# commentaries

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>


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.</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>There were no Mosaic restrictions upon how the shewbread could be used after it had been taken out of the holy place. It seems this request was adding a fence to the law.</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>


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. But 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.</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.</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>


text:
<p>David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of 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 situation with Saul (the subject of Psalms 57) and reapplied it to his situation in Gath in Psalms 56. 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>


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.</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.</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>


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 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>


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.</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>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>


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.</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>


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 of 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.</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.</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.</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>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>


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>


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>


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>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>


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>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.</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.</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>


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.</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).</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>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>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.</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. 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>


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>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. 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.</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. 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. 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. 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 ecclesias.</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>


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>). 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>


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>


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>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.</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>


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>'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>).</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>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>


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>


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. 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>).</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".</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>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>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>


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 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>"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>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>


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>


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>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>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>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.</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.</p><p>When Yahweh has dealt well with my lord, then remember your handmaid- </p><p>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>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>


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.</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 strike. 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>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. "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.</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>


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 our 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, 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 is 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>


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".</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>


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>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>


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.</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>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>


text:
<p>Now therefore, don’t let my blood fall to the earth far from the presence of Yahweh- </p><p>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>


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.</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>


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>


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>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>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.</p><p>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>).</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>


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).</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>


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>


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.</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.</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>


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.</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>


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 witch. 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 witch (<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>


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>


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>


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>


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.</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>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.</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.</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>


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".</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?-</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>


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>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.</p>


text:
<p>The woman came to Saul- </p><p>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>


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.</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.</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>


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>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>


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>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.</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.</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>


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.</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).</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.</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.</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.</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>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.</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. "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.</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.</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.</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:
<a href='B:90 30:22'>30:22</a> But all the wicked men and troublemakers among David's followers said-</p><p>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. &quot;Wicked men&quot; 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- </p><p>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 &quot;divide the spoils&quot; 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>


text:
<p>Who will listen to what you say? The share of the one who goes down to the battle shall be the same as the share of the one who stays with the baggage; they shall share alike- </p><p>LXX "for they are not inferior to us". The reference to staying with the baggage corroborates with the word used in :10; the 200 remained 'standing', standing guard, and not slumped on the ground. Again we note the contrast with how David values his weak servants, compared to how the Amalekite discarded his Egyptian servant when he was too weak to continue marching. See on :22. The word for "share" in <a href='B:90 30:24'>1Sa 30:24</a> is that used in <a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>, where the Levites were to have the same "portions" or "share". David's language choice was setting up his men to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>From that day forward he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel to this day- </p><p>The law of Moses was added to in practical terms as situations arose in Israel's history. It was not seen as static, and this eased the way towards the idea that it could be amended and then abrogated by the Lord's work.</p>


text:
<p>When David came to Ziklag he sent some of the spoil to the elders of Judah, his friends, saying, Here is a present for you from the spoil of the enemies of Yahweh- </p><p>Note the intended contrast between friends of David and enemies of Yahweh. David is careful to show that Yahweh's enemies were the Gentile marauders of His people, and not Saul and his supporters. This matches the Lord's dividing up the spoils of His singular victory (<a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a>); see on :20,24.</p>


text:
<p>He sent it to those who were in Bethel, Ramoth of the South, Jattir- </p><p>Some of these places may have been plundered by the Amalekites, since they had invaded the south of Judah (:14). The Hebrews of Judah would have received news of Saul's defeat and murder at the same time as they received news of David's victory and evidence of it in the presents sent to them. The timing was clearly Divine; for David was thereby established as the logical next king of Judah. "Bethel" here is the small settlement near Ziklag (<a href='B:60 15:30'>Jos 15:30</a>; <a href='B:60 19:4'>Jos 19:4</a>; <a href='B:130 4:30'>1Ch 4:30</a>), not the well known Bethel in the tribe of Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>Aroer, Siphmoth, Eshtemoa- </p><p>This is not the Aroer on the river Arnon, but some smaller settlement in southern Israel. “Shama and Jehiel the sons of Hothan the Aroerite” were amongst David’s mighty men (<a href='B:130 11:44'>1Ch 11:44</a>). Perhaps David hid in the area whilst on the run from Saul, and these two men went off with him. Eshtemoa was a priestly city; it would seem the priests were largely supportive of David when on the run from Saul, perhaps due to Samuel's influence (<a href='B:60 15:50'>Jos 15:50</a>; <a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>). Siphmoth was the home town of Zabdi, who had charge of David's wine cellars (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>). Those who supported him in his wilderness years, when he seemed a hopeless case, became exalted in his kingdom. And in the type, this is true of we who support the Lord Jesus in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Racal, the cities of the Jerahmeelites, the cities of the Kenites- </p><p>The record of these names may be in order to highlight the awful lie David had told Achish in <a href='B:90 27:10'>1Sa 27:10</a>, claiming he had turned his hand against his friends and supporters: "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". Racal is LXX "Carmel".</p>


text:
<p>Hormah, Borashan, Athach- </p><p>Hormah ["devoted"] is the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"] of <a href='B:70 1:17'>Jdg 1:17</a>. The strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hebron and to those in all the places where David himself and his men used to stay- </p><p>The record has noted that some areas had betrayed him to Saul (we think of the men of Jabesh and Ziph); or like Nabal, refused to support him when in need. But clearly he had support amongst many in Judah, who had supported him over the years. And he remembered exactly who they were, and sent these presents to them- now sensing that Saul's end was near and he was to become king at least over Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and fell down slain on Mount Gilboa- </p><p>It is really stressed that Saul and Jonathan "fell" on Gilboa (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:90 31:8'>1Sa 31:8</a>; <a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a>; <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>; <a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), using a Hebrew word which is often associated with spiritual falling. The fact that "the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons" (<a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>) gives the impression of them fleeing from the Philistine soldiers. This sends the mind back to the Law's warning that an apostate Israel would flee before their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a>). Saul and Jonathan are described in terms representative of apostate Israel; see <a href='B:370 2:14-15'>Amo 2:14-15</a>; Micah 1, 2 and expositions there. But the fall of Israel was due to the fall of Saul (see on <a href='B:90 28:19'>1Sa 28:19</a>); instead of being the king who led to victory as Israel had hoped and as God had enabled, he led to shame and defeat.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second...", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The battle went badly against Saul, the archers overtook him and wounded him badly- </p><p>This was all such a reversal of fortunes. When the Philistines stopped the Israelites from having metal weapons, they honed their skills as slingers and archers. But now it was Philistine archers who wounded Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his armour bearer, Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and abuse me!-</p><p>"Lest they mock / abuse me" were to be the very words of Zedekiah (<a href='B:300 38:19'>Jer 38:19</a>). The message for the exiles was that their leadership had indeed acted and been judged as Saul, but there was hope for restoration in a revived David figure.</p><p>But his armour bearer would not, for he was respectful. Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it- </p><p>This man, although close to Saul, had been influenced by the spirit of David who would not lift up his hand against Yahweh's anointed. He may well have been near Saul on the two occasions David had come close to him and had chosen not to slay him. We learn from this that there may be people who think rightly in positions we would not imagine.</p>


text:
<p>When his armour bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell on his sword and died with him- </p><p>Fair attention is given to this man. As noted on :4, he was like Jonathan and many, in that his loyalties were divided. He was personally loyal to Saul, feeling that Saul's death was his death; and yet also loyal to the spirit of David, in that he would not slay Yahweh's anointed, and respected him as that right up to Saul's hopeless end. We may well meet him in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>So Saul died, and his three sons and his armour bearer and all his men, that same day together- </p><p>To all die on the same day was tragic; and recalls the deaths of Eli and his sons at the hands of the Philistines. They died in fulfilment of prophecies that they must be replaced by a faithful priest, of whom Samuel was a potential fulfilment. The situation with the deaths of Saul and his sons was so similar. We see the same Divine hand at work.</p><p>"Many of the people" (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>, where “all his men” refers to Saul’s immediate body-guard.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley, and those who were beyond the Jordan, saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities and fled, and the Philistines came and lived in them- </p><p>The valley of Jezreel is in view; it was the most fertile part of Israel. The translation may be better "on the side of the valley". The forsaken cities appear to apply only to that valley in <a href='B:130 10:7'>1Ch 10:7</a>. "Beyond the Jordan" may mean 'on the river banks'. There is little archaeological evidence that the Philistines possessed the territory east of Jordan for very long. Soon after this, Abner proclaimed Ishbosheth as king at Mahanaim, about twenty miles east of the Jordan (<a href='B:100 2:8'>2Sa 2:8</a>). So these gains of the Philistines were short-lived, and they lacked the numbers of population to really settle all this territory. But the impression is given of a total Philistine victory in the north of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa-</p><p>The fact this was done the next day suggests the battle continued into the late evening, with Saul fighting literally to the end.</p>


text:
<p>They cut off his head, stripped off his armour and sent into the land of the Philistines all around to carry the news to the house of their idols and to the people- </p><p>This may well have been to allude to what David had done to Goliath many years before, placing his armour in the tabernacle; the sting of which remained with them. But the record mocks how they had to take the news to their idols; unlike Yahweh who sees and knows all things, and even before they happen.</p>


text:
<p>They put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan- </p><p><a href='B:130 10:10'>1Ch 10:10</a> says that they fastened the head of Saul in Dagon's temple. <a href='B:130 10:12'>1Ch 10:12</a> adds the detail that the bodies of his sons were likewise fastened to the wall. Herodotus writes of a great temple to Venus in Ashkelon.</p>


text:
<p>When the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul-</p><p>They had been saved by Saul in 1 Samuel 11, maybe 40 years before (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). They had total loyalty to Saul even now at the end, when surely it was clear that David was the king of God's choice and Saul had sinned and failed. Perhaps they set a good example of appreciating the good a man once did or taught, even if in later life he turned away from God. As explained on <a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>, this was how David treated Saul.</p>


text:
<p>all the valiant men arose and travelled all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan, and they went to Jabesh and burnt them there- </p><p>Cremation was not common amongst the Jews, but perhaps they did this lest his body be abused further, seeing that they were under Philistine domination.</p>


text:
<p>They took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days- </p><p>We recall how it was beneath a tamarisk tree that Saul had ordered the massacre of the priests of Nob (<a href='B:90 22:6'>1Sa 22:6</a>). Now it is his bones which are beneath such a tree.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites- </p><p>Saul was empowered to smite or slaughter the Amalakites (<a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>; <a href='B:90 15:7'>1Sa 15:7</a> s:w:), 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.</p><p>And David had stayed two days in Ziklag- </p><p>Ziklag was about 90 miles from Gilboa where Saul had been slain (cp. <a href='B:90 27:6'>1Sa 27:6</a>). A fast messenger would have taken two or three days to cover that distance with the news. The record has every 'ring of truth' to it in the details. It is this internal, circumstantial evidence which is to me the greatest proof that the Bible is indeed God's inspired word:&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:100 1:2'>2Sa 1:2</a></p><p>it happened on the third day, that behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul- </p><p>LXX "From the people of Saul". We wonder whether the man was in fact as he claimed, an Amalekite who had been with Saul. For David had just been fighting the Amalekites (:1), and was near their territory. I wonder if in fact he was a local man who had heard or even guessed the news and had come with his own agendas. The record of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 contradicts the story of the Amalekite. But the Biblical record at times describes things as they appear to be. The NT language of demons is another example. However the fact the man had Saul's crown and bracelets (:10) would suggest that he was one of the wandering types who hung around battlefields eager for the spoil.</p><p>The three days journey from Gilboa to Ziklag has been noted on :1, but we note that David had travelled with the Philistines almost to Gilboa (<a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>), and had then been sent back to Ziklag, and it had taken them three days to get there (<a href='B:90 30:1'>1Sa 30:1</a>). The record has every circumstantial evidence of being true.</p><p>With his clothes torn and dust upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and showed respect-</p><p>Literally, he made obeisance, the word being used specifically for worshipping God. He was showing that he accepted David as the new king. We note that all arguments that "Jesus received worship, therefore Jesus is God" are flawed in that the words for Divine worship are also sometimes used about the worship of men; and this is a parade example.</p><p>The language here is that of <a href='B:90 4:12'>1Sa 4:12</a>, where a Benjamite has the same tokens of mourning when bringing the news of the disastrous defeat of Aphek. I noted above that the man came "from the people of Saul" (LXX). Perhaps he was an Amalekite associated with Saul. See on :4.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:3'>2Sa 1:3</a> David said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him, I have escaped out of the camp of Israel- </p><p>This suggests the Amalekite was on Israel's side, and I have suggested on :2,4 that he was effectively a Benjamite from Saul's tribe and close to Saul.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a></p><p>David said to him, How did it go? Please tell me. He answered, The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also- </p><p>"Many of the people" (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>, where “all his men” refers to Saul’s immediate body-guard. The report of the bad news here is exactly that of <a href='B:90 4:16'>1Sa 4:16</a>, where a Benjamite reports a defeat in the same order: "The rout, the slaughter among the people, the death of the leaders, are mentioned in an ascending climax". This corroborates the suggestion on :2 that this Amalekite was in league with Saul quite closely.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:5'>2Sa 1:5</a></p><p>David said to the young man who told him, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?- </p><p>David is sceptical of the man from the start, but accepts what he says at face value and judges him accordingly.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:6'>2Sa 1:6</a></p><p>The young man who told him said, As I happened by chance on Mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning on his spear; and behold, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him- </p><p>'Happening by chance' contradicts his story that he had escaped out of the camp or army of Israel (:3). But David doesn't challenge this obvious contradiction, but rather judges the man according to his own words and claimed positions. Leaning upon his spear meant suicide; the contradiction was that Saul was utterly alone, and hadn't managed to kill himself by leaning upon his spear.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:7'>2Sa 1:7</a> When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, ‘Here I am’- </p><p>This contradicts the account of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31, and is a typical example of how a liar will fabricate details to try to make their story look first hand and credible.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:8'>2Sa 1:8</a></p><p>He said to me, ‘Who are you?’. I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite’- </p><p>Here we have another internal contradiction within the man's story. If Saul wished to die not at the hands of the uncircumcised, why then would he agree to being slain by an uncircumcised Amalekite.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:9'>2Sa 1:9</a></p><p>He said to me, ‘Please stand beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me’- </p><p>The man was perhaps aware of how David had spared Saul's life because he believed it was wrong to slay Yahweh's anointed. And so the man creates the story that Saul had all but killed himself by leaning on his own spear (:6), and the Amalekite had just helped him by putting him out of the agony of a bungled suicide. The story lacks credibility.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a></p><p>So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord- </p><p>As noted on :9, the man is trying to say that Saul was going to die anyway after having fallen upon his own spear in suicide (:6). In this case, there was no need to kill him, because Saul was going to die anyway in due course. The man's story is self contradictory. But David doesn't raise any of the obvious contradictions; like the Lord Jesus dealing with untruths told Him, he takes the words at face value and reasons with the man according to his own words. And this is a pattern for us, not to be so obsessed with "truth" that we demonstrate the contradictions in the words of others, but rather taking them at face value and drawing the conclusions from those words. In this case, despite all the contradictions, the man was saying that he had slain Yahweh's anointed, and that was the grounds of condemnation in David's eyes.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:11'>2Sa 1:11</a> Then David took hold on his clothes, and tore them; and likewise all the men who were with him- </p><p>David accepted that the man's story was true insofar as Saul was dead, with the crown and bracelets being evidence of that.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a></p><p>They mourned, wept and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Yahweh, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword- </p><p>We enquire why David weeps so sincerely for Saul. I don't believe it was mere theatricism, nor purely politically motivated by a desire to get the house of Saul onside with him in his new kingdom. There was something evidently genuine about his grief.</p><p><a href='B:230 35:14'>Psa 35:14</a> is David's comment about his grief for Saul both during Saul's life and also at his death: "I behaved myself as though it had been my friend or my brother. I bowed down mourning, as one who mourns his mother". This is one verse which to me is a cameo of the extent of the victory which David won against the mind of the flesh, against our massive tendency to repay sin with sin, bitterness with bitterness, anger with anger. If we take nothing else away from this, please focus your mind on this, and keep the memory: Here David protests his love for the one who was persecuting him (<a href='B:230 35:12'>Psa 35:12</a>) and is reflecting upon his attitude to Saul's death. "As one who mourns for his mother". This is surely one of the most powerful figures that could be employed. Picture a young man of say 24, in a dark blue suit, kneeling down at the graveside of his mother, surrounded by friends and relatives, bowing down heavily in his grief. Or picture a man of 34, 44, 54, hair greying and receding now, bowing himself down heavily. Or even 64, 74, alone in his grief, bowing down heavily to the green turf, muttering words about mum. Perhaps some of us haven't yet experienced this; many have. If you haven't, just imagine it. Surely it brings a lump to your throat. Now it was with this intensity of grief that David mourned the death or sickness of his persecutor. This is a wondrous reflection of his devotion, his true love, his triumph over bitterness and anger, over all the human actions that had been directed against him. The heavy bowing down of the Lord Jesus as he wept over Jerusalem, the city that hated and rejected him, whose leaders slew him, whose people screamed for his blood. David wept for Saul as if he was his friend or brother. Who was David's friend and brother? Surely Jonathan his brother-in-law. But he wept for Saul, David says, as he wept for Jonathan. This is testified to historically by David's lament of 2 Samuel 1. And still David sought out the house of Saul, “that I may shew the kindness of God” unto them (<a href='B:100 9:3'>2Sa 9:3</a>). It was the experience of Divine kindness that motivated David. As he hoped for fellowship at the King’s table in the future, so David delighted in inviting his former enemies to partake of his table, now he was king (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:11'>2Sa 9:11</a>; <a href='B:100 9:13'>2Sa 9:13</a>). And if we hope to share the Lord’s table in the Kingdom, we must share it with our weaker brethren now. I see in all this such a triumph for David, that a man should reflect the love of God to such an extent, to love in the face of such hatred, to not just love those who loved him.</p><p>The choice of a man mourning his mother, rather than a man his son, his father or his sister, was intentional. A man mourns for his mother because of the deep bond he feels now severed, and from feelings of guilt over ingratitude to her, lack of appreciation for her. And this was how David genuinely felt for Saul, despite all Saul's evil against him.</p><p>The deep sorrow of the Lord Jesus for Judas and all those who turn away is surely typified here. Right at the bitter end, the Lord still referred to him as His friend (<a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a>), even though a few hours before He had been speaking of how the faithful few were His friends, and how He would give His life for His friends (<a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Joh 15:13-15</a>). Throughout His ministry, the Lord had spoken of the faithful as His friends (<a href='B:490 14:20'>Luk 14:20</a>; <a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a>; <a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a>). This was the spirit of the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, this is what enabled Him to&nbsp; go through the mock trial, the intense degradation, the bitter pain of rejection, without bitterness and the sin of unholy anger. To be like David to Saul, like Paul to Corinth, like Christ to the Jews, like God to us, really is possible. If that's how we can live, we will truly be in the new life.</p><p>We must however compare this great love of David for Saul with the many bitter words of imprecation he says about him in his Psalms. See on :23. Perhaps one reason for David's sadness was that he realized that his overhasty prayers had in a way been answered. We really must be careful what we pray for, in case we receive it. Many human relationships include an element of love and hate [hence women remain in physically abusive relationships with men who protest "love" for them], and here David's love finally triumphs over the hate.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:13'>2Sa 1:13</a></p><p>David said to the young man who told him, Where are you from? He answered, I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite- </p><p>LXX "The son of an Amalekite sojourner". The man has already stated he is an Amalekite (:8), so the intention of David's question was not in order to elicit this information. Rather is David implying that it was even more wrong for an uncircumcised Gentile to slay Yahweh's anointed king of Israel.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:14'>2Sa 1:14</a></p><p>David said to him, How were you not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy Yahweh’s anointed?- </p><p>We tend to be particularly judgmental in cases where we ourselves overcame a temptation. David could have used his hand to slay Saul and his own men urged him to do so, and would've done so; but David resisted (the same term for putting forth a hand upon the anointed is used in <a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:90 24:10'>1Sa 24:10</a>; <a href='B:90 26:9'>1Sa 26:9</a>; <a href='B:90 26:11'>1Sa 26:11</a>; <a href='B:90 26:23'>1Sa 26:23</a>). And now he condemns to death a man who had done what he very nearly did, and what his own men wanted to do. And so the strongest condemnation for smokers comes from ex-smokers, and so forth. We need to be aware of this feature of human nature.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:15'>2Sa 1:15</a> David called one of the young men and said, Go near, and fall on him. He struck him, so that he died- </p><p>David had just slain the Amalekites with extreme brutality, slaying even their children so that none would be left alive to tell others that David's men had slaughtered them. David perhaps felt justified in this by <a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>, but I consider this was not David at his best. David still had that blood lust in him at this time. His slaying of this Amalekite could have been to demonstrate that he really was in lamentation for Saul's death and was truly sad, and believed that any who slew Yahweh's anointed must die the death. But his motives were surely mixed. He wanted to make a political statement to the house of Saul; and he also had blood lust in him from the recent fight with the Amalekites (:1). Not for nothing was he precluded from building the temple because God considered he had shed too much blood.</p><p>It seems to me that this was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities (<a href='B:100 4:12'>2Sa 4:12</a>). 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><p><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a> David said to him, Your blood be on your head; for your mouth has testified against you saying, ‘I have slain Yahweh’s anointed’- </p><p>As noted above, the man's story had various points of obvious internal contradiction within it. But David doesn't dwell upon these, although he may imply he considers the man is lying about the details, but rather judges the man according to his words and intentions. This looks forward to how the Lord Jesus will judge according to our words (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a> alludes here), by which men shall be condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). The need to respect Yahweh's anointed however continues to our day, for we too are anointed, in that we are "in Christ", the anointed one, and anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). This deep respect for all others "in Christ" should impart to relationships "in Christ" an altogether unique quality, a love so unusual that it is enough to convert the world (John 17).</p><p><a href='B:100 1:17'>2Sa 1:17</a></p><p>David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son- </p><p>David is careful to united Saul and Jonathan together; as noted on :12, he mourned "as though it [Saul] had been my friend or my brother" [Jonathan].</p><p><a href='B:100 1:18'>2Sa 1:18</a></p><p>(and he commanded them to teach the children of Judah the song of the bow- </p><p>Saul was slain by a bow, and this was to be memorialized in the title. Similarly <a href='B:20 3:1-22'>Exo 3:1-22</a> is called "The Bush" in <a href='B:480 12:26'>Mar 12:26</a>. Or the reference may be to Jonathan's fondness for archery (<a href='B:90 20:20'>1Sa 20:20</a>), and his gift of his own bow to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>). David and Saul had a highly complex relationship, pointing forward to the complexity of relationship between Christ and Israel. Consider the&nbsp; way that Jewry initially accepted John's Gospel of Messiah, how soon after the resurrection thousands of the priests who had rejected Christ then accepted him, and how even a few hours before the crucifixion the people shouted out for Jesus of Nazareth to be their Messiah-king. These are some of many hints that there was a complex acceptance-rejection relationship between Israel and Christ. Saul and David likewise had a mutual love and respect for each other. After all Saul had done to David, David's grief at his death in 2 Samuel 1 is deep indeed. David taught all Israel to regularly sing that song of grief for Saul, and his zeal to demonstrate his forgiveness to the house of Saul is outstanding. Saul's sons and family were also involved in the anti-David campaign.</p><p>Behold, it is written in the book of Jashar)- </p><p>Literally "the upright", showing how David imputed righteousness to Saul as an upright one. But this book has significantly not been preserved and was not Divinely inspired; because Saul is not ultimately in the book of God's upright ones.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a></p><p>Your glory, Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!- </p><p>LXX "Set up a pillar, O Israel, for the slain that died upon thy high places". Or the Hebrew for "glory" is that for "gazelle" and may refer to the swiftness of Jonathan. If the LXX is followed, we see David unafraid to break the spirit of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 26:1'>Lev 26:1</a>; just as David at times acted as a Levitical priest when he wasn't one. The reference to "high places" suggests idolatry, and there is the implication in the Psalms written against Saul that he was finally an idolater. The place of his death was therefore appropriate.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:20'>2Sa 1:20</a></p><p>Don’t tell it in Gath. Don’t publish it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph- </p><p>But all these things did of course happen (<a href='B:90 31:9'>1Sa 31:9</a>). We must read this as David's bitter regret that it happened.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a></p><p>You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain on you, neither fields of offerings- </p><p>LXX "Fields of firstfruits".</p><p>For there the shield of the mighty was shamefully cast away, The shield of Saul was not anointed with oil- </p><p>Shields were anointed with oil before going into battle (<a href='B:290 21:5'>Isa 21:5</a>). The idea may be that Saul's shield didn't save him, he perished as if he had not anointed it with oil; but the implication is that his anointing as king of Israel hadn't saved him. He had been rejected, in favour of David.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:22'>2Sa 1:22</a></p><p>From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, Jonathan’s bow didn’t turn back. Saul’s sword didn’t return empty- </p><p>Jonathan and Saul's " bow... and sword" were used by them in the fateful battle on Gilboa. Does this mean that Jonathan was trusting in his human strength again? Psalms 44, which sounds very much like David's meditation on Israel's defeat on Gilboa, includes the comment: "I (David) will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword&nbsp; save me" (<a href='B:230 44:6'>Psa 44:6</a>). Or does it mean that although Jonathan gave David / Jesus his human strength, his bow (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>), but David gave it back to him, for him to use on his own initiative?</p><p>It is possible to Biblically reconstruct the battle of Gilboa, and thus to enter into the pathos of the whole scene yet more fully. Saul and Jonathan did not retreat / turn back, when the rest of Israel did (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>). Saul and his sons held their ground, slaying many Philistines. But then Jonathan was wounded by an arrow (the Hebrew word translated "slain" in <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:22'>2Sa 1:22</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a> means to pierce to death; crucifixion language), as was Saul. Yet they kept on fighting, until they were surrounded on all sides; they died "in the midst&nbsp; of the battle" (<a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>); they "perished" (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), a Hebrew word also translated 'to have no way to flee'. They tried to flee, eventually throwing down their shields so that they could run faster (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a>). Eventually Jonathan and his brothers, the cream of Israel, lay slain on Gilboa, and Saul then fell on his sword:&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a></p><p>Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives- </p><p>LXX "Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the beautiful". Or, "loving and kindly". Saul had been anything but this, but it is part of love to impute righteousness to a person, to see them positively after their death; and this is why God's love leads to His imputation of righteousness to us, as Romans 1-8 explains. The sense of this verse in the Hebrew is that "Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided". But they were deeply divided in their lives. We see here David wishing by all means to impute righteousness to both Saul and Jonathan, even though he had suffered to terribly from Saul. We see here the measure of David. Despite his Psalms of imprecation against Saul, when Saul dies, he shows that in his heart he truly loved Saul and&nbsp; forgave him to the point of imputing righteousness to him. We must remember that when a man rails against another. The words are indeed sinful, for we shall be judged according to our words. But human nature is so contradictory that within there may also be a core love for the person being abused in hot blood. Thankfully God judges righteously, factoring in all the invisible things of the heart which man cannot; we cannot ultimately judge, and this inability is the reason why we must not judge.</p><p>In their death they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions- </p><p>David's lament over Saul and Jonathan is extremely positive, after the spirit of the way in which Christ looks upon his dead saints (cp. God's positive comments on many of the kings after their death). Yet we know that Saul's death was in recompense for his dire apostasy. In that punishment, David observed, he and Jonathan "were not divided". This may suggest that in some sense Jonathan was too closely linked with his father, and was therefore implicated in his punishment. It can be shown that not all Saul's sons died on Gilboa; therefore there was special point to the fact that Jonathan died with his father in that way. David's command that there should be no dew or rain upon the mountains (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a>) was to be picked up years later by Elijah, when he made the same imprecation against an apostate Israel (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>).</p><p>Consider the following:</p><p>- The description of Jonathan as the son of Saul occurs a massive 23 times; the connection between them is certainly highlighted. </p><p>- Jonathan had Gideon as his personal hero. Yet there is ample evidence that Saul too saw Gideon in this light. Does this suggest that in his more spiritual days, Saul successfully imparted his spiritual enthusiasm for Gideon to his son in Sunday school lessons? </p><p>- Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father's house.</p><p>- Jonathan was commander of the army (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>). When he gave "the robe that was upon him" to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>), he was effectively making David the commander (cp. <a href='B:140 18:9'>2Ch 18:9</a>; <a href='B:140 18:29'>2Ch 18:29</a>). Thus when "Saul set (David) over the men of war" (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>), he was tacitly going along with Jonathan's wish, even though by this time he had already heard the women praising David more than himself, and his bitter jealousy against David had already begun (<a href='B:90 18:6'>1Sa 18:6</a>). This little point simply shows the external unity of action between Saul and Jonathan.</p><p>This closeness in Jonathan's relationship with Saul shows the emotional tangle which Jonathan was in on account of his relationship with David. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, and if we are honest enough to come to terms with the pull of our own natures, we will be going through exactly the same. Our Lord seems to have seen in Jonathan a type of ourselves. In the context of warning us that loyalty to Him would mean confessing him before men and conflict between fathers and sons, he encourages us that not a hair of our head will perish (<a href='B:470 10:30'>Mat 10:30</a> cp. <a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a>). This is picking up the application of this phrase to Jonathan in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:24'>2Sa 1:24</a></p><p>You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet delicately, who put ornaments of gold on your clothing- </p><p>It was those daughters of Israel who had praised David more than they had Saul, and this had been the trigger for Saul's jealousy complex against David. Samuel had warned that Saul would make the daughters of Israel suffer, making them his slavegirls. But here again, David imputes righteousness to Saul, a sign of love. And that is the same outcome of the love of God for us in Christ.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a></p><p>How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places- </p><p>See on :22 for a reconstruction of the battle. I suggested on :23 that Jonathan died not at his spiritually best. The reference to his high places could imply that he died at the high places where he performed idolatry. We note the elements of idolatry in the names of his children.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a></p><p>I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women- </p><p>"The love of Christ, that passeth knowledge" (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a>) is clearly prefigured in David's feelings for Jonathan and the love of David for Jonathan. Despite many passionate relationships with women, experiencing the depth of human closeness more than many, David could sob: Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women". The Hebrew for " wonderful" has a root meaning 'separate'. This love of Jonathan was separate from all other love David had known:&nbsp; In this we see perhaps the first Old Testament foretaste of agape&nbsp; love, love beyond the phileo&nbsp;and eros. Emotionally and spiritually, Jonathan and David went way ahead of their time. David speaks of Jonathan's love in terms of male: female love. He describes him as "the beauty of Israel", "very pleasant hast thou been unto me"; and grammatically, "your love to me..." (<a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a>) implies that the lover was female. These two brethren had a spiritual love for each other which totally transcended the gender division. In like manner, our Lord said that male believers could be His sister and mother. We are dealing with high things here. Yet the heights of the David: Jonathan relationship are set down here to challenge us to at least try to touch the sky, however briefly. And when David later wrote of how good and “pleasant” it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 133), he surely had the pleasantness of his relationship with Jonathan in mind, and wished it to be shared by all his brethren.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a></p><p>How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!- </p><p>"The mighty"- see on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>. David had refused those same "weapons of war" in his victory over Goliath, and he may imply that now Israel were to learn the lesson- and trust in Yahweh rather than weapons. Indeed "the mighty" is the term used for Goliath in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1Sa 17:51</a>. It's as if David sees this defeat as a reversal of his victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>it happened on the third day, that behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul- </p><p>LXX &quot;From the people of Saul&quot;. We wonder whether the man was in fact as he claimed, an Amalekite who had been with Saul. For David had just been fighting the Amalekites (<a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>), and was near their territory. I wonder if in fact he was a local man who had heard or even guessed the news and had come with his own agendas. The record of Saul's death in 1 Sam. 31 contradicts the story of the Amalekite. But the Biblical record at times describes things as they appear to be. The NT language of demons is another example. However the fact the man had Saul's crown and bracelets (<a href='B:100 1:10'>:10</a>) would suggest that he was one of the wandering types who hung around battlefields eager for the spoil.</p><p>The three days journey from Gilboa to Ziklag has been noted on <a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>, but we note that David had travelled with the Philistines almost to Gilboa (<a href='B:90 29:1'>1 Sam. 29:1</a>), and had then been sent back to Ziklag, and it had taken them three days to get there (<a href='B:900 30:1'>1 Sam. 30:1</a>). The record has every circumstantial evidence of being true.</p><p>With his clothes torn and dust upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and showed respect-</p><p>Literally, he made obeisance, the word being used specifically for worshipping God. He was showing that he accepted David as the new king. We note that all arguments that &quot;Jesus received worship, therefore Jesus is God&quot; are flawed in that the words for Divine worship are also sometimes used about the worship of men; and this is a parade example.</p><p>The language here is that of <a href='B:900 4:12'>1 Sam. 4:12</a>, where a Benjamite has the same tokens of mourning when bringing the news of the disastrous defeat of Aphek. I noted above that the man came &quot;from the people of Saul&quot; (LXX). Perhaps he was an Amalekite associated with Saul. See on <a href='B:100 1:4'>:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him, I have escaped out of the camp of Israel-</p><p> This suggests the Amalekite was on Israel's side, and I have suggested on <a href='B:100 1:2-4'>:2,4</a> that he was effectively a Benjamite from Saul's tribe and close to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, How did it go? Please tell me. He answered, The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also-</p><p> &quot;Many of the people&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2 Sam. 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1 Sam. 31:6</a>, where &quot;all his men&quot; refers to Saul's immediate body-guard. The report of the bad news here is exactly that of <a href='B:90 4:16'>1 Sam. 4:16</a>, where a Benjamite reports a defeat in the same order: &quot;The rout, the slaughter among the people, the death of the leaders, are mentioned in an ascending climax&quot;. This corroborates the suggestion on <a href='B:100 1:2'>:2</a> that this Amalekite was in league with Saul quite closely.</p>


text:
<p>David said to the young man who told him, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?-</p><p> David is sceptical of the man from the start, but accepts what he says at face value and judges him accordingly.</p>


text:
<p>The young man who told him said, As I happened by chance on Mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning on his spear; and behold, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him-</p><p> 'Happening by chance' contradicts his story that he had escaped out of the camp or army of Israel (<a href='B:100 1:3'>:3</a>). But David doesn't challenge this obvious contradiction, but rather judges the man according to his own words and claimed positions. Leaning upon his spear meant suicide; the contradiction was that Saul was utterly alone, and hadn't managed to kill himself by leaning upon his spear.</p>


text:
<p>When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, 'Here I am'-</p><p> This contradicts the account of Saul's death in 1 Sam. 31, and is a typical example of how a liar will fabricate details to try to make their story look first hand and credible. </p>


text:
<p>He said to me, 'Who are you?'. I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite'- </p><p>Here we have another internal contradiction within the man's story. If Saul wished to die not at the hands of the uncircumcised, why then would he agree to being slain by an uncircumcised Amalekite.</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, 'Please stand beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me'- </p><p>The man was perhaps aware of how David had spared Saul's life because he believed it was wrong to slay Yahweh's anointed. And so the man creates the story that Saul had all but killed himself by leaning on his own spear (<a href='B:100 1:6'>:6</a>), and the Amalekite had just helped him by putting him out of the agony of a bungled suicide. The story lacks credibility.</p>


text:
<p>So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord-</p><p> As noted on <a href='B:100 1:9'>:9</a>, the man is trying to say that Saul was going to die anyway after having fallen upon his own spear in suicide (<a href='B:100 1:6'>:6</a>). In this case, there was no need to kill him, because Saul was going to die anyway in due course. The man's story is self contradictory. But David doesn't raise any of the obvious contradictions; like the Lord Jesus dealing with untruths told Him, he takes the words at face value and reasons with the man according to his own words. And this is a pattern for us, not to be so obsessed with &quot;truth&quot; that we demonstrate the contradictions in the words of others, but rather taking them at face value and drawing the conclusions from those words. In this case, despite all the contradictions, the man was saying that he had slain Yahweh's anointed, and that was the grounds of condemnation in David's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>Then David took hold on his clothes, and tore them; and likewise all the men who were with him-</p><p> David accepted that the man's story was true insofar as Saul was dead, with the crown and bracelets being evidence of that. </p>


text:
<p>They mourned, wept and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Yahweh, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword- </p><p>We enquire why David weeps so sincerely for Saul. I don't believe it was mere theatricism, nor purely politically motivated by a desire to get the house of Saul onside with him in his new kingdom. There was something evidently genuine about his grief.</p><p><a href='B:230 35:14'>Ps. 35:14</a> is David's comment about his grief for Saul both during Saul's life and also at his death: &quot;I behaved myself as though it had been my friend or my brother. I bowed down mourning, as one who mourns his mother&quot;. This is one verse which to me is a cameo of the extent of the victory which David won against the mind of the flesh, against our massive tendency to repay sin with sin, bitterness with bitterness, anger with anger. If we take nothing else away from this, please focus your mind on this, and keep the memory: Here David protests his love for the one who was persecuting him (<a href='B:230 35:12'>Ps. 35:12</a>) and is reflecting upon his attitude to Saul's death. &quot;As one who mourns for his mother&quot;. This is surely one of the most powerful figures that could be employed. Picture a young man of say 24, in a dark blue suit, kneeling down at the graveside of his mother, surrounded by friends and relatives, bowing down heavily in his grief. Or picture a man of 34, 44, 54, hair greying and receding now, bowing himself down heavily. Or even 64, 74, alone in his grief, bowing down heavily to the green turf, muttering words about mum. Perhaps some of us haven't yet experienced this; many have. If you haven't, just imagine it. Surely it brings a lump to your throat. Now it was with this intensity of grief that David mourned the death or sickness of his persecutor. This is a wondrous reflection of his devotion, his true love, his triumph over bitterness and anger, over all the human actions that had been directed against him. The heavy bowing down of the Lord Jesus as he wept over Jerusalem, the city that hated and rejected him, whose leaders slew him, whose people screamed for his blood. David wept for Saul as if he was his friend or brother. Who was David's friend and brother? Surely Jonathan his brother-in-law. But he wept for Saul, David says, as he wept for Jonathan. This is testified to historically by David's lament of 2 Sam. 1. And still David sought out the house of Saul, &quot;that I may shew the kindness of God&quot; unto them (<a href='B:100 9:3'>2 Sam. 9:3</a>). It was the experience of Divine kindness that motivated David. As he hoped for fellowship at the King's table in the future, so David delighted in inviting his former enemies to partake of his table, now he was king (<a href='B:100 9:7-13'>2 Sam. 9:7,11,13</a>). And if we hope to share the Lord's table in the Kingdom, we must share it with our weaker brethren now. I see in all this such a triumph for David, that a man should reflect the love of God to such an extent, to love in the face of such hatred, to not just love those who loved him.</p><p>The choice of a man mourning his mother, rather than a man his son, his father or his sister, was intentional. A man mourns for his mother because of the deep bond he feels now severed, and from feelings of guilt over ingratitude to her, lack of appreciation for her. And this was how David genuinely felt for Saul, despite all Saul's evil against him.</p><p>The deep sorrow of the Lord Jesus for Judas and all those who turn away is surely typified here. Right at the bitter end, the Lord still referred to him as His friend (<a href='B:470 26:50'>Mt. 26:50</a>), even though a few hours before He had been speaking of how the faithful few were His friends, and how He would give His life for His friends (<a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Jn. 15:13-15</a>). Throughout His ministry, the Lord had spoken of the faithful as His friends (<a href='B:490 14:20'>Lk. 14:20</a>; <a href='B:490 11:8'>11:8</a>; <a href='B:490 12:4'>12:4</a>). This was the spirit of the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, this is what enabled Him to  go through the mock trial, the intense degradation, the bitter pain of rejection, without bitterness and the sin of unholy anger. To be like David to Saul, like Paul to Corinth, like Christ to the Jews, like God to us, really is possible. If that's how we can live, we will truly be in the new life.</p><p>We must however compare this great love of David for Saul with the many bitter words of imprecation he says about him in his Psalms. See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>:23</a>. Perhaps one reason for David's sadness was that he realized that his overhasty prayers had in a way been answered. We really must be careful what we pray for, in case we receive it. Many human relationships include an element of love and hate [hence women remain in physically abusive relationships with men who protest &quot;love&quot; for them], and here David's love finally triumphs over the hate. </p>


text:
<p>David said to the young man who told him, Where are you from? He answered, I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite- </p><p>LXX &quot;The son of an Amalekite sojourner&quot;. The man has already stated he is an Amalekite (<a href='B:100 1:8'>:8</a>), so the intention of David's question was not in order to elicit this information. Rather is David implying that it was even more wrong for an uncircumcised Gentile to slay Yahweh's anointed king of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, How were you not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy Yahweh's anointed?-</p><p> We tend to be particularly judgmental in cases where we ourselves overcame a temptation. David could have used his hand to slay Saul and his own men urged him to do so, and would've done so; but David resisted (the same term for putting forth a hand upon the anointed is used in <a href='B:90 24:6'>1 Sam. 24:6</a>,<a href='B:90 24:10'>10</a>; <a href='B:90 26:9'>26:9</a>,<a href='B:90 26:11'>11</a>,<a href='B:90 26:23'>23</a>). And now he condemns to death a man who had done what he very nearly did, and what his own men wanted to do. And so the strongest condemnation for smokers comes from ex-smokers, and so forth. We need to be aware of this feature of human nature.</p>


text:
<p>David called one of the young men and said, Go near, and fall on him. He struck him, so that he died-</p><p> </p><p>David had just slain the Amalekites with extreme brutality, slaying even their children so that none would be left alive to tell others that David's men had slaughtered them. David perhaps felt justified in this by <a href='B:20 17:16'>Ex. 17:16</a>, but I consider this was not David at his best. David still had that blood lust in him at this time. His slaying of this Amalekite could have been to demonstrate that he really was in lamentation for Saul's death and was truly sad, and believed that any who slew Yahweh's anointed must die the death. But his motives were surely mixed. He wanted to make a political statement to the house of Saul; and he also had blood lust in him from the recent fight with the Amalekites (<a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>). Not for nothing was he precluded from building the temple because God considered he had shed too much blood. </p><p>It seems to me that this was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities (<a href='B:100 4:12'>2 Sam. 4:12</a>). We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1 Chron. 22:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, Your blood be on your head; for your mouth has testified against you saying, 'I have slain Yahweh's anointed'- </p><p>As noted above, the man's story had various points of obvious internal contradiction within it. But David doesn't dwell upon these, although he may imply he considers the man is lying about the details, but rather judges the man according to his words and intentions. This looks forward to how the Lord Jesus will judge according to our words (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Lk. 19:22</a> alludes here), by which men shall be condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mt. 12:37</a>). The need to respect Yahweh's anointed however continues to our day, for we too are anointed, in that we are &quot;in Christ&quot;, the anointed one, and anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2 Cor. 1:21</a>). This deep respect for all others &quot;in Christ&quot; should impart to relationships &quot;in Christ&quot; an altogether unique quality, a love so unusual that it is enough to convert the world (Jn. 17).</p>


text:
<p>David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son- </p><p>David is careful to united Saul and Jonathan together; as noted on <a href='B:100 1:12'>:12</a>, he mourned &quot;as though it [Saul] had been my friend or my brother&quot; [Jonathan]. </p>


text:
<p>(and he commanded them to teach the children of Judah the song of the bow- </p><p>Saul was slain by a bow, and this was to be memorialized in the title. Similarly <a href='B:20 3:1-225'>Ex. 3:1-22</a> is called &quot;The Bush&quot; in <a href='B:480 12:26'>Mk. 12:26</a>. Or the reference may be to Jonathan's fondness for archery (<a href='B:90 20:20'>1 Sam. 20:20</a>), and his gift of his own bow to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>). David and Saul had a highly complex relationship, pointing forward to the complexity of relationship between Christ and Israel. Consider the  way that Jewry initially accepted John's Gospel of Messiah, how soon after the resurrection thousands of the priests who had rejected Christ then accepted him, and how even a few hours before the crucifixion the people shouted out for Jesus of Nazareth to be their Messiah-king. These are some of many hints that there was a complex acceptance-rejection relationship between Israel and Christ. Saul and David likewise had a mutual love and respect for each other. After all Saul had done to David, David's grief at his death in 2 Sam. 1 is deep indeed. David taught all Israel to regularly sing that song of grief for Saul, and his zeal to demonstrate his forgiveness to the house of Saul is outstanding. Saul's sons and family were also involved in the anti-David campaign. </p><p>Behold, it is written in the book of Jashar)- </p><p>Literally &quot;the upright&quot;, showing how David imputed righteousness to Saul as an upright one. But this book has significantly not been preserved and was not Divinely inspired; because Saul is not ultimately in the book of God's upright ones.</p>


text:
<p>Your glory, Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!- </p><p>LXX &quot;Set up a pillar, O Israel, for the slain that died upon thy high places&quot;. Or the Hebrew for &quot;glory&quot; is that for &quot;gazelle&quot; and may refer to the swiftness of Jonathan. If the LXX is followed, we see David unafraid to break the spirit of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 26:1'>Lev. 26:1</a>; just as David at times acted as a Levitical priest when he wasn't one. The reference to &quot;high places&quot; suggests idolatry, and there is the implication in the Psalms written against Saul that he was finally an idolater. The place of his death was therefore appropriate. </p>


text:
<p>Don't tell it in Gath. Don't publish it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph- </p><p>But all these things did of course happen (<a href='B:90 31:9'>1 Sam. 31:9</a>). We must read this as David's bitter regret that it happened.</p>


text:
<p>You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain on you, neither fields of offerings- </p><p>LXX &quot;Fields of firstfruits&quot;.</p><p>For there the shield of the mighty was shamefully cast away, The shield of Saul was not anointed with oil- </p><p>Shields were anointed with oil before going into battle (<a href='B:290 21:15'>Is. 21:5</a>). The idea may be that Saul's shield didn't save him, he perished as if he had not anointed it with oil; but the implication is that his anointing as king of Israel hadn't saved him. He had been rejected, in favour of David. </p>


text:
<p>From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, Jonathan's bow didn't turn back. Saul's sword didn't return empty- </p><p>Jonathan and Saul's &quot; bow... and sword&quot; were used by them in the fateful battle on Gilboa. Does this mean that Jonathan was trusting in his human strength again? Psalm 44, which sounds very much like David's meditation on Israel's defeat on Gilboa, includes the comment: &quot;I (David) will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword  save me&quot; (<a href='B:230 44:6'>Ps. 44:6</a>). Or does it mean that although Jonathan gave David / Jesus his human strength, his bow (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>), but David gave it back to him, for him to use on his own initiative?</p><p>It is possible to Biblically reconstruct the battle of Gilboa, and thus to enter into the pathos of the whole scene yet more fully. Saul and Jonathan did not retreat / turn back, when the rest of Israel did (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1 Sam. 31:1</a>). Saul and his sons held their ground, slaying many Philistines. But then Jonathan was wounded by an arrow (the Hebrew word translated &quot;slain&quot; in <a href='B:100 1:19'>2 Sam. 1:19</a>,<a href='B:100 1:22'>22</a>,<a href='B:100 1:25'>25</a> means to pierce to death; crucifixion language), as was Saul. Yet they kept on fighting, until they were surrounded on all sides; they died &quot;in the midst  of the battle&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:25'>2 Sam. 1:25</a>); they &quot;perished&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2 Sam. 1:27</a>), a Hebrew word also translated 'to have no way to flee'. They tried to flee, eventually throwing down their shields so that they could run faster (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2 Sam. 1:21</a>). Eventually Jonathan and his brothers, the cream of Israel, lay slain on Gilboa, and Saul then fell on his sword. </p>


text:
<p>Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives- </p><p>LXX &quot;Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the beautiful&quot;. Or, &quot;loving and kindly&quot;. Saul had been anything but this, but it is part of love to impute righteousness to a person, to see them positively after their death; and this is why God's love leads to His imputation of righteousness to us, as Rom. 1-8 explains. The sense of this verse in the Hebrew is that &quot;Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided&quot;. But they were deeply divided in their lives. We see here David wishing by all means to impute righteousness to both Saul and Jonathan, even though he had suffered to terribly from Saul. We see here the measure of David. Despite his Psalms of imprecation against Saul, when Saul dies, he shows that in his heart he truly loved Saul and  forgave him to the point of imputing righteousness to him. We must remember that when a man rails against another. The words are indeed sinful, for we shall be judged according to our words. But human nature is so contradictory that within there may also be a core love for the person being abused in hot blood. Thankfully God judges righteously, factoring in all the invisible things of the heart which man cannot; we cannot ultimately judge, and this inability is the reason why we must not judge. </p><p>In their death they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions- </p><p>David's lament over Saul and Jonathan is extremely positive, after the spirit of the way in which Christ looks upon his dead saints (cp. God's positive comments on many of the kings after their death). Yet we know that Saul's death was in recompense for his dire apostasy. In that punishment, David observed, he and Jonathan &quot;were not divided&quot;. This may suggest that in some sense Jonathan was too closely linked with his father, and was therefore implicated in his punishment. It can be shown that not all Saul's sons died on Gilboa; therefore there was special point to the fact that Jonathan died with his father in that way. David's command that there should be no dew or rain upon the mountains (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2 Sam. 1:21</a>) was to be picked up years later by Elijah, when he made the same imprecation against an apostate Israel (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1 Kings 17:1</a>). </p><p>Consider the following:</p><p>- The description of Jonathan as the son of Saul occurs a massive 23 times; the connection between them is certainly highlighted. </p><p>- Jonathan had Gideon as his personal hero. Yet there is ample evidence that Saul too saw Gideon in this light. Does this suggest that in his more spiritual days, Saul successfully imparted his spiritual enthusiasm for Gideon to his son in Sunday school lessons? </p><p>- Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2 Sam. 9:7</a>,<a href='B:100 9:10'>10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father's house.</p><p>- Jonathan was commander of the army (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1 Sam. 13:2</a>). When he gave &quot;the robe that was upon him&quot; to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>), he was effectively making David the commander (cp. <a href='B:140 18:9'>2 Chron. 18:9</a>,<a href='B:140 18:29'>29</a>). Thus when &quot;Saul set (David) over the men of war&quot; (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1 Sam. 18:5</a>), he was tacitly going along with Jonathan's wish, even though by this time he had already heard the women praising David more than himself, and his bitter jealousy against David had already begun (<a href='B:90 18:6'>1 Sam. 18:6</a>). This little point simply shows the external unity of action between Saul and Jonathan. </p><p>This closeness in Jonathan's relationship with Saul shows the emotional tangle which Jonathan was in on account of his relationship with David. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, and if we are honest enough to come to terms with the pull of our own natures, we will be going through exactly the same. Our Lord seems to have seen in Jonathan a type of ourselves. In the context of warning us that loyalty to Him would mean confessing him before men and conflict between fathers and sons, he encourages us that not a hair of our head will perish (<a href='B:470 10:30'>Mt. 10:30</a> cp. <a href='B:490 21:18'>Lk. 21:18</a>). This is picking up the application of this phrase to Jonathan in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1 Sam. 14:45</a>. </p>


text:
<p>You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet delicately, who put ornaments of gold on your clothing- </p><p>It was those daughters of Israel who had praised David more than they had Saul, and this had been the trigger for Saul's jealousy complex against David. Samuel had warned that Saul would make the daughters of Israel suffer, making them his slavegirls. But here again, David imputes righteousness to Saul, a sign of love. And that is the same outcome of the love of God for us in Christ. </p>


text:
<p>How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places- </p><p>See on <a href='B:100 1:22'>:22</a> for a reconstruction of the battle. I suggested on <a href='B:100 1:23'>:23</a> that Jonathan died not at his spiritually best. The reference to his high places could imply that he died at the high places where he performed idolatry. We note the elements of idolatry in the names of his children.</p>


text:
<p>I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women- </p><p>&quot;The love of Christ, that passeth knowledge&quot; (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph. 3:19</a>) is clearly prefigured in David's feelings for Jonathan and the love of David for Jonathan. Despite many passionate relationships with women, experiencing the depth of human closeness more than many, David could sob: Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women&quot;. The Hebrew for &quot; wonderful&quot; has a root meaning 'separate'. This love of Jonathan was separate from all other love David had known.  In this we see perhaps the first Old Testament foretaste of agape  love, love beyond the phileo and eros. Emotionally and spiritually, Jonathan and David went way ahead of their time. David speaks of Jonathan's love in terms of male: female love. He describes him as &quot;the beauty of Israel&quot;, &quot;very pleasant hast thou been unto me&quot;; and grammatically, &quot;your love to me...&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:26'>2 Sam. 1:26</a>) implies that the lover was female. These two brethren had a spiritual love for each other which totally transcended the gender division. In like manner, our Lord said that male believers could be His sister and mother. We are dealing with high things here. Yet the heights of the David: Jonathan relationship are set down here to challenge us to at least try to touch the sky, however briefly. And when David later wrote of how good and &quot;pleasant&quot; it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Ps. 133), he surely had the pleasantness of his relationship with Jonathan in mind, and wished it to be shared by all his brethren.</p>


text:
<p>How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!- </p><p>&quot;The mighty&quot;- see on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1 Sam. 14:45</a>. David had refused those same &quot;weapons of war&quot; in his victory over Goliath, and he may imply that now Israel were to learn the lesson- and trust in Yahweh rather than weapons. Indeed &quot;the mighty&quot; is the term used for Goliath in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1 Sam. 17:51</a>. It's as if David sees this defeat as a reversal of his victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that David inquired of Yahweh saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? Yahweh said to him, Go up. David said, Where shall I go up? He said, To Hebron-</p><p>David had been waiting to become king for very many years, if indeed Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). To the credit of his humility, he didn't immediately gleefully seize power. He asks God whether he should, and where in Israel he should make his base, presumably by using the urim and thummim in the breastplate which was then in his possession. He was then living in Ziklag, which was in Philistine territory and not then considered a city of Judah:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite- </p><p>This notice seems to pave the way for the note in <a href='B:100 3:2-5'>2Sa 3:2-5</a>, that David took at least six other wives in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. We could get the impression that David's spiritual life was in some areas in steady decline from the time he slew Goliath in his youth. And yet he died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>David brought up his men who were with him, every man with his household. They lived in the cities of Hebron- </p><p>Six hundred men with their families would have been a major group of people, too large to just settle in the existing city of Hebron itself. It has been estimated that the population of all Israel at the time was only 300,000 at the most, which meant that the 3,000 or so with David would have been the equivalent of a significant town.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah- </p><p>It was known that Samuel had anointed David king, nearly 40 years before (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). This was therefore an act of showing that they were in step with God's clear intentions for David, and we at times likewise have to make such demonstrations of being in step with the path God is clearly revealing.</p><p>They told David saying, The men of Jabesh Gilead were those who buried Saul- </p><p>It could well be that they told him this in disgust or warning, expecting David to take some sanctions against them. But David does the very opposite, and blesses his enemies. For a major theme of these chapters is his enthusiasm to show every grace possible to the supporters and house of Saul, although they were his enemies.</p>


text:
<p>David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead and said to them, Blessed are you by Yahweh, that you have shown this kindness to your lord, even to Saul, and have buried him- </p><p>The people of Jabesh knew there was a civil war going on between the supporters of Saul and those of David. They had consciously buried Saul as a statement of respect, which surely implied loyalty to the house of Saul. For who you officially buried was a major statement in those times. And they receive a message of blessing from David. This was an expression of grace by David which was unheard of in the hard world of those days.</p>


text:
<p>Now may Yahweh show grace and truth to you. I also will reward you for this kindness, because you have done this thing- </p><p>David sees himself as showing this grace in tandem with Yahweh. "Grace and truth" often refers to the covenant promises, and David wishes them to receive every blessing of the covenant, and on the basis of that covenant accept him as king. He is giving a spiritual dimension to the kingdom he wished to create, based around a common share in the covenant. And that indeed is the only true basis for unity. David however suggests in :7 that the "reward" he offers them is to come under his kingship. 'Reward' or 'doing' kindness / good is exactly the term David's wife Abigail had used of what God would do to David on Saul's death (<a href='B:90 25:30'>1Sa 25:30</a> s:w:). David was influenced by his wife's perceptive words. And as he realizes he had been shown such grace by being made king, he wished to reflect that grace to others, even his political enemies; a principle for us to live by.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore let your hands be strong, and be valiant- </p><p>"Valiant" definitely refers to soldiers; it could be that David was inviting the men of Jabesh to join his army. This would have seemed a politically dangerous move, to invite his enemies to infiltrate his own military. But he acted according to his persuasion of grace and his desire to honour what he had promised to both Saul and Jonathan; and finally he was blessed for it.</p><p>For Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them-</p><p>Jabesh was in Gilead not in Judah, but on the basis of grace, David invites these people to as it were become Jews, and come under his rulership. The Lord Jesus, whom David looked forward to, operates likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Now Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s army, had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim- </p><p>This was about twenty miles east of Jordan, and hardly the most central place from which to try to rule Israel. We get the impression that Abner was using Ishbosheth for his own ends.</p>


text:
<p>and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin and over all Israel- </p><p>From Mahanaim, east of Jordan, Ishbosheth could not reign in practice "over all Israel", so we conclude that this was what Abner proclaimed him as, even if it had little meaning in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David- </p><p>If Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), Ishbosheth was born at the start of his reign. His name is elsewhere Ish Baal, but here that has been played upon, making a word meaning literally 'man of shame'. This would suggest that Saul was a Baal worshipper at the start of his reign. He had never met Samuel nor attended his sacrifices to Yahweh. It had been God's intention to turn around the heart of this secular Israelite to Himself, through the gift of His Spirit making him "another man" and giving him "another heart". He was clearly not chosen because of any spirituality, but in the hope he would become a parade example of God's transforming grace.</p>


text:
<p>The time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months- </p><p>Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p>


text:
<p>Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon- </p><p>Gibeon was exactly half way between Hebron, David's capital, and Mahanaim, the capital of Abner and his puppet Ishbosheth. It's about 26 miles from Gibeon to both the capitals. That Abner "went out" towards the territory of Judah (Gibeon is only six miles from Jerusalem) shows that he felt strong enough to try to engage David's side in conflict.</p>


text:
<p>Joab the son of Zeruiah, and the servants of David, went out, and met them by the pool of Gibeon; and they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool- </p><p>The 'going out' as in :12 was to battle. The pool of Gibeon has been located, and it is in a valley. The two armies would have seen each other from the opposite sides of the valley, hence the suggestion to fight at the pool in the valley.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to Joab, Please let the young men arise and play before us! Joab said, Let them arise!- </p><p>We get the impression from this that Abner really didn't want to see bloodshed within Israel as a result of the civil war he was now initiating; he therefore suggested that as with the battle against Goliath, the issue was resolved by a symbolic number of young men fighting each other in full view of both armies. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Then they arose and went over by number: twelve for Benjamin, and for Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David- </p><p>The choice of twelve could suggest that both sides saw themselves as the true Israel, and that all Israel, all 12 tribes, should be subservient to them. Abner's 12 men were chosen for their loyalty to their tribe; whereas David's 12 men were simply his servants, their loyalty was to him and not to any tribe. They are therefore described as his servants, rather than men of Judah. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>They each caught his opponent by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together- </p><p>This is proof for all time that conflict between brethren is only ever a lose-lose situation. 'Falling down together' is the language of Divine judgment (<a href='B:290 31:3'>Isa 31:3</a>; <a href='B:300 6:21'>Jer 6:21</a>; <a href='B:300 46:12'>Jer 46:12</a>). The conflict between brethren was not blessed by God and was His way of judging them all.</p><p>Therefore that place was called Helkath Hazzurim, which is in Gibeon- </p><p>"The field of the sharp knives".</p>


text:
<p>The battle was very severe that day: and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David-</p><p>As noted on :15, Abner's men are described in terms of their loyalty to their tribal grouping; whereas David's soldiers were simply his servants, their loyalty was to him and not to any tribe. They are therefore described as his servants, rather than men of Judah. And this is the effect which personal loyalty to the Lord Jesus should have upon us. All human labels fade beneath that reality. See on :31.</p>


text:
<p>The three sons of Zeruiah were there, Joab, Abishai and Asahel: and Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle- </p><p>This family were from Bethlehem (:32), and would have known David well, as it was but a small village. We can imagine Asahel playing with David as a child. They would soon have been aware that David had been anointed in Bethlehem, and were supportive of him for almost a lifetime.</p>


text:
<p>Asahel pursued after Abner; and in going he didn’t turn to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner- </p><p>We get the impression that Asahel was enraged and obsessed in slaying Abner.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abner looked behind him and said, Is it you, Asahel? He answered, It is I- </p><p>The question was because he didn't want to slay Asahel. As noted on :21, Abner is presented as wanting to minimize bloodshed in that he didn't want to kill Asahel.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to him, Turn aside to your right hand or to your left, and grab one of the young men, and take his armour. But Asahel would not turn aside from following him- </p><p>This was an invitation to a duel, with armour; presumably they were running past young men with armour and not running unobserved by others. But Asahel didn't want a fair fight, he wanted to use his advantage of speed to somehow kill Abner by a blow to his back. Abner comes over as far more ethical in the conflict. He didn't want the bloodshed of civil war and instead suggested a duel to resolve it (:14), and he now does the same to Asahel.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said again to Asahel, Turn aside from following me. Why should I strike you to the ground? How then should I hold up my face to Joab your brother?- </p><p>Again, Abner really doesn't want to kill Asahel. He is warning him, effectively, that he can just stop dead in his tracks and let Asahel run into his spear he is holding, with its point facing towards Asahel. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death rather than Abner consciously slaying him. Abner knows that Joab will then want to revenge Asahel's blood, and the city of refuge system was clearly not operative. And it seems Abner and Joab knew each other, and Abner wanted to forge a new relationship, face to face, with Joab; for this is how 'seeing the face' is used in <a href='B:100 3:13'>2Sa 3:13</a>. Abner accepted defeat, and wanted to now move on in relationship. But Asahel was obsessed with settling some old scores.</p>


text:
<p>However he refused to turn aside. Therefore Abner with the back end of the spear struck him in the body, so that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place. It happened, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still- </p><p>Abner has just warned Asahel in :22 that he can just stop dead in his tracks and let Asahel run into his spear he is holding, with its point facing towards Asahel. This was how close Asahel was to Abner, and was about to strike him to death with a blow to the back. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death rather than Abner consciously slaying him. He "refused to turn aside", implying his death was largely his own fault.</p>


text:
<p>But Joab and Abishai pursued after Abner: and the sun went down when they had come to the hill of Ammah, that lies before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon- </p><p>The detail given is very detailed. There must have been some significance in it which is not apparent to us today; a reminder that the Biblical record was primarily written for its first audience and not for us. This means that there will be parts of it which appear hard to understand, or of less relevance to us than to the primary audience.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner and became one band, and stood on the top of a hill- </p><p>This could have been an invitation to come and fight them. They were prepared to make one last stand on the hill top. I suggest Abner did this because he sensed Joab would not take up the challenge, and it corroborates the impression we have that he wanted the least bloodshed as possible. By offering to make a last stand, and fight to the death with no way of escape [as they were on a hilltop], he was really forcing Joab to either accept peace or more bloodshed.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? Don’t you know that it will be bitterness in the latter end? How long shall it be then, before you ask the people to return from following their brothers?- </p><p>Again, Abner comes over as urging as little bloodshed as possible, and reminds Joab that they are brothers. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Although Abner had initiated the conflict, he seems genuinely regretful of the bloodshed it had caused.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said, As God lives, if you had not spoken, surely then in the morning the people would have gone away, rather than each following after his brother- </p><p>Joab agrees that brother fighting brother is wrong. He agrees, but seems to want to save face by saying that he would have called an end to the bloodshed the next morning. Again, to save face, he may also be implying that if they had continued fighting, he would have slain all Abner's men by the next morning.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab blew the trumpet; and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more- </p><p>That is, at that time (cp. <a href='B:100 3:1'>2Sa 3:1</a>). In reading the Bible we must be aware that Semitic writing presents things as they are true at the immediate time, rather than in terms of what is true globally or in the future.</p>


text:
<p>Abner and his men went all that night through the Arabah; and they passed over the Jordan, and went through all Bithron, and came to Mahanaim- </p><p>Abner and his men walked all night along the Jordan valley, northwards towards Mahanaim; because they obviously distrusted the peace deal with Joab, and feared he would again attack them. All the way through, Abner is presented as having more integrity than Joab, leading up to the tragedy of Joab murdering Abner by dishonest means.</p>


text:
<p>Joab returned from following Abner: and when he had gathered all the people together, there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel- </p><p>We note the continued reference to David's soldiers as his personal servants, rather than "men of Judah"; see on :17,31.</p>


text:
<p>But the servants of David had struck of Benjamin, and of Abner’s men, so that three hundred and sixty men died-</p><p>Again we note the contrast between "Benjamin", who were loyal to their tribe, and "the servants of David", who did not consider tribal labels as important as being servants of their king. See on :15,17. The 360 men may be a general figure, as it was the number of days in a Hebrew year.</p>


text:
<p>They took up Asahel, and buried him in the tomb of his father, which was in Bethlehem- </p><p>Zeruiah was a woman; the father is not named. She is mentioned so often that we assume she had a large part to play in forming the rather unpleasant characters of her sons.</p><p>Joab and his men went all night, and the day broke on them at Hebron- </p><p>The two sides are presented as both marching all night back to their respective capitals. They were brethren, living in parallel lives, but fighting each other. And this is true of all the divisions amongst God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: and David grew stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker-</p><p>The inspired commentator presents the civil war as it was, a feud between two families, who came from opposite sides of Jerusalem, only about 20 km. from each other.</p>


text:
<p>To David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess- </p><p>We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some times, God goes along with them. Thus He gave Saul’s wives to David (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (<a href='B:100 3:2'>2Sa 3:2</a>), who was initially Saul’s wife (<a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). Now this is not to justify sin. Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power.</p><p>"Amnon" means 'faithful' and we might have expected him to be David's logical successor. But one great theme of David's personal life was his disappointment in his children and wives.</p>


text:
<p>his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite- </p><p>We would rather have expected Chileab as the son of David's most spiritual wife to be his successor. But 'restrained by his father' might mean that David initially thought so too, and was so restrictive of Chileab that he didn't work out that way at all.</p><p>The third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;wished to imitate his father David in every sense; his own&nbsp;real personality&nbsp; only really came out in the Ecclesiastes years,&nbsp;when he took to drink, materialism, women and idolatry. It&nbsp; took&nbsp; the&nbsp; influence&nbsp; of his parents many years to wear off. David&nbsp; had&nbsp; weaknesses&nbsp; for&nbsp; horses (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>) and many wives; and Solomon&nbsp; followed&nbsp; in&nbsp; these&nbsp; steps&nbsp; too. Note that David had six sons in seven years by six different women, including Gentiles (<a href='B:130 3:3'>1Ch 3:3</a>). For Geshur was one of the tribes the Israelites ought to have driven out of the land (<a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>), and Talmai was sufficiently against David to provide refuge for Absalom (<a href='B:100 13:37'>2Sa 13:37</a>). "Geshur" means "joining" and such a joining in marriage to these people is another example of David's unwisdom with women.</p><p>And in addition to these, David had children by “the concubines” (<a href='B:130 3:9'>1Ch 3:9</a>). Doubtless Solomon reasoned, albeit&nbsp;&nbsp; deep&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp; his&nbsp; psyche,&nbsp; that&nbsp; such&nbsp; behaviour&nbsp; was legitimate&nbsp; because&nbsp; David&nbsp; his father had done it. David&nbsp; seems to have over interpreted the promises made to him about Solomon and the temple, and assumed that&nbsp; his&nbsp; interpretation was certainly correct. And Solomon did exactly the same. The weaknesses of the parents all too easily are repeated by the children to an even greater extent.</p>


text:
<p>the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital- </p><p>The contrast of this section seems to be intentional with the note in <a href='B:100 2:2'>2Sa 2:2</a>, that David arrived in Hebron from Ziklag with only two wives. We could get the impression that David's spiritual life was in some areas in steady decline from the time he slew Goliath in his youth. And yet he died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron-</p><p>The birth of six sons, although these were not all his sons, is perhaps presented as a point of continuity with faithful Hannah who also had six sons, the firstborn of which had been David's mentor Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner made himself strong on behalf of the house of Saul- </p><p>The idea may be that Abner exalted himself to be the effective leader of the house of Saul, with a view to becoming their leader in place of Ishbosheth. He was after all Saul's cousin. But the narrative continues to show that having recognized he was losing militarily (:1), he wanted to seek peace with David. And he uses the argument about Rizpah as an excuse.</p>


text:
<p>Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?- </p><p>This could have been seen as a an intentional challenge to Ishbosheth, for sleeping with a king's concubine was an effective statement of having taken the throne. This is what Absalom did to David during his rebellion.</p>


text:
<p>Then was Abner very angry for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me this day with a fault concerning this woman!-&nbsp; </p><p>See on :11. David had made it very clear that he would not slay any of the house of Saul. He had promised this to Saul and Jonathan, and was very careful to show absolute grace to them. So Ishbosheth was not at any real risk of losing his life if Abner handed him over to David. It all seems to me as if Abner was orchestrating this falling out in order to provide himself with a face saving excuse to achieve unity with David, and as it were surrender power on good terms. It is not even clear if he did indeed sleep with Rizpah.</p>


text:
<p>God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as Yahweh has sworn to David, I don’t do even so to him- </p><p>Abner was aware of the promises to David. I have elsewhere suggested that the essence of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 had been made to him at a far earlier stage. See on <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>, where Abigail uses the terms of 2 Samuel 7 ["a sure / established house"]&nbsp; well before they are recorded as being given. Abner realizes that God's promises require a man to be in step with them, and in a sense, to be the human channel of their fulfilment. And he is saying that he is willing to be that channel for their fulfilment. Abner consistently comes over, as noted often on 2 Samuel 2, as indeed seeking the throne for himself, but not wanting excessive bloodshed, and realizing that it would be better for all concerned if he resigned any pretensions to power. And here he demonstrates, despite his aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the promises to David and is not going to be like Saul and fight in vain to stop God's word coming true.</p>


text:
<p>to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba- </p><p>It was because David's heart was 'turned away' from sin, that God 'turned away' the kingdom from Saul to David (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:37'>Psa 119:37</a>). As noted on :9, Abner realizes this and seeks to now work for and not against God's purpose for Saul. For God had promised to set up / establish the throne of David, and Abner is now effectively repenting of fighting to stop that happening.</p>


text:
<p>He could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him- </p><p>I suggest Abner was loud mouthed and crudely spoken (:8), but beneath that rough exterior there was a genuine repentance, and always a desire to avoid excessive bloodshed between brethren, as noted throughout 2 Samuel 2. We too need to see through the surface level appearance of some brethren to their spiritual essence.</p>


text:
<p>Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf saying, Whose is the land? Make your alliance with me, and behold, my hand shall be with you, to bring all Israel around to you- </p><p>The idea seems to be 'The land is yours'. But he feared the consequences of his surrender, and wants there to be an agreement or alliance granting him personal safety. Saul had slain the priests of Nob because their hand was with David (s:w. <a href='B:90 22:17'>1Sa 22:17</a>); perhaps Abner wishes to say that now, he too was with David and disassociated himself from Saul's actions. He saw that Yahweh's hand was with David in order to make him king over all Israel, and Abner now wanted to be working with that hand, with his hand in God's; and to cease resisting it.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Good; I will make a treaty with you; but one thing I require of you. That is, you shall not see my face, unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face- </p><p>We are left, intentionally, wondering what exactly were David's motives here. He may have considered that Saul's daughter's marriage was going to mean that her husband Paltiel was a potential contender for the throne, and he wanted to remove that potential threat by breaking up their marriage. But that would have reflected a lack of faith in the promises that he would surely become king of Israel. Rather I suspect this was done from motives of personal bitterness. He had killed men in order to get Michal as wife, even though he ought to have been given her freely in return for slaying Goliath. That she had married another man was an intolerable insult for any Hebrew man, and it seems in weakness David acted like a secular person rather than a spiritual one.</p>


text:
<p>David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I pledged to be married to me for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines- </p><p>As discussed on :13, it seems David felt bitterly the betrayal. He had actually paid 200 foreskins for her, and anyway Saul should have given her to him for slaying Goliath. Despite having many wives and children, he could not bear the thought that she was married to another man. And so he broke up an apparently loving marriage (:16) for the sake of his own pride and need for control. And he was to do the same with the marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish- </p><p>The request was made from Ishbosheth, who was technically the king of Israel, in order to prove David's authority over him. And it could be that Michal and Paltiel had fled from David to Mahanaim. But David's resumed marriage with Michal wasn't blessed; it all seems a very personal and political thing.</p><p><a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> LXX may allude to Michal: "He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly". This reading would then be a justification of how Solomon's father David had put away his wife Michal, Saul's daughter, who had then married Phaltiel, a relationship Solomon liked to see as adultery. Constantly Solomon uses his knowledge of Divine truths to justify himself and his father, just as God's truth can likewise be abused today.</p>


text:
<p>Her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, Go! Return! And he returned- </p><p>Bahurim was about&nbsp; 20 miles from Mahanaim, near Jerusalem. We have the tragic image of the loving husband walking behind her weeping as she is led away from him. This was not only a breach of Mosaic law, but displayed a sad elevation of politics above others’ relationships and marriages. It may be significant that her renewed marriage with David wasn’t blessed with any children (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a>). The record elicits our sympathy for Paltiel, and leaves us with the impression that David was heartless and callous when it came to others' relationships.</p>


text:
<p>Abner had communication with the elders of Israel saying, In times past, you wished for David to be king over you- </p><p>The northern tribes had been supportive of David, as all Israel had been after the victory over Goliath. But Abner seems to admit that it was he who had persuaded them otherwise. He is now showing the fruits of repentance by undoing the division he had created.</p>


text:
<p>Now then do it; for Yahweh has spoken of David saying, ‘By the hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies’- </p><p>This was the Divine intention for Saul (<a href='B:90 9:16'>1Sa 9:16</a>), but Abner recognizes that now it had all been transferred to David. The interests of the nation as a whole, who had recently been defeated by the Philistines at Gilboa, were better served by David than Abner. For David had God's prophetic word on his side, and could bring deliverance. Abner had a number of options open to him; he could have fled to a neighbouring country, or sought some other way of resolving things with David. But he comes over as genuinely repentant, and honestly doing what he can, no matter at what loss of face, to bring Israel completely under David's control. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Abner also spoke in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and to the whole house of Benjamin- </p><p>As noted on :18, Abner's repentance was genuine. Having persuaded the northern tribes to accept his 'unity with David' plan, he then worked on Benjamin, Saul's own tribe, his own tribesmen. He spoke in their ears, and it "seemed good" to Benjamin as well as the other tribes to accept David as king. There would have been hawks within Benjamin, who were not persuaded; and some of them emerge in later history in rebellion against David. But Abner must be credited with bringing about a remarkably quick agreement that in practice paved the way for David to rule all Israel. And it was only he, as the effective leader and army general, who could have achieved this. "All that seemed good" may be alluded to in the description of another unity process between brethren in <a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a>; <a href='B:510 15:28'>Act 15:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. David made Abner and the men who were with him a feast- </p><p>The feast was surely a sign of acceptance and reconciliation, an idea which is continued in the feast of the Lord's supper which we experience in our days. The twenty men would have been the escort for both Abner and Michal.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with you, and that you may reign over all that your soul desires. David sent Abner away; and he went in peace-</p><p>Abner had already secured the general agreement of the other tribes (:19), and now he wanted them to send representatives to make a covenant with David. This would have been a guarantee of their safety, and finally was achieved in <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>. The name "Abner" is stressed many times in :17-21, because this whole unity process depended solely upon him. His assassination was therefore all the more shameful.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the servants of David and Joab came from an engagement, and brought in a great spoil with them- </p><p>Abner had rightly argued that God's promise to deliver Israel from the Philistines was to now be fulfilled through David (:18). We presume this victory of Joab had been against the Philistines. We recently read of how David divided the spoil from the fight with the Amalekites amongst Judah in order to demonstrate in hard terms his ability to save them from their neighbours, and we wonder if he did likewise.</p><p>But Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace-</p><p>Here we have the hand of providence; for if Joab had been in Hebron when Abner was there, he would have surely murdered him and the whole peace process would have been majorly derailed, likely leading to more bitter civil war. We can note from this that unity between brethren is God's will and He will work, within the confines provided by human freewill, to enable it.</p>


text:
<p>When Joab and all the army who was with him had come, they told Joab saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he has sent him away, and he is gone in peace- </p><p>The "they" were presumably those who like Joab considered that David was again being naive towards the house of Saul, and should have murdered Abner instead of making peace with him. Constantly we see David's belief in grace and unity leading him to do things which harder minded individuals found more than annoying; they reacted against it in the harshest of terms.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joab came to the king and said, What have you done? Behold, Abner came to you. Why is it that you have sent him away, and he is quite gone?- </p><p>The implication is that David should have murdered him, and not let him go away in peace, with a guarantee of safe passage. We see the internal harmony of the record in that Joab's reaction here to Abner's being sent away in peace is in spirit so similar to his frustration with David over the death of Absalom (<a href='B:100 19:6'>2Sa 19:6</a>). We note the internal consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to believe these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God. See on <a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>You know Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive you, and to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you do-</p><p>Throughout the preceding verses, I have sought to demonstrate Abner's sincere repentance and genuine desire for unity under David. But Joab speaks as if he knows for sure that Abner is fake, and that David knows this too. Hatred of brethren leads to conspiracy theories about them being entertained, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And then those theories become perceived as not only absolute fact in the mind of those who have nursed them, but they reflect their positions on to others, claiming that others in their hearts know them to be true. These ancient histories speak directly to the situations we encounter in relationships today.</p>


text:
<p>When Joab had come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back from the well of Sirah; but David didn’t know it- </p><p>Joab's desire to personally murder Abner was premeditated, and he bears complete responsibility for it. He would have been given life in prison for this kind of behaviour today. But he was not demoted or disciplined much by David, because David himself, whilst strongly disagreeing with Joab's actions, failed to perceive the value of human life as he ought to have done. This is cited as a reason why he couldn't build the temple. And because of this, Joab went on to commit another such murder in <a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him quietly, and struck him there in the body, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother- </p><p>The language of striking in the body recalls how Abner had struck Joab's brother Asahel in the body (<a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>), although as noted there, Abner did not wish to do this. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death at the spear point, despite Abner warning him about it, rather than Abner consciously slaying him. Joab is therefore presented as far less ethical than Abner. As Asahel had intended to kill Abner by a blow to his back as he fled from him, so his brother Joab slew Abner from behind. And Joab didn't learn from this; he does the same to Amasa (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>. See on <a href='B:100 4:6'>2Sa 4:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Afterwards, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before Yahweh forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner-</p><p>I have sought to demonstrate so far that Abner consistently comes over as indeed having sought the throne for himself, but not wanting excessive bloodshed, and finally repenting. He realized that it would be better for all concerned if he resigned any pretensions to power. He demonstrates, despite his aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the promises to David and is not going to be like Saul and fight in vain to stop God's word coming true. I therefore consider David's grief for his murder as not at all theatrical, but genuine. And all Israel also realized this.</p>


text:
<p>Let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house. Let there not fail from the house of Joab one who has an issue, or who is a leper, or who leans on a staff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks bread-</p><p>This was a stinging curse for one who had been so loyal to David, effectively wishing his exclusion from God's people (<a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a>). And it was an age when curses were believed to have real power. But we note that David doesn't dissociate from Joab; he remains in power throughout David's life. And this lack of real discipline means that he does the same to Amasa (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>). Disciplining others wasn't David's strong point, and he paid for it. Like all of us, he was a mixture of softness and hardness.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle-</p><p>This was indeed the motivation, but additionally I suggest that Joab wanted to be seen as the king maker, and disliked the way that Abner was going to go down as the architect of Israel's unity because of his own repentance, humility and resignation of his own aspirations to power. "In the battle" is perhaps added to show that any attempt by Joab to appeal to the laws of avenging blood was totally inappropriate and out of context.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Joab, and to all the people who were with him, Tear your clothes, and clothe yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. King David followed the bier- </p><p>The fact David had to tell Joab to do this shows that Joab was not the least bit repentant.</p>


text:
<p>They buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept- </p><p>This continues the frequent theme of David and his people being at one, sharing the same feelings. It looks ahead to the unity of the Lord Jesus with His people (see on <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king lamented for Abner and said, Should Abner have died as a fool dies?-</p><p>We have here a lament song, composed and sung by David the musician, as he did over Saul and Jonathan. He sees Abner as a "fool" in that he had failed to perceive just how bad was Joab. Although Joab might have appealed to the laws about revenging slain blood, David clearly considered that they did not apply. For effectively, Abner had slain Asahel against his will and in self defence against a man literally aiming to stab him in the back.</p>


text:
<p>Your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters. As a man falls before the children of iniquity, so you fell. All the people wept again over him- </p><p>The sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai [who was also party to the murder, :30] are called not sons of Zeruiah but sons of iniquity. It is the phrase used for the Gentiles outside of covenant with God (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a>); another hint that David had been given many of those promises before the time when Nathan is recorded as presenting them to him. See on <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>. David laments that Abner was deceived into his death, assuming others had the same desire for peace which he had. He had been free to fight or run, but did not because he was deceived. Or David may mean that Abner had done nothing to deserve even prison; because David had forgiven him, and Abner had genuinely repented.</p>


text:
<p>All the people came to cause David to eat bread while it was yet day. David swore saying, God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or anything else, until the sun goes down-</p><p>David strangely binds himself under the same curse as Saul had enforced upon the people in <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>. We wonder why this was. Perhaps it was simply that he truly loved Saul, and had him in mind at this time of hatred against the house of Saul; and so subconsciously he alludes to the words of Saul, although out of context. This again adds veracity to the record; this is typical of language usage at times like this.</p>


text:
<p>All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatever the king did pleased all the people- </p><p>This means that the people also were persuaded that Abner was genuine in his repentance, and had been honestly trying to do his best to undo the division his power seeking had caused. Otherwise they would not have agreed with David.</p>


text:
<p>So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to kill Abner the son of Ner- </p><p>In days of limited communication and the inevitable miscommunications this resulted in, it was quite an achievement to persuade all Israel that Abner's murder had not been orchestrated by David. The depth of David's convictions about Abner's sincerity was so great that somehow it spread throughout the land.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to his servants, Don’t you know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?- </p><p>"Prince" suggests that David may well have considered elevating Abner to some position of senior rulership in the united kingdom. As captain of Saul's army, it may have been David's intention to replace Joab [who was captain of David's army] with Abner. This would have been another reason why Joab wanted to murder him. But the man's greatness was in his humility and desire for unity, built around the fruits of his very genuine repentance and hatred of bloodshed between brethren.</p>


text:
<p>I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me. May Yahweh reward the evildoer according to his wickedness- </p><p>This was the language and exact situation David had experienced when on the run from Saul. He was anointed king, but weak, and he had to leave Yahweh to reward Saul for his wickedness. But he now transfers all those feelings about Saul onto Joab. This was how strongly David viewed the hatred of Joab for Abner.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands became feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled- </p><p>I suggest on :7 that this fear was because they assumed David had killed Abner, and now would be coming to kill Ishbosheth and all his household. They totally failed to perceive David's huge grace towards the house of Saul, even though they surely knew about it. Their fears of possible human judgment were stronger than their faith in grace, and that is the theme of this chapter; and it is such a typically human failure.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s son had two men who were captains of bands: the name of the one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin (for Beeroth also is reckoned to Benjamin- </p><p>The point is being made that although these men may not have been ethnic Benjamites, they were counted as Benjamites, and thus there arose the shame of Ishbosheth being slain by men of his own tribe.</p>


text:
<p>and the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and have lived as foreigners there until this day)- </p><p>Beeroth was one of the Gibeonite cities which made peace with Joshua (<a href='B:60 9:17'>Jos 9:17</a>) and was then included within Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:25'>Jos 18:25</a>). But they had been persecuted by Saul (<a href='B:100 21:1-2'>2Sa 21:1-2</a>). The murderers of Ishbosheth were therefore counted as Benjamites, but they would have had an abiding bitterness toward Saul. Their murder of Ishbosheth was therefore from mixed motives, one of which may have simply been revenge. And this would fit the context of 2 Samuel 3, where Abner was murdered by Joab from the same wrong motive. The impression is given of the destruction caused when men refuse to reign in their desire for revenge.</p><p>Gittaim is the plural of Gath, and reflects Philistine influence in that area (<a href='B:90 31:7'>1Sa 31:7</a>). Again we see internal corroboration within the records, so detailed and constant that the entire history simply cannot be a forgery of men, but the inspired word of God.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son who was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the news came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel; and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it happened, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame- </p><p>We wonder why this is mentioned at this point, as the narrative is about the murder of Ishbosheth. Perhaps the idea is that now that Ishbosheth is to be killed, the only other potential king in Saul's line was a 12 year old boy who was a cripple, who had suffered that fate as an indirect result of the defeat of Saul due to his apostasy. In the hand of providence, all credible alternatives to David as king had now been removed, although not by his hand.</p><p>His name was Mephibosheth- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>). It could mean 'the shame of Baal', but there is evidence that Saul's daughter Michal had an idol and it is likely that even Jonathan was not free of idolatry. Idolatry has always been a besetting weakness amongst even the best of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, as he took his rest at noon- </p><p>This might imply that he was physically weak, perhaps handicapped as was Mephibosheth (:4). As noted on :4, the impression is given that there were now no credible alternatives to David as king, although this was not by his hand.</p>


text:
<p>They came there into the middle of the house, as if they would have fetched wheat; and they struck him in the body: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped-</p><p>This striking in the body connects with what Abner did to Asahel, and what Joab did to Abner (<a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>; <a href='B:100 3:27'>2Sa 3:27</a>). We see the connection too with how Joab killed Abner in the middle of the gates of Hebron, between the outer and inner gates (<a href='B:100 3:27'>2Sa 3:27</a>). Although all these actions were the freewill choices of men, there was clearly a higher hand working through them all, in the same style. The apparent repetition of :5 is avoided by the LXX, which blames their entrance on a sleeping servant woman, as if Ishbosheth's power was so weak that his only guard was a sleeping woman: "And behold the portress of the house was cleaning wheat, and she slumbered and slept; and the brothers Rechab and Baanah came unobserved into the house. Now Ish-bosheth was sleeping on the bed in his chamber: and they smote him".</p>


text:
<p>Now when they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him, and killed him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night- </p><p>They did this presumably because they didn't believe or understand the huge grace which David was eager to show towards the house of Saul. They assumed Abner had been slain by David, and that he was now going to slay Ishbosheth. And so they thought they could protect their own heads by doing this for David, thinking they would ingratiate themselves to him. And this is the reason for so many murders and acts of unkindness; a mistaken belief in the likely actions of others.</p>


text:
<p>They brought the head of Ishbosheth to David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold, the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> 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><p>Who sought your life!-</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>). 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>Yahweh has avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed- </p><p>They wrongly assumed that they could do Yahweh's work of vengeance, whereas the whole theme of David's thinking was that it is not for man to avenge.</p>


text:
<p>David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a> with <a href='B:100 4:9'>2Sa 4:9</a>. What Jacob only learnt at the end of his life, David learnt and applied during his life. And we should likewise not be experiential learners, but learn instead from Jacob:&nbsp;David stresses that Yahweh had redeemed him, and he had not needed to take vengeance himself. He repeats this in <a href='B:110 1:29'>1Ki 1:29</a>; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.</p>


text:
<p>when someone told me, ‘Behold, Saul is dead’, thinking to have brought good news, I took hold of him, and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news- </p><p>Surely the murderers knew of David's great grace toward Saul. The point is that their fears of possible judgment for them were greater than their belief in the abundant evidence of David's grace. And this remains a tragic feature of many people to this day.</p>


text:
<p>How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house on his bed- </p><p>Saul and his family were hardly righteous, except Jonathan. But David imputes righteousness to them, by grace; and this was later to be his experience from God after his seen concerning Bathsheba.</p><p>Shall I not now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?- </p><p>David alludes to himself as the avenger of blood, as if he was the close relative of Ishbosheth, so closely did he feel towards Saul's family (<a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a>; <a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a>). Again we marvel at his love and grace.</p>


text:
<p>David commanded his young men, and they killed them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron- </p><p>It seems to me that David's killing of the Amalekite in <a href='B:100 1:15'>2Sa 1:15</a> was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities. 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><p>The way he buries Ishbosheth where he was then living is proof enough of his further desire to publically identify with the house of Saul. It was not mere theatricism, nor politically savvy behaviour; but a reflection of his genuine grace and love for them.</p>


text:
<p>Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron-</p><p>This was to enter the covenant which Abner had persuade them to make (see on <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>).</p><p>And spoke saying, Behold, we are your bone and your flesh- </p><p><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a> makes the amazing statement that even now, "We are of members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In a very detailed study of this language, Henricus Renckens concluded: "In Israel, in order to say that someone was a blood relation, one said: "He is my flesh and my bones" (<a href='B:10 29:14'>Gen 29:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>; cp. <a href='B:10 37:27'>Gen 37:27</a>; <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a> ff:; <a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a>)". This is how close we are to the Lord Jesus- blood relatives. This language could in no way be justified if Jesus were God Himself in person.</p>


text:
<p>In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. Yahweh said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of My people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel’- </p><p>The mutuality between God and David is often brought out. Yahweh was his shepherd (<a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a>), and he was to shepherd Israel). All Israel recognized that David had always been Israel's saviour, and Saul generally had failed to experience the Divine potential for him to be this.</p>


text:
<p>So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Yahweh; and they anointed David king over Israel- </p><p>This is the covenant which Abner had engineered in <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>, aimed at providing total amnesty and assurance to all those who had once supported Saul. David had already been anointed by Samuel, but this was stating that all Israel approved of that and wanted to work with God's plan rather than against it.</p>


text:
<p>David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years- </p><p>If Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this creates various chronological problems. Solomon, David and Saul are all stated to have reigned 40 years, and it may be a non literal number. Paul's argument in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> seems to be seeking to draw a parallel between Israel's 40 years in the desert and Saul's reign. Numbers are simply not used in Semitic literature in the literalistic way that they are in the writings of other cultures. To this day an Arab may describe a hot day as being 100 degrees C, when it is not that literally. But the Arab is not lying nor deceiving; it's a case of using numbers within a different context of language usage. Beginning his reign at 30 may be intended to recall how the Levites began serving at 30 (<a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a>), because David was set up to be the priest-king who would replace the high priesthood according to Hannah's song. And at times he clearly did act like this, although his failures meant that the potential was reapplied and reframed to fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah- </p><p>Hebron was a priestly city and Jerusalem the kingly city, so maybe this is intended to present David as a king-priest, beginning his kingship at the same age as the priests began their service (:4).</p>


text:
<p>The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David saying, Unless you take away the blind and the lame, you shall not come in here; thinking, David can’t come in here- </p><p>A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a>), nor come within the holy city (<a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.</p><p>Defining the Jebusites as "the inhabitants of the land" may be another mark left by the inspired editing of these records for the exiles. Such explanatory notes would have been unnecessary for the primary readership. The encouragement to them was that restoration of Israel's fortunes was indeed possible, under a new David.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David- </p><p>As often in the Hebrew Bible, we have a summary statement and then an explanation of how it came about. The contrast is with how Saul's tribe of Benjamin had failed to drive out the Jebusites (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin, but David's capture of the city made it "the city of David" and therefore in Judah. We see here how different potential futures could have worked out. If Benjamin had taken and inherited their possession and Saul had 'worked out' as he could have done, then Jerusalem would have been in Benjamin. We see here how God's plans are flexible, reflective of His great respect of human freewill and initiative.</p>


text:
<p>David said on that day, Whoever strikes the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and strike the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul. Therefore they say, The blind and the lame can’t come into the house- </p><p>See on :6. The Hebrew is difficult but seems to allude to how the Jebusites mocked the Hebrews, thinking that their high elevation was such that the bind and lame could repel any attackers. If David was indeed Jonathan's armourbearer in 1 Samuel 14, he would have seen how God had punished the pride of the Philistines when they thought likewise. For Jonathan had shinned by an almost vertical cliff, with the Philistines mocking him- and slew them. This inspired David with the possibility that someone of similar faith and bravery could climb up the sewer line into Zion and do the same. Jonathan's example, from some decades earlier, inspired faith in this later situation. And so will all Godly examples. The fact it was Joab who rose up to this example (see 1 Chron:) means that he must surely have had some faith as well as bravery, despite his rather unspiritual ways.</p><p>But the Hebrew of David's words here read like a kind of song, which could be translated:</p><p>Whosoever smites the Jebusite,</p><p>let him hurl down the precipice</p><p>both the lame and the blind,</p><p>hated of David’s soul.</p><p>We sense here a bitterness and lack of respect of the human person, which maybe resulted in his not being allowed to build the temple later. To murder the handicapped was unethical, but David's bitterness and desire for power led him to command it. Hence LXX "Whosoever smiteth the Jebusite, let him slay with the sword both the lame and the blind who hate David’s soul".</p><p>There are echoes of Saul's offer at the time of the fight with Goliath. Chronicles records: "Whosoever smites the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain". And thus Joab was restored to being chief of the army.</p>


text:
<p>David lived in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. David built around from Millo and inward- </p><p>Jerusalem was particularly loved by David. He thereby moved the city into Judah's possession from Benjamin's; see on :7. Chronicles adds: “And Joab repaired the rest of the city".</p>


text:
<p>David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh, the God of Armies, was with him-</p><p>This is the same phrase as used in David's protestation of humility in <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>: "Nor do I concern myself with great matters, or things too wonderful for me". 'To go' ["concern myself"] with 'great things' is the phrase used of David here in <a href='B:100 5:10'>2Sa 5:10</a>; he "went on [s:w. "concern myself"] and grew great" [s:w. "with great matters"]. So the idea of <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a> may be that David didn't pay attention to these things so as not to become proud. And yet this humility was mixed with the bitterness noted on :8. We are all strange mixtures of spiritual strength and weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, carpenters and masons; and they built David a house- </p><p>The way Solomon also used him, or probably another Hiram, for the same trees reflects again how Solomon sought to live out his father. But he had no real spirituality, and over time he revealed that he had no personal faith, turning away to idols in his old age and coming to the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p><p>Psalms 30 was written at the dedication of a house by David, and we assume it was this house. But that Psalm reveals David had been very ill. He seems not to have had robust health although he was physically strong and lived a long life. There is ample evidence for a breakdown of his health after the sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>David perceived that Yahweh had established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake- </p><p>He realized that the promises of Samuel so long ago had finally come true, despite all the times when it had seemed they could not come true (see on <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). But this sense of fulfilment led him to take yet more wives (:13), which is surely to be read negatively in spiritual terms. Yet he realized that his establishment was located in a wider context than just for himself; it was for the sake of His people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron; and there were more sons and daughters born to David- </p><p>See on :12. This is hard to read in a positive light spiritually; for Israel's king was not to multiply wives (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). He seemed to feel the need to prove himself established by having more wives and children, but this was itself a failure to appreciate that Yahweh had established him (:12). He did perceive this, but only on one level.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon- </p><p>These were the sons of Bathsheba. We note that they had a son called Nathan, perhaps in respect of the prophet of that name who had rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba. And it was through him that the Lord Jesus was descended back to David (<a href='B:490 3:31'>Luk 3:31</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia- </p><p>We know nothing of these sons, nor indeed or most of David's children. This would indicate perhaps that David was not a very good spiritual father to his children.</p>


text:
<p>Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet-</p><p>The lists in <a href='B:130 3:5-8'>1Ch 3:5-8</a>; <a href='B:130 14:4-7'>1Ch 14:4-7</a> also mention two more sons, Eliphalet or Elpalet and Nogah. Perhaps&nbsp; they are omitted here because they died in infancy, and that the second Eliphalet was named after his dead brother.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the stronghold- </p><p>They must have felt bitterly betrayed by David. He had lived with them in Ziklag and Gath for some time and claimed he was on their side against Judah. His lack of integrity would have deeply riled them, and was a poor advertisement for the God of Israel.</p><p>The stronghold in view may have been the cave of Adullam (<a href='B:100 23:13-14'>2Sa 23:13-14</a>), where God had previously delivered David from Saul. Perhaps he went there to pray. It was at this time that he wished to drink of the water from the well in Bethlehem, and his men broke risked their lives to get it for him. We see the extent of their dominance, in that they had overrun Bethlehem, David's home village, and placed a garrison in it (<a href='B:100 23:14'>2Sa 23:14</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had come and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The record of David's battle with the Philistines in <a href='B:100 5:17-24'>2Sa 5:17-24</a> has certain similarities with the exploits of <a href='B:90 14:8-11'>1Sa 14:8-11</a>; as if, years later, David replicated Jonathan's early adventure of faith. This would be understandable if he had been Jonathan's armourbearer in that incident. Situations repeat in our lives; what we learn in youth becomes tested later on in life.</p><p>They perhaps chose the valley of the giants as the battleground because they still recalled his victory over Goliath, and wanted to reverse it.</p>


text:
<p>David inquired of Yahweh saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will You deliver them into my hand? Yahweh said to David, Go up; for I will certainly deliver the Philistines into your hand-</p><p>This recalls how he asked Yahweh when Saul died whether he should go into Judah, and to which city there. A man of lesser humility and closeness to God would have just gone ahead with assumptions he was right. His questions also recall the questions he asked [and answers received] about the situation in Keilah (<a href='B:90 23:11-12'>1Sa 23:11-12</a>). He retained this desire for guidance, and showed he had learned from his previous experiences.</p>


text:
<p>David came to Baal Perazim, and David struck them there; and he said, Yahweh has broken my enemies before me, like the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal Perazim- </p><p>This means the place of breaches. What happened has been explained as follows: "It was the rocky height on the north of the valley of Rephaim. David must, therefore, have stolen round the army of the Philistines, creeping, probably by night, up to this ridge of Ben-Hinnom, and thence at the dawn of day have rushed down upon the camp. And his onset was sudden and irresistible, like the rush of the waters of some mountain lake when, swollen with rains, it bursts through the opposing dam, and carries hasty destruction to everything that lies in its way". This means that just like the second attack, David circled around and came at the Philistines from behind (:23). But this is exactly how a dog attacks. David in his low moments had felt himself as a desert dog (<a href='B:90 17:44'>1Sa 17:44</a> LXX; 24:14). When we are weak, then we are strong. Perhaps God played along with David's low feelings by saying that if he indeed felt as a dog, then He would use him to achieve victory as a dog does. This is not to justify David's view of himself, but to show rather how God interacts with man in a mutual way.</p>


text:
<p>They left their images there; and David and his men took them away- </p><p>They should have destroyed them, according to the law of Moses which David professed such love for in Psalms 119. Perhaps they justified it by saying they were doing to the Philistines as they had done to the ark; for the Philistines took the ark as a sign they had triumphed over Israel's God. But Yahweh clearly punished them for that, and David's men might have boasted that the Philistine gods didn't do that to them. Such is the quasi spiritual reasoning of our flesh. <a href='B:130 14:12'>1Ch 14:12</a> however explains that finally, they were burnt.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>This was soon afterwards, implying David's men hadn't slain that many of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>When David inquired of Yahweh, He said, You shall not go up. Circle around behind them, and attack them opposite the mulberry trees- </p><p>The Father and Son are constantly seeking to lead us in “newness of life”. David didn’t get victory by the mulberry trees the same way each time (<a href='B:100 5:23-24'>2Sa 5:23-24</a>). God changed the method. But as noted on :20, David was still to circle around and attack from behind, like a dog. "Mulberry" is Hebrew baca, and could refer to the valley of Baca, or weeping, of <a href='B:230 84:6'>Psa 84:6</a>. Hence RV "valley of weeping". Perhaps David was in depression at this time, and was being comforted that his weeping was to be his strength. For God loves to use the weak to achieve His victories.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then you shall stir yourself up- </p><p>This sound was the marching of the Angels. They are called Yahweh's hosts or armies, and the idea was that David's army was a reflection on earth of the heavenly armies above him. This was necessary to teach that Israel were not winning these victories in their own strength, but by following the Angelic hosts above them.</p><p>"Stir up" is Heb. 'follow after'. The idea of ‘following after’ a man is a Hebrew figure for men following their leader / general into battle. There are many examples: <a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>; <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>; <a href='B:70 6:34-35'>Jdg 6:34-35</a>; <a href='B:70 9:4'>Jdg 9:4</a>; <a href='B:70 9:49'>Jdg 9:49</a>; <a href='B:90 17:13-14'>1Sa 17:13-14</a>; <a href='B:90 30:21'>1Sa 30:21</a>; <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a> etc. In those early days, a general wasn’t a smart guy with a degree who directed the battlefield from his laptop; he was the one who went over the top first with his men behind him, knowing full well he was the one whom his enemies would go for above all others. It was his bravery which inspired the followers to go after him, and which, over the battles and wars, solidified their trust in him and willingness to give their lives behind him. And this figure of speech was well understood by the Lord when He bid us follow Him. Around Him were false prophets and rabbinic teachers, asking young men to follow them, adopt their interpretations of Torah, study the traditions, and get hyped up enough to take weapons in their hands and go forth to fight the infidel. The Lord was fully aware of this, and He frames His calling of men in the same terms. Indeed, when He speaks of leaving all and following after Him (<a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a>), He surely had in mind the well known story of Mattathias, who began the Maccabean revolt by saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the Law and supports the covenant follow after me… and they left their possessions behind in the town” (1Ma_2:27).</p><p>For then Yahweh has gone out before you to strike the army of the Philistines- </p><p>The people wanted a king to "go out before us and fight our battles" (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>), but they were disappointed in Saul ultimately. For it was effectively David who went out before the people to fight their battles (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:13'>1Sa 18:13</a>; <a href='B:90 18:16'>1Sa 18:16</a>). And David was only successful because he recognized that it was Yahweh who 'went out before' to fight his battles (s:w. <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>), rather than any human king or leader.</p>


text:
<p>David did so, as Yahweh commanded him, and struck the Philistines from Geba until you come to Gezer- </p><p>"Geba" is Gibeon (<a href='B:130 14:16'>1Ch 14:16</a>), which is directly on the road from the valley of Rephaim to Gaza. The continual consistency of the geographical references in the record is yet another reflection of the utter credibility of it as Divinely inspired. Any group of human writers would have made mistakes in this area, given the lack of detailed maps and geographical knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand- </p><p>"Thousand" may refer to families or squadrons. They were "chosen" or 'shown as tested / approved'. It was a reunion gathering of all those who had been faithful to David over the years. This was a huge number of people to gather together, given the problem of providing food and lodging for them. This was why battles were fought swiftly in those days, for the men were needed on their farms, and the supply of food was difficult to arrange over longer periods. So this huge effort reflects the importance David attached to bringing up the ark.</p>


text:
<p>David arose, and went with all the people who were with him, from Baale Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name, even the name of Yahweh of Armies who sits above the cherubim- </p><p>Baalah, or Kirjath-Baal, "the city of Baal" was the old Canaanite name of Kirjath-jearim (<a href='B:60 15:9'>Jos 15:9</a>; <a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>). David's bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a> (s:w:); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a>; <a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a> s:w:). And so now, the land was being given to them again. David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises. This may explain why Paul in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally. Solomon imitated David's bringing up of the ark to Zion in <a href='B:110 8:1'>1Ki 8:1</a>; <a href='B:110 8:4'>1Ki 8:4</a>. He lived out his father's faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>They set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in the hill: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart- </p><p>There were very specific laws about the transportation of the ark. It was to be carried on poles on the shoulders of not just Levites but specifically the sons of Kohath (<a href='B:40 4:15'>Num 4:15</a>); and Abinadab's family were not the right people to carry it. David claims in Psalms 119 to have studied God's law all the day whilst on the run from Saul, reciting it to himself. Perhaps he forgot these details. But I suggest because he came to see that God wanted the spirit and not letter of the law to be followed, he came to totally place himself above Divine law. We face the same temptation. And it was this which led David into his sin with Bathsheba. Shaving off bits and pieces of God's laws and principles, on the basis that we are above His law, leads to the final catastrophe of David's sin with Bathsheba. Instead of following God's laws about the transportation of the ark, it seems David instead followed the pattern of the Philistines, who also transported the captured ark on a cart (s:w. <a href='B:90 6:10-11'>1Sa 6:10-11</a>). And considered that having built a new cart, never used before, he was in his own way showing respect to it.</p>


text:
<p>They brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was in the hill, with the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark-</p><p>Uzzah walked at the side, whilst Ahio went before the oxen to guide them. The Divine cameraman is zoomed in close upon the scene.</p>


text:
<p>David and all the house of Israel played before Yahweh with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with harps, stringed instruments, tambourines, castanets and cymbals- </p><p>The actual fact of making music and praise to God doesn't necessarily mean our acceptability before Him; the very experience of music and its effect can lead us to think that our participation means our acceptability before God. But all this praise was made whilst God was extremely angry with them for how they were treating the ark.</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon- </p><p><a href='B:130 13:9'>1Ch 13:9</a> has "the threshing floor of Chidon" and <a href='B:100 6:6'>2Sa 6:6</a> has "of Nacon". I suggest Nacon was the name of the owner, and Chidon was the location. A threshing floor has associations with Divine judgment, and this is what happened.</p><p>Uzzah reached for the ark of God and took hold of it- </p><p>We wonder if Paul has this in mind when he praises the Lord Jesus for not trying to grasp hold of equality with God (Php_2:6). In this case, Uzzah is being accused of playing God by what he did. And yet this appears to be a very harsh reading of motives into a quite simple and natural, well meaning reaction. But this is the point; we cannot judge or know human motivations or thoughts. Who knows what was really in Uzzah's mind. For all we know he was cussing the ark as it wobbled on the cart. Only God knows, and we should respect His judgment and our own inability to judge. The other possible issue which arises from this is that we are to accept that there are huge implications to our apparently harmless, surface level sins. Only God can judge them. But He does extrapolate the implications of human thoughts and actions. The whole incident is a test of our humility before God, a test David initially failed.</p><p>For the cattle stumbled- </p><p>"Stumbled" is s:w. "threw down" (<a href='B:120 9:33'>2Ki 9:33</a>; <a href='B:230 141:6'>Psa 141:6</a>). It seems the ark itself was thrown down onto the ground, despite Uzzah trying to stop it.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God- </p><p>See on :6. Yahweh had likewise struck down (s:w:) those who had earlier failed to respect the ark (<a href='B:90 5:6'>1Sa 5:6</a>; <a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a>). And they had imitated the transport of the ark upon a cart. The failure of man to learn from Biblical history is one of the greatest tragedies. We may consider this incident as parallel with the sin of Adam and Eve in Eden, whereby an apparently small failure lead to huge consequences. But these incidents are placed in Biblical history to help us humble ourselves before God, and not to fall into the assumption that God is not serious about His principles. Yahweh's anger being kindled is a phrase used multiple times about His anger with Israel for breaking the covenant. The sin of Uzzah personified all that was wrong with Israel. They had assumed that they could serve Yahweh on their terms and not His, and that this was just a mere surface level failure which He should overlook. All this is so challenging for us, who are tempted to think in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>David was displeased, because Yahweh had broken forth on Uzzah; and he called that place Perez Uzzah, to this day- </p><p>David was “displeased” with God because He had slain a man who was trying to assist David’s pet project of bringing the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:8-9'>2Sa 6:8-9</a>). Do we not again see the anger and irrational emotion of David flaring up? For the Hebrew for "displeased" really means "anger", and is the same word used of Yahweh's anger in :7. God was fiercely angry, and David was likewise fiercely angry with God for being angry. Whilst on one level this is a terrible example of human pride, David's response could be argued to reflect a closeness with God which enabled him to feel like this. The exiles were warned that all who are "incensed" against God must be humbled and ashamed before the ark could, as it were, come to Zion and Israel be restored (s:w. <a href='B:290 41:11'>Isa 41:11</a>; <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>). The exiles, who were also angry with God for His anger with them, were to go through the humbling process David went through over the next three months.</p>


text:
<p>David was afraid of Yahweh that day; and he said, How can the ark of Yahweh come to me?-</p><p>There is a similarity, surely intentional, with the situation in <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a>: "The men of Beth Shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?". These were now David's feelings when Uzzah was slain for also not being respectful to the ark. Circumstances repeated, and David failed to learn the lesson. We wonder if indeed David consciously repeated the words of the men of Beth Shemesh. I suspect he didn't, but rather his words are recorded in a similar way, to show to us readers the similarity. We are intended to learn from history, even though so few do. This is why so much of the Bible is history.</p>


text:
<p>So David would not move the ark of Yahweh to be with him in the city of David; but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite- </p><p>This was a huge showdown, for David had assembled a huge number of people to this ceremony; see on :1. And now he was revealed as a man who had not paid due attention to the requirements of the God whom he had invited all Israel to come to worship. It was very humbling for him. We note he "carried it aside", having it carried on poles as the law required and not on a cart.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of Yahweh remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite three months: and Yahweh blessed Obed-Edom, and all his house- </p><p>It took David three months to humble himself before God, and to perceive that His blessing is related to obedience and respect of Him, and not assuming we can serve Him on our terms and ride roughshod over His principles. David and his house had also been promised blessings, but he was being taught that these blessings were related to obedience and respect of God. And the fact a Philistine from Gath, perhaps an Edomite, indeed an Edomite servant [for so his name means] received these blessings... was to teach him that his pedigree counted for nothing compared to humble respect of Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p>It was told king David saying, Yahweh has blessed the house of Obed-Edom and all that pertains to him, because of the ark of God. David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom into the city of David with joy- </p><p>True joy can only come from repentance and humbling ourselves before God. A prouder man would have just given up with this apparently over sensitive, hard to please God of Israel. But Yahweh is not really like that; but He rightly requires our humility to Him and His principles. It was the Edomite servant, Obed Edom, who taught David this.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when those who bore the ark of Yahweh had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened calf- </p><p>David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. David had just been severely humiliated and punished for assuming he could put aside the letter of God's law regarding the transport of the ark. That David should now act as a Levite when he was not one, again following the spirit and not the letter of the law, would therefore not have been done by him quickly. It would have required sustained reflection on the situation. His actions should therefore never be taken as a quick justification for disregarding Divine laws and principles. For in the context of what had happened three months previously, he would have considered this matter very seriously.</p><p>If sacrifices were offered every six paces from the house of Obed Edom to Zion, the road to Zion would have been a stream of sacrificial blood, looking ahead to the way to Golgotha. I suggest on :17 that these were sin offerings. It demonstrated the deep sense of sin and need for atonement which David felt. It was this true repentance which was the basis for his ecstatic joy. LXX "And seven choruses accompanied him. bearing the ark, and a calf and Iambs as a sacrifice".</p>


text:
<p>David danced before Yahweh with all his might- </p><p>I suggested on :13 that the massive number of sacrifices personally offered by David reflected his sense of repentance and need for atonement for his sin three months previously. It was this which was the basis for his ecstatic joy at his forgiveness.</p><p>And David was clothed in a linen ephod- </p><p>As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (<a href='B:230 43:4'>Psa 43:4</a> Heb:)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God's own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter, he airily waived the Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness (consider the implications of <a href='B:100 14:4-11'>2Sa 14:4-11</a>), and the need to stone rapists (<a href='B:100 13:21'>2Sa 13:21</a>). When others tried to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (<a href='B:90 13:10-13'>1Sa 13:10-13</a>); and Uzziah likewise (<a href='B:140 26:16-19'>2Ch 26:16-19</a>). When the woman of Tekoah basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger of blood be repealed, David seems to have agreed. When Amnon seeks to rape his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry- and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double, David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.</p>


text:
<p>So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of Yahweh with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet-</p><p>David is portrayed as in religious ecstasy before the God whom three months before he had been furiously angry with (see on :8). This indeed reflects the almost bi-polar nature of David. But it also shows the power of true repentance and seeking to put things right with God (see on :13), and the joy of good conscience resulting from that.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, as the ark of Yahweh came into the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window and saw king David leaping and dancing before Yahweh; and she despised him in her heart- </p><p>As Goliath despised David (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), so did Michal. The same word is used (<a href='B:100 6:16'>2Sa 6:16</a>). God reads the heart and what He finds there is so significant to Him. That woman's silent thoughts have been recorded for millennia in the record, and they are still in God's memory. We have a parade example here of the huge significance God attaches to our thoughts. Despising others for their spirituality is especially abhorrent to Him. We recall that Michal had an idol in her home soon after her marriage to David, and we wonder if it was Yahweh whom she also despised. And all this made her no better than Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>They brought in the ark of Yahweh, and set it in its place, in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before Yahweh-</p><p>The usual pattern for the offerings was sin offering, burnt offering [dedication to God on the basis of being reconciled from sin] and then peace offerings, celebrating the resultant peace with God. I suggested on :13 that the mass of animals sacrificed on the road to Zion were sin offerings.</p>


text:
<p>When David had made an end of offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of Yahweh of Armies-</p><p>As noted and discussed on :14, this was again David acting as high priest, blessing the people in Yahweh's Name.</p>


text:
<p>He distributed to all the people, even throughout the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to each one a portion of bread, dates and raisins. So all the people departed each one to his house- </p><p>We see here an ancient anticipation of the bread and wine [raisins] of the breaking of bread meeting. That meeting is essentially a peace offering, a celebration of the peace with God achieved through the Lord's sin offering, our promise of dedication to Him in the burnt offering, and then the celebration of the resultant peace with God. See on :17.</p><p>Israel’s mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship is demonstrated by the reference to their being “lovers of raisin cakes” (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>). According to <a href='B:100 6:19'>2Sa 6:19</a>, these cakes appear to have been part of the legitimate worship of Yahweh- and yet in <a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a> they are referred to as an aphrodisiac. There was a heady mix of Yahweh worship with participation in the sexual rituals of the Baal cult. It was this mixture which was so abhorrent to God- and time and again, in essence, we likewise mix flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then David returned to bless his household-</p><p>David is to be commended for not simply blessing Israel, but turning his attention privately to his own private household, and wanting to hold a private ceremony with them. But it was this which elicited the angry retort of Michal, whom I suggested on :16 may still have been an idolater and despised not only David but also Yahweh.</p><p>Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious the king of Israel was today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>. Perhaps she really loved her second husband Phaltiel as he loved her, and was bitter that David had broken up their marriage for political reasons. She disliked the way that David had put aside his royal robes to dance naked. She felt he ought to have always retained his royal dignity rather than apparently resign it before Yahweh as king. This would be why David responds that he is indeed the chosen king (:21). "Uncovered" does mean literally to make naked. We note the careful legislation about not revealing nakedness before Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:20 20:26'>Exo 20:26</a>). But David disobeyed the letter of this law to keep the spirit of it; and he did it at a time when three months before, he and Israel had been strongly punished for breaking the letter of the Divine law. His "uncovered" presence before Yahweh (<a href='B:100 6:21'>2Sa 6:21</a>) was not therefore done in the heat of the moment, but he would have carefully thought this through before doing it:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>David said to Michal, It was in the eyes of Yahweh, who chose me before your father and before all his house, to appoint me prince over the people of Yahweh, over Israel- </p><p>See on :20. Here is a good example of “before” meaning ‘before’ in importance rather than time. David tells his wife: “The Lord chose me before your father [Saul]”. Actually, in terms of time, God chose Saul well before He chose David. But God chose David above Saul in terms of importance and honour. This helps us understand the Lord Jesus being "before" Abraham, in importance not in time (<a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a>).</p><p>Michal was worried about what David looked like in the eyes of the young women; but David was totally focused upon his being in the eyes of Yahweh. Worry about what others think of us and all concerns about image evaporate before this sense- that we are in the eyes of Yahweh.</p><p>Therefore will I celebrate in the eyes of Yahweh- </p><p>When David danced “before / in the eyes of the Lord”, his wife mocked him, because he had embarrassed himself “before / in the eyes of Israel”. David’s response is that he had done this “in my own eyes” (<a href='B:100 6:20-22'>2Sa 6:20-22</a>). This play on the phrase “before / in the eyes of” is significant. David is highly perceptive here. He’s saying that if this is how he feels in his own eyes, then this is how he is before the eyes of God, and therefore this is how he will be before the eyes of Israel and the general public. David is saying: ‘Who I am, my real self, is the one God sees, and I’m not going to hide it from the world; let them see me how I see myself and how God sees me’. In this incident, there was no gap between the ‘real self’ of David and the image he projected to the world. There was complete congruence between how he felt about himself, how God saw him, and how the watching world saw him. And this incident ought to be programmatic for our entire lives.</p>


text:
<p>I will be yet more vile than this, and will be base in my own eyes. But of the handmaids of whom you have spoken, they shall honour me- </p><p>See on :21. This was true on one level, but it was a cruel thing for a husband to say to his middle aged wife; for it was to the effect that 'the attractive young women will think I'm wonderful and will give me the honour and respect a man craves from his woman, which you my wife don't give me'. Again we sense a harsher and quite unpleasant side in David, despite his softness and amazing grace. Such contradictions are sadly within us all.</p>


text:
<p>Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death- </p><p>This may not have been judgment solely upon Michal. Once King, David decides to get back his ex-wife Michal, who was by now married to Phaltiel, who evidently loved her. Yet David takes her from Phaltiel, and we have the tragic image of the loving husband walking behind her weeping as she is led away from him (<a href='B:100 3:15-16'>2Sa 3:15-16</a>). This was not only a breach of Mosaic law, but displayed a sad elevation of politics above others’ relationships and marriages. It may be significant that her renewed marriage with David wasn’t blessed with any children (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king lived in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies all around-</p><p>All his adult life, David had hardly slept more than a few nights in the same place. And he had always been surrounded by enemies who gave him no rest. Now finally he was living a stable life in his own house, with rest from his enemies. Instead of slumping into the mire of mediocrity in his spirituality, as many would have done, he reflects that he apparently has more than God, as it were. He has a nice house, whilst God's house was a tent. This desire to use a stable existence in God's service is a stellar example to God's children of all ages.</p><p>The account here may not be chronological, because we read of more wars in 2 Samuel 8. I suggest this is included after the account of bringing the ark to Zion in order to continue the theme of David's work for the ark.</p>


text:
<p>that the king said to Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within curtains- </p><p>Any disparity between our own life situation and that of the things of God... ought to concern us. David didn't stop living in a house and instead live in a tent. Instead he did what he could to ensure that his abundance was not kept to himself. His motives were admirable throughout, and God saw that, but God was to use David's desires to teach that He doesn't need works, but just wants to share the abundance of His grace with others.</p><p>The reference to "curtains" doesn't mean that David was concerned that God's ark was under a tent, whilst he lived in a house. Rather is the reference to the ten curtains which comprised the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 26:1'>Exo 26:1</a>). David was assuming that he could change the Mosaic commandments about the tabernacle, and move God's purpose forward to something more permanent. We see here how he didn't consider the laws of Moses [of which the commands about the tabernacle were part] to be static. He saw them as open to interpretation and development. This was not a position he came to lightly, seeing he had been terribly punished for thinking he could flout the legislation about how the ark was to be transported.</p>&nbsp;<p>Many of the commands within the "law of Moses" were clearly only intended for the wilderness generation, indeed they could only have been obeyed by them then; and David wondered whether the entire commands about the tabernacle were in that category. Those today who claim that Mosaic legislation is eternally binding need to give this due weight. It's not just that the Mosaic law was abrogated by the Lord's death; but the whole nature of that law was that it was never intended to all be literally applied to every subsequent generation. And that meant that it was the spirit of it which was to be discerned and followed.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in your heart; for Yahweh is with you- </p><p>Nathan wrongly assumed that Yahweh would naturally agree to David's proposition to move on from the Mosaic idea of a tabernacle. David didn't actually state what he intended to do (:2), but Nathan assumes he knows David's intentions, and assumes he knows God will agree. Such assumptions are typical of human beings, and further adds psychological verisimilitude to the record. Nathan of course should have had the humility to first ask of God rather than assuming he knows God's will. The assumption we know God's will is a common problem amongst God's people; effectively we are elevating our gut feeling to the level of God's word.</p>


text:
<p>It happened the same night, that the word of Yahweh came to Nathan saying- </p><p>David’s plan to build a great house was met with the word of the Lord coming unto him “the same night”, telling him not to do this. There seems to be some allusion to this by the Lord Jesus when He spoke of the rich fool who wanted to build a greater barn being told the Lord’s word “that same night”. It could be that the Lord Jesus saw something material and very human in David’s desire to build a house for the Lord. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Go and tell My servant David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Shall you build Me a house for Me to dwell in?-</p><p>Perhaps there was a pause after this statement. The emphasis was upon the words "you" and "Me". David had not given due thought to the magnitude and inappropriacy of what was in his mind; that he as a mere man could build a house for Yahweh to live in. He had failed to perceive the greatness of his God. Any idea of confining God within four walls was bizarre.</p>


text:
<p>For I have not lived in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have moved around in a tent and in a tabernacle- </p><p>Although this may primarily refer to the Angel, the point is that the God of the cosmos had intensely manifested Himself in the ark and the tabernacle / tent which enclosed it. This of itself revealed His humility. The idea is "I have walked continually"; like David up until this point (see on :1), He had been a wanderer. David had now ceased his years of wandering (:1), and was assuming that God was like himself, preferring a stable and sedentary life. But this assumption that God is like us at this moment and point of our lives is incorrect, and David later criticizes it (<a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a>). He is who He is, and not a god made in our image, as we are at this moment; rather are we made in His image, and not the other way around. It is for us to hear His voice in His word and accept Him as He is, rather than assuming He will think how we do at this point in our development. David earlier had appreciated the idea of God being a wanderer when he was a wanderer, as his wilderness Psalms indicate. But now he was settled, he assumed that this was how God would like to be.</p>


text:
<p>In all places in which I have walked with all the children of Israel, did I say a word to any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of My people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’’-</p><p>David desired to build God a physical house. <a href='B:100 7:7-11'>2Sa 7:7-11</a> records God's response in clear enough language: God did not want a physical house because</p><p>1. It was not really possible for man to build God a house ("Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?"&nbsp;is surely rhetorical)</p><p>2. God had never asked Israel to build Him such a house before; indeed, it had been His expressed will that He should dwell among Israel in the temporary form of the tabernacle. God wanted a temporary abode to point forward to the fact that the reality was in Christ; thus the Law of Moses had features built into it which were intrinsically temporal, to point men forward to the stability and finality of Messiah. By building a permanent temple, Solomon reflects his lack of focus on the Messiah to come.</p><p>3. He would only have a permanent physical house when His people were permanently settled, never to be moved again (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a>), i:e. in the Kingdom. Yet Solomon perceived that his kingdom was in fact the final Kingdom of God. David made this mistake, in assuming in Psalms 72 that Solomon’s Kingdom would undoubtedly be the Messianic one…and Solomon repeated the error, yet to a more tragic extent.</p><p>4. God plays on the confusion between 'house' in the sense of household, and 'house' in the sense of a physical building. He says: 'You&nbsp; want to build me&nbsp; a physical house. But I&nbsp; am going to build you&nbsp; a household&nbsp; which will be my Kingdom'. The implication is that David's desire for a physical house was altogether too human, and that there is an opposition between what man thinks he can physically do for God, and the fact that God wishes to do things for men. Yet Solomon went ahead with his works rather than grappling with the reality of sheer grace. He so wanted to do &nbsp;something. He betrays this when he writes in <a href='B:250 9:7'>Ecc 9:7</a>: “God now accepteth thy works”. The Hebrew translated “accepteth” means literally to satisfy a debt, and is elsewhere translated ‘to reconcile self’. He saw works as reconciling man’s debt to God, rather than perceiving that grace is paramount. He keeps on about David his father; and yet there was a crucial difference. David perceived the need for grace as the basis of man’s reconciliation with God; whereas Solomon thought it was works. David wrote that God wants a broken heart and not thousands of sacrifices; yet Solomon offered the thousands of sacrifices, but didn’t have the contrite heart of his father.</p><p>5. To desire a physical house for God is to overlook the promised Messiah- that was surely the implication of the promise of the Lord Jesus following right on from the statement that a physical house was not required. <a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a> and <a href='B:290 66:2'>Isa 66:2</a> explain why this is- because God does not live in what man builds, but will fully dwell in one man to whom He will look, one who would have a humble spirit towards Him. And this man was of course the Lord Jesus. Solomon’s obsession with the temple therefore reflected his deeper problem- of not being focused upon the Christ to come.</p><p>So it ought to be clear from all this that God's response to the request to build a temple was negative; He did not want a physical temple. None of the four reasons for this listed above were just temporary considerations; they were reasons which were valid for all time. There can be no doubt that God's response here is at the basis of <a href='B:290 66:1-2'>Isa 66:1-2</a>: "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all these things hath mine hand made... but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" . God is saying that it simply isn't possible to build Him a house; instead, He seeks to dwell in the hearts of men. Yet Solomon wasn’t interested in the personal spiritual mindedness which enables this to happen. This is the same spirit as God's response to David: 'You can't build me a physical house, I will build my own household of believers'.</p><p>These words of Isaiah 66 are twice quoted in the New Testament. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that&nbsp; He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands... as though He needed any thing" (<a href='B:510 17:24-25'>Act 17:24-25</a>). The reason for God not dwelling in temples is that He is Lord of heaven and earth. This reason does not change with time; He was Lord of heaven and earth at David's time just as much as He is now.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you shall tell My servant David this, ‘Thus says Yahweh of Armies, I took you from the sheep pen, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over My people, over Israel- </p><p>David was asked to reflect that his wandering around as a shepherd as a child and teenager had been to prepare him for leading Israel. But leading a people likewise involves an element of mobility, and God as the ultimate leader of Israel was likewise moving on and never static. Hebrew shepherds usually lead their sheep, but here David is described as being moved from following sheep, to going ahead as a leader. Here we have an example of where language and imagery is used in a way we might consider opportunistic; but this is the nature of Semitic writing and reasoning. A failure to appreciate the Hebrew nature of the Bible has led to so many misinterpretations of it.</p>


text:
<p>I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you- </p><p>David's continual wandering up until the point of :1 had always been with God's presence "with you wherever". This connects with God's own statement that He Himself had "walked continually" (:6). Those years had been in order to get David to appreciate God's own constant journeying. This is to be a feature of every believer's life. Even if we live and die in the house we were born in and never move 20 km. from our home village, life with God is a constant journey. And all within us will seek to turn it into the stability of mere religion, as David was seeking to do.</p><p>God encourages David to see himself as representative of Israel by saying this; they are words replete with reference to Israel in the wilderness and their establishment in the land. As David so loved his people and was their representative, for all they did to him, so with the Lord Jesus and His people. When God asked David “choose thee one of” three possible judgments, each of them involved the whole nation- e.g. “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee” (singular). David was their representative even in their time of failure.</p><p>I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are in the earth- </p><p>This is now developed by God into saying that He will make David a house / family. That family was to bear David's great name, but the "great name", the greatest in the earth [reading "great ones" as an intensive plural for a singular great name] was that of Yahweh. And this Name was to be carried by David's house and particularly by the Messianic seed who was now to be promised. AV "I have made thee a great name" would refer to how God was to do this through David's military victories (<a href='B:100 8:13'>2Sa 8:13</a>), indicating that 2 Samuel 7 is actually referring to events after 2 Samuel 8 and is not in chronological sequence.</p>


text:
<p>I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first- </p><p>This connects with how David had planted the ark in its "place" in Zion (<a href='B:100 6:17'>2Sa 6:17</a>). God is saying that His grace is such that He will do exceeding far above what we ever ask or think to do for Him. He would plant and place Israel in an eternal Kingdom, just as David had planted and placed the ark in Zion. As David personally had been given rest from his enemies (:1), so would Israel be granted rest.</p><p>These words would have been comforting to the exiles; ultimately they would not be afflicted as they had been by the Babylonians, and would return to their land permanently (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a> s:w. for "afflict" in <a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>; <a href='B:430 3:19'>Zep 3:19</a>; <a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a>; <a href='B:310 5:11'>Lam 5:11</a>). The word used in <a href='B:130 17:9'>1Ch 17:9</a>, 'to waste', is also used of the Babylonian wasting of Judah (<a href='B:310 3:4'>Lam 3:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. I will cause you to rest from all your enemies- </p><p>The constant affliction Israel experienced at the time of the judges was because of their sins; they had no rest from their enemies because of their continual unfaithfulness to Yahweh. These promises are therefore tantamount to saying that God would somehow permanently establish His people, in a way not conditional upon their faithfulness because He would somehow make them faithful. This is the language of the new covenant offered to the exiles, and is achieved today through the work of the Holy Spirit keeping us from falling from the covenant. The "blessing" promised to Abraham is therefore interpreted in <a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a> as the power of God turning away His people's hearts from sin. And the same is implied in these promises to David.</p><p>Moreover Yahweh tells you that Yahweh will make you a house- </p><p>To what was God referring to when He told David that David's son would build him a house? Firstly, we must bear in mind that in hundreds of places, the Hebrew word for "house" means 'household'. The eternal house promised to David is paralleled with the Kingdom; and a Kingdom is comprised of people. This is what is in view, not the building of any literal temple at the Lord's return. The Kingdom is the house of Jacob (<a href='B:490 1:33'>Luk 1:33</a>). That the house of David is the Kingdom is evident from <a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>; <a href='B:130 17:14'>1Ch 17:14</a> (cp. <a href='B:490 11:17'>Luk 11:17</a>). The Kingdom was taken from the house of Saul and given to the house of David (<a href='B:100 3:10'>2Sa 3:10</a>), but later the Kingdom was taken from the house of David because of Solomon's apostacy (<a href='B:110 14:8'>1Ki 14:8</a>). This is proof enough that at best the promises to David had only a tiny fulfilment in Solomon's Kingdom.</p><p>The New Testament is very insistent that the true temple of God is the body of Christian believers (<a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a>; <a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a>; <a href='B:650 10:21'>Heb 10:21</a>; <a href='B:670 4:17'>1Pe 4:17</a>; <a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a>; <a href='B:730 11:1-2'>Rev 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a>). This string of passages is quite some emphasis. Yet Christ was the temple; he spoke of the temple of his body (<a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a>; <a href='B:730 21:22'>Rev 21:22</a>). For this reason, the Gospels seem to stress the connection between Christ and the temple (<a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a>; <a href='B:480 11:15-16'>Mar 11:15-16</a>; <a href='B:480 11:27'>Mar 11:27</a>; <a href='B:480 12:35'>Mar 12:35</a>; <a href='B:480 13:1'>Mar 13:1</a>; <a href='B:480 13:3'>Mar 13:3</a>; <a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a>; <a href='B:490 2:46'>Luk 2:46</a>; <a href='B:490 21:38'>Luk 21:38</a>). Christ's body was the temple of God. By being in Christ, we too are the temple (<a href='B:530 3:16-17'>1Co 3:16-17</a>; <a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a>), our body is the temple of God (<a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a>). Yet Solomon was not Christ centred; he didn’t want to see this connection. And we too can have an over-physical view of the Kingdom, centred around a literal temple in Jerusalem etc:, rather than perceiving that the Kingdom / reign of God is, in its essence, over the hearts of men and women like us. The future political Kingdom will be the concrete articulation of the essence of the Kingdom principles which are now being lived out in the hearts of the people who are under the Lord’s present kingship.</p><p>In the person of Jesus, the essence of the Kingdom came nigh to men (<a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a>; <a href='B:470 11:4'>Mat 11:4</a>; <a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a>)- and this was why one of His titles is “the Kingdom”. The Kingdom of God is about joy, peace and righteousness more than the physicalities of eating and drinking. In this sense the Kingdom was “among” first century Israel. The Kingdom of God is not merely a carrot held out to us for good behaviour. It is a reality right now, in so far as God truly becomes our king. Even in the Old Testament, the word "temple" does not normally refer to the physical temple outside the records of Solomon's building of the temple. It is often stated that the house David's seed was to build would be for the Name of Yahweh. His Name refers to His mental attributes. A physical house is inappropriate to express these.</p><p>If the house refers to a household of righteous believers, all becomes plain. This explains why <a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a> parallels God's eternal name with the eternal house and Kingdom which was promised to David. Building a house was a common Hebrew idiom for developing a household (<a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a>; <a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a>). God's promise to David about building him an eternal household was anticipated in His words to Eli: " I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind (i:e. David, <a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>): and I will build him a sure house", in contrast to God's destruction of Eli's household (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>). <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a> clinches the idea that this refers to David: "I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house as I built for David". In passing, note that these words to Solomon remind him that God will build him&nbsp; a house, in opposition to the way in which Solomon so frequently speaks about building God a house.</p>


text:
<p>When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers- </p><p>There is a strong sense that God has determined a number of "days" for our mortal life (<a href='B:230 23:6'>Psa 23:6</a>; <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>), and David like all of us wished to know how many those days were for him, in order that he might live an appropriately humble life in response to realizing his frailty (<a href='B:230 39:4'>Psa 39:4</a>). But that predetermined number of days can be cut short (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23-24'>Psa 102:23-24</a>) or extended (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>). Hezekiah would be the parade example of this; his days were cut short (<a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a>), and then lengthened in response to prayer (<a href='B:120 20:6'>2Ki 20:6</a>). God is open to dialogue, His timetable in our personal lives is flexible according to our prayers; and He is also responsive to human behaviour. Like Job we should perceive our life as "my days" (he uses this term multiple times), so that we might use each of them for Him.</p><p>I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your body- "Set up" has a similar meaning to "establish". It is tempting to note that the Hebrew word is often translated "arise", and to wonder if there is here a hint that this seed will experience a bodily resurrection. The possible fulfilment in David's family was precluded by his sin with Bathsheba and the resultant effects upon his "house"; the same word for "set up" is in <a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> of how God would "raise / set up evil out of your own house". His house "was not so with God", as he concluded at the end of his life; and so he with us look for a fulfilment in his Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus, and the house of people being built up / established in Him.</p><p>The promise to David concerning Christ precludes his physical existence at the time the promise was made: “I will set up your descendant [singular] after you, which shall proceed out of your body... I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>). Notice the future tense used here. Seeing that God would be Christ’s Father, it is impossible that the Son of God could have already existed at that point in time when the promise was made. That this seed “shall proceed out of your body” shows that he was to be a literal, physical descendant of David. “The Lord has sworn in truth unto David... Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne” (<a href='B:230 132:11'>Psa 132:11</a>). Solomon was the primary fulfilment of the promise, but as he was already physically in existence at the time of this promise (<a href='B:100 5:14'>2Sa 5:14</a>), the main fulfilment of this promise about David having a physical descendant who would be God’s son, must refer to Christ (<a href='B:490 1:31-33'>Luk 1:31-33</a>).</p><p>And I will establish his kingdom- </p><p>"Prepared" or "established" is a major theme in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p>


text:
<p>He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever- </p><p>Ultimately, as shown above, this refers to the building up of the house of believers to be the throne of the seed's eternal kingdom. The Lord Jesus will reign upon us, "whose house are we" (<a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a>); we are His throne, the basis of His Kingdom. And that house and throne are being built up now, although it will only be more materially and physically articulated at His second coming and the establishment of His literal Kingdom upon earth. This process of building up is achieved by the colossal work of the Lord Jesus through His Spirit, calling, converting and transforming His people to be His house. This is how the New Testament alludes to these ideas of building and establishing (<a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a>; <a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a>; <a href='B:600 2:17'>2Th 2:17</a>; <a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a>; <a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a>). <a href='B:230 89:4'>Psa 89:4</a> says that this building up of the throne goes on in "all generations". The idea is that the house and throne of the seed is built up from people of all generations. The light never went out for God's Truth and true people. In every generation there were some. This has big implications for those who consider that a very specific theology, especially one based upon 19th century revelations of truth, is required for salvation and membership of God's people.</p><p>The fact is that God did&nbsp;dwell, temporarily, in Solomon's temple. His glory entered it, and later left it in Ezekiel's time. This is the classic example of the way in which God will go along with men in their mistaken enthusiasm, working with them, even though this is contrary to His preferred way of doing things. A similar example is found in the way God forbad Israel to have a human king, because to do so would be a denial of His superiority and of their covenant relationship with Him. And yet Israel had a king. God did not turn a blind eye to this. Instead He worked through this system of human kingship. Or take marriage out of the faith. This is clearly contrary to God's ideal wishes. And yet in some cases He is prepared to work through this, in order to being about His purpose. There is even the possible suggestion in <a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a> that God was ‘tempted’ to re-instate the law of Moses, or parts of it, in the first century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians desired to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great encouragement. Yet we must not come to presume upon God's patience, assuming that He will go along with us.</p><p>In any case, <a href='B:140 7:12'>2Ch 7:12</a> says that God accepted the temple only as a place of sacrifice, i:e. a glorified altar (cp. <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a>). And yet- God didn't really want sacrifice (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>; <a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a>). "Now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever" (<a href='B:140 7:16'>2Ch 7:16</a>) is a conditional promise, followed by five verses of conditions concerning Solomon's spirituality which he overlooked. Like Solomon, we too can fix upon promises without considering their conditionality. There is good reason to think that communally and individually we are increasingly shutting our eyes to the possibility of our spiritual failure and disaster. God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>). Note, too, that Solomon had the idea that if sinful Israel prayed towards the temple, they would somehow be forgiven because of this. God’s response was that if they sought Him wherever they were and repented, then He would hear them- the temple was not to be seen as the instrument or mediatrix of forgiveness which Solomon envisaged. Likewise, Solomon’s implication that prayer offered in the temple would be especially acceptable was not upheld by God’s reply to him about this (<a href='B:140 6:24-26'>2Ch 6:24-26</a> cp. God’s response in <a href='B:140 7:12-13'>2Ch 7:12-13</a>).</p>


