their master. It seems Abigail was effectively running the household and the servants were in tune with her attitude to Nabal. She may even be one of the base images for the depiction of the wise woman of Proverbs 31.</p><p>David had himself spoken evil ["determined evil"] against innocent people. But David was so sensitive to words spoken against him that he breathes out the deepest condemnation upon those who had spoken evil against him (s:w. <a href='B:230 109:20'>Psa 109:20</a>). We get the impression that David is not adequately aware of the huge grace he himself had received. Otherwise there would have been at least some desire for the repentance and salvation of his enemies. This is so markedly lacking in the Psalms of David.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abigail hurried and took two hundred loaves of bread, two bottles of wine, five sheep ready dressed, five measures of parched grain, one hundred clusters of raisins and two hundred cakes of figs, and loaded them on donkeys- </p><p>This recalls Jacob's pacification of Esau by sending huge presents ahead of him. Abigail bows before David as Jacob does before Esau. David was coming against Abigail with four hundred men, just as Esau had come against Jacob with the same numbers (Gen 32:6); her learning from this incident surely reflects her spirituality. We note the uses the Yahweh Name a significant seven times; although all the same, her behaviour is clearly overarched by the simple human motive of self interest and self preservation. Abigail takes the blame. The "bottles" of wine would have been adult goat skins filled with wine; the whole animal had its insides removed through the head and the skin was then left intact. This was a fair amount of food, but it had to feed 600 males and likely many women and children.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her young men, Go on before me; I am following you. But she didn’t tell her husband, Nabal- </p><p>As noted on :18, she seems to be seeking to follow Biblical precedent, copying the example of Jacob seeking to appease Esau.</p>


text:
<p>As she rode on her donkey and came down in a valley, and there were David and his men coming down towards her, and she met them- </p><p>The impression is that they both descended, she from mount Carmel and David from mount Paran, and they met in a valley. They would have observed each other from a distance coming down the valley side .</p><p>But "valley", AV "covert of the hill", is the same word for "hiding place" in <a href='B:230 119:114'>Psa 119:114</a>: "You are my hiding place and my shield. I hope in Your word". When hiding from Saul in the wilderness [s:w. of David’s "hiding places" at this time in <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:20'>1Sa 25:20</a>], David hoped in the prophetic word that one day Saul would be no more and David would be king.</p>


text:
<p>Now David had said, Surely for nothing I have kept all this fellow’s possessions in the wilderness, so that nothing was missing. He has returned me evil for good- </p><p>The point was that Saul admits that he has done evil to David whilst David has done him good. So Nabal is another Saul, but David fails to display grace to him. Rather he transfers his anger with Saul onto Nabal. "For nothing" suggests that Nabal had not paid wages for the work of David’s men, and now in their time of need he would not even share basic food with them. Solomon alludes here in <a href='B:240 3:30'>Pro 3:30</a> "Don’t strive with a man without cause if he has done you no harm". To strive or plead a cause is the very phrase used of the opposition of Saul (<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>) and Nabal to David (<a href='B:90 25:39'>1Sa 25:39</a>); and in both cases, David had done them "no harm", the phrase used of David’s innocence before Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:21'>1Sa 25:21</a>; <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>) and Saul (<a href='B:90 24:11'>1Sa 24:11</a>). Clearly Solomon has these incidents in view, and again his statements of truth have a subtext of justifying his father David, with whom he was psychologically obsessed.</p>


text:
<p>God deal with David severely, if I leave alive one man of his by the morning-</p><p>David is here quoting the words of Saul when he too sought to 'avenge himself' on his enemies; and he foolishly wishes to slay Jonathan: "May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan" (1 Sam. 14:24,27,44,45). Like Jonathan, Abigail hadn't heard when Nabal [like Saul] made his statements (1 Sam. 14:27). David has transferred his anger with Saul onto Nabal, and comes out with a huge number of men to slay Nabal- and thus he is acting like Saul. And now we see him actually using the words of Saul. We have a tendency to become like what we hate, and the abused will always act like their abuser in some way- until and unless they learn God's grace. David's desire to destroy the entire family and animas [the dogs who urinate against the wall] of Nabal is similar to Saul destroying all the animals, family and children of the priests at Nob. I suggest therefore that David's apparent grace to Saul in the previous chapter was not total. Possibly his grace to Saul in the next chapter is more truly gracious, having learnt the lesson from the Abigail incident.</p><p>His anger with Nabal and desire to slay all “that piss against the wall” who lived with “this fellow” (<a href='B:90 25:21-22'>1Sa 25:21-22</a> AV) is expressed in crude terms; and he later thanks Abigail for persuading him not to “shed blood” and “avenging myself with mine own hand” (<a href='B:90 25:33'>1Sa 25:33</a>)- the very things he elsewhere condemns in his Psalms (e.g. <a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>). Time and again in the Psalms, David uses that Hebrew word translated “avenging myself” about how God and not man will revenge / save him against his enemies, for God saves / avenges the humble in spirit not by their strength and troops but by His. But in the anger of hot blood, David let go of all those fine ideas. He had some sort of an anger problem. And he surely swears by God’s Name far too loosely here.</p><p>"One that urinates against a wall" could mean a dog; for it is dogs and not males who urinate against an object like a wall. David wanted to kill everybody there even down to all the dogs. But he has just told Saul that he feels like a dead dog. And now he wants to make dead dogs of Nabal's household, leaving him nothing but dead dogs. He is wanting to make people like him, which is typical human response: 'You make me feel a dead dog, so I'll kill your dogs'. Reading the reference to dogs would fit in with the mention that Nabal is descended from Caleb, which means "dog".</p>


text:
<p>When Abigail saw David she hurried and alighted from her donkey; she bowed down before David with her face to the ground- </p><p>Perhaps imitating the Godly Rebekah, of whom the same phrase is used (<a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a>; <a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a>). She then copied Rebekah in immediately dropping all and accepting the invitation of marriage (:41).</p>


text:
<p>She fell at his feet and said, On me, my lord, on me be the blame, and please let your handmaid speak in your ears. Hear the words of your handmaid- </p><p>Abigail's plea "Hear the words of your handmaid" (<a href='B:90 15:24'>1Sa 15:24</a>) was repeated by the woman of <a href='B:100 20:17'>2Sa 20:17</a>. But Abigail herself had modelled her behaviour on women like Rebekah (<a href='B:90 25:23'>1Sa 25:23</a> = <a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a>; <a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a>). This is how functional fellowship occurs between God’s people, both over time and in contemporary relationships. We copy that which is Godly and good which we observe in other believers, both those we know and those we meet in the Bible.</p>


text:
<p>Please pay no attention, my lord, to this worthless fellow Nabal. As his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is his nature; but I, your handmaid, didn’t see your young men whom you sent-</p><p>It was unusual for a woman to speak like this about her husband, even if she thought this in her heart. For a woman was defined by the men in her life, particularly her husband. Abigail is truly unusual in her attitude here. But she was no mere liberated woman; she believed in David and wanted to serve him and take his side against Nabal her husband. Like Jonathan, her loyalties were conflicted, but she came down on the right side. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore my lord, as Yahweh lives and as your soul lives, since Yahweh has withheld you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hand, now therefore let your enemies and those who seek evil to my lord be like Nabal- </p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>). Abigail was clearly very aware of David’s sparing of Saul; indeed seeing that David and Nabal knew each other, she may have spoken with David before. David had restrained or withheld his own men from murdering Saul (<a href='B:90 24:7'>1Sa 24:7</a>), but Abigail perceives that over and above his own mental effort to do this, Yahweh had confirmed David in it. And she sees her appeasement of David as likewise controlled by Yahweh to preserve David as innocent from avenging himself, so that he could indeed become king.</p><p>"Yahweh has withheld you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hand" is in the past tense. Abigail seems aware of what has happened in the previous chapter- Yahweh withheld David from killing Saul. And she asks David to consider Nabal as Saul and to do the same again.</p><p>Abigail's appeal to David not to avenge himself but let God do so... was exactly the reasoning of David to Saul and often in his Psalms. Abigail was David's better side speaking, his alter ego. She was of good understanding / insight (:3), so perhaps she consciously presents her argument as being that of David's alter ego. David is likewise described as both attractive / handsome, and wise (1 Sam. 16:12; 18:5,30). Six times Abigail calls herself David’s maidservant, and fourteen times she calls him her lord. This is just as David has been calling Saul his lord and presenting himself as Saul's servant. Abigail is seeking to help David see himself as Saul and to pull out of the similarities with Saul. Through such language, she is also saying that she sees David as her king- with possible hints at seeing him as her husband. Hence her final comment, that David could "remember" her after Nabal dies. Straight after this incident, David again has the chance to kill Saul (1 Sam. 26), but surely he was fortified against that choice by the Abigail experience. Perhaps that second chance to take vengeance on Saul was provided as a test as to whether he had learnt the lesson from Abigail; and he had. </p><p>We note that the two occasions when David spares Saul's life by grace are in 1 Sam. 24 and 26. In between them is the Nabal / Abigail story in 1 Sam. 25, where David is wildly eager to murder Nabal and his family and then is calmed down by Abigail. We see here how David, as every man, may reach peaks of grace and wisdom, and yet in between them act ungraciously. This is psychologically credible, and reflects the struggle of every man to live on a level of high grace to others. But we wonder whether David's grace to Saul was possibly only achieved by psychologically transferring his anger onto another, in this case Nabal, and madly seeking to murder him rather than Saul. David resisted taking revenge upon Saul, but he over eagerly seeks to take revenge on Nabal- a man who unlike Saul was not seeking to chase and destroy him. In this case, Abigail becomes David's alter ego, the voice of his own better conscience speaking through another. David relents and repents of his desire to murder Nabal, and God then slays Nabal. But that is just what Saul did, relenting for a moment of his desire to kill David, and then being removed by God in God's good time. And God works thus oftentimes with man, putting our better side and better inner voice into the mouth of another... in my own case, often the mouth of my wife.</p><p>Abigail wishes all David's enemies would "Be like Nabal", implying she believes and wishes Nabal her husband would die. Her request to be remembered by David and frequently calling him her "lord" are all a hint she wants to become David's wife- and it's as if she wishes death on her husband to that end. Again we ponder her motives for wishing death to her husband... was it all so spiritually motivated, or was it simply a case of wanting "out" from a horrible marriage and dreaming of being the wife of the handsome, charismatic and up-and-coming David... </p>


text:
<p>Let this gift which your servant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who follow my lord- </p><p>Abigail perceives David’s men as not simply his servants, but following him as their lord. This again invites us to see David and his men as types of the Lord Jesus and His followers / disciples.</p>


text:
<p>Please forgive the sin of your handmaid, for Yahweh will certainly make for my lord a sure house, because my lord fights the battles of Yahweh- </p><p>Here Abigail uses the very words of Saul, when he offers his daughter in marriage to David if he "fights the battles of Yahweh" (1 Sam. 18:17). This could be another quite subtle 'come on' for David to consider marrying her.</p><p>She alludes to David’s description of the conflict with Goliath as being Yahweh's battle. But she feels Yahweh will only give David a "sure house" if he doesn't take vengeance; the promise of his future kingship over Israel was conditional. And surely she had within her some desperate hope that she somehow might become his wife and help build that sure house. And that well motivated desire was allowed to come true by providence. Abigail quotes the promise of a priest being raised up with a "sure house" (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>), imagining that David was to become a Messianic king-priest; and to have blood on his hands would preclude that. Abigail's phrase "a sure / established house" (<a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>) is used in the promises to David (<a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>; <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). It's as if she was so in tune with God’s ways that she had some premonition of His intentions with David, although she saw these as conditional upon David not shedding the innocent blood of her family. Or perhaps the promise of <a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a> about a priest with a "sure house" had already been developed by Samuel in relation with David, and Abigail was aware of that. The promises to David which mention a sure house for him would therefore only be confirming what had already been promised. She implies in :30 that David had been promised quite a few "good things" beyond simply being king.</p><p>The reference to "a sure house" is repeated in Nathan's prophecy about David in 2 Sam. 7:5-17 and also she alludes to Samuel's prophetic words about David. Likewise Abogail's prediction that God wuld sling out all David's enemies connects with 2 Sam. 7:11 "The Lord will give you rest from all your enemies". We could conclude that her words were spoken under Divine inspiration. And yet she is David's alter ego, speaking his own better thoughts back to him. Clearly this was all from God. God spoke to David through Abigail, his alter ago, just as He does at times to us today. Her speech also presents as well formulated to the point that it could well have been by direct inspiration. </p><p>She begs David not to kill Nabal and her family "because my lord fights the battles of Yahweh". She implies that any taking of personal vengeance is not a battle of Yahweh. </p><p>Let evil not be found in you all your days- </p><p>This could be translated "evil has not been found in you / touched you all your days", the idea being that David had been miraculously preserved from Saul's "evil", and Abigail feared this would end if he now murdered the whole family of Nabal. Or she could simply be wishing that David continue to be innocent before God; a fine desire for any of us to have for another, especially for our future partner.</p>


text:
<p>Though men may rise up to pursue you- </p><p>David in the Psalms records how he hated those who 'rose up' against him, and that includes Saul. Saul 'rose up' against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>), and&nbsp; then evil men 'rose up' against David out of his own family (<a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> s:w:), especially Absalom who rose up against his father (<a href='B:100 18:31-32'>2Sa 18:31-32</a> s:w:). But David has a tendency to assume that all who rose up against him were arising against God. It's not always so that our enemy is God’s enemy. Relationships and the hand of God in human affairs and relationships is more complex than that. And David in <a href='B:230 139:21-22'>Psa 139:21-22</a> goes further, to assume that his hatred of people is justified, because they must, he assumes, hate God because they are against him. Solomon seems to make the same mistake when he alludes to such 'risings up' in <a href='B:240 28:28'>Pro 28:28</a>. We must note that "all in Asia" turned away from Paul personally (<a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a>), and yet according to the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2, 3, there were many faithful individuals amongst them.</p><p>And to seek your life- </p><p>Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David’s sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David’s patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge.</p><p>Yet the life of my lord will be bound in the bundle of life with Yahweh your God- </p><p>Abigail is convinced that Yahweh will preserve David from Saul's persecution, and she implies that she sees her husband as part of that persecution. She uses the figure of a valuable life carried in a bundle, alluding to a woman carrying her precious newborn baby swaddled and close to her body. But she implies that the woman represents none other than Yahweh Himself; an unusually intimate allusion. And she sees David, the angry man with his sword coming to slay her, as the newborn baby, about to become the new king, a life “bound in the bundle of living in the care of the Lord”. Abigail was of very fine spiritual perception.</p>&nbsp;<p>Abigail is reminding David that Yahweh has preserved him. But David's ire with Nabal was because David considered that he had preserved Nabal's men and interests- and he had not been rewarded for it. Abigail is pointing out what David himself often said in his Psalms- that Yahweh has protected David amazingly. What God does for us, we are to do for others- regardless of their gratitude.</p><p>
"The bundle" could be a technical term from shepherding, referring to the cache of various animals kept within a storage space. The various animals each had a pebble which the shepherd used to count and ensure all his animals were safe. But the lives of the likes of Saul and Nabal would be hurled away; the pebbles representing them would be thrown away because they were lost.  "A find encountered by archaeologists investigating burial sites in northern Iraq at Nuzi near the Tigris, dating to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. In one of the graves, a clay oval container/carved stela filled with 48 stones was found, with an inscription on it: “the stones refer to sheep and goats: 21 mother sheep, 6 lambs, 8 adult males/rams, 4 lambs, 6 mother goats, 1 billy goat, 2 young goats.” Beneath this inscription was another reading, “the seal of Ziqarru, the shepherd,” suggesting the meaning and origin of this Assyrian artifact. According to archaeologists referring to other similar discoveries and texts, this type of object (a hollow tablet, container, or cloth bag/pocket) filled with pebbles and accompanied by an appropriate description was used by ancient shepherds of the Levant to count their flocks as they returned from pasture to their pens. Pebbles placed in such an object denoted animals in a safe place and no longer in danger".
</p><p>He will hurl out the lives of your enemies as though from the pocket of a sling- </p><p>She continues her allusion to his victory over Goliath in :28. Surely she had been amongst those women who praised David for slaying his ten thousands. And her words here are nothing less than a death wish against her own husband, leading up to her pregnant request that at this point, David should "remember" her. Clearly she wanted to be his wife.</p>


text:
<p>When Yahweh has done to my lord according to all the good that He has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel- </p><p>I suggested on :28 that Abigail was aware of a body of material promised to David, far beyond simply the promise of kingship. She therefore mentions a promise that he would have a "sure house". This was one of "all the good" things promised to him.</p><p>When David writes in Psalms 110 of how "Yahweh said unto my Lord", he is quoting the very phrase used by Abigail years before, when they weren’t even married. He was unconsciously alluding to the words of his wife before they were married, even years later. It is of course true that context plays a vital part in Biblical interpretation. But this can lead us to overlook the fact that many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament- many of those in the early chapters of Matthew, for example- are picking up words and phrases from one context and applying them to another. Paul himself did this when he quoted the words of the poet Aratus “We are all the offspring of Zeus” about our all being the offspring of the one true God.</p>


text:
<p>then this will not be on your conscience, either that you have shed blood without cause, or that my lord has avenged himself- </p><p>She seems to perceive that the promises to David (see on :30) were conditional upon him not avenging himself. Whilst all Abigail says is wise, spiritual and true, we are again left in these records pondering the totality of her motives. She wanted to save her own life and that of her kids. Whatever higher motivation she had, of saving David from sin and encouraging his faith in God's prophetic word, she also wanted to save her own skin. We note that her 153 Hebrew words here are the longest speech of any woman recorded in the Bible. She is an unusual and powerful mediator.</p><p>Shedding blood "without cause" echos the very words David frequently uses in his Psalms about how Saul wanted to shed David's blood "without cause". Abigail, consciously or unconsciously, is leading David to see that he is behaving exactly like Saul. His desire to murder all Nabal's family with his few hundred armed men... was as bizarre and out of order as Saul with 3000 men chasing David to kill him, when David was but "a dead dog, one flea". The psychological credibility is amazing. For typically men act and become like those they despise the most. David's apparent stellar grace towards Saul is nuanced by him now behaving just like Saul. David the abused sets out to abuse just like he has been abused. And this nuances all his apparent grace, forgiveness and respect towards Saul. It was as was, but it was nuanced by not being total. 1 Sam. 24-26 is all about David avoiding bloodshed. But the apparent grace towards Saul in 1 Sam. 24-26 is nuanced by his acting just like Saul in 1 Sam. 25. </p><p> David was later precluded from building the temple because he had shed innocent blood. So her appeal didn't have abiding influence, and we read no more of her. The immediate reference to David's other wives in :43 perhaps leads us to conclude that she had morally misjudged David, and marriage to him was not to turn out as she fantasized. Her appeal is indeed spiritually based, but as with so many Biblical incidents and in so much of our "good deeds"- the motives were mixed. She wanted to save her life and that of her kids. And all the 'spiritual' reasoning was only to that end. She argues as if David has never sinned up until this point, but slaying her and her kids would be a sin. This was flattery- for David was hardly sinless at this point, as he admits about his early life in Ps. 119. Her speech appeals to David's self interest- to achieve her self interest. She was both smart and beautiful, and she knew this- and clearly used it to get her end. This is not necessarily morally wrong, in the context of saving innocent life- but it was all the same human. She surely fell at David's feet with her cleavage showing, as charmingly as possible. She as a married woman definitely gives David the come on. She asks him to 'remember her', calls him her "Lord" 15 times, fawns at the feet of the landless, homeless David as his "handmaid" when she was clearly mistress of the situation; and as soon as Nabal dies, David responds by asking her to marry him. If she was indeed the peerless paragon of virtue, she would have responded that he was under the one man: one woman ideal of Genesis, and so she would prefer not to marry him as he was already married, and in fact Ahinoam is the name of one of Saul's wives so he was married to a woman whose husband was still alive [God comments: "I gave your master's wives into your bosom"]; and the king of Israel should not multiply wives (Dt. 17:17). She knew he was to be king, that was politically as well as spiritually obviously going to happen. And to be one of the new king's wives was something she clearly wanted. Even though she surely guessed he would take more wives once he became king. If the Lord's line were traced through Abigail and her children by David, we might have reason to think she was indeed spiritual. But that isn't the case and her offspring with David have no Biblical significance. </p><p>When Yahweh has dealt well with my lord, then remember your handmaid- </p><p>Fourteen times, Abigail calls David her "lord"- which can hint that she saw him as her husband ["Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord"]. This could be taken as asking David to consider marrying her at some point if Nabal died. It could be that when the thief on the cross asked to be remembered for good, he had in mind Abigail's words: that when David returned in glory in his Kingdom, "my Lord, then remember thine handmaid". This was prefaced by her asking: "Forgive the trespass of thine handmaid... a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God: and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out" (<a href='B:90 25:29-31'>1Sa 25:29-31</a> AV). And David’s response was marvellously similar to that of the Lord to the thief: "Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person" (<a href='B:90 25:35'>1Sa 25:35</a>). It would seem that the thief saw in David a type of the Lord, and saw in Abigail's words exactly the attitude he fain would have. And the Lord accepted this.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abigail, Blessed is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me!-</p><p>We see here the interplay of Divine sovereignty and human volition. She purposed of herself to meet David, but David perceives that she had been sent to him by God. David perceives that God can withhold a person from sinning, just as He did to Abimelech with Sarah, and as His Spirit today can "keep us from falling" (<a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a>). There is an element in all this of God acting over and above our own strength against temptation. It is all the gift / grace of the work of His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed is your discretion, and blessed are you for keeping me this day from the guilt of bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand- </p><p>We wonder if by this point David had already prayed the prayer of Ps. 19:13 asking to be kept back from presumptuous sins. If so, the answer came even when he was spiritually weak.</p><p>See on :22. David was tested by God in the matter of sparing the life of his enemy Saul- and he came through the test with flying colours (1 Samuel 26). But just before that, he had been tested again in the same area in the matter of Nabal- and he initially failed, intent as he was to take the life of his enemy Nabal (1 Samuel 25). But before the Nabal incident, he had again resisted the temptation to take vengeance. Thus a circumstance can repeat over a matter in which we were previously both successful and unsuccessful.</p><p>Many have struggled to reconcile the statement that David was a man after God’s own heart (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>) with the fact that his life contains many examples not only of failure, but of anger and a devaluing of human life. He was barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). The figure of ‘shedding blood’ takes us back to the incident with Nabal, where David three times is mentioned as intending to “shed blood” (<a href='B:90 25:26-33'>1Sa 25:26-33</a>), only to be turned away from his sinful course by the wisdom, spirituality and charm of Abigail. David started out as the spiritually minded, humble shepherd, full of faith and zeal for his God. Hence Jehoshaphat is commended for walking “in the first ways of his father David” (<a href='B:140 17:3'>2Ch 17:3</a>). It seems to me that the comment that David was “a man after God’s own heart” refers to how he initially was, at the time God chose him and rejected Saul. But the trauma of his life, the betrayals, jealousies and hatred of others, led him to the kind of bitterness which so often surfaces in the Psalms and is reflected in several historical incidents where he lacks the value of others’ lives which we would otherwise expect from a man who walked so close with his God.</p>


text:
<p>For indeed, as Yahweh the God of Israel lives who has withheld me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, surely there wouldn’t have been left to Nabal by the morning light so much as a single male- </p><p>David recognizes that he has been kept back from sinning by a Divine force far greater than himself. And that kind of strengthening, the strength we so desperately need in our spiritual struggles, is no less available today through the work of the Spirit given to us (<a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a>).</p><p>We note the three references here to Yahweh withholding David from the sin in view (:26,34,39). And there are three references to David's desire to avenge himself (:26,31,33). Clearly God does withhold from sin- at His initiative. Likewise He did with Abimelech. This is another outpouring of His grace through His Spirit, and Paul explains that the work of the Spirit is the parade example of how God's grace and not human works lead His people to salvation. </p>


text:
<p>So David accepted from her what she had brought him and he said to her, Go up in peace to your house. I have listened to your words and have granted your request- </p><p>Note the similarities between the David / Nabal / Abigail experience and those of Jacob, whilst he too kept flocks (<a href='B:90 25:35'>1Sa 25:35</a> = <a href='B:10 32:20'>Gen 32:20</a>; <a href='B:10 25:18'>Gen 25:18</a> = <a href='B:10 32:13'>Gen 32:13</a>; <a href='B:10 25:27'>Gen 25:27</a> = <a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a>). Abigail had consciously sought to emulate Jacob in appeasing David with presents sent before her, and God’s wider providence played along with this. The granting of her request suggests that David is effectively king in this situation- he has the power to slay Nabal but decides not to, because of the request from Abigail.</p>


text:
<p>Abigail came to Nabal while he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. Nabal’s heart was merry, for he was very drunk. Therefore she told him nothing until the morning- </p><p>If the "feast" of :8 was a religious feast, then we have Nabal doing something similar to what happened at the church in Corinth; the Lord's feast was turned into an excuse for drunken revelry. Nabal clearly pretended to kingship himself, and Abigail must have seen the stark contrast between him and David.</p>


text:
<p>In the morning, when Nabal was sober, his wife told him what had happened; and his heart failed and he became like a stone- </p><p>To have been saved by a woman from death due to his own foolishness... was too much for him. If he had humbled himself in repentance and acceptance of grace, he perhaps wouldn't have had a stroke. The ten day period before his death was maybe a time of testing (<a href='B:340 1:14-15'>Dan 1:14-15</a>), to see if he would repent deep within him. But he didn’t, and so he was slain by Yahweh (:37). We marvel at God’s desire to save even the likes of Nabal and Saul, and our outreach should be mightily inspired thereby.</p>


text:
<p>About ten days after that, Yahweh struck Nabal so that he died-</p><p>The experience of the Lord smiting Nabal led David to perceive that Yahweh would likewise smite Saul and he himself need not murder him (1 Sam. 26:10).</p><p>This was encouragement to David to realize that if he didn’t take vengeance upon Saul, then likewise his time would come to die from Yahweh's hand rather than David’s. This is how God works with us too; we are provided a smaller scale worked example of how things can be over a larger issue, if we continue faithful. We note that "ten days" is a period of testing in <a href='B:340 1:14-15'>Dan 1:14-15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When David heard that Nabal was dead he said, Blessed is Yahweh, who has upheld my cause against Nabal, and has kept back His servant from doing wrong. Yahweh has returned the wrongdoing of Nabal on his own head- </p><p>God’s judgment is ongoing. He considered David’s case against Nabal in the court of heaven, and judgment was given and carried out. It was in David's favour, despite him being very unspiritual and cranky at the time. "We make the answer now". Judgment day will not be a time when God considers evidence for the first time, weighs it up and delivers a verdict. That considering of evidence is ongoing right now, and the last day of judgment is for our benefit and not His.</p><p>David sent and asked Abigail to become his wife- </p><p>This may have meant that he inherited Nabal's wealth. But it is more likely that Abigail resigned all that for the outlaw life. Thus Abigail's secret wish came wonderfully true because it was rightly motivated.</p>


text:
<p>When his servants had come to Abigail to Carmel they said, David has sent us to you to take you to become his wife- </p><p>It's not clear whether this was a second visit after she had agreed, or whether he sent and took her as his wife anyway. The next verse would imply the latter, although she was ready and willing. David presents here as doing the right thing. Despite Abigail's beauty, he doesn't grab her for himself. Rather he waits for God to give him the beautiful woman in His time and according to His will. Later David fails to retain this lesson, in that he grabs Bathsheba for himself because, again, she is a beautiful woman. God worked through all this strange stuff with Abigail and Nabal. For Nabal was a descendant of Caleb, who had been given Hebron (Josh. 14:13,14). Nabal was a big time landowner. And now, as married to Nabal's wife, that inheritance passed to David; and thus he was declared king in Hebron. All through God graciously working through David's sinful desire to murder Nabal and his family. </p>


text:
<p>She arose, bowed herself with her face to the earth and said, Your handmaid is ready to be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord- </p><p>She had earlier copied the example of Rebekah (<a href='B:90 25:23'>1Sa 25:23</a> = <a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a>; <a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a>). And God played along with this, by giving her an opportunity to further copy Rebekah's example by leaving all immediately.</p>


text:
<p>Abigail hurried and got onto a donkey, with five of her maids who followed her, and she went with the messengers of David and became his wife- </p><p>We get the impression of haste, of walking away from a prosperous life to become second wife to a man who was an outlaw. She was inspired by Rebekah's example (see on :41), who also took her maids and left immediately with Isaac's messengers.</p>


text:
<p>David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they both became his wives-</p><p>Heb. 'had taken'. Ahinoam comes first in his list of wives in <a href='B:100 3:2'>2Sa 3:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim- </p><p>Gallim was in Benjamin, near Saul's home town of Gibeah (<a href='B:290 10:30'>Isa 10:30</a>), so we can read this as meaning that Saul was trying to cement his own leadership of his tribe, thinking that he might at least remain leader of Benjamin even if he lost the kingship over all Israel. He repeatedly tried to vainly get around God’s clear words to him, as many do today.</p>


text:
<p>The Ziphites came to Saul to Gibeah saying, Isn’t David hiding in the hill of Hachilah, which is before the desert?-</p><p>Saul had his spies everywhere, and David also had spies (:4). This complex game of espionage and subterfuge was so far from the peaceful hills where he had played his harp and drawn close to God as a youth. But those peaceful days are used to prepare us for later, more complex tests of our faith.</p><p>The first time David spared Saul's life, the Ziphites again had betrayed David to Saul, and in the same area. His men again wanted to kill Saul, and again David restrains them with the same argument about the Lord's anointed. David takes something belonging to Saul and then calls out to him from a safe distance, and both times Saul enquires "Is this your voice, my son David?" (:17 = 1 Sam. 24:16). These similarities point up the way that God repeats situations to test our responses. I've suggested earlier that David's apparent stellar grace to Saul was in fact nuanced by his transferal of his anger onto Nabal. In that incident, God restrains David from slaying Nabal, by grace. And now David has the opportunity to demonstrate that he's learnt the lessons.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph- </p><p>David in the Psalms records how he hated those who 'rose up' against him, and that includes Absalom. Saul 'rose up' [NEV "went down"] against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>), and&nbsp; then evil men 'rose up' against David out of his own family (<a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> s:w:), especially Absalom who rose up against his father (<a href='B:100 18:31-32'>2Sa 18:31-32</a> s:w:). But David has a tendency to assume that all who rose up against him were arising against God. It's not always so that our enemy is God’s enemy. Relationships and the hand of God in human affairs and relationships is more complex than that. And David in <a href='B:230 139:21-22'>Psa 139:21-22</a> goes further, to assume that his hatred of people is justified, because they must, he assumes, hate God because they are against him. Solomon seems to make the same mistake when he alludes to such 'risings up' in <a href='B:240 28:28'>Pro 28:28</a>. We must note that "all in Asia" turned away from Paul personally (<a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a>), and yet according to the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2, 3, there were many faithful individuals amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>Saul encamped by the road on the hill of Hachilah, which is before the desert, but David stayed in the wilderness. When he saw that Saul had come after him into the wilderness- </p><p>A group of 3000 men on the move (:2) would have created a fair dust cloud. But it seems that David "saw" this in that he heard it, and need to confirm Saul's presence there (:4).</p>


text:
<p>David sent out spies and found that Saul had certainly come to that place- </p><p>The sending out of spies is associated with taking the land of Canaan; it seems from :5 that David was buoyed up by his marriage to Abigail and the encouragement taken from the Divine judgment upon Nabal. Although he will go "down" again by <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>, he seems here very proactive and not on the back foot against Saul.</p>


text:
<p>David set out and came to the place where Saul had encamped. He saw the place where Saul and Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his army were lying; Saul lay among the wagons and the people were encamped around him- </p><p>As noted on :5, David is not so much on the run from Saul, but seeking him out. After the assurance received in 1 Samuel 25 that God would avenge him against Saul, and with Abigail so strongly encouraging him in this regard,  it could be argued [although see later] that David now sets out to demonstrate to Saul that he is not going to avenge himself. I therefore suggest that he intentionally went into Saul's camp to take away Saul's private property but not slay him. We can sense the encouragement of his Godly wife Abigail in this mission. For a large burden of her message to him in 1 Samuel 25 was that he would not be slain by Saul, and if he followed the path of not avenging himself, he would surely become king.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp? Abishai said, I will go down with you- </p><p>As explained on :5, David can be read [but see later] as proactively seeking to get close to Saul but not slay him, so fired up is he with the idea of not avenging himself and inviting God to act against Saul by his own lack of vengeance. But he still seemed to want some company in this bold mission. It seems Ahimelech turned down the invitation and only David and Abishai went (:7).</p><p>The situation here differs from that in 1 Sam. 24 when David previously spared Saul's life. Here, he intentionally goes out to find Saul. David states in :15 "Someone came to destroy the king". The Hebrew, echad, means one specific person. Who was that person- Abishai, or David? Surely David. For it was he who proposed 'going down to Saul' and invited another warrior to accompany him. My suggestion is that David went down to Saul with the intention of killing / destroying him. He didn't come to just teach Saul another lesson by stealing his spear. He came to destroy him. "Go down" can allude to physical descent into the valley, but the idiom is of attacking. The same word is in :10, "descend into battle". "There came a man to destroy the king" (:15) uses the same word as in :7 when David and Abishai "come" to Saul.</p><p>So to summarize. David restrained himself from killing Saul in 1 Sam. 24. But he then takes offence at the drunken words of Nabal about him in 1 Sam. 25, and sets off to murder Nabal, his wife, kids and animals. His apparent restraint from killing Saul now appears not so stellar, because he had only transferred that desire to murder onto his anger with Nabal. But he is restrained from doing that by God's grace through Abigail. He again appears to have earned a "well done" by listening to Abigail. But again, this is nuanced. Because he then sets off to murder Saul. And pulls out of it at the very last minute. His sneaking through the guards and 3000 soldiers encamped around Saul would have been foolhardy without God's help. God empowered him to do this, by making the soldiers fall into a deep sleep. He and Abishai come to Saul and find Saul's spear stuck in the ground by Saul's pillow [AV "bolster"]. This was an obvious psychological invitation to simply take the spear and strike Saul's head with it, killing him in one blow. We recall that earlier David had taken Goliath's weapons and struck his head off with them. All with God's strength and empowerment. We conclude that God was showing David that indeed he could slay Saul. David was confirmed in his death wish concerning Saul. But he chose a higher path. And to his huge credit, David pulls out of it at the very last moment, and also avoids the temptation to take up Abishai's offer of doing the job rather than David's own hands. Although again this act of self control and bringing himself under restraint is nuanced- because he seems to transfer his death wish against Saul onto Abner (see on :16). And so oftentimes it is with man. Our finest moments and deeds and words are often in fact nuanced by a lack of totality in their devotion. Indeed all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Although the conscience can be cleansed, in the Lord Jesus. And we marvel that for all this, David was beloved by God and seen by Him as a man after His own heart.</p>


text:
<p>So David and Abishai came to the army by night and Saul lay sleeping among the wagons, with his spear stuck in the ground at his head, and Abner and the soldiers lay around him- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in close up, so that we can envisage the situation. AV has "within the trench". The idea is that the wagons were arranged in a circle around Saul, giving him maximum human protection, and probably reflecting his paranoia of being slain.  </p>


text:
<p>Then Abishai said to David, God has delivered your enemy into your hand today. Now therefore please let me strike him to the ground with one stroke of my spear; I will not strike him a second time- </p><p>This whispered conversation was absolutely contrary to the entire spirit of David’s mission in visiting Saul (see on :5). David could have reasoned that his hand would not be upon Saul if Abishai slew him. But he realized that we are not to get around God’s word. Indeed God had delivered Saul into David’s hand, but that didn’t mean that David had to kill him. GNB suggests Abishai wanted to slay Saul with his own weapon just as David had done to Goliath: "Now let me plunge his own spear through him and pin him to the ground with just one blow". This kind of out of context allusion to Biblical history was used by Saul too, and is a warning to us.</p><p>As David had been restrained from murdering Nabal by Abigail, so now David restrains Abishai. We are to do for others spiritually what God, by grace, has done to us.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abishai, Don’t destroy him, for who can put forth his hand against Yahweh’s anointed and be guiltless?- </p><p>David's argument against killing Saul was that he didn't want to be guilty of slaying Yahweh's anointed. But he could have personally gotten around this by allowing the eager Abishai to do it. But he was spiritually mature enough to realize that sin can be committed vicariously and we cannot seek to cleverly get around Divine principles.</p><p>We are all anointed in that we are in Christ, the anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). The same radical respect which David showed, we should show to each other. David’s attitude seems to have influenced Saul’s men, for his armour bearer refused to slay Saul (<a href='B:130 10:4-5'>1Ch 10:4-5</a>). But David’s attitude towards Saul was actually an encouragement to himself. For he too was Yahweh's anointed, and no hand could be lifted against him unless Yahweh allowed it. The same phrase "lift up the hand against" in the context of murder is used of how Saul's guards refused to kill the priests of Nob (<a href='B:90 22:17'>1Sa 22:17</a>). For they too were anointed as priests. Yahweh's anointed referred to His priests as well as His kings.</p>


text:
<p>David said, As Yahweh lives, Yahweh will strike him, or his day will come to die, or he will go into battle and perish- </p><p>This indeed happened. It was the fulfillment of <a href='B:90 12:25'>1Sa 12:25</a>: "But if you still do wickedly you will be consumed, both you and your king". "Perish" is s:w. "consumed"; David seems aware of Samuel's words and is alluding to them. In the face of so much Divine activity to save them, they would be destroyed if they continued to work against God’s efforts to save them. And indeed Saul and Israel were "consumed" in the massacre by the Philistines. It was because despite all God’s efforts with them, they had continued to "do wickedly".</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh forbid that I should put forth my hand against Yahweh’s anointed; but now please get the spear that is at his head and the jar of water, and let us go- </p><p>Yahweh had indeed restrained David from killing Nabal and his family in 1 Samuel 25, and now David was reflecting that by restraining Abishai from doing so, and asking Yahweh to continue to forbid or restrain him from murdering Saul.</p><p>David was tested by God in the matter of sparing the life of his enemy Saul- and he came through the test with flying colours (1 Samuel 26). But just before that, he had been tested again in the same area in the matter of Nabal- and he initially failed, intent as he was to take the life of his enemy Nabal (1 Samuel 25). Thus a circumstance can repeat over a matter in which we were previously unsuccessful.</p>


text:
<p>So David took the spear and the jar of water from Saul’s head and they went away; and no-one saw it or knew about it, neither did anyone awake, for they were all asleep because a deep sleep from Yahweh had fallen on them- </p><p>It seems God would have given Saul into David’s hand when “a deep sleep from the Lord” fell upon Saul at the very time David intended to kill him. Saul himself realized that the Lord had delivered him into David’s hand to kill him (<a href='B:90 24:18'>1Sa 24:18</a>). God thus confirmed David in his intentions- and yet at the last minute, it seems, David chose an even higher level; of love and deep respect for this spiritually sick man. The deep sleep from Yahweh recalls that sent upon Adam. Perhaps this was confirming David’s plan of his own volition to try to bring Saul to repentance; for the hope was that he would awake to new life created from him.</p><p>The cruse or jar of water may have been the jug into which Saul urinated, in obedience to Mosaic commands to keep military encampments ritually pure. For water was typically carried in skins not in an open jar / cruse. The same word is used of the widow's cruse of oil. And the Hebrew for "water" also refers to urine, translated elsewhere "piss" in the AV. Perhaps this was to bring Saul's mind back to how David had earlier chosen not to slay him in the cave whilst Saul was going to the toilet. David took away the spear, the symbol of Saul's kingship, and took it to himself. He invites Saul to send a man to get it back. But surely Saul ought to have responded "No, keep it. I'm not worthy to be king, I've been rejected from the kingship, you're to be the next king, you keep it". But he doesn't. We perceive that David, in love for Saul, was seeking to give him opportunities to repent. And this is how we should act to even our worst enemies. </p>


text:
<p>Then David went over to the other side and stood on the top of the hill far off, a great space being between them- </p><p>All this was carefully planned. Saul was at the foot of "the hill of Hachilah" (:3), and this presumably was where David stood.</p>


text:
<p>and David called to the army and to Abner the son of Ner, Don’t you answer, Abner? Then Abner answered, Who are you who calls to the king?- </p><p>Abner, father of Ner, had a son and a father also called Ner, meaning "light" or "lamp". But darkness had been sent upon him. We get the impression that David was particularly hostile to Abner. Ner was Saul's uncle (<a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). Abner had been captain of the army at the time of David’s victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:55'>1Sa 17:55</a>); perhaps he was the logical one to have fought Goliath, but he lacked David’s faith. He therefore had a particular jealousy complex against David.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abner, Aren’t you a man? Who is like you in Israel? Why then have you not kept watch over your lord, the king? Someone came to destroy the king your lord- </p><p>The criticism of Abner seems rather extreme seeing God had made Abner fall asleep; see on :16. But perhaps Abner was guilty because the falling asleep was in confirmation of his own attitude.  "Someone", echad, is specifically one person; see on :6.</p>


text:
<p>What you have done is not good. As Yahweh lives, you are worthy to die because you have not kept watch over your lord, Yahweh’s anointed. Where are the king’s spear and the jar of water that was at his head?- </p><p>"You are worthy to die" means "You will surely die"; the same phrase in 1 Sam. 30:31; 2 Sam. 12:5. This is a death threat to Abner. We enquire why David maxes out on Abner- who after all had been given a deep sleep by Yahweh so that he was unable to protect Saul. I suggest again that David is transferring his desire to kill Saul onto Abner, just as he had transferred it on to Nabal earlier. It seems David learnt only a little from each of the incidents in the previous chapters, and was still transferring his anger with Saul onto others- rather than forgiving Saul from the heart and meaning what he meant when he spoke of not touching Yahweh's anointed. Abner later goes over to David's side, and when he is tragically stabbed to death by one of David's own men [Joab], David gives a eulogy in which he presents Abner as truly having top bloke status with him. Abner therefore presents as not a bad man in the end. But here, David is seething with anger against him; we feel that anger seething through these recorded words. But it was illegitimate anger, anger wrongly placed- because David had simply transferred his anger with Saul onto Abner.</p><p>David has a clear belief that the man anointed by God is not to be slain. But he himself was God's anointed king. His respect of Saul's anointing was therefore the guarantee that he himself would not be slain, as God's anointed. We could wonder whether David's extreme emphasis upon not killing or harming Yahweh' anointed was because he hoped that this would be a guarantee that he too, as Yahweh's anointed, would not be harmed or slain. We are left to ponder such motives in Biblical characters, because we must likewise ponder our own motives. In 1 Sam. 26, David mocks Abner for not guarding Saul, Yahweh's anointed, and proclaims him worthy of death; but Abner had been struck by a deep sleep from Yahweh so he was innocent really of this. Likewise when the Amalekite comes to David with the news that he had slain Saul in his death throes, David has the man killed because he had killed Yahweh's anointed. This appears extreme. David certainly had no value for human life by behaving like this. So... we ponder whether his extreme position about "Yahweh's anointed" was purely motivated. As suggested above, he may possibly have been thinking that if he displayed respect for Yahweh's anointed, then Yahweh would not allow him to be slain- as he too was Yahweh's anointed. And possibly he was seeking to inculcate in Israel a respect for Yahweh's anointed, in order to safeguard himself [as also Yahweh's anointed] from ever being murdered by his own people. </p><p>This approach answers questions which otherwise appear to have no good answer:
- Why did David go down to Saul?
- What is the function of the record of David ranting at Abner rather than at Saul?</p><p>Often David calls Saul his master, describing himself as Saul's servant (<a href='B:90 17:32'>1Sa 17:32</a>; <a href='B:90 17:34'>1Sa 17:34</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:90 26:16'>1Sa 26:16</a>; <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>; <a href='B:90 29:3-4'>1Sa 29:3-4</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>). This was no formal "Sincerely your brother and fellow-servant". This was a real conscious putting of himself down, as the Lord Jesus felt he was a worm rather than a man (<a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>). If only we would concentrate upon our own status and show some true respect for others on account of their being in the ecclesia, having even been anointed spiritually at their baptism (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>) as Saul was.</p><p>David says that the servants of Saul are “worthy to die” because they fell asleep as a result of “a deep sleep from the Lord” which fell on them, and therefore didn’t protect Saul (<a href='B:90 26:12'>1Sa 26:12</a>; <a href='B:90 26:16'>1Sa 26:16</a>). Were they really that guilty of death for this? There doesn’t appear to be any Biblical command David was quoting. We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul knew David’s voice and said, Is that your voice, my son David? David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king- </p><p>This was precisely the situation in the previous such incident in <a href='B:90 24:16'>1Sa 24:16</a>. The lesson was being repeated. We wonder why Saul queries whether this is really David’s voice. Perhaps there was a considerable distance between them; or David’s voice was strained by emotion; or Saul so wished this was all a dream and this hadn't really happened. Again, each of these options has absolute credibility and reflects that this record is true and accurate as to what really happened and was said. It is no cunningly devised fable.</p>


text:
<p>Why does my lord pursue his servant? What have I done? What evil am I guilty of?- </p><p>The "why" was a deep rhetorical question, and was still aimed at eliciting repentance in Saul; as was this whole escapade to steal Saul's spear. We marvel at the unceasing desire of God through David for Saul's repentance, even at very late stages. In the type of the Lord Jesus, this looks forward to the Lord's question "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (<a href='B:500 8:46'>Joh 8:46</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If Yahweh has stirred you up against me, let Him accept an offering- </p><p>David simplistically speaks as if "an offering" can resolve any issue with God; he was to mature through the Bathsheba crisis to understand that God wants broken hearts rather than an offering (<a href='B:230 51:18-19'>Psa 51:18-19</a>). "Stirred up" is the word used for 'entice', 'persuade' etc:, and is used of God stirring up or psychologically stimulating David to number Israel (<a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>). This is how His Spirit works. And we know that His evil Spirit worked upon Saul. But David knows this is not an irresistible influence from God upon those He just decides to destroy; through repentance and sacrifice, things would be different. Hence GNB: "If it is the LORD who has turned you against me, an offering to him will make him change his mind".</p><p>But if it is men who have done it- </p><p>We get the impression from the record that it was Saul who was creating this false accusation, as part of his paranoid mindset that had jumped from one conspiracy theory to another. It was Saul who was influencing men to think like that. But David had clearly chosen his words carefully for this brief speech. He seeks to give Saul the benefit of the doubt, as grace does (see on <a href='B:90 24:8'>1Sa 24:8</a>), and to make it as easy as possible for Saul to repent. He sets us a stellar example for behaviour in interpersonal conflict.</p><p>May they be cursed by Yahweh, for they have driven me out so that I can’t have a part in Yahweh’s inheritance; they have said ‘Go and serve other gods!’- </p><p>This remains an abiding lesson; for this is the result of driving people away from the visible sanctuaries and meetings of God’s people.</p><p>David seems to have held the idea that Yahweh could only be worshipped in the land of Israel- hence he blames Saul for driving him out of the land and thus making acceptable worship impossible for him. This was the same misunderstanding as held by the exiles in Babylon and also Jonah; and yet for all that misunderstanding, David was still a man after God’s own heart. Saul drove David away from his presence and that of Yahweh, to become a fugitive and vagabond; Saul would not accept any sacrifice from David (<a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This has so many connections with the driving out of Cain in <a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a>. In other words, Saul was saying that David was not spiritually fit to be in the land and must therefore be destroyed. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David’s mind.</p><p>David’s men represent the followers of the Lord Jesus (cp. <a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a>). David’s motley crew were idolaters and bitter men, "them that are set on fire... whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword" (<a href='B:230 57:4'>Psa 57:4</a>). So rough were they that David says that having to live with them almost destroyed him spiritually. This typology would explain why the body of Christ seems [at times] full of mixed up men and women with hard words and a tendency to idolatry- who eventually will be the rulers in Messiah's Kingdom, after the pattern of David’s men.</p><p>This is another example of thoughts and attitudes being understood as effectively spoken words. David argues that being driven out of Israel led to worshipping idols, and yet he had taken his parents to Moab. Perhaps they had turned away from Yahweh as a result.</p><p>David's reasoning is that if he has sinned and Saul is judging him for it, then the matter could be resolved by Saul saying what the sin was, and then all David needed to do was to offer a sacrifice and the matter should end. David reveals a very shallow transactional view of atonement for sin. Just offer a sacrifice and all must be good. And there should be no further consequence nor judgement. Although his sin with Bathsheba wasn't God's will, God used it to educate David in these areas. He learned that sin may be forgiven but still has consequences. And he learnt God's grace, in that he was brought to realize that there was no sacrifice that could deal with his sin. </p><p>This second option was clearly that which David liked to assume was the case, as he insists the first option couldn't be true, in that he has no unforgiven sin that Saul may judge him for. David's position here is like he had when he spared Saul's life before. He says that Saul is just believing slander about him. But he is in this case whitewashing Saul's persecution of him. Saul was not a victim of misinformation. He had been informed by God through Samuel that he was not to be king, and was to be replaced by David. Saul cannot be justified on the basis that he was merely misinformed about David. Likewise at Saul's death, David appears to whitewash him and his behaviour. I suggest David was doing something often observed. The abused whitewash their abuser but then transfer their feelings onto another person, who is often a minor player in the scene. And so David transfers his anger onto Abner. We don't need to read psychology but rather just slowly and carefully read these Bible accounts, as they reveal human psychology to us. And in this case, total forgiveness would have removed the anger and broken the circles. </p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, don’t let my blood fall to the earth far from the presence of Yahweh- </p><p>See on 1 Sam. 27:1. GNB "Don't let me be killed on foreign soil, away from the LORD". David seems to be saying that Saul's persecution was driving him out of the land of Israel to Gentile lands such as Achish in Gath where he had a strong chance of death. But he was wavering in believing the promise that he would indeed become king, a promise so firmly believed in by those close to him like Jonathan and Abigail. He also, like the exiles, seems to mistakenly think that Yahweh's presence is only in the land of Israel.</p><p>For the king of Israel has come out to seek a flea, as when one hunts a partridge in the mountains-</p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>). This reflects the broken down psychological state of David. He felt himself as good as dead, powerless, tiny and insignificant as a flea. He had a low self image.</p><p>Partridges can easily be caught as they tend to gather in groups [coveys] in fields. It was a disproportionate expenditure of effort to go hunting just one of them in mountains. Partridges were hunted by repeatedly making them rise up in flight until they were too exhausted to mount up again- and then they could be captured and killed. This is how David felt, and it leads to his collapse of faith in 1 Sam. 27:1, where he concludes that Saul is going to capture and kill him. The outlaw life had finally exhausted him in every way.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said, I have sinned- </p><p>The very words of Judas (<a href='B:470 27:4'>Mat 27:4</a>). Again, we see clearly David as a type of Christ.</p><p>Return, my son David, for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes today- </p><p>David alludes to Saul's words in <a href='B:230 49:8'>Psa 49:8</a> "life is costly", s:w. "My soul was precious". David is alluding to this; Saul's human life had been precious or costly to him, but he was unable to redeem Saul eternally. Only God could do that, if Saul by faith accepted God’s grace. The death and life of Saul had been precious in David’s eyes, and so David’s life was precious in Yahweh's eyes (s:w. <a href='B:230 116:15'>Psa 116:15</a>). Again we are taught that God’s attitude to our salvation and our life is directly related to our attitude to the life and salvation of others; and this is why we are to perceive the value, the preciousness, of human life and salvation. It is why making others stumble from the path to eternal life is so serious to God.</p><p>I have played the fool, and have erred very seriously- </p><p>Saul "erred" or 'wandered' out of the way; this is s:w. <a href='B:230 119:10'>Psa 119:10</a> "let me now wander". David seems to have initially written Psalms 119 in his wilderness years; he is asking to be stopped from going the path of Saul. We recall that Samuel had rebuked Saul as a "fool" when Saul is first told that the kingship had been removed from him and would be given to David (1 Sam. 13:13). Saul understood very clearly what was happening. His personal spiritual salvation was still possible if he had just accepted that he could not be king. But his last words, in his death throes, reflected a concern that he would be dishnoured by the Philistines. Appearance became all important to him, once he had tasted power and kingship.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>David answered, Here is the spear, O king! Let one of the young men come over and get it- </p><p>David clearly distrusts Saul and will not even walk over to him to return his spear. He had earlier refused that spear at the time of the Goliath battle, and he does so again now. Forgiveness and grace must be shown even to the likes of Saul, but this is not the same thing as trusting the person again; at least not until they have acted in such a way as to rebuild trust.</p><p>"With his spear in his hand" is the image we are repeatedly given of Saul in the records. It was the symbol of his kingship, and he was desperately gripping hold of it rather than giving it up as he should have done. Whether at home, sitting under a tree (1 Sam. 22:6)... he is pictured as madly gripping on to it. He even sleeps with the spear in the ground next to him (1 Sam. 26:7). In this lies the significance of David taking the spear from Saul but then returning it to him. What should Saul's response have been? To tell David to keep the spear and be king, whilst he retired and walked quietly with his God (1 Sam. 26:21,22). And it was that gripping on to power that was his death. If the Amalekite is to be believed, he said that Saul at his last end "was leaning on his spear" (2 Sam. 1:6), presumably before falling upon his own sword in suicide (1 Sam. 31:4). David by contrast had learnt from his victory over Goliath "that Yahweh can give victory without sword or spear” (1 Sam. 17:47). </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will reward every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness, because Yahweh delivered you into my hand today and I wouldn’t put forth my hand against Yahweh’s anointed- </p><p>This sounds rather self righteous and legalistic, as if David is saying that he has consciously gone up to Saul that night and refused to take his life, in order to get a reward for his righteousness. He comes over as self congratulatory in the extreme. We can also muse as to whether "Yahweh delivered you into my hand" suggests David was given the option of killing Saul; but he chose a higher level.</p><p>David's logic here seems to be saying that he only spared Saul so he would be spared, and that nuances his apparent grace to him. To have in the hand means to have power over. And throughout 1 Samuel, when Yahweh delivered enemies into the hand of His people, it meant that the enemies were to be slain (1 Sam. 14:10,12,37; 17:46,27; 23:4,14; 24:10; 28:19; 30:23). David had Saul in his hand. Possibly God gave him the chance to kill Saul. David could have legitimately killed him. The soldiers were made to sleep by God, and Saul's spear [which he had earlier thrown at David] was there right by Saul's head. And Abishai was offering to do the job. David's refusal to kill Saul was therefore highly commendable. David went out to kill him, he could have killed him, God set up the opportunity to do so, but at the last moment David chose a higher path.</p>


text:
<p>As your life was respected this day in my eyes, so let my life be respected in the eyes of Yahweh and let Him deliver me out of all oppression- </p><p>David was soon disbelieving this logic in 27:1. Heb. "save me from all distress". David later reflects in Ps. 34:6 that he, the poor lowly man, has indeed been saved from all his distress. But Ps. 34 is titled as having been written after David escaped from Gath the first time, in 1 Sam. 21. It seems David rewrote his Psalms, tweeking them as new experiences occured which confirmed his earlier deliverances. And so he now makes this edit to Ps. 34 after his deliverance from Saul and his realization that his prayer of 1 Sam. 26:24 "Save me from all distress" had been answered.</p><p>As suggested on :23, David appears to have consciously pulled off this feat of sneaking up on Saul as he slept in order that his life should be respected and valued. This could reflect a very low self image and a craving for respect and being valued; his self image seems very low to describe himself as a flea (:20).</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to David, May you be blessed, my son David. You will do great things and will surely triumph. So David went on his way, and Saul returned home- </p><p>Saul sought to "prevail against him" (<a href='B:230 13:4'>Psa 13:4</a>), but Saul here used the same word in telling David (in a rare moment of reality and humility) that he knew that David would prevail against him. Those flash moments of reality and humility which Saul had are to be our warning. The Psalms condemn him as generally proud. We must live life in a spirit of humility, rather than just experiencing a few flash moments of it.</p><p>"Triumph" is the word used about David triumphing over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:9'>1Sa 17:9</a>). Saul perceived in David’s prevailing over / overcoming Goliath a sign that David would ultimately prevail to become king in his place; the "great things" refer to the things of the future kingdom. Saul realized that Samuel had indeed chosen his successor as king, and it was David; and that kingship was guaranteed by his victory over Goliath. For Saul to seek to kill David when David had overcome even Goliath... was therefore futile. Saul realized this, but obsessively continued in it. Such is the obsessive, blind nature of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines, then Saul will give up looking for me any more in Israel and I will escape from him-</p><p>I suggested on 1 Sam. 26:20 that David was mentally, spiritually and physically exhausted at this time. He has just complained that Saul's persecution was driving him out of Israel into the territories of idol worshippers. And it seems he is making this a self fulfilling prophesy, because his faith now takes a nosedive. It's a classic example of self talk affecting behaviour, in the end. For "David said in his heart" that he would perish by Saul's hand, even though we have just learnt again in 1 Sam. 26 that Saul was in fact placed by God in David's hand. David has stated clearly in the wilderness Psalms that he feels absolutely in God's presence, even as if he is on the lid of the ark, with the cherubic wings overshadowing him- despite not being near the sanctuary. But his faith in this reality has well nigh collapsed in 1 Sam. 26:20 GNB "Don't let me be killed on foreign soil, away from the LORD". He sees Yahweh as only present in Israel, and considers Him absent from Gentile lands. But David's Psalms say the opposite. It can be that we believe and think on a spiritual level one moment, and then in a quite opposite way the next hour or day. Or it can be that at the very same time, we on one level believe and yet on another level, we don't. Yet David was the man after God's own heart. This contrast between David's words in the Psalms and his historical reality isn't necessarily hypocrisy. It is what it is to be human, when man at his best still has righteousnesses which are filthy rags. It may be that David is not being presented as more hypocritical or duplicitous than any other man. It's simply that we have so much information abut him that we are enabled to get insight into how a Godly man actually is in practice. And this is a great comfort. For we all are disappointed with our failure to persistently, consistently and totally attain to total faith and spiritual mindedness. Perhaps we have these snapshots into David's psychology as comfort to us. </p><p>David has just stated that one day Saul will perish in battle (26:10), so he need not make Saul perish himself. But now his self talk has persuaded him that it is he who shall perish. Again we see how many can on one hand believe and be so spiritual, but on another, be so faithless. Or how whatever peak of faith we reach at one moment will not carry over into the future. Just as Saul's moment of repentance didn't. We live in an eternal now, with no credit, as it were, for any past strengths. Another example: "Nothing better" is literally 'there is no good for me'. But Ps. 119 has David often saying he hopes for "good" according to God's word of promise to him, e.g. "Do good to Your servant, according to Your word"</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:90 20:3'>1Sa 20:3</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>, when David feels Saul is about to succeed in killing him, we might have wished to see at times more faith in Samuel's prophetic word that David should become king. His faith in that word went up and down, with <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a> being a high point in it, and <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a> being the low point in it. It is to this time that he alludes in <a href='B:230 119:25'>Psa 119:25</a>: "My soul is laid low in the dust; revive me according to Your word!". David felt at times that he would surely perish ["in the dust"] at Saul's hand. But he was revived from that depression by his faith in God’s prophetic word that he would indeed one day be king and Saul's persecution would pass.</p><p>David felt that he would one day be slain by Saul, yet in <a href='B:230 13:3'>Psa 13:3</a> and often in the Psalms he persuades himself, in the course of the same prayer, that in fact God will save him and keep His promise to make him king in Saul's place. Psalm 13 is an example: "How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart every day? How long shall my enemy triumph over me? Look, and answer me, Yahweh my God. Give light to my eyes, lest I sleep in death... But I trust in Your grace. My heart rejoices in Your salvation. I will sing to Yahweh, because He has been good to me". This leads us to think that David was not so much wavering in faith over time, but at one and the same time having both faith and unbelief. Which surely all of us can relate to. This going over to the Philistines to fight for them as a mercenary was a total lack of faith in the word of Yahweh about David which Abner recalls in 2 Sam. 3:18: "Yahweh has said concerning David: ‘I will deliver My people Israel from the hands of the Philistines and all its other enemies through My servant David'". </p><p>
The Hebrew is literally 'he said to his heart'. We see here another of many suggestions that man has as it were two people within him, there's a battle going on between the voice of the flesh and the real heart of David. David's heart was after God's own heart. But at this point, that heart listened to the other voice within him. This is the voice or 'person' Paul speaks of in Romans 7, and what the Bible at times calls 'satan' or 'the devil', the adversary / false accuser. David kept telling himself that Saul would defeat him, and he acted accordingly, and his negative self-talk led him into a faithless situation. Moses likewise said within himself “I am a foreigner in this land” – and his self-talk led to the very public ‘word’ of naming his son ‘Gershom’ (<a href='B:20 2:22'>Exo 2:22</a>). Yet it seems that David later perceived his error, and the importance of self-talk. For in the Psalms, he characterizes the wicked in Israel as being distinguished by what they say in their heart, in their self-talk. Take Psalms 10 : “He has said in his heart, “I shall not be moved”... he has said in his heart, “God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see it”... he has said in His heart “You (God) will not require it”“ (<a href='B:230 10:6'>Psa 10:6</a>; <a href='B:230 10:11'>Psa 10:11</a>; <a href='B:230 10:13'>Psa 10:13</a>).  Or we could also conclude that at one and the same time as realizing the importance of positive self talk, David also fails in this. </p>


text:
<p>David and the six hundred men who were with him left and went to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath- </p><p>I suggest that David was at very low ebb here spiritually. He had taken refuge with Achish in Gath before and nearly perished because of it; for this was the home town of Goliath. Afterwards, God had sent him against the Philistines in 1 Samuel 23 to help him realize that he was not to consider refuge with them again. for his defeat of them at Keilah was intended by God to make David realize he had now burnt his bridges with the Philistines. So now when he again goes there, he is really going against God’s education of him and intention for him. And yet by grace he is preserved.</p><p>David had 600 soldiers and their families with him- a large entourage of probably a few thousand people. He had apparently run a protection racket involving Nabal, guarding sheep and isolated farmsteads. He was a military force to be reckoned with, as shown by his behaviour whilst with Achish. Saul had 3000 men under his command, David had 600. We pause to enquire whether David was solely a pious shepherd boy who was fleeing from Saul's obsessive persecution. He was a considerable chieftain, with a strong military reputation. And we enquire whether as time progressed, he was not in some way thinking of taking the throne from Saul by force, whilst sparing Saul's life. And Saul correctly perceived this. Again we wonder at the contrast between this historical David, and the David of Ps. 119 and elsewhere who is waiting patiently in faith for God's word of promise to him to come true. At the same time as having that faith, he was certainly giving the appearance of trying to make it come true in his own strength. This may account for his self talk at this time, that Saul would one day win, and therefore he offered himself to Achish as a mercenary. There is further evidence from 1 Chron. 12 that David was joined by some of Saul's disillusioned warriors, and that David's intention was to use this large force "to make war against Saul": "The following joined David at Ziklag while he was still in hiding from Saul son of Kish; these were the warriors who gave support in battle; they were armed with the bow and could use both right hand and left hand to sling stones or shoot arrows with the bow; they were kinsmen of Saul from Benjamin... Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle; but they didn’t help them; for the lords of the Philistines sent him away after consultation, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads" (1 Chron. 12:1,2,19). This seems to imply that David was fully intending to go with the Philistines to attack and kill Saul, and then to be made some kind of vassal king of Judah on behalf of the Philistines. This was politics at its worst, and a far cry from the David who twice refused to slay Saul and instead wanted to wait for God's word of promise to come true.</p>


text:
<p>David lived with Achish at Gath with his men, each one with his household, and David had with him his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife- </p><p>This was a major move by the Philistines, to allow 600 Israelite soldiers (:2) to live with them- under the leadership of David, who had slaughtered so many Philistines. And in addition, their wives and children apparently came with them. They would have formed a significant proportion of Gath's population. It was normal that there would be general opposition to these foreigners coming in to live amongst them; not to mention pressure on resources. See on :5. We get the impression that it was Achish alone who so wanted it. Quite why, we cannot immediately discern. It was clearly of God, to grant David a way of escape from Saul; although it was also not the ideal refuge which God wanted him to take (see on :2).  Again we see God confirming us in the way we choose to take, even if it isn't a good path.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath he stopped searching for him- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>. Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>). To the Hebrew thinker, there is an unmistakable similarity between the Hebrew words Shaul and Sheol (grave); it is a matter of pointing. In the same way as Judas personified the Jewish system and the flesh behind it (hence they are both called the devil), Saul too personified what was evil; he was the great enemy, the satan, of David, as the Jews and the flesh were the great satan for Christ. In this we see David as a type of Christ.</p><p>That Saul kept hunting David is proof enough that his repentance in 1 Sam. 26 and promise to cease... was but the intense spirituality of a fleeting moment. "Fled" is the same word used of how David had previously fled for fear of Saul to Gath (1 Sam. 21:10). He had been saved from that situation by grace, and would have surely sworn not to make the same mistake again. But we are so slow to learn lessons. Yet still he was a man after God's heart. After going to Achish before, God had told David to smite the Philistines in order to save Keilah. He was trying to get David to burn all bridges with Achish. But David is now trying to rebuild those bridges.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Achish, If I have found favour in your eyes, let me be given a place in one of the cities in the country to live in. Why should your servant dwell in the royal city with you?-</p><p>I noted on :3 the pressure on resources created by having 600 soldiers and their families living in the same small town. "In the country" would have referred to the territory accepted as Philistine controlled, which Saul would fear to enter lest he be accused of invading the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day, therefore Ziklag belongs to the kings of Judah to this day- </p><p>Ziklag was presumably near Beersheba (<a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>). "To this day" shows this section was written or edited before the captivity but after the division of Judah and Israel. Parts of the histories were clearly rewritten for the encouragement of the exiles, but from this and other such verses, we can conclude that not every section was. Ziklag had been passed from Judah to Simeon (<a href='B:60 15:31'>Jos 15:31</a>; <a href='B:60 19:5'>Jos 19:5</a>) and then passed to the Philistines (<a href='B:90 27:6'>1Sa 27:6</a>)- because if we don't want the kingdom, it will be lost to us.</p>


text:
<p>David lived in the country of the Philistines for a full year and four months- </p><p>LXX "four months", although <a href='B:90 29:3'>1Sa 29:3</a> implies a period longer than that. It was whilst in Ziklag that a significant part of Saul's army defected to David (<a href='B:130 12:1-7'>1Ch 12:1-7</a>; <a href='B:130 12:20-22'>1Ch 12:20-22</a>), along with some of Saul's own brothers (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>). They defected "because of Saul" (<a href='B:130 12:1'>1Ch 12:1</a>). He was himself personally responsible for these defections. His mental illness and obsession had likely led him to accuse his own army and brothers of being on David’s side.</p>


text:
<p>David and his men went and made a raid on the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites; those were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times as far as Shur and Egypt- </p><p>"Shur" is literally "the wall", referring to the wall which ran from Pelusium past Migdol to Hero, or perhaps to the line of fortified towns along it, resulting in the name "Mizraim" for Egypt, meaning 'the enclosed / fortified'. Hence LXX "behold, the land was inhabited, (even the land from Gelampsur) by those who come from the fortified cities even to the land of Egypt".</p><p>The note that these peoples were the original inhabitants of the land is an allusion to the fact they should have been driven out by Israel earlier. And so David's wrong behaviour was used by God to further His original purpose, reflective of the mixture of motive we find in David.</p>


text:
<p>David attacked the land and saved neither man nor woman alive; he took away the sheep, cattle, donkeys and camels and the clothing, then he returned to Achish- </p><p>See on :11. It’s recorded that in the ethnic cleansing which David performed, he took the spoil of those settlements for himself (<a href='B:90 27:9'>1Sa 27:9</a> AV). Indeed when he destroyed Ziklag, he took away their herds “and said, This is David’s spoil” (<a href='B:90 30:20'>1Sa 30:20</a>). We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood and lack of integrity in hot blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p><p>However it could be argued that he was fulfilling the command given to Saul to totally destroy the Amalekites and leave none remaining. Saul was empowered to smite the Amalakites (<a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>; <a href='B:90 15:7'>1Sa 15:7</a>), but he didn’t completely do this. As often happens, God then passed on the job to another, in this case David. We can see His hand working in similar ways today. This seems to be the idea of <a href='B:190 4:14'>Est 4:14</a>. If she had not saved her people, then God would have pursued another plan to the same end. What David did here was surely wrong, but we suspect he justified it by arguing that he was fulfilling the command to totally destroy the Amalekites, which Saul had failed to obey and had therefore been rejected from kingship. It's a classic example of mixed motives- doing what was politically expedient and faithless, under the guise of careful obedience to Divine commandment.</p>


text:
<p>When Achish said, Against whom have you made a raid today? David would say, Against the South of Judah, or against the South of the Jerahmeelites, or against the South of the Kenites- </p><p>There are Biblical examples of believers telling lies as acts of faith; Rahab and the Hebrew midwives in Egypt are examples. But David’s dishonesty here, which required him to slay every living being in the towns he attacked (:11), seems inexcusable. These areas are specifially listed in <a href='B:90 30:29'>1Sa 30:29</a> as being David’s friends and supporters.</p>


text:
<p>David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring them to Gath, thinking, They might inform about us, saying, ‘David has done this. This was what he did all the time he lived in the country of the Philistines’- </p><p>Innocent people were slain by David’s sword for the ‘political’ reason that he had to keep Achish ‘in the dark’ about what he was really up to. And so in case a 5 year old say something incriminating later, David simply killed the little boy. So often, unthinkably evil things are done from fear, the fear which is not of faith nor love. For love casts out fear. We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Achish believed David, saying, He has made his people Israel abhor him so much that he will be my servant forever- </p><p>This was also surely David’s intention. But he could have avoided this by simply trusting that God’s prophetic word for him would come true. The way Achish presents as naive is probably how he really was; his military leaders were far more realistic about David. But God used this to enable David to have his intended, faithless way of taking refuge in Gath. And yet God by grace saved David from where it all led, by blocking him from fighting Saul at the time of the battle of Gilboa. For surely there was part of David that wanted to do this, and yet part of him didn't want to- reflected in his ambiguous answers when quizzed on the matter. Those ambiguous answers weren't merely reflective of his desire not to fight Yahweh's anointed, but reflected his own mixed feelings- for part of him now wanted to slay Saul and get the Kingdom for himself by violence rather than faithfully waiting for Yahweh's word to fulfil.</p>


text:
<p>In those days the Philistines gathered their armies together to fight against Israel. Achish said to David, You must certainly go out with me in the army, you and your men- </p><p>To go and fight God’s people, specifically with Saul, Yahweh's anointed, was exactly against David’s previous principles. But because he had lied about fighting and killing Israelites, he was now told to go and do it. He was being taught that boasting about things you haven't done is still counted as if you have done them. And he was now being forced to a position where he has to quit his sinful situation.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Achish, Then you will know what your servant can do- </p><p>David uses language in a vague way, all part of the great deceit he was showing to Achish as detailed at the end of 1 Samuel 27. That deceit couldn't go on for long; and it was God’s grace which brought it to an end.</p><p>Achish said to David, Therefore I will make you my bodyguard for life- </p><p>David had earlier been Saul's bodyguard, now he was for Achish the Philistine. And again, the situation at the court must have been very politically fraught. For David had done so much evil to the Philistines, and it seems David’s acceptance depended solely upon Achish having some personal enthusiasm for him. However this could mean that David was offered this position if he went out and fought against his people. However it seems from <a href='B:90 29:2'>1Sa 29:2</a> that David was already the bodyguard of Achish, and it was accepting this office which was used by God to save him as it meant he was at the rear of the army. It was the wrong decision- for he should have honestly stated he wouldn't fight God’s people. But despite his failure, God used it by grace to save him from his hopelessly compromised position.</p><p>"Bodyguard" is literally 'the keeper of the head'. But David had previously cut off Goliath the Philistine's head and kept it. Achish is presented as naive, failing to pick up on David's elusive, double meaning statements about his loyalty to "the king" against the king's "enemies" (1 Sam. 28:12 etc.). And  thinking that for sure, David has indeed been attacking Judah and now Judah hated him (1 Sam. 27:12), and that David is "an honest man... as an angel of God" (1 Sam. 29:6,9). Achish's military men however present as far smarter, quipping that David again will seek to take off the heads of Philistines (1 Sam. 29:4).</p>


text:
<p>Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city- </p><p>We note too how Israel loved Samuel and respected him, although they did the very opposite of what he had taught them. We can have an emotional, sentimental attachment to the things of our religion, whilst having hearts far from God’s word in practice.</p><p>Saul had put away out of the land those who had familiar spirits and the wizards- </p><p>Saul apparently had not used a witch before. He clamped down upon something which didn’t directly affect him, in an attempt to show zeal for God’s law. And this kind of thing goes on in all generations. We recall how the Jews were so zealous for some Mosaic rituals at the very time they crucified the Lord. "Put away" is the same word used for God 'departing' from Saul in :16,21 and earlier. Saul responded to his cutting off for his sins by cutting off others for their sins. It's a psychological classic. Our response to God's judgement should be repentance and release of others in response to our experience of forgiveness. But if we won't experience that, then we respond by transferring our guilt and sin onto others, and judging them for it. So much judgmentalism is a result of this scenario. Saul's rejection from being king was because of his disobedience, and Samuel had commented that disobedience is as bad as witchcraft. It's as if Saul wished to prove Samuel wrong, by condemning witchcraft- thinking that would somehow remove his condemnation for disobedience. Unlike David, Saul always seeks to deal with the judgment for his own sins by passing it off onto others.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines gathered together and encamped in Shunem, and Saul gathered all Israel and they encamped in Gilboa-</p><p>The mutual gathering together of the two armies on opposite sides of a valley recalls the conflict with Goliath. But now David is on the other side, and Samuel is dead. Finer geographical details are given in <a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>, where "the spring in Jezreel" is now thought to be the fountain at Ain Jalut, "Goliath's fountain", regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath. This would have heightened the connections with that battle, and highlighted the absence of David and Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid and his heart trembled greatly- </p><p>This had happened before with Goliath, and David had urged the Israelites to not let their hearts be troubled. But now David was on the other side, or so Saul understood. He had a premonition of inevitable judgment to come. Instead of repenting, he just wanted to know in advance whether this was "it" or not. And that desire to know God’s word was stronger than his desire to repent. And there is a warning in that to those whose passion for technical "knowledge" of God’s word seems greater than their personal spirituality. See on :8.</p><p>Saul's fear of an enemy army was prohibited in Dt. 20:1: “When you go out to battle with your
enemies, and you see more horses, chariots, and people than you, do not be afraid of them for
your God Yahweh, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you”. Saul says Yahweh is not with him- "God is departed from me" (:15), but this is because Saul doesn't believe God is "with" him. As has often been observed, If God is not with us, who moved? </p>


text:
<p>When Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh didn’t answer him, neither by dreams nor by Urim nor by prophets-</p><p>The urim and thummim were two stones associated with the ephod of the high priest, which flashed out binary yes / no answers. But they were apparently with David and Abiathar, not Saul (<a href='B:90 22:20'>1Sa 22:20</a>; <a href='B:90 23:6'>1Sa 23:6</a>; <a href='B:90 30:7'>1Sa 30:7</a>). He may have tried to get other stones to replace them, but they failed to give answers, and he realized again that God’s presence was with David and not himself.</p>&nbsp;<p>"Saul inquired of Yahweh" but had no answer, and therefore he went to a medium. But in God’s final analysis of Saul, Yahweh says that He smote Saul because Saul sinned against God’s word by not enquiring of God, but of a medium (<a href='B:130 10:13-14'>1Ch 10:13-14</a>). But Saul did enquire of God (see <a href='B:90 14:37'>1Sa 14:37</a> s:w. 28:6), but God didn’t answer him (note how often in the records it is stated by contrast that David enquired successfully of Yahweh). The point is that although Saul prayed to God and enquired of His word on the surface, in his heart, he did nothing of the sort; and therefore his prayer and enquiry was reckoned never to have happened. And we must ask how much of our prayer and Bible study is seen by God as being only spoken and read on a surface level. This was exactly the problem of natural Israel. "They have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled (in prayer) upon their beds" (<a href='B:350 7:14'>Hos 7:14</a>). "Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>).</p><p>In <a href='B:90 14:38'>1Sa 14:38</a> Saul thinks that God’s lack of answer by Urim and Thummim is because someone amongst the people has sinned. But Saul's awful hypocrisy was rebuked now at the end of his life. God refused to give Saul an answer from Urim and Thummim because of his sin in not sincerely enquiring of the Lord.</p><p>At this very time, God was answering David by urim as to whether he should pursue the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:7,8). Clearly, Saul's demise and David's rise are being compared and contrasted. But despite that, Saul personally could still have repented and been ultimately saved.</p><p>We note how Saul previously had asked / enquired of God and received no answer (1 Sam. 14:18,19,37-42; 23:6-12), whereas David had asked of God, including using the Urim and Thummim, and received answers (1 Sam. 22:15; 23:2-4,9-12; 30:7,8). Samuel explains that the lack of answer is because God is not with Saul and has "departed" from him (:16). Answered prayer and the gift of direction is therefore part of having God with us in life, answered prayer and the receipt of direction is therefore evidence that Yahweh has not departed from us. This is where an active prayer life is so critical to relationship with God, and likewise answered prayer is presented in the NT as evidence that the Lord abides in us and we in Him (Jn. 15:7). </p><p>Saul had been rejected from king in 1 Sam. 15:22,23 because he refused to listen to Yahweh's voice, with the comment that he has effectively committed witchcraft: “Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice. To listen is better than the fat of rams. Because rebellion is divination...". Now he is desperate to hear Yahweh's voice- and he commits divination in order to try to hear it. He is simply living out the truth of Samuel's words of rejection, despite trying so hard to deny those words by clinging on to the kingship. Because Saul didn't hear Yahweh's voice when he had it (1 Sam. 15:19), now he cannot hear it at all. </p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his servants, Find me a woman who has a familiar spirit so that I can go to inquire of her. His servants said to him, There is a woman who has a familiar spirit at Endor-</p><p>"A familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God’s final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>Saul went to the medium because he had got no answer from Yahweh. He got no answer because God had already spoken, and he was still not paying attention to that word. His desire was not for a supernatural message from a medium, but that she raise Samuel so that he could get a message from Yahweh via Samuel. He crossed Philistine lines, walking all night many miles, to try to achieve this. His desire for a new word from Yahweh was huge; although clearly his hope was that Samuel could somehow persuade God to rethink, and to see Saul all good before God as he now faced judgment. Just as a believer may vainly hope their pastor will appear next to them at judgment day, and persuade the Lord to accept them. But the desire for a word from Yahweh all too late is a major theme of the pictures we have of rejection by God. We think of Amos 8:12 "They will wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they will run back and forth to seek the word of Yahweh, and will not find it". Or Ez. 7:26 "They shall seek a vision of the prophet; but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders". Or how the foolish virgins were desperate for the oil of the word when it was too late. The rejected lamented they were getting no word from Yahweh because they had no prophet to declare it [just like Saul without Samuel]: "We see no miraculous signs. There is no longer any prophet" (Ps. 74:9); "her prophets find no vision" (Lam. 2:9). Mic. 3:6,7 appears to allude to Saul's experience on this very dark final night: "Therefore night is over you, with no vision, and it is dark to you, that you may not divine; and the sun will go down on the prophets, and the day will be black over them. The seers shall be disappointed, and the diviners confounded. Yes, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer from God". To seek God's word when it is too late is therefore a characteristic of those rejected at God's judgment. Saul had had free access to Yahweh's word through Samuel, and had despised it. Those who refuse to respond to God's word now, and leave their Bibles unopened, are in the same spirit. They will desire that word all too late. </p><p> En-dor was one of the Canaanite settlements which Israel had failed to conquer. The woman may have been a Gentile, explaining why she didn't recognize Saul despite his being the tallest man in Israel (Josh. 17:11-13). "The name may come from the term enna durenna, the Hittite term for the gods".</p>


text:
<p>Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothing, and went with two men to the woman by night. He said, Please consult a familiar spirit for me and bring me up the one I name-</p><p>Endor was the opposite side of Shunem (:4). Saul would have had to cross enemy lines to get there. Hence his disguise and journey by night. As he was so tall, he was taking a huge risk. But he did so because he was so desperate to hear God’s word, but as noted on :5, instead of repenting, he just wanted to know in advance whether this was "it" or not. And that desire to know God’s word was stronger than his desire to repent. And there is a warning in that to those whose passion for technical "knowledge" of God’s word seems greater than their personal spirituality.</p><p>By taking off his royal clothing, Saul was resigning his kingship. But he puts it on again when he goes into battle the next day. He had taken off that royal robe in the cave in order to defecate, and put it back on again. If he had resigned his kingship to David and repented even at this late stage, he would have been saved. What is so tantalizing is that he comes so close to potential salvation even at his miserable end. </p><p>"Bring me up" is literally 'conjure up' and is the same word used in 1 Sam. 15:23, "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft", or literally, 'conjuring up'. </p>


text:
<p>The woman said to him, Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who have familiar spirits and the wizards out of the land. Why then have you set a trap for me, to cause me to die?- </p><p>Wizards were really amateur psychologists, who weighed up their clients and were very perceptive of their background and needs. She surely knew this was Saul; he was famed as the tallest man in Israel, and had been apparently reigning 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). Cutting off "out of the land" would mean they had been forced into exile. She had not, perhaps because she repented, or was retained for her services to the house of Saul. She implies she knows who Saul is- because she says he has set a trap for her.</p><p>"Set a trap" is the very word used in the law of how the use of witchcraft would be a setting of a trap or snare for the faithful Israelite (Dt. 12:29-13:5). We could infer from this that the woman was acceptant that witchcraft was a snare, and she didn't wish to enter that snare. She was therefore a repentant witch who was being persuaded to return to her wrong behaviour by Saul. She possibly believes that he has the right on Yahweh's behalf to make an exception for her to do this (:10).</p>


text:
<p>Saul swore to her by Yahweh, As Yahweh lives, you will not be punished for this- </p><p>Saul appears to take Yahweh's Name in vain rather too often, for he had likewise sworn to Jonathan that he would not try to kill David. But Saul really tacitly admits that he is Saul, for only he had the power to ensure the woman wouldn't be punished for practicing witchcraft. Although by saying this, he was really playing God. For it was according to God’s law that witches were to be punished. And yet he here abrogates God’s law, in the name of God.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman said, Whom shall I bring up to you? He said, Bring Samuel up for me-</p><p>The Bible doesn't teach any idea of an immortal soul. Death is unconsciousness. Only at the last day judgment will there be the gift of eternal life and eternal death to those responsible to God. We note that both the witch and Saul believed Samuel to be "down" in the grave and not "up" in heaven. The common idea that the souls of the righteous dead go to heaven on death is not supported in the Bible. This fits with the Biblical language of both good and bad being  'gathered to his kin' (Dt. 32:50) and 'sleeping with one's fathers' (1 Kings 11:43; 15:24; 22:50).</p>


text:
<p>When the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice, and said to Saul, Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!- </p><p> LXX "When the woman saw Saul". That Samuel was resurrected is effectively stated in 1 Chron. 10:13 LXX: "Saul asked counsel of her that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of her, and Samuel made answer to him".  God resurrected Samuel, and the woman screamed in genuine fear when she saw him. God answers a fool according to his folly (<a href='B:240 26:5'>Pro 26:5</a>). Thus God resurrected Samuel when Saul asked the witch to bring him to life (1 Samuel 28). Of course witches have no power to contact the dead; yet God confirmed Saul in his stupidity. If men choose to follow the vain philosophy of the flesh, God will confirm them in their delusions (<a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>). In accord with this, God punishes men with a recompense which is appropriate for the kind of sin they commit (<a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a>):&nbsp;But the woman composes herself and then tells Saul she knows who he is; but I suggest that she knew this anyway, because Saul was the tallest man in Israel and had been reigning for 40 years at this time, probably all her adult life. He was well known.</p><p>"Why have you deceived me?" is word for word what Saul had shouted at his daughter Michal for not letting him murder David in her home (<a href='B:90 19:17'>1Sa 19:17</a>). And now his words return to him, placed in the mouth of another woman. For by our words we are judged. his was yet another nudge for Saul to repent of his behaviour towards David, and his refusal to accept God's word about the transferral of the kingship to David. Perhaps if he had been willing to do this, even at this late stage, Saul himself may have been saved. Saul is asked many questions, and all of them are rhetorical and actually probing him towards his possible repentance. </p><p>It is possible that [as often in Biblical narrative] we have in :12 a summary position, and the following verses explain how this position came about. We could then read :13 as "The king had  said to her..." etc. </p>


text:
<p>The king said to her, Don’t be afraid- </p><p>This assurance could only come from Saul as king, waiving his own campaign of condemnation of witches. Only a king could pardon capital offences.</p><p>What do you see? The woman said to Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth- </p><p>She speaks in vague terms. She means that a body is ascending out of the earth, in resurrection; the same word for "coming up" is used of this in :15. She uses the term elohim, showing that this term doesn't only refer to God Himself. Perhaps she saw a vision of Angels ascending with Samuel; elohim ascending is the term used of the vision of Angels ascending upon Jacob in <a href='B:10 28:12'>Gen 28:12</a>. But she speaks of elohim as "an old man" (:14) in the singular. This shows that elohim doesn't have to refer to a plurality. This demonstration of grammatical usage surrounding elohim is useful in correcting those who mistakenly think that elohim in the Old Testament refers to God and Jesus. The Bible doesn't teach the person preexistence of the Lord Jesus. Elohim 'ascending' is the term used for the end of a theophany (<a href='B:10 17:22'>Gen 17:22</a>; <a href='B:10 35:13'>Gen 35:13</a>; <a href='B:230 47:5'>Psa 47:5</a>; <a href='B:330 9:3'>Eze 9:3</a>; <a href='B:330 11:24'>Eze 11:24</a>). Perhaps she saw a kind of theophany, which then gave way to the resurrection of Samuel, who then spoke directly with Saul. </p><p>I suggested on :7 that the woman may have been a Canaanite. "The Canaanites considered the dead to be divine in the underworld, and so were called Elohim (“gods”)", which would explain why she uses the word about Saul. </p><p>I suggested on :12 that :12 and :13 are a summary of how the woman later reacted. In this case, when asked to bring up Samuel, she speaks in vague terms of an old man arising dressed as a prophet. This was and is typical of how mediums work. Their skill is in then speaking in a voice which is very different to the voice they have been using to their client. That voice is muttering and vague, and is meant to be the voice of the recalled dead person. Hence Isaiah mocks mediums for muttering out of the dust with strange noises. The woman was a medium rather than a "witch" as we may now understand a "witch". But the critical thing is that she screamed when she actually saw Samuel, as he was resurrected to speak directly with Saul. And seeing her scream is a pivotal point of the story, proving that indeed Samuel was resurrected, it is introduced in :12 and :13 as a significant aspect of the story, and then the next verses explain how that point came about.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, What does he look like? She said, An old man is coming up- </p><p>LXX "An upright man". The elohim who "ascended" (s:w. 'come up') was Samuel. He was a manifestation of God to Saul.</p><p>He is wearing a mantle. Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect- </p><p>Wearing the prophetic mantle was typical attire for a prophet. It was that mantle which Saul had torn in 1 Samuel 15, and Samuel had interpreted this as meaning that the kingdom was to be torn away from Saul. As he saw the mantle, he would have remembered this. See on :17, where Samuel uses the word "torn". We note that Saul had removed his kingly clothing in order to deceive, whereas Samuel wears his prophetic clothing. Saul's deceit is thus presented against the truth of God and His word and servant.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?-</p><p>We note that Samuel feels that Saul and not the witch has brought him up. The relationship is always between Samuel and Saul directly. Samuel had been resurrected because of Saul. Samuel's question is not a reflection of irritation, as if he had been woken up at 3 AM and was cranky with the interruption. He may well have asked the question in a gentle, caring way- for the question is seeking Saul's repentance and salvation. The answer was intended to be 'Because I now desperately seek the word of God which previously I despised'. But Saul doesn't make that answer. </p><p>"Disturbed" is literally 'troubled', and Samuel may be suggesting Saul is like Achan, the troubler of Israel, who stole from the spoil of Jericho just as Saul had done from the spoil of the Amalekites- which was the reason for his rejection. But the hint again would be that as Achan repented frankly and confessed his sin in detail, going to his death perhaps in hope of final salvation- so Saul could have done. Throughout the record there are continual nudges of Saul towards repentance, and we marvel at God's saving grace displayed in this way. God gently tried with Saul right up until his death, and He does the same with so many, even if He foreknows their rejection of all His nudges. Even if the nudges are gentle and rarely spelt out in clear direct terms. Even those who appear to be long gone from God will still be receiving these nudges to return. I cannot believe that man in this life can ever get to a point where repentance is impossible. And so Saul for sure had that possibility right to his miserable end on Gilboa.</p><p>This was really a rhetorical question. Saul had done so because he was more interested in knowing his immediate fate, than repenting. For he didn’t need to see a resurrected Samuel to make him repent. We note that the conversation is directly between Samuel and Saul. The woman didn’t act as a medium or intermediary between them, and so this incident is no evidence that witches or mediums have any real power. See on :21.</p><p>Saul answered, I am very distressed, for the Philistines make war against me and God has departed from me, and answers me no more, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you so that you can tell me what I should do- </p><p>Saul knew what he should do, and what Samuel would essentially answer- "Repent!". But his fascination with knowing his immediate future stopped him from seeing this. And so Samuel gives him the answer, explaining what would happen if he still didn’t repent. &nbsp;The fact God departed from him was a sad reflection of how initially God had been with Saul (<a href='B:90 10:7'>1Sa 10:7</a>). God can both give and take away His Spirit. In Saul's case it was given by the pure grace of how God calls otherwise unspiritual people. But in response to their rejection of spiritual things, it can be withdrawn from them.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Why do you ask me, since Yahweh has departed from you and has become your adversary?-</p><p>LXX "and taken part with thy neighbour?". The reference was to David (:17). Yahweh can be a satan / adversary to people. But here the idea is that David, the one with whom God was, was now on the opposing side, with the Philistines. As Saul knew. He must have imagined that God was going to slay him at the hand of David, through David being with the Philistines. But that may indeed have been a possibility within the Divine program, but it didn’t work out like that. &nbsp;Saul sees Samuel as somehow separate from God; whereas Samuel says there was no point in resurrecting him, since Yahweh had departed from Saul. He could work no special deal for Saul; Saul had to work it out with God directly. That was the unspoken, implicit message.</p><p>The question is rhetorical, perhaps asked in a gentle, seeking kind of way rather than in the spirit of 'This serves you right'. It is as to why Saul has come to Samuel when God has departed from him, as Saul himself states. The answer is that Saul is desperate to see Samuel because he believes a face to face meeting will lead to Samuel asking Yahweh to save Saul, as it were for old times' sake in the relationship between Saul and Samuel. Samuel had been Saul's 'go to' man for God, but it was mere religion, using a man as a kind of backdoor to get to God. Rather like desperately trying to get the funeral of an unbeliever performed by a pastor, in the hope this will save the unbeliever. Saul was condemned because he went to the witch rather than to God. Effectively Saul went to the witch in order to have a meeting with Samuel. But God condemned him for this: "So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord slew him" (1 Chron. 10:13,14). We could say that Saul had no personal relationship with God because he didn't want one. Instead of trying to desperately achieve a face to face meeting with Samuel, or get another oracle from God, he should have reflected on the words from God he already had and prayed directly to God in repentance even at this late stage, and got himself right with God. But instead he went the way of religion by seeking to meet Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh has done to you as He spoke by me. Yahweh has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbour, to David- </p><p>The language of "torn" was appropriate to the mantle which Saul had earlier torn, and which Samuel was now wearing, presumably intact now, representing how the kingdom would be given intact to David. The kingdom was only "given" potentially to David, for it took him some years to establish it under his rulership. David is perhaps called Saul's neighbour to remind him that the essence of the covenant was to love one's neighbour as themselves; and Saul had cruelly broken this through his hatred of David.</p>


text:
<p>Because you didn’t obey Yahweh-</p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn’t hearken to God’s voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn’t hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>, although he hearkened to the voice of the witch, <a href='B:90 28:23'>1Sa 28:23</a>). If God’s word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>).</p><p>And didn’t execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, therefore Yahweh has done this to you today- </p><p>"Therefore" suggests that the events of "this day", not the next day, had been done in order to confirm the earlier judgement that Saul had been removed from kingship. But as discussed before, this could have been accepted by Saul, and he could still have been finally saved had he humbly accepted it. And now he has the chance to do that but again refuses, clinging on to His spear, the symbol of the kingship, until he impales himself upon it [if we compare the account given by the Amalekite in 2 Sam. 1]. </p><p>Saul is condemned because he did not execute [literally "do"] Yahweh's wrath with Amalek (1 Sam. 28:18). In 1 Sam. 11:6, Saul's wrath had been Yahweh's wrath, Saul's spirit was Yahweh's Spirit, they both heard the words about Jabesh and the threat of Nahash, and were filled with kindled wrath. When Saul sought to express that against Nahash, God's Spirit was with him. But with Amalek, Saul had fallen out of sync with God's Spirit. And so that Spirit departed from him. His will was no longer that of his heavenly Father. This was the struggle of the Lord, "not My will but Yours", the subjugation of the human spirit and will to that of God.        </p><p>We wonder why Samuel didn't mention the obvious- that Saul had sinned by going to a witch, and was fulfilling Samuel's earlier words to him, that Saul's rebellion earlier was as bad as the sin of witchcraft, Heb. 'bringing up', the word used in Saul's request to 'bring up' Samuel. Perhaps Samuel, and God, were prepared to overlook this- but the essence of Saul's problem was his refusal to give up the kingship and to permanently repent of his previous weaknesses and failures. And that is the focus of what Samuel has to say, still therefore hoping, we can infer, that Saul would repent. Because Saul didn't repent, his sin of going to a medium is later mentioned against him.</p><p>Saul is condemned because he did not execute [literally "do"] Yahweh's wrath with Amalek (1 Sam. 28:18). In 1 Sam. 11:6, Saul's wrath had been Yahweh's wrath, Saul's spirit was Yahweh's Spirit, they both heard the words about Jabesh and the threat of Nahash, and were filled with kindled wrath. When Saul sought to express that against Nahash, God's Spirit was with him. But with Amalek, Saul had fallen out of sync with God's Spirit. And so that Spirit departed from him. His will was no longer that of his heavenly Father. This was the struggle of the Lord, "not My will but Yours", the subjugation of the human spirit and will to that of God. </p><p>Saul is condemned because he did not execute [literally "do"] Yahweh's wrath with Amalek (1 Sam. 28:18). In 1 Sam. 11:6, Saul's wrath had been Yahweh's wrath, Saul's spirit was Yahweh's Spirit, they both heard the words about Jabesh and the threat of Nahash, and were filled with kindled wrath. When Saul sought to express that against Nahash, God's Spirit was with him. But with Amalek, Saul had fallen out of sync with God's Spirit. And so that Spirit departed from him. His will was no longer that of his heavenly Father. This was the struggle of the Lord, "not My will but Yours", the subjugation of the human spirit and will to that of God.        </p><p>Saul had twice been rejected by God; regarding not waiting for Samuel and being disobedient in <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a> ("You have not kept the commandment of Yahweh your God which He commanded you"), and then about Amalek. Perhaps "Because you didn’t obey Yahweh" refers to the 1 Samuel 13 situation, and then the Amalek disobedience of 1 Samuel 15 is referenced. Or perhaps "You didn’t obey Yahweh" also refers to the 1 Samuel 15 situation; because Saul's disobedience of <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a> was forgiven, and he was given another chance, which he then wasted by not obeying the commandments about Amalek. Such was God’s desire to save him, and to change His rejection of him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will deliver Israel and you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Yahweh will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>LXX "Israel with thee... thy sons with thee", emphasizing how Saul's disobedience was to lead many others to destruction with him. This is the characteristic of sin- that it harms others. That they would "be with me" reinforces the teaching that all men, good and bad, go to the same place at death- the unconsciousness of the grave. The differentiation between them, as taught in the Lord's parable of the sheep and goats, is only finally made at the judgment of the last day. Far from supporting any idea of an immortal soul, this passage actually is designed to deconstruct those wrong ideas.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul fell immediately his full length on the earth and was terrified because of the words of Samuel. There was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all that day and all that night-</p><p>Saul had earlier prostrated himself before Samuel in reverence. Now he again falls to the earth as he ought to have done before. He was passing through a figurative death, as did Daniel of whom the same words are used when he falls before the Angel, terrified and with no strength (<a href='B:340 10:8'>Dan 10:8</a>; <a href='B:340 10:16-17'>Dan 10:16-17</a>). Saul now has the chance to realize that the wages of sin is death- and arise in repentance. Even at this late stage. But he refuses.  Lying there, he could have accepted that he was having his judgment ahead of time, just as men are often given such opportunities today. But he died still clinging to his spear, the symbol of his kingship which he refused to let go, and impaled himself upon it. </p><p>Saul says nothing. There are clear similarities with what happened to Saul who became Paul, falling down and being speechless (Acts 9:7; 16:14). But Paul responded rightly, unlike king Saul. But the similarity shows that king Saul was being given the chance to respond.  </p>


text:
<p>The woman came to Saul- </p><p>"Came... And saw..." suggests the woman wasn't present earlier. The meeting was between Saul and Samuel, totally without her mediation. LXX "went in". Again the point is made that the conversation was directly between Samuel and Saul; the woman was not acting as a medium between them. See on :15.</p><p>And seeing that he was very troubled she said to him, Look, your handmaid has obeyed you and I have put my life in my hands and have done what you told me- </p><p>She may intentionally refer to how David put his life in his hands for Saul's sake (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>). Perhaps she had repented of her witchcraft and was in fact on David’s side.</p>


text:
<p>Now please listen to your handmaid and let me give you some food so that you may eat and have the strength to go on your way- </p><p>The contrast is with how Abigail had said these words to David, again in a context of food, and he had had the humility to hear the words of a woman. But Saul was proud to the last.</p>


text:
<p>But he refused and said, I will not eat. But his servants, together with the woman, urged him, so he listened to them. He got up from the earth and sat on the bed- </p><p>Literally, he was obedient to her voice. Whereas he had not been obedient to the voice of Yahweh; see on :18. LXX "sat upon a bench", recalling Eli sitting upon a bench the day when he and his sons died during another Philistine invasion. And they too had been told their ministry would be removed and passed to another (<a href='B:90 4:13'>1Sa 4:13</a>). From these similarities we see how God’s judgments work over the generations according to a similar hallmark; and we are therefore to learn from them.</p><p>Saul obeyed the voice of the people and the voice (s.w.) of the sheep and oxen that he covered (1 Sam. 15:24,24). Later he obeys the voice of Jonathan and promises not to kill David (1 Sam. 19:6) the voice of the witch and of his servants who persuade him against his will to eat (1 Sam. 28:22,23). We have the impression of a man readily persuaded by voices. If he had had a fundamental commitment to obey the voice of Yahweh as he was repeatedly asked, he would not have listened to these other voices. Nor the voices in his own head. Likewise those without a fundamental commitment to God's word are open to all the other voices around them, and likewise have no moral compass nor ethical direction.  The Hebrew for 'to hear' is the same as 'to obey'. Samuel had told Saul he would be made to hear or obey God's word (1 Sam. 9:27 "that I may tell you the message of God" uses the word for to hear / obey, the hint being 'that I may make you hear / be obedient to the message'). But he failed to make use of this be ause he found the voice of other things more attractive to hearken to. </p><p>Saul obeyed the voice of the people and the voice (s.w.) of the sheep and oxen that he covered (1 Sam. 15:24,24). Later he obeys the voice of Jonathan and promises not to kill David (1 Sam. 19:6), and the voice of the witch and of his servants who persuade him against his will to eat (1 Sam. 28:22,23). We have the impression of a man readily persuaded by voices. If he had had a fundamental commitment to obey the voice of Yahweh as he was repeatedly asked, he would not have listened to these other voices. Nor the voices in his own head. Likewise those without a fundamental commitment to God's word are open to all the other voices around them, and likewise have no moral compass nor ethical direction.  The Hebrew for 'to hear' is the same as 'to obey'. Samuel had told Saul he would be made to hear or obey God's word (1 Sam. 9:27 "that I may tell you the message of God" uses the word for to hear / obey, the hint being 'that I may make you hear / be obedient to the message'). But he failed to make use of this because he found the voice of other things more attractive to hearken to. </p>


text:
<p>The woman had a fattened calf in the house. She hurried and killed it, and she took flour, kneaded it and baked unleavened bread with it- </p><p>Hurrying to dress the fatted calf is exactly the language the Lord uses about the celebrations at the repentance of the prodigal son. Perhaps He perceived that even at this very late stage, repentance was potentially possible for Saul, and the woman [perhaps also repentant] wanted him to repent. It was a kind of potential celebration. But the only thing to possibly celebrate was his repentance. But he still refused. We marvel at God’s grace, and the hopefulness of His Son. His refusal to eat perhaps corresponds with that of the older brother in the prodigal parable, who "would not go in" (Lk. 15:28) and likewise went out into the night [as did Judas]. To kill the fatted calf was a major sacrifice for the woman. She surely could have offered Saul other food. I suggest she only did it for spiritual reasons. The only other time we read of flour being kneaded in haste with a calf slain was when Abraham and Sarah did this when the Angels came with the message of life out of death (Gen. 18:6,7). It is not impossible that there is allusion to this, and God was saying that His visitation of Saul through Samuel could be responded to by a fellowship meal. The word for "killed" used of the woman killing the calf is that used for ritual slaughter and sacrifice; and the sacrifice was accompanied by unleavened bread, as sacrifices were meant to be (Lev. 2:3-11). In this case, we have a bookend with how the Saul story began, with him being chosen as king at a ritual meal with Samuel. Perhaps this is why Saul refused it initially. But although he ate it for food, it seems all this potential was lost on Saul. Again we ask, What should Saul have done? He could have humbly repented and gone out to meet his death calm in the knowledge of God's ultimate acceptance. Instead he clung on to his spear to the bitter end, the symbol of his kingship, and committed suicide on it.</p>


text:
<p>She brought it before Saul and his servants and they ate. Then they got up, and went away that night-</p><p>They departed into the night (LXX), the language of condemnation. We naturally are invited to imagine Saul's feelings as he walked back that night; for he is the picture of all condemned by God after refusing every effort for their repentance. How a man meets his death is all important. Last minute repentance is always possible, as we see from the thief on the cross. A man may be an idolater all his days and repent at the end and be saved (Ezekiel). Saul had to die, just as we do, the wages of sin is death, but he refuses to meet that inevitable death with repentance. David sins no less than Saul [keeping the Amalekite cattle cp. David's sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah seems to weight the balance of sin level in Saul rather than David's favour]. But David repents when confronted with his sins. Saul has always justified himself, transferred the guilt, said the right words [e.g. when confronted by David in 1 Sam. 24,26] and then carried on regardless. </p>


text:
<p>The Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek, and the Israelites encamped by the spring in Jezreel- </p><p>"The spring in Jezreel" is now thought to be the fountain at Ain Jalut, "Goliath's fountain", regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath. This would have heightened the connections with that battle, and highlighted the absence of David and Samuel; see on <a href='B:90 28:4'>1Sa 28:4</a>, which also presents this battle in the same terms as that with Goliath.</p><p>Other battles had been fought on or near the plain of Esdraelon. Here Deborah and Barak defeated the host of Sisera (Jud. 4:15; 5:21). And here was where Gideon’s 300 defeated hordes of Midanites. These similarities were to remind Saul that victory against a vastly superior force was totally possible. He had earlier imitated Gideon and now he was invited to really do so. At the same time, David was leaving behind some of his soldiers in preparing to fight the Amalekites, just as Gideon did. Again we see David and Saul in parallel. They were both invited to follow Gideon's example of faith in victory through a minority. Only David responded positively to this. </p><p> In 1 Sam. 28 we have seen Saul in a dilemma, and he isn't helped out of it- because he is impenitent, fundamentally. Now we have David in a dilemma. And he is saved from it. He and Saul sinned about the same, perhaps David moreso. But sin itself isn't the issue. It's man's dealing with it in humility that matters. And so David was preferred over Saul. The king of Israel was called to save Israel from the Philistines (1 Sam. 9:16 "anoint him to be prince over My people Israel, and he will save My people out of the hand of the Philistines"). But it had always been David who had done this- Saul had failed in this regarding Goliath and the liberation of Keilah. Now the Philistines again threatened Israel, and it was the duty of Israel's king to save Israel from the Philistines. Even at this late stage, Saul should have recognized that it was not for him to lead Israel in battle against the Philistines, seeing he had been twice rejected as king, and David was the king God had chosen. What should Saul have done? Desperately beg David to come and be king and lead Israel. But he refused to accept God's word about him right until the end. It was all about him... and not about God's glory and the salvation of His Israel. </p><p> The mention of Aphek, not far north of Philistine territory, compares with how in 1 Sam. 28:5, the Philistines are already at Shunem, close to Mount Gilboa where they would fight with Saul. The material in 1 Sam. 29 is backtracking. So when David was dismissed from the Philistine army, they were only at Aphek and had some marching to do before coming to Shunem. So at the point when Saul meets the medium, David is already free from the Philistines and potentially available to Saul. Even at that late point, he could perhaps have resigned the kingship to David and asked for his military help, which may have defeated the Philistines. For the king of Israel was to defeat the Philistines, and by accepting David as that king, Saul may yet have been saved.  </p><p> "The spring in Jezreel" was likely the “spring of Harod” at which Gideon tested his men (Jud. 7:1). I have noted earlier that Saul had previously imitated Gideon, externally but not in spirit. Possibly the connection with the spring was to desperately seek to remind Saul, even at this late hour, that victory could be given to a far smaller group by God- if they totally trusted in Him as Gideon had. God's patient nudging of Saul towards true faith is amazing to perceive- and it went on right to the end of his life, right to the last day of that life. Just as God works oftentimes with man today.</p>


text:
<p>The lords of the Philistines marched on in units of hundreds and thousands, and David and his men marched in the rear with Achish- </p><p> The marching was northwards from Gaza / Gath to the area of Mount Gilboa in the north of the land. Marching in the rear as the vanguard was a place of trust (Is. 52:12). We are left to imagine what desperate plans were going through David’s mind. He didn’t want to fight his own people, he who had been so careful not to kill Saul. Achish was at the rear, out of danger's way. It appears David was already his personal bodyguard, so David would have been desperately praying that the Philistines would win and he would not be required to fight; or for some Divine intervention to save him. He of course should have done the honest thing and refused to fight. But having failed to do so, he was now in a very compromised situation. It was only by grace that he was saved from it. We have likely experienced such situations ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>Then the lords of the Philistines said, What about these Hebrews?- </p><p>This was the grace of Divine intervention. As discussed on :2, David got into it by his own weakness of faith. But God saved him from it now at the last minute by an unforeseen situation. The Philistines refused to have David and his men anywhere near the battle.</p><p>Achish said, Isn’t this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, who has been with me these days, or rather these years, and I have so far found no fault in him?- </p><p>Achish seems to have been the sole supporter of David amongst the Philistines. Quite why he had this strange sympathy for David, even making him his personal bodyguard, is not explained. Clearly God’s Spirit was at work giving this man an unusual attitude towards David. His idea was that David had once been Saul's servant but now was hated by him, and therefore David could be counted on as surely being against Saul. Achish failed to understand the love and grace which David had practiced toward Saul.</p><p>"Been with me" is AV "since he fell unto me", in the sense of deserting to his side (as in 1 Chron. 12:19). Achish presents as having totally fallen for David's fake narrative.  </p>


text:
<p>But the princes of the Philistines were angry with him and said to him, Send the man back to the place you have appointed for him- </p><p>Presumably they refer to Ziklag, perhaps not without a hint of resentment and disagreement that Achish personally had appointed this place for David and his men.</p><p>He must not go down with us to battle, in case he turns against us during the fighting- </p><p>The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (<a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word.</p><p>How better could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord- </p><p>Achish chose to interpret the fallout between Saul and David as meaning that David would be loyal to him and not Saul. But his commanders argued the other way. "This fellow" reflects their deep dislike of David.</p><p>Than with the heads of these men?- </p><p>They recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands?’- </p><p>"Sang" is present tense "sing". The song about David having slain ten thousands of the Philistines was probably a battle song amongst the Hebrews, encouraging themselves by remembering previous victories against the Philistines. It was bizarre that Achish could be so taken in by David's narrative, but here we have an example of how God's Spirit can work in a man's mind. </p><p>If indeed Saul reigned literally 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this celebration would have been quite some time previously. But the memory of that great humiliation was still very much alive amongst the rank and file of the Philistines. Achish seems so out of touch with these feelings that we wonder if he was himself actually a Philistine, or some non-Philistine who had taken power.</p>


text:
<p>So Achish called David and said to him, As Yahweh lives- </p><p>I have noted several times that the favour of Achish towards David was most unusual, and out of step with the feelings of the Philistine people in Gath, home town of Goliath. Here he swears by Yahweh [and you only swore by your own god in those times], and so we wonder whether he had been converted to David’s God; hence his particular grace toward David. But David had lied to him repeatedly in giving the impression he had been attacking the Israelites, when in fact he had been massacring various non Israelite settlements. So in this case, Achish came to the one true God through the witness of one of His followers who was not of integrity before Him. This would then be a parade example of where truth must triumph over personalities and the bad advertisement for God given by some of His most apparently devoted followers. If Achish was in fact a quiet worshipper of Yahweh, this would explain his otherwise inexplicable favour towards David.</p><p>You have been upright and your conduct with me in the army has been good in my sight; I have not found evil in you since the day you came to me till this day. But the lords don’t approve of you- </p><p>This estimation however was based upon David’s inveterate lying to him, and David massacring whole settlements lest a single person should survive to tell Achish what was really going on. We wonder how Achish felt afterwards, when he realized how badly he had been deceived; and whether he retained his faith in Yahweh by whom he has just sworn. But "till this day" could be Achish responding to David's double speak, by likewise hinting that David had previously been "good in my sight" until "this day"- when now, David was not good any longer.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore now return and go in peace; do not displease the lords of the Philistines- </p><p>To "return in peace" was a phrase sometimes used of returning from a military conflict in victory (Joshua 10; Joshua 21; <a href='B:70 8:9'>Jdg 8:9</a>; <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a>; <a href='B:110 22:28'>1Ki 22:28</a>). Perhaps Achish is saying that he knows David wants victory, but he as it were grants this to him. David can be the victor without having to fight.</p><p>And so David was saved from a terrible hole which he himself had dug, by Divine grace alone. Just as happened the previous time he fled to Gath. And yet all this happens at a time when David has been incredibly weak in faith by living with the Philistines and murdering so many people to cover his lies to Achish.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Achish, But what have I done? What have you found against your servant all the time I have been with you to this day, that I may not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?- </p><p>This is one of those statements which is left purposefully unclear as to its import, so that we can reflect upon it. There may be no correct answer; it is left for our imagination. David may have been gasping thankfulness to God at the deliverance from his hard situation, and just went along with the appearance he had given of being supportive of the Philistines by making this insincere protest. In this case, this was hardly an example of the “integrity” and “uprightness” which David glorifies in his Psalms, and which he insisted he was full of (<a href='B:230 25:21'>Psa 25:21</a>). Indeed he claims that his integrity is the basis of his acceptance by God (<a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>).</p><p>Or it could be that David evidently wanted to fight against Saul alongside the men of Achish, but planned to turn against them and fight for Saul, sandwiching the Philistines between the Hebrews- as they correctly guessed. This would have been suicidal. For Saul wanted to kill him, and the Philistines also would have tried to kill David as a result of this. He would have had no place to run. But even to the point of political suicide and the serious risking of his own life, David so loved Saul his enemy. This true love leads to and is related to true respect. This kind of respect is&nbsp; sadly lacking in our society, and has rubbed off upon our relationships within families and ecclesias. But whether all of his 600 men were equally convinced to take this huge risk is unclear. We note that David elsewhere often uses the phrase "my lord the king" to refer to Saul. If indeed David intended to turn against the Philistines and support Saul in a pincer operation against them, Saul could have still won the battle of Gilboa. But Saul didn't repent nor accept David as king, even in the last days of his life. Had he done so, the pincer operation David planned would have happened, Saul's life would have been spared, and he could then have proclaimed David as king. And been finally saved. We see how God tries to give men salvation right to the end of their days.</p>


text:
<p>Achish answered David, I know that you have been pleasing to me, as an angel of God, nevertheless the princes of the Philistines have said, ‘He must not go up with us to the battle’- </p><p>Achish clearly felt David was God’s representative to him, and thereby had come to accept Yahweh as his God (:6). "Been pleasing" or 'blameless' / 'good', is the same word used of how David was more "blameless / good" than Saul  and so he had been chosen as king (1 Sam. 15:28). One theme of the narrative here is the replacement of Saul by David. And yet David was hardly "good" at this time, what with murdering all the Bedouins in their encampments, lying to Achish etc. Perhaps the idea is that just as Achish naively saw David as "good", God imputed righteousness and likewise saw a 'not good' David as "good". On the basis of counting him righteous because of his faith.</p>


text:
<p>Now get up early in the morning with the servants of your lord who have come with you, and depart as soon as it is light- </p><p>Achish seems to be saying that David’s men were his servants, and is reminding him that he was David’s "lord". Perhaps he too was slightly jittery about the whole idea of David’s men coming to the battle. But probably by "your lord" he refers to Saul. For this is the context of :4 "How better could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord?". He would then be hitting back at David's ambiguous statement that he is ready to serve "my lord the king" (:8), without defining who that lord was, and having used the phrase often about Saul in the past. So it may well be that Achish presents as a naive ruler who easily changes his mind- for now he seems persuaded by his military commanders. So many kings are presented in the Biblical record like this, as naieve and fickle. This can be the result of absolute power and wealth. We may well ask why God allowed this whole scenario, with Achish believing David until the last minute and then changing his mind. Surely it was to bring David to his knees, begging God for a way out of what seemed an impossible situation, just as he had with Achish in Gath in 1 Sam. 21. </p>


text:
<p>So David got up early, he and his men, to depart in the morning to return to the land of the Philistines, and the Philistines went up to Jezreel- </p><p>Ziklag was considered to be in the land of the Philistines (:4). There is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); Samuel (<a href='B:90 15:12'>1Sa 15:12</a>); David (<a href='B:90 17:20'>1Sa 17:20</a>; <a href='B:90 29:11'>1Sa 29:11</a>); Hezekiah (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>; <a href='B:140 29:20'>2Ch 29:20</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:140 36:15'>2Ch 36:15</a>; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>When David and his men had come to Ziklag on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid on the South and on Ziklag, and had attacked Ziklag and burned it-</p><p>These Amalekites were those whose settlements David and his men had been massacring. It was of course providential that David returned when he did, rather than remaining say another week in northern Israel fighting Saul's army. Although he experienced a tragedy, it is clear from the preceding chapters that all these things were closely orchestrated by God. He actually avoided having to face a huge Amalekite attack on him which he may or may not have fought off. For he only had 600 men, and the 400 Amalekites who escaped from him later were just a tiny minority of their forces. He later won because he attacked them whilst they were drunk and partying. But he may not have fared so well if caught by a surprise attack by much larger forces. So again his weakness was used in God's gracious, providential plan.</p>


text:
<p>and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They didn’t kill any, but carried them off and went their way- </p><p>This is absolutely surprising, because David and his men had massacred the Amalekite settlements, leaving nobody alive to report to Achish what had happened. All through the record, there is the same hallmark of Divine grace. As often in the Biblical records, the people of God come over as less gracious than their surrounding Gentile neighbours. And yet all this happens at a time when David has been incredibly weak in faith by living with the Philistines and murdering so many people to cover his lies to Achish.</p>


text:
<p>When David and his men came to the city they found it had been burned, and their wives, their sons and their daughters taken captive- </p><p>Burning with fire was perhaps a sign of devotion of the town to their gods, just as Israel had burnt Hazor (<a href='B:60 11:13'>Jos 11:13</a>) and Midian (<a href='B:40 31:10'>Num 31:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then David and his men wept aloud until they had no more power to weep- </p><p>Heb. 'lifted up their voices and wept'. The phrase occurs around 10 times in the Hebrew Bible, and the context of each usage implies that this was not just mourning for that which had been lost, but mourning in the desperate hope and plea to God that things might change. But they wept until there was no more power to weep; they felt that the loss was permanent and now in fact there could be no remedy. Surveying the smouldering town, with no life anywhere, it would have seemed at first blush that their families had been burnt to death. And it would have been hard, because of the heat and smoke, to ascertain in depth whether there were bodies beneath the burning ruins; but they assumed so. Perhaps it was only at :8 that David learned that there was the possibility of recovering the spoil, implying their families had been taken captives and not burnt. The relevance to the exiles was that captivity and a burnt city [as Jerusalem was burnt] might seem irreversible; but the potential for restoration was there for them as it was for David at this time:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>David’s two wives were taken captive: Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail who had been the wife of Nabal the Carmelite- </p><p>It would have been a far cry for Abigail from the days of living in the prosperous family of Nabal in Carmel. We wonder whether these women were raped, which would have been the usual thing in such circumstances. The taking captivity of the women is stressed three times (:2,3,5) as if this was the hardest loss to cope with.</p>


text:
<p>David was greatly distressed, for the men spoke of stoning him because they were grieved, every man for his sons and his daughters- </p><p>Stoning was the punishment for heresy. Their superstitious minds doubtless assumed David had sinned in some way, and they were all suffering the consequence of that sin. His apparent plan to lie to Achish and then turn around and fight for Israel (see on <a href='B:90 29:8'>1Sa 29:8</a>) would have been hard to sell to 600 men. And there was likely a disease about the careful policy of lying to Achish about having attacked Hebrew settlements.</p><p>We note how circumstances repeat in our lives- for later Shimei tried to stone David as he fled from Absalom. </p><p>"Grieved" or 'bitter' is corresponds with how David's men were those discontented with their lives (1 Sam. 22:2). They were following David for what they could get out of him, rather than from belief in him as Yahweh's choice as king because he had a heart after God. We note their mean attitude towards those who were too weak to continue to the battle, and David's contrasting, generous spirit. David's spirituality in the wilderness years is the more commendable when we realize how little encouragement he had spiritually from others. Hence he encouraged / strengthened himself.</p><p>There are strong parallels between David and Saul as Saul's reign comes to an end. Saul is reminded by the resurrected Samuel how he disobeyed God by not destroying the Amalekites, and therefore had been rejected; whereas at the same time, David was pursuing and defeating the Amalekites. At this point, Saul also is in great distress (s.w. 1 Sam. 28:15) but finds no comfort from God whereas David does. And yet all this happens at a time when David has been incredibly weak in faith by living with the Philistines and murdering so many people to cover his lies to Achish.</p><p>But David strengthened himself in Yahweh his God- </p><p>Just the same phrase is used of how Jonathan had met with David and strengthened himself in Yahweh (<a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>). It happens with us too that the encouragement others give us, we later have to give to ourselves when alone and isolated. With 600 of his own men against him, David literally had to grab hold of himself (Heb:) in Yahweh. And we must all pass through these times when even those on our side turn upon us, and we are left with Yahweh alone. We have to grab hold of ourselves (Heb.)- another of many indications of the two sides to our nature, and how the good must triumph over the evil.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, Please bring me here the ephod. Abiathar brought the ephod to David- </p><p>We note that they had taken the ephod with them into battle. It was brought to David, because David was going to use it himself as the high priest did, such was his personal relationship with God. He didn’t ask Abiathar to get an answer for him, he himself used the urim and thummim stones, and they flashed out answers in response to his prayers.</p>


text:
<p>and David inquired of Yahweh saying, Shall I pursue this raiding party? Will I overtake them? He answered, Pursue, for you will certainly overtake them and recover all- </p><p>The urim and thummim in the ephod gave yes / no answers to the various questions posed. I suggested on :4 that this was perhaps the first intimation the men had that their families were alive and not burnt to death. David would surely have seen the similarities between his situation and that of Abraham, who went to Damascus to rescue Lot with his 318 servants, and won an amazing victory. But David failed to follow Abraham as he might have done in this matter; see on :20. One advantage of familiarity with the Biblical record is that we perceive how circumstances repeat; what we pass through has its Biblical precedent in the biographies which were selected by God and recorded there, inspiring us to follow onwards in faith. Truly through patience and comfort of the scriptures we have hope (<a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So David and the six hundred men who were with him went to the brook Besor, where those who were left behind had stayed- </p><p>LXX "the superfluous ones stopped", the 200 weaker ones of :10, who were unnecessary for the victory. This would be a clear connection with Gideon, whose fighting force was also cut down by God next to a river. David had previously been in situations allusive to those featuring Gideon. He would have seen that this was God encouraging him in those similarities, urging him to follow Gideon's faith to the end. According to :21 LXX "he had caused them to remain by the brook of Bosor". See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>But David pursued the Amalekites with four hundred men; two hundred had stayed behind because they were so exhausted that they couldn’t go over the brook Besor- </p><p>As noted on :9 and :21, this was because David made them remain behind. "Stayed behind" is the usual word translated "stood". It would be wrong to think they collapsed exhausted on the ground. They stood, at least in God’s eyes. And perhaps they literally stood guard over the baggage (:24). We see the difference in how David treated his weak ones, and how the Amalekite treated his Egyptian servant who was too weak to continue.</p>


text:
<p>They found an Egyptian in the field and brought him to David, and gave him food and he ate, and they gave him water to drink- </p><p>Heb. 'they made him drink water'; here and in :12 the Divine cameraman is zoomed in close up upon this dehydrated man they found lying as good as dead in a field. We see them in :12 giving him exactly two clusters of raisins, and piece, but not all, of a cake of figs. This focus is perhaps to show how God always uses some human mechanism in the way He works, and that mechanism is often man at his weakest.</p>


text:
<p>They gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. When he had eaten, he revived, for he had eaten no food nor drunk any water for three days and three nights- </p><p>See on :11. They actually saved the life of that dehydrated man, left to die. Three days and nights of effective death and then resurrection, eating "a piece" of food as the Lord ate "a piece" of fish afterwards (<a href='B:490 24:42'>Luk 24:42</a>), all makes him a strange type of the Lord Jesus. This supports the suggestion on :11, that the weakest of men are used by God and shown to have connection with the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>David asked him, To whom do you belong? Where are you from? He said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite, and my master left me because three days ago I fell sick- </p><p>Although the Amalekites were taking understandable revenge for David massacring their settlements, they had not killed any of David’s people, unlike David. And yet they are presented here as callous and uncaring (see on :16). The man had been left in the field immediately he fell sick rather than being cared for (he had not drunk water for three days, :12). For care for sick servants was a basic part of Middle Eastern culture at the time, and was also enshrined in the spirit of the law of Moses. Perhaps we are given this detail to highlight how amazing was God’s grace in moving the Amalekites to not murder a single one of the many women and children they had taken captive.</p>


text:
<p>We made a raid on the South of the Cherethites and on the territory which belongs to Judah and on the South of Caleb, and we burned Ziklag with fire- </p><p>This total honesty, admitting to Israelites that he had been part of raids on Judah, with the Cherethites being David’s personal bodyguards, compares with the dishonesty of David, who said he had raided these areas when he had not. The contrast is intentional so that we see how even at this time of becoming king, David was so very weak spiritually. "Caleb" refers to Hebron, the town given him for an inheritance (<a href='B:60 21:11-12'>Jos 21:11-12</a>). The man was his inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, Will you lead me down to this raiding party? He said, Swear to me by God that you will neither kill me nor deliver me up into the hands of my master, and I will take you down to them- </p><p>To be delivered into the hands of his master Saul had been David’s great fear for decades. He was now given an opportunity to reflect the grace he had been shown. And we too are given personal encounters and circumstances in our lives which provide us with opportunities. "Raiding party" is as in Ps. 18:29, "By You I advance against a troop"- surely David's later reflection on this victory. He achieved it by his single handed faith in God, for his men were bitter and depressed and wanted only to kill him, assuming all was lost.</p>


text:
<p>When he had led him down- </p><p>There are intended similarities with Moses coming down from the mountain and seeing Israel dancing in their drunken apostasy. That they didn’t murder a single Hebrew captive is the more remarkable, seeing here and in :13 the Amalekites are presented in very bad terms.</p><p>There they were, spread around over all the ground, eating, drinking and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines and out of the land of Judah- </p><p>The language of being spread abroad upon the eretz, the land / earth, is used of judgment. They had judged themselves by doing this. And yet we note that David and his men had pillaged the Amalekite settlements and taken their spoil for themselves. The spoil the Amalekites had now taken from David’s encampment at Ziklag was likely comprised of animals and spoil which had originally been theirs, but David had taken it.</p>


text:
<p>David fought them from twilight to the evening of the next day. Not a man of them escaped except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled- </p><p>We note how 400 Israelites defeated the Amalekites, and yet 400 Amalekites escaped. The similarity in the numbers may have been in order to teach David and his men that they too had only survived by a hairsbreadth. They were to remember in the exhilaration of victory that they had only just escaped with their lives by God’s grace in previous deliverances. And this feature is potentially built in to our experiences of success, if we will perceive it. We also see how outnumbered David was- he had 400 men, whereas just a minority of his enemies numbered 400 men. This great victory by David against a much larger force happened at the very same time as Saul was being defeated by the Philistines. Likewise David's consultation of the urim [and getting an answer] was done around the time Saul consulted the urim [and got no answer]. Through all the web of moral issues leading up to why the Amalekites had attacked Ziklag, God brought about an amazing closing scenario of Saul's demise and David's rise to the throne. God likewise weaves His bigger pictures through all the weak threads of our own poor decisions, sins and failures.</p>


text:
<p>David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives- </p><p>There is double emphasis upon the way that "all they had taken" was restored (:19). It was all clearly of God’s restorative power, that the Amalekites didn’t murder anyone, and all was restored. This would have been comfort to the exiles, that God is able to restore, just as He completely restored the fortunes of Job. "Rescued / recovered" is the same word used of the restoration of the exiles from Babylon (<a href='B:330 34:10'>Eze 34:10</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:400 4:10'>Mic 4:10</a>; <a href='B:450 3:2'>Zec 3:2</a>). See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>There was nothing missing, small or great, sons or daughters, spoil or anything that they had taken. David brought back everything- </p><p>"Brought back" translates the word usually rendered 'return' in the context of the exiles returning and being restored at the restoration. This amazing restoration, beyond all Judah could ever have imagined possible, was potentially possible through a descendant of David at their time. But so much potential was wasted by their lack of faith and preference to remain in Babylon, as it is for so many today. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>He took all the flocks and herds, which they drove before the other livestock, and he said, This is David’s spoil- </p><p>This seems out of step with Abraham's attitude when he rescued Lot, refusing to take any spoil for himself. It’s recorded that in the ethnic cleansing which David performed, he took the spoil of those settlements for himself (<a href='B:90 27:9'>1Sa 27:9</a>). And now when he destroyed Ziklag, he took away their herds “and said, This is David’s spoil”. We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood and lack of integrity in hot blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). However, the idea may be that the spoil was designated "David’s spoil" and then it was this which was divided amongst David’s friends in Judah. It would have been a huge amount of spoil, because David sends it to so many people in Judah. </p>


text:
<p>David came to the two hundred men who had been so exhausted that they could not follow David, who had been left behind at the brook Besor, and they went out to meet David and the people who were with him. When David came near them he greeted them- </p><p>LXX "he had caused them to remain by the brook of Bosor". This would mean that the decision to leave them was David’s and not theirs. He had learned the lesson of Gideon, and knew he didn’t need numbers for victory. It was the lesson of his friend Jonathan's victory, that the Lord could save by many or by few (<a href='B:90 14:6'>1Sa 14:6</a>). We may learn a lesson [and David may have been Jonathan's companion at that time], and then find our grasp of it tested again, decades later.</p>


text:
<p><a href='B:90 30:22'>30:22</a> But all the wicked men and troublemakers among David’s followers said-<br/>
As will be noted further on <a href='B:90 30:23'>:23</a>, the situation here is intended to be analogous to that after Saul delivered Jabesh Gilead. “Wicked men” likewise talked badly of Saul after his victory and clear election by God (<a href='B:90 10:27'>1 Sam. 10:27</a>; <a href='B:90 11:12'>11:12</a>).</p>
<p>Because they didn’t go with us we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, just each man's wife and children; then he can take them away and depart-<br/>
David’s attitude is a radical inversion of all this. He not only shared the spoil with the 200 who didn’t participate in the battle; he went and distributed the spoil far and wide amongst God’s people. In this he looked forward to the Lord Jesus as it were sharing the spoils of His singular victory on the cross. The Lord's words of how He would “divide the spoils” of His victory may be consciously alluding to David’s attitude at this point (<a href='B:490 11:22'>Lk. 11:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David said, You must not do that, my brothers, with what Yahweh has given us- </p><p>LXX "Ye shall not do so, after the Lord has delivered the enemy to us". If we realize that the victory is the Lord's and not ours, then all self seeking or taking of personal credit naturally finishes. David is in fact exactly copying the spirit of Saul in <a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>: "Saul said, No-one is to be put to death today, for today Yahweh has worked deliverance in Israel". David now copies that spirit; and we see his humility in being willing to credit Saul with something good, and even being willing to learn from a man who hated him and later went wrong before God. The men of Jabesh are perhaps other examples of being positive about Saul's earlier life (<a href='B:90 31:11'>1Sa 31:11</a>). He saw the spoils as what they had been given, by grace, and now what they had fought for.</p><p>He has preserved us and delivered the forces that came against us into our hand- </p><p>David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God’s ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn’t obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


