# comment

text:
<p>If you will fear Yahweh and serve Him, listen to His voice and not rebel against the commandment of Yahweh, then it will be well with both you and the king who reigns over you- </p><p>If all Israel had been obedient to Yahweh, then Saul would have been too and all would have been well for him. If a majority are spiritually minded, this can at times and in some ways influence a potentially weaker minority; even though the reverse is more often true. And yet Saul made the people “follow him trembling” because they weren’t, en masse, spiritually stronger than him (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). The application to the exiles was in that they had rebelled against Yahweh's commandment, and therefore things had not gone well for them and their king had been deposed (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:20'>Isa 1:20</a>; <a href='B:310 1:18'>Lam 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you will not listen to the voice of Yahweh but rebel against the commandment of Yahweh, then the hand of Yahweh will be against you, as it was against your fathers-</p><p>This point is being made in the context of warning them of the dangers of having a king. They were to be aware that humans are like sheep, and tend to go where they are led. By having a human king, they would be more likely to follow him rather than obeying the voice of Yahweh. In some contexts it is true that the stronger and more charismatic the human leader, the harder it is for the flock to have a personal relationship with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore stand still and see this great thing which Yahweh will do before your eyes- </p><p>To "stand still and see" was the language of the invitation to behold the miracle of the salvation at the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a>, cp. <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>). And again, thunder and water were involved. But it was here an invitation to see their material blessings destroyed, after the pattern of the plague of hail destroying the harvest of the Egyptians. But through that judgment, salvation was intended to come in that it would elicit their repentance. So "stand still and see" still has a salvation context.</p>


text:
<p>Isn’t it wheat harvest today? I will call to Yahweh to send thunder and rain, and you shall know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the eyes of Yahweh, in asking for a king- </p><p>This recalls the plague of thunder and hail upon Egypt which destroyed their harvest. The language of calling to Yahweh also recalls Moses in Egypt. They had acted as Egypt, who were led to destruction through their king; and so they were punished likewise.</p>


text:
<p>So Samuel called to Yahweh, and Yahweh sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared Yahweh and Samuel-</p><p>To fear Yahweh is parallel here with knowing and seeing the greatness of their sin (:17). And yet such is the perversity of human nature that despite perceiving their sin, there was no change of plan. And in fairness, it seems God had chosen to give them their request, and had set things up for Saul already by this point. We can imagine the people being angry with Samuel for destroying their harvest by his prayers, but they "feared" him, perceiving the connection between Yahweh and Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>All the people said to Samuel, Pray for your servants to Yahweh your God that we do not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for a king- </p><p>They feared death from the hail, it was so strong. Again we note that they ask Samuel to pray for them not to die, rather than directly praying to Yahweh themselves and repenting to him. Humanity shies away from the wonder of direct personal relationship with God. Many today prefer to hide at the bottom of a huge supposed hierarchy of priests, bishops, denominational membership etc:- rather than accept direct personal relationship with God. Just as God wished to speak directly to Israel, but they ran away from Him and wanted Moses instead to report to them what God had said. See on <a href='B:90 12:6'>1Sa 12:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to the people, Don’t be afraid. You have indeed done all this evil, yet don’t turn aside from following Yahweh, but serve Yahweh with all your heart-</p><p>This is Samuel's response to their request that he pray for them and save their lives. He agrees (:23), showing the degree to which prayer for others can indeed save them; but not before warning them that they are not to think that his prayer for them releases them from personal spiritual obligation. The people were very prone to dump their spiritual responsibilities upon others, and this was all part of the reason why it were better for them not to have a king.</p><p>Serving God with the complete heart precludes turning aside to idols (:21). We have no mental space for them. If we don't serve God whole-heartedly, we will serve the idols of this present age. There's no third road.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t turn aside to go after vain things which can’t profit or save you, for they are vain- </p><p>Only God can save [AV "deliver"]. The Israelites were looking for a king to deliver them, and they are being warned that only Yahweh can save&nbsp; / deliver, as He had done through the saviours raised at the time of the Judges. No king can deliver / save of himself, and to believe this was another form of idolatry. The idols are described repeatedly as vain and foolish- words which are so true of the spirit of our age today. <a href='B:50 32:15-24'>Deu 32:15-24</a> describes just how angry God gets when His people give their devotions to these things: Israel “scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know ::. that your fathers did not fear::. and He (God) said: ‘I will hide My face from them::. for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faith. They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; they have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols::. I will heap disasters upon them”. <a href='B:290 65:3'>Isa 65:3</a> LXX is just as clear: “[Israel] burn incense on bricks to demons, which exist not”. The idols of the nations, representing as they did the supposed ‘demons’ of the cosmos, were “vanity” because what the demons and gods they supposedly represented did not exist – they are “beings that are nothing” (<a href='B:90 12:21'>1Sa 12:21</a> LXX), “a thing of nought” (<a href='B:300 14:4'>Jer 14:4</a>). Their equivalent in our age is to fill the mind with things of nothing.</p><p>The lesson for the exiles was not to look to nations or idols which also could "not profit" (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:5'>Isa 30:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>; <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will not forsake His people- </p><p>God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel if they forsook Him; and they had (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). God will only not forsake those who love Him (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). But Samuel assures them the paradoxically, Yahweh will not forsake them- because of His grace and desire to as it were will through His plan of salvation.</p><p>For the sake of His great name, because it has pleased Yahweh to make you His own people- </p><p>Samuel assures them that God's amazing grace to His people is part of His essential character which is "His great Name".</p>


text:
<p>As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against Yahweh in ceasing to pray for you; I will instruct you in the good and the right way-</p><p>Samuel said that to cease to pray for sinful Israel would be to sin against the Yahweh. The need is in itself the call to prayer. To not pray for people is a sin- one of the easiest sins of omission to commit. And our sins against those sinful people we omit to care for are sins against Yahweh. He watches very carefully our attitudes to hopeless sinners- because we ourselves are in that same category before Him.</p>


text:
<p>Only fear Yahweh and serve Him in truth with all your heart; consider what great things He has done for you- </p><p>The great things Samuel has just listed in their history all involved the greatness of God's grace in saving His sinful people, as discussed on :7. These "great things" were the "righteous acts" of :7, the paradoxical, fathomless grace of :22. Yahweh's greatness is supremely shown in the way He saves sinners and continues working with them when they are unworthy and of minimal response to His grace. Indeed this is what the history of God's encounter with man is all about.</p>


text:
<p>But if you still do wickedly you will be consumed, both you and your king-</p><p>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" together in the massacre by the Philistines (s:w. <a href='B:90 26:10'>1Sa 26:10</a>). It was because despite all God's efforts with them, they had continued to "do wickedly".</p>


text:
<p>&nbsp; Saul reigned a year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel-</p><p>This may be some idiom now hard to understand, perhaps meaning 'when his reign was established'; some versions of LXX omit the verse. Or remembering that the chapter breaks are artificial and not inspired, it could be that the events of chapter 12 are within the first year of his reign and what we now read is in the second year. If Saul reigned forty years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>) but was rejected in the second year of his reign, then his reign would have been miserable indeed, the majority of it spent knowing he had been rejected. However the 40 year reigning period may need to be interpreted some other way, for his son Jonathan appears to already be an adult at this time (:2). I suggest that this is an idiom or metaphor here, which we may not currently be able to decode. Paul speaks of Saul reigning 40 years having just spoken of the 40 years wandering, which is also not an exact figure as they wandered 38 years. Saul, David and Solomon are all recorded as reigning 40 years, and we wonder whether this isn't a literary device rather than a literal figure.</p>


text:
<p>Saul chose three thousand men of Israel, of which two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in the Mount of Bethel, and one thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin, and the rest of the people he sent back to their tents-</p><p>This continues Saul's imitation of Gideon, sending potential soldiers back home because he believed God could save by many or by few. Saul was trying to imitate Gideon (see too <a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>), and likewise when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>). And yet it was Gideon who refused the request of Israel to make him king; Saul's modelling upon Gideon was only superficial. As in <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a>, he seems to have split the troops into three groups of 1000 each, again imitating Gideon. His aim was to use them to attack the Philistine garrisons in Gibeah, Michmash and Bethel.</p><p>It seems the 2000 and 1000 were some kind of permanent force under the command of Saul and Jonathan. Jonathan must have been very young at this time, if indeed Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>); although I suspect the reference to 40 years is symbolic. Paul says it to make a similarity with the 40 years in the wilderness he has just spoken about. The reigns of Saul, David and Jonathan were all 40 years, so this may be an example of where Semitic languages use numbers and periods in a non literal sense.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan attacked the garrison of the Philistines in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear!- </p><p>"Hebrew" is literally 'one who has passed over'; he may have in view the Israelites who were on the other side of the Jordan river. Having attempted to follow Gideon's example of not needing many men (see on :2), he now is desperate for every Israelite he can get; his faith didn't hold up. Despite Jonathan's victory it seems Saul himself didn't bring deliverance from the Philistines, for by the time of the conflict with Goliath the Hebrews were under severe threat from them. So Saul's early promise of being a military deliverer just didn't come true.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel heard that Saul had attacked the garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel had become odious to the Philistines. The people were gathered together to Saul in Gilgal- </p><p>As noted on :2,3, Saul's imitation of Gideon by sending soldiers home was merely surface level spirituality. Now he wanted every soldier he could get. We note that Saul was given credit in the publicity material [as it were] for the attack, when it was Jonathan who did it. We therefore see pride creeping in to Saul. See on :17. Saul was potentially enabled to free Israel from the Philistines, but he failed to have the personal faith required. The main victories against them were by Jonathan and David. And this explains his great jealousy against them both, even planning to slay Jonathan at least twice (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>; <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines assembled themselves to fight with Israel: thirty thousand chariots, six thousand horsemen and people as numerous as the sand which is on the seashore, and they came up and encamped in Michmash, east of Beth Aven- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. As often noted, "thousand" doesn't mean necessarily a literal 1000, but can refer to families or military regiments. Otherwise in this case the proportion of horsemen and chariots is wrong. It was Israel who were to be as the sand on the seashore, but the Philistines were a quasi Israel.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Israel saw that they were in great peril and the people were distressed, they hid themselves in caves, thickets, rocks, coverts and in pits- </p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a>, implying amongst these people who hid were those with faith. And the context of Hebrews 11 is faith in the things of the Kingdom and&nbsp; Messiah Jesus. They believed that although they were now in free fall before their enemies, the day of Israel's Kingdom and true saviour Messiah would one day come. To flee is not necessarily a lack of faith (<a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now some of the Hebrews had gone over the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, but Saul was still in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling-</p><p>Israelites persecuted for their faithlessness crossed the Jordan into the territory of Gad (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). This is fair commentary upon the situation in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:25'>Jos 22:25</a>, where the Israelites accused Gad of falling away from Yahweh worship, and the people of Gad explained that they feared that the other Israelites would make the Jordan a boundary which they would use to exclude them from Yahweh worship. All these fears and speculations about the future are here shown to be inappropriate. Actually the very opposite worked out. And this is the problem with so many divisions between brethren; they are based upon fears of possible futures, and the passage of time often shows the opposite working out. See on <a href='B:90 14:16'>1Sa 14:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He waited seven days, according to the time set by Samuel, but Samuel didn’t come to Gilgal- </p><p>In his opening training when first called to the kingship, Saul had been trained to wait until Samuel came and made the offerings (<a href='B:90 10:8'>1Sa 10:8</a>). And he obeyed. Now the lesson learned is repeated- and he fails. We have similar things in our lives. There are similarities of circumstance not only within our lives, but between our lives and those of others. Thus as Samuel tarried longer than Saul expected, so Amasa "tarried longer than the set time which [David] had appointed him" (<a href='B:100 20:5'>2Sa 20:5</a>). 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><p>"The time set" can refer to a feast, but also simply to a festival arranged by Samuel for the making of peace offerings. Samuel was not a Levite, and the gatherings for the peace offerings were therefore not necessarily to keep Mosaic legislation.</p><p>And the people were scattered from him- </p><p>They were no longer following him trembling (:7), but were scattered from him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Bring here the burnt offering to me, and the peace offerings. He offered the burnt offering- </p><p>Saul was not wrong to offer the offerings because he wasn't a Levite. For neither was Samuel, and David wasn't either and yet made such offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>). The point is that he wasn't obedient to Samuel's inspired words, and was likely not qualified to make the offerings as he was not at peace with God.</p>&nbsp;<p>Are we going to be like those Israelites who offered a peace offering, when actually they were not at peace with God at all (<a href='B:90 13:9'>1Sa 13:9</a>; <a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>)? Are we going to be like Israel, who offered peace offerings, and then rose up from their tables to worship idols and indulge their flesh (<a href='B:20 32:5-6'>Exo 32:5-6</a>)? These are challenges especially appropriate to the breaking of bread meeting, which is a kind of new covenant equivalent for the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering Samuel came, and Saul went out to meet him, to greet him- </p><p>The idea seems to have been that the war of independence against the Philistines was to be begun by sacrifice and establishing peace with God first. But Saul didn't see the importance of this and impatiently wanted to get on with the campaign, without waiting for Samuel to pronounce God's blessing upon it. Saul wanted to push through the sacrifices as mere ritual, trusting in his own strength for the looming war. This was what was so displeasing to God; the issue was not that Saul wasn't a Levite. For neither was Samuel. He was judged for these things apparently harshly, losing the kingship because of it. But his actions which are condemned reflected deeper bad attitudes. We too have surely been guilty of over hasty prayer, dashing into enterprises in our own strength and with prayer and spiritual devotion effectively relegated to a mere formalism, assuming that time is of the essence rather than spiritual devotion. Circumstances repeated to give him another chance to learn the same lesson (<a href='B:90 14:10'>1Sa 14:10</a>), but he failed again.</p><p>It seems that Saul was about to offer the peace offering after having offered the burnt offering, but then Samuel arrived. And he never got to offer the peace offering. The burnt offering represented dedication to God, and always preceded the peace offering in the Mosaic legislation. Peace with God could only be celebrated after offering total devotion to Him. And Saul it seems was stopped from making the peace offering, because he was not at peace with God.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, What have you done?- </p><p>Surely said to recall the situation in Eden when God questioned Adam and Eve, who had been established by Him as the rulers of His Kingdom as it then was (s:w. <a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a>; <a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a>). And there is a similar initial attempt to deny any wrongdoing. See on :43.</p><p>Saul said, When I saw that the people were scattered from me and that you didn’t come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines assembled at Michmash- </p><p>Saul says the truth, to an extent. His trembling followers were deserting by the hour (:7,8) and the Philistines were only ten miles away. He needed to go ahead as quickly as possible instead of waiting for Samuel's religiosity. He gave in to the common human feeling, that religion is fine but we have to get on and live our secular lives as secular people. And he was severely judged for this attitude, as a warning to us all. And as noted on :16, his fears and perceived need to act quickly were in fact misplaced.</p>


text:
<p>I thought ‘Now the Philistines will come down on me to Gilgal, and I haven’t entreated the favour of Yahweh’. I forced myself therefore, and offered the burnt offering- </p><p>Saul passes off his inattention to spiritual things and treating the offerings as mere rituals by saying that in fact he wanted to ask Yahweh's favour. Saul had been commanded to wait for Samuel. That was the commandment he disobeyed (:13). "Forced myself" is always elsewhere translated "restrained myself". But the opposite was the case. He had no restrained himself and waited for Samuel. Yet Saul implies he had been tempted to dash into battle without seeking Yahweh's favour, but he restrained himself. We have a chilling insight here into mentality and self justification which we have surely all had at times. And it cost Saul the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of Yahweh your God which He commanded you- Saul had been commanded to wait for Samuel. That was the commandment he disobeyed. 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><p>For now Yahweh would have established your kingdom in Israel forever- </p><p>God had set up Saul with the chance of success, and even of becoming the Messianic king with an eternal kingdom. See on <a href='B:90 11:1'>1Sa 11:1</a>. We see here the various possible futures which God is aware of and has set up. This makes us appreciate more the huge significance of human freewill decisions. They open up various pathways and destinies which God has enabled. Saul chose not to go this pathway towards the eternal Kingdom, and so there kicked into operation the pathway to destruction which Israel had been warned of when he first became king. But God's foreknowledge in no way made it inevitable that Saul go down that path.</p>


text:
<p>But now your kingdom shall not continue- </p><p>Perhaps it was God's plan to immediately remove the kingship from Saul, but in practice He yet further delayed it in the hope of Saul's more meaningful repentance.</p><p>Yahweh has sought for Himself- </p><p>God was and is in search of man, looking at human hearts. God’s search for man is a repeated theme of the prophets. “Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, I saw your fathers” (<a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a>). “He found him in a desert land… He encircled him, He cared for him, He kept him as the apple of his eye” (<a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a>). “I have found David my servant” (<a href='B:230 89:20'>Psa 89:20</a>). “I said, Here am I, here am I… I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people… I called, no one answered” (<a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a>; <a href='B:290 65:1-2'>Isa 65:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a>). Jeremiah speaks of running to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, searching her squares on God’s behalf, to see if he could find a single man who did justice and wasn’t greedy (<a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a>; <a href='B:300 5:5'>Jer 5:5</a>; <a href='B:300 6:6'>Jer 6:6</a>; <a href='B:300 6:13'>Jer 6:13</a>; <a href='B:300 8:10'>Jer 8:10</a>). God looked, and was deeply shocked that He found no man: “He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His own arm brought salvation” (<a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a>). It’s not simply so that men search for God and then find Him in Truth. He is in search for man. So it’s not us as it were reaching out to God; He is fervently reaching out to us, and we have to come to realize that. We don’t so much as find God, as realize that He already is earnestly with us. This explains how wonderful is the moment when both sides meet; all heaven rejoices when the woman finds her lost coin, or the shepherd His sheep. As the Yiddish proverb says, “And going out to find Him, I met Him coming towards me”.</p><p>A man after His own heart- </p><p>David had been chosen to replace Saul because David was a man after God's own heart. But this didn't lift David up with pride. He realizes that the kingship would be nothing but grace (<a href='B:230 119:76-77'>Psa 119:76-77</a>) and tender mercy toward him. We can also reflect that being after God's own heart didn't mean he was perfect; for Psalms 119 contains many verses where David at this time of scrutiny by God admits to sin and longs to be more spiritually minded. But we too can be after God's heart without being perfect; He looks at the overall desires of a person rather than actual achievement.</p><p>On the other hand, this high estimation led to David subsequently being over confident as to the state of his heart (e:g. <a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a>). David was confident not only of legalistic obedience but also of a heart in which God would find nothing wrong. Indeed David had been considered a man after God's own heart, but it seems this led David to assume that from then on, his heart would be always found perfect before God. He didn't remain the idealistic, spiritually minded shepherd boy. And this assumption that how he was at one point in his life was how he would always be::. led him into his sin with Bathsheba.</p><p>Spiritual mindedness is the seal of the Spirit, the guarantee that we will eternally be there with Christ in His Kingdom; for having “Christ in you” is the hope of glory (<a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a>). To bring every thought into captivity to Christ; to be able to say with Paul “but we have the mind of Christ”. But I think that Paul got there (in the end), and like me you’ve probably met even a few in your ecclesial experience who apparently ‘got there’ by the end of their days – who had “the mind of Christ”, and whom we laid to rest in sleep knowing that truly, “I knew a [wo]man in Christ”. For all his failure and dysfunction, David is given the amazing accolade – ‘a man after God’s own heart’ (<a href='B:510 13:22'>Act 13:22</a>). And remember, this was God’s very own estimation of David. We really can be ‘after God’s own heart / mind’. We must not think that human nature of itself precludes this; for it didn't stop David coming to this point. May we find true fellowship with each other as we walk towards that same goal, knowing that “we all, with unveiled face, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (Jesus), are (being, slowly) transformed into the same image, from glory to glory” (<a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a>).</p><p>It's worth remembering that at the point he was told that another person was to replace him, Saul didn't know David. He may well have assumed that the person in view as a replacement was in fact his son Jonathan. This would explain the tensions between Saul and Jonathan.</p><p>And Yahweh has appointed him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what Yahweh commanded you- </p><p>The fact God allowed Saul to continue ruling may mean that even this change of purpose with Saul was open ended, and could still be changed if he repented. For David had not yet been anointed.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel arose and went from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin. Saul numbered the people who were present with him, about six hundred men-</p><p>Decreased from the 1000 in each brigade of :2. Some would have deserted or fled over the Jordan (:7), others were slain. We note Samuel's continued involvement in things. For indeed Saul had been raised up by God with the potential ability to free Israel from the Philistines:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul and Jonathan his son and the people who were with them stayed in Geba of Benjamin, but the Philistines encamped in Michmash-</p><p>Saul had justified his offering because he considered that time was of the essence in attacking the Philistines. But in fact it seems he didn't do so. And it was to be Jonathan acting alone who gained the victory and not himself. Saul was therefore dominated by thoughts of how the situation required him to act, and quickly; rather than waiting in faith, and then he would have realized that neither his action nor immediacy of action were actually required.</p>


text:
<p>Raiders came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned towards Ophrah in the land of Shual- </p><p>This left the camp depleted, opening up the camp to Jonathan's attack. This raises the question as to whether acts of faith require us to all the same act wisely. Ophrah was the home of Gideon (<a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>), whom Saul was imitating at least on a surface level (see on :2-4). Perhaps the Philistines were aware of this and sought to reverse his "three companies" strategy in imitation of Gideon by sending out their marauders in three companies.</p>


text:
<p>another company turned towards Beth Horon, and another company turned towards the border land overlooking the valley of Zeboim facing the wilderness- </p><p>There seemed a particular emphasis upon the territory of Benjamin, as if the Philistines were punishing them for having a member of their tribe become king. This would have taught the people the folly of what they had done. And it thereby created pressure upon Saul to defeat the Philistines. The fact he personally didn't win the dramatic victories against them [Jonathan and David did] all contributed towards his failure and depression.</p>


text:
<p>Now there was no smith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears- </p><p>The Babylonians did the same to the Jews in the time of Nebuchadnezzar; they took captive all the metalworkers so they couldn't make weapons (<a href='B:120 24:14'>2Ki 24:14</a>; <a href='B:300 24:1'>Jer 24:1</a>; <a href='B:300 29:2'>Jer 29:2</a>). Again, we see evidence that the choice of events to record is in order to help the exiles see that their situation was not unique and was not without historical precedent.</p>


text:
<p>All the Israelites went down to the Philistines to have their ploughshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened- </p><p>"Went down" suggests a reversal of the situation at the conquest of the land, where the local inhabitants remained in the mountains and Israel in the lowlands.</p>


text:
<p>The price was two thirds of a shekel to sharpen a mattock and a ploughshare, and one third for the forks and axes, and to set the goads-</p><p>We may well ask why such detail is given. The amount of detail given in the Biblical record varies enormously. It can be likened to a cameraman zooming in and out; and here the zoom is very much on the fine details, the goads being "set", and coins being handed over. The prices were high, that may be the idea- with the implication that the Israelites were impoverished and unable to afford much agricultural technology, and therefore enduring a hard life under Saul's reign. This all sets up David for mass popularity after he led Israel to victory against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>So on the day of battle no soldier had either sword or spear among the people who were with Saul and Jonathan; only Saul and Jonathan his son had swords and spears- </p><p>The result of this was that the Israelites became skilled in the use of slings and bows. It was this which resulted in David being an expert slinger and able to slay Goliath. If they had had access to swords, then the logical thing would have been to try to fight Goliath with sword and spear. But there was no expertise in the use of these weapons. And so we see how providence works out. Because of their oppressed situation, David became a skilled slinger- and slew Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>The garrison of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash- </p><p>"When the Philistines heard that Saul with his six hundred men had joined the small force already at Geba with Jonathan, they sent a body of men to occupy an eminence higher up in the defile which lay between Geba and Michmash. The purpose of this was to keep the route open, that so, when they pleased, they might send a larger body of troops up the defile in order to attack Saul. It would also keep a watch upon his movements, though they could have had no expectation that he would venture to attack them. It was this garrison which Jonathan so bravely attacked, and by his success prepared the way for the utter defeat of the enemy".</p>


text:
<p>One day Jonathan the son of Saul said to the young man who carried his armour, Come, let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison on the other side- </p><p>A fair case can be made for thinking that this young armourbearer was David. We marvel at Jonathan's initiative and spiritual ambition.</p><p>But he didn’t tell his father- </p><p>It seems Saul was deeply aware that he had not delivered Israel from the Philistines because he hadn't the faith to do so; and so he was deeply spiritually jealous of Jonathan and later David. It's worth remembering that at the point he was told that another person was to replace him (<a href='B:90 13:15'>1Sa 13:15</a>), Saul didn't know David. He may well have assumed that the person in view as a replacement was in fact his son Jonathan. This would explain the tensions between Saul and Jonathan, and why Jonathan didn't tell Saul of his plans. For Saul had taken credit for Jonathan's previous victory (see on <a href='B:90 13:4'>1Sa 13:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul stayed on the outskirts of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree which is in Migron; the people who were with him were about six hundred men- </p><p>"Pomegranate tree" is "Rimmon" and could possibly refer to a place name. Saul no longer had two groups of 1000 under his direct control (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ahijah the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of Yahweh in Shiloh was there, wearing an ephod. The people didn’t know that Jonathan had gone- </p><p>Yet Eli's family had been cursed in 1 Samuel 2, 3. It could be that this person in later life experienced the curses. But it would be far from the only time in Bible history where a curse is pronounced but not carried out. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. In 40 days, Nineveh was to be destroyed; but it didn't happen, because they repented. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap. This Ahijah could be the Ahimelech of <a href='B:90 21:1'>1Sa 21:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>On each side of the pass by which Jonathan intended to go over to the Philistines’ garrison there was a rocky crag; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh- </p><p>Literally, a tooth of rock. To climb it with enemies at the top would have seemed a mad idea.</p>


text:
<p>The one crag was on the north in front of Michmash and the other on the south in front of Geba- </p><p>Bozez was the northern crag, and Seneh the southern one. "Was on" is literally 'was set as a pillar'. We get the impression of needing to make an almost perpendicular, vertical assent of sheer rock.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armour, Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised people- </p><p>The implication was that because they were circumcised, they were in covenant with God; and therefore He was able to use them. Covenant relationship involves far more than circumcision, but clearly Jonathan felt in covenant with God, at a time when many in Israel were clearly not. He believed that for those in covenant, one man could make a thousand flee. And this is what indeed happened.</p><p>Perhaps Yahweh will work for us, for nothing can hinder Yahweh from saving, by many or by few- </p><p>The idea of the Hebrew underlying "Perhaps::." is rather that surely, Yahweh will do so. We note that Jonathan's motivation was to save- to save others. There was no desire merely for personal glory nor settling perceived old scores.</p><p><a href='B:90 30:21'>1Sa 30:21</a> LXX says that in his fight with the Amalekites, David "had caused them [the 200 weaker of his soldiers] to remain by the brook of Bosor". This would mean that the decision to leave them was David's and not theirs. He had learned the lesson of Gideon, and knew he didn't need numbers for victory. It was the lesson of his friend Jonathan's victory, that the Lord could save by many or by few (<a href='B:90 14:6'>1Sa 14:6</a>). We may learn a lesson [and David may have been Jonathan's companion at that time], and then find our grasp of it tested again, decades later.</p>


text:
<p>His armour bearer said to him, Do all that you have in mind; I am with you according to your heart- </p><p>This is a colloquial expression and is therefore hard to translate. We really are reading the actual words said by this brave young man in response to Jonathan's spiritual ambition. The idea is "On with you; I will follow".</p><p>It seems that the armourbearer was David. He and Jonathan grew up only 10 miles away from each (Jonathan in Gibeah of Saul, David in Bethlehem). In the early Israel of those days, it is almost certain that they knew each other from their youth. So it is possible to speculate that David was in fact "the young man that bare (Jonathan's) armour" in the heroic conquest of the Philistine garrison in 1 Samuel 14. Note how Saul also calls him "young man" in <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>:&nbsp; There was evidently an intense&nbsp; spiritual and physical rapport between Jonathan and his armour bearer which was similar to that described between Jonathan and David. "I am with thee according to thy heart" (14:7 AV) has firm connection with David and Jonathan being described as having their souls knit together in <a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>. 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 his early adventure of faith. David already had a reputation in Israel for being "a mighty valiant man, and a man of war::. and the Lord is with him" (<a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a>), even before the Goliath incident. This would be understandable if he had gone with Jonathan in chapter 14. His becoming Saul's&nbsp; armourbearer (<a href='B:90 16:21'>1Sa 16:21</a>) would then be seen as a logical promotion from being Jonathan's armourbearer.</p><p><a href='B:90 14:8'>1Sa 14:8</a> Then Jonathan said, We will cross over to them and let them see us- </p><p>"See us" is the word for denuding, also translated "exile". The exiles were encouraged that what seemed impossible could be achieved.</p>


text:
<p>If they say ‘Wait until we come to you!’, then we will stay where we are and will not go up to them- </p><p>This seeking for a sign connects with Gideon's similar desire before going into battle. There are clear connections between Jonathan and Gideon; compare <a href='B:90 14:10-20'>1Sa 14:10-20</a> with <a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a>; <a href='B:70 7:10-11'>Jdg 7:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:14'>Jdg 7:14</a>; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon'. Gideon was Jonathan's hero; it's not wrong to have such Biblical heroes! Saul also imitated Gideon, but on a surface level; for Gideon refused to be king over Israel because Yahweh was their king. See on <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But if they say ‘Come up to us!’, then we will go up, for Yahweh has delivered them into our hand. This will be the sign to us- </p><p>Such an invitation would be a sign of pride, laughing at the two young men who had no chance of climbing up and then fighting them. Again, as with Nahash (see on <a href='B:90 11:3'>1Sa 11:3</a>), pride was to go before a fall. And Jonathan perceived this, hence his giving them an opportunity to mockingly and arrogantly invite them up to them.</p><p><a href='B:90 14:11'>1Sa 14:11</a> So they revealed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, and the Philistines said, Look, the Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in!- </p><p>From their perspective so high above them, indeed the two men would have appeared as small animals emerging from their holes and crawling upwards to their destruction.</p>


text:
<p>The men of the garrison shouted to Jonathan and his armour bearer, Come up to us and we will show you something! Jonathan said to his armour bearer, Come up after me, for Yahweh has delivered them into the hand of Israel- </p><p>Jonathan's confidence was because he saw their extreme arrogance. He was utterly persuaded after the victory over Nahash because of his pride (see on <a href='B:90 11:3'>1Sa 11:3</a>) that therefore God would surely give the victory.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet and his armour bearer followed, and the Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armour bearer followed and killed behind him- </p><p>It has been observed that "a single stone rolled down upon them while thus clambering up the precipitous side of the cliff would have sent them to the bottom". The arrogance of the Philistines in not doing so was what brought about the victory; see on :10. If indeed David was the armour bearer, we have the impression that he who began inspired by Jonathan, following his example, moved ahead to in turn inspired Jonathan. And this is indeed what true spiritual fellowship and friendship is all about.</p>


text:
<p>That first slaughter by Jonathan and his armour bearer killed about twenty men in an area of about half an acre-</p><p>LXX "with darts and slings and stones of the field". I noted on <a href='B:90 13:22'>1Sa 13:22</a> that because of their lack of iron weapons, the Israelites became skilled in the use of slings and bows. It was this which resulted in David being an expert slinger and able to slay Goliath. If they had had access to swords, then the logical thing would have been to try to fight Goliath with sword and spear. But there was no expertise in the use of these weapons. And so we see how providence works out. Because of their oppressed situation, David became a skilled slinger- and slew Goliath. And Jonathan likewise. This was all a preparation for the victory against Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Then panic struck the whole Philistine army, those in the camp, in the field, and among all the outposts and raiding parties, and the ground shook. There was panic- </p><p>Unaware that there were only two attackers, the Philistines would have run in confusion to the narrow tongue of land where the exit was, which served as a bottleneck. It seems that Yahweh then sent an earth tremour, which would have added to their sense of panic. This was also the Divine element in it all, lest it appear totally a victory for human strength and bravery. God likewise works in human life today, lest any man should boast. The Philistines out in the field on raiding parties would have been panicked by the sight of the garrison rushing down the pass at great speed.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s watchmen in Gibeah of Benjamin saw that the army had melted away and scattered- </p><p>They would have had a wonderful view across the pass of two men causing an army to flee. It was a powerful visual fulfilment of how one man in covenant relationship with God could cause a thousand to flee before him. The Philistines would have fled down steep descent of Aijalon toward Bethel (:23)—the same pass where Joshua had won his first great victory. The idea is that there was a reconquest of the land, in God's strength. The tables had turned; the people had followed Saul trembling and melted away (<a href='B:90 13:7-8'>1Sa 13:7-8</a>), but now the Philistines were doing just this (Heb:). "Melted away" is the same word used of how the inhabitants of Canaan were to melt at the conquest by Joshua. The impression is of a reconquest of the land.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to the men with him, Count now and see who is missing from us. When they had counted, Jonathan and his armour bearer were not there- </p><p>Saul was so proud that he was most concerned as to who was going to get the personal glory for this victory which he himself should have gotten; for he was Divinely set up as Israel's military saviour.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Ahijah, Bring the ark of God here. For the ark of God was with the Israelites at that time- </p><p>LXX "the ephod". The word "bring hither" is usually used of the ephod. "Withdraw your hand!" (:19) is more appropriate to getting a yes / no decision from the urim and thummim within the ephod, which was required in order to eliminate options and decide who was missing. The presence of the priest logically suggests the ephod with Urim and Thummim was present rather than the ark.</p>


text:
<p>While Saul was talking to the priest the tumult in the camp of the Philistines went on and increased, and Saul said to the priest, Withdraw your hand!- </p><p>This again reveals Saul's impatience to put spiritual things first. He failed to learn the lesson he failed to learn in <a href='B:90 13:10'>1Sa 13:10</a>. Circumstances repeated to give him another chance, but he fails again. He considered religious / spiritual things as a mere formality, and wanted to get on with the work in his own strength without waiting for God's word to him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and all the men with him were gathered together and came to the battle, and found that every man’s sword was against his fellow; a very great confusion- </p><p>"Confusion" is the word used of how an Israel faithful to the covenant would destroy the inhabitants of Canaan with "confusion" (<a href='B:50 7:23'>Deu 7:23</a>). Jonathan shows himself very aware of the covenant and word of Moses, presumably as a result of Samuel instructing him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Hebrews who had been with the Philistines previously and had gone with them into the camp, turned to join the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan- </p><p>One letter different would turn "Hebrews" into "servants". This reading would make better sense here, and the idea would be that the servants were freed.</p>


text:
<p>Also all the men of Israel who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim, when they heard that the Philistines had fled, followed hard after them in the battle- </p><p>This again supports the impression that they were chasing their enemies as promised for obedience to the covenant. And yet by grace, the righteousness and blessing of Jonathan was really being extended to them.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh saved Israel that day, and the battle moved beyond Beth Aven-</p><p>The reference is to Bethel. See on :16. The judges had been Israel's saviours on Yahweh's behalf, and the idea seems to be that although they now had a human king, God saved them just as He had done under the judges.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel were in distress that day- </p><p>The same word used of how they had been distressed by the Philistines in <a href='B:90 13:6'>1Sa 13:6</a>. The idea was that Saul was effectively oppressing them as the Philistines were.</p><p>Because Saul had bound the people with an oath saying- </p><p>He had called out to them the words of the curse, and made them shout back their consent. Again, a surface level imitation of Moses without any spirit to it, just as he imitated Gideon in the same way.</p><p>Cursed is the man who eats any food before evening, and I have been avenged of my enemies. So none of the people ate any food- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> and on <a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. This was a surface level imitation of Gideon winning a great victory when desperately hungry. But he failed to follow Gideon's example of refusing to be Israel's human king when asked to be, because Gideon unlike Saul believed that Yahweh alone was to be Israel's king. Such surface level imitation of others' spirituality is something which can be fallen into so easily. Saul's desire for personal vengeance upon his enemies is sadly deficient in any desire to see God's glory. God patiently tried to correct him by then asking him to work for Him, as His agent, in executing His vengeance or punishment upon His enemies (<a href='B:90 15:2'>1Sa 15:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>All the army came into the forest, and there was honey on the ground- </p><p>The promised land was to flow with milk and honey to those who kept covenant. And yet Saul was precluding the people from experiencing the blessings of the covenant by petty legalism and a desire for personal control. The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a>; <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When they had come to the forest the honey was oozing out, but no-one tasted any because the people feared the oath- </p><p>As noted on :25, the idea is that the land was literally flowing with honey; and they were precluded from experiencing that blessing because they feared Saul and had made a covenant with him, rather than glorying in the fulfilment of Yahweh's covenant with them. "Oozing" is literally 'flowing like a river'. And likewise, obedience to narcissistic leaders precludes so many from experiencing the blessing of true covenant relationship with Yahweh on a personal level.</p>


text:
<p>But Jonathan hadn’t heard when his father commanded the people with the oath, so he dipped the end of his rod into the honeycomb and ate some, and his eyes brightened- </p><p>The allusion is to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and having their eyes enlightened. But everything is inverted. Jonathan had done the right thing, and Saul's attempt to play God had gone totally wrong and brought curse instead of blessing. The allusion to the events of Eden is to demonstrate how Saul had everything so spiritually inverted, because he was just trying to follow spiritual precedent on a surface level without any spirit to it.</p><p>Paul may have had Jonathan in mind as typical of the church when he spoke of our eyes being enlightened (<a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a>), using the very words of <a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a> concerning Jonathan. He was a type of us, devoted to David-Jesus. Saul saw Gideon as his spiritual hero, and this was a senseless, surface level imitation of Gideon devoid of spirit: <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:70 13:6'>Jdg 13:6</a> = Gideon offering before fighting Midian; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:20'>Jdg 14:20</a> = Jdg:7:22; 14:24 = imitating Gideon and his men going without food; Jdg. 14:28,31 = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>; <a href='B:70 11:7'>Jdg 11:7</a> = Gideon killing his father's oxen. But he failed to follow Gideon's example of refusing to be Israel's human king when asked to be, because Gideon unlike Saul believed that Yahweh alone was to be Israel's king.</p>


text:
<p>Then one of the people said, Your father bound the people with an oath saying, ‘Cursed is the man who eats food this day’. The people were exhausted- </p><p>"Cursed is the man::." reflects the Mosaic making of covenant with Israel. Again we see Saul attempting to mimic spiritual precedent, as he did the example of Gideon and God forbidding Adam to eat the fruit in Eden, but with no spirit to it. He was all about surface level spirituality and appearances, and he came therefore to such a tragic end. A true warning for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said, My father has troubled the land- </p><p>Unlike Saul, Jonathan's Biblical allusions are appropriate. Here he refers to how Simeon and Levi provoked problems amongst the inhabitants of the land (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>), and how Achan stopped Israel from victory against those inhabitants by his own pride and narcissism (<a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a>). A far greater victory could have been one against those inhabitants, but Saul had precluded it by his arrogant legalism.</p><p>Please look how my eyes have been brightened because I tasted a little of this honey- </p><p>Jonathan is aware of how his father has alluded to God's command in Eden about not eating the fruit. He now acts like Eve, justifying what he has done and encouraging others to do so as she did to Adam. But he does so to demonstrate how Saul has got it all the wrong way around.</p>


text:
<p>How much better it would have been if the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies? Would not the slaughter among the Philistines have been greater?- </p><p>This reflects Jonathan's humility. He had won a great victory against the Philistines, slaying many of them. But he considers it a small victory compared to the potential possible, which his father had precluded.</p>


text:
<p>They struck down the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon. The people were exhausted- </p><p>Their exhaustion is now stressed again (:28). They still refused to follow Jonathan's example and eat. They so feared the oath to Saul, far more than seeing beyond that to the obviously correct spiritual argument of Jonathan. This reveals the fear of Saul in which they lived.</p>


text:
<p>and they pounced on the spoil, and took sheep, cattle and calves and killed them on the ground and ate them with the blood- </p><p>The essence of this has been seen so many times in church history. An insistence upon petty legalism leads people to commit major sin. They are more obedient to the party line and the barked orders of their leadership, than to God. And the legalistic demands of their elders lead them to make utter shipwreck of their faith, breaking the most elemental principles of their covenant with God. Now that sundown had come and they were free from the oath to Saul, the people were totally disobedient to the covenant. They ate blood, and also killed calves and mothers on the same day (disobeying <a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a>). For all this, they were to have God against them and be cut off from God's people; their behaviour in <a href='B:90 14:32'>1Sa 14:32</a> is portrayed as breaking every principle of the commands about eating blood in <a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then they told Saul, Look, the people are sinning against Yahweh, eating meat with the blood- </p><p>The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a>; <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a>).</p><p>He said, You have broken faith- </p><p>He means, broken the covenant. But he has it all the wrong way around. For a land flowing with honey was a blessing for keeping the covenant, and he was precluding them from receiving that blessing by his arrogant legalism.</p><p>Roll a large stone here at once!-</p><p>This could represent the rolling away of their sin through repentance. But it may simply be that he was telling them to kill the animals and put their heads on a large stone to allow the blood to drain out. See on :35.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Go out among the people and tell them, ‘Each man bring to me here his ox and sheep; kill them here and eat; don’t sin against Yahweh by eating meat with the blood’. So each of them brought his ox with him that night, and killed them there- </p><p>But the commands of <a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a> were clear that doing this just once would lead to having God against them and being cut off from God's people. But Saul thinks that can just be disregarded if they get it right in future. He plays God, just as he did when framing his commandment in terms of the Mosaic covenant, and the command of God in Eden.</p>


text:
<p>Saul built an altar to Yahweh. This was the first altar that he built to Yahweh- </p><p>Saul had commanded them to roll a stone so as to prop up the slain beasts upon it and let the blood drain out (:33). It seems he now capitalizes on what had been done and declares this to be an altar to Yahweh, in surface level imitation of how the patriarchs had set up altars in thankfulness to Yahweh. But Saul is just declaring this an altar in an opportunistic sense; and unlike the patriarchs, he had never made an altar to Yahweh before. We get the impression that he just called it an altar and imagined the slain animals left to drain upon it as some kind of sacrifices. But typical of Saul, he didn't have the patience to do as David did, who built an altar and sacrificed burnt and peace offerings upon it (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>). Literally “it he began to build as an altar to Yahweh”, implying he didn't bother to finish it. Saul's impatience and subsequent lack of spiritual depth is what cost him the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night and plunder them until the morning, and let us not leave any of them alive. They said, Do whatever seems good to you- </p><p>David may be referring to this when he condemns Saul in <a href='B:230 119:150'>Psa 119:150</a>: "They draw near who follow after wickedness, they are far from Your law". "Draw near" is a common idiom for offering sacrifice and worshipping God. But that sacrifice must be from men who are near to God's law, and not offering just as mere tokenistic ritualism. He may be alluding to Saul's insincere sacrifices and religious rituals which led to his rejection and David's choice as the next king (<a href='B:90 14:36'>1Sa 14:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:38'>1Sa 14:38</a>; <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>).</p><p>But the priest said, Let us enquire of God- </p><p>Saul was not bothered about enquiring of God and having His blessing. It was all a question of external surface level religion.</p>


text:
<p>Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will You deliver them into the hand of Israel? But He didn’t answer him that day-</p><p>Saul ultimately was judged as not enquiring of God (<a href='B:130 10:14'>1Ch 10:14</a>). Yet on a surface level he did (<a href='B:90 14:36-37'>1Sa 14:36-37</a>) and did so desperately at the end of his life. We have here a powerful challenge to our prayer life. For we can enquire of God on a surface level, as a kind of formality, to soothe the religious conscience which is somewhere in every man. But this is not to really enquire of Him.</p><p>Just before his final fight with the Philistines, "Saul enquired of the Lord (but) the Lord answered him not" (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), 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 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>


text:
<p>Saul said, Come here, all you chiefs of the people and let us find out which of us has sinned today-</p><p>See on :36. 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 here was rebuked 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 (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For as Yahweh lives, Who saves Israel, even if it is Jonathan my son, he must die. But there was not a man among all the people who answered him- </p><p>Clearly Saul wanted to kill Jonathan. Saul was potentially enabled to free Israel from the Philistines, but he failed to have the personal faith required. The main victories against them were by Jonathan (1 Samuel 13, 14) and David. And this explains his great jealousy against them both, even planning to slay Jonathan at least twice (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>; <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>):&nbsp; See on <a href='B:90 20:30-31'>1Sa 20:30-31</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to all Israel, You stand on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. The people said to Saul, Do what seems good to you- </p><p>The whole situation was contrived, so that Jonathan would stand publically before the people and be openly condemned. I suggest that Saul wanted to kill Jonathan because he was jealous of him, and he tried to do so again when he threw a javelin at him.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul said to Yahweh, the God of Israel, Show me the right answer- </p><p>Or "show the innocent". Surely the armour bearer also ate the honey. Yet Saul intentionally sets up this kangaroo court to find Jonathan alone guilty.</p><p>Jonathan and Saul were chosen, but the people escaped- </p><p>LXX adds: “And Saul said, O Lord God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant to day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim: and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim”. Saul sees the lack of immediate answer as being because Jonathan has sinned. And yet lack of immediate visible answer to prayer is not necessarily because of sin. We see here Saul's huge problem with impatience. He wanted everything immediately and before his eyes. When it didn't happen, he starts the blame game. We see this today in so many, who cannot wait for God because they demand He always acts in what they consider to be "real time", immediately and just as they envisage His response.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. Jonathan was selected- </p><p>As suggested above, I think this was all orchestrated by Saul to lead up the a public condemnation of Jonathan, whom he wished to kill- so deep was his jealousy that great victories were won without him and by another. LXX adds: "And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son: whomsoever the Lord taketh by lot, let him die. And the people said unto Saul, This thing shall not be. And Saul prevailed over the people, and they cast lots between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan was taken".</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what you have done!- </p><p>This is the same question which Samuel rhetorically asked Saul when he condemned him to lose the kingship (<a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a>). Yet Saul now assumes the authority of Samuel in asking the question. It is a psychological classic; the man condemned by a question then asks that question of another, seeking to condemn him too. Things like this are powerful internal evidence that the Biblical record is true, and these words were actually said and these situations really happened.</p><p>Saul is also seeking to emulate the question of faithful Joshua to wicked Achan (<a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a>). But he has it all the wrong way around, yet again. For Saul was like Achan, precluding the people from the victory which could have been theirs.</p><p>Jonathan told him, I only tasted a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand, and now must I die?- </p><p>The Hebrew can also be read as him expressing willingness to die. But I suggest he phrases it like this, standing before all Israel, to elicit their sympathy and mass protest against his father's decision.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan- </p><p>This indicates Saul's insincerity. He calls God as a witness that Jonathan must die; when clearly, he has orchestrated the whole situation because he wanted to slay Jonathan from jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>But the people said to Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it!- </p><p>They are alluding to the words of Saul himself, who had put a stop to the call to slay those who resisted his kingship (<a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>). And the principle holds true. If we are in awe at the great deliverance Yahweh has worked in His Son, there should be maximum forgiveness and no judgment of our weak brethren. Jonathan had expressed absolute faith that God would work with him (:6), and He did.</p><p>As Jonathan wrought great salvation in Israel in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>, so did David (the same phrase occurs in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>). As Saul tried to kill an innocent Jonathan out of jealousy of his victory, so he did David- thus Jonathan shared the sufferings of David, as we do of Christ. Another example of this will be found in <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>, where Saul tries to kill Jonathan with a javelin, as he did to David. Yet wonderfully, David seems to have counted Jonathan as if&nbsp;&nbsp;he actually had been the champion against Goliath; he describes him as "the mighty" (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), using the same Hebrew word translated "champion" in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1Sa 17:51</a> concerning Goliath. Likewise the Lord Jesus Christ shares his victory with us to the extent that he counts us as if&nbsp;we were the victors on Calvary.</p><p>As Yahweh lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day! So the people rescued Jonathan so that he didn’t die- This is alluded to in <a href='B:470 10:30'>Mat 10:30</a>; <a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a>. See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. </p><p>Paul speaks of the church as workers together with God (<a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a>), probably alluding to Jonathan having "worked with God" here. Jonathan is seen as representative of us all. Our Lord too 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>


text:
<p>Then Saul stopped pursuing the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own land-</p><p>It could be argued that the extent of the victory over the Philistines was again hindered by Saul. For we get the impression that after his loss of face regarding Jonathan, he stopped pursuing the Philistines. And so instead of wiping them out, they escaped to "their own land". Which of itself is a tacit recognition that the land of Israel was not free of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>After Saul had taken the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side: Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines; wherever he turned he defeated them- </p><p>However by David's time, he had to fight these same powers, and the situation at the time of Goliath indicates the abiding strength of the Philistines. Perhaps the record here reflects how Saul liked to see things; hence :52 reminds us that he failed to rid Israel of the Philistines throughout his reign.</p>


text:
<p>He fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them-</p><p>Here we have an example, common in the Hebrew Bible, of a summary statement being made and then an explanation is given of how the stated situation came about. And so here we have the explanation concerning the Amalekites in the next chapter.</p>


text:
<p>Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua, and the names of his two daughters were Merab the firstborn and Michal the younger- </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>and the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam the daughter of Ahimaaz. The captain of his army was Abner the son of Ner, Saul’s uncle- </p><p>God 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. 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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Kish was the father of Saul and Ner the father of Abner was the son of Abiel- </p><p>See on :50.</p>


text:
<p>There was severe war against the Philistines all the days of Saul, and when Saul saw any mighty man or any valiant man, he took him into his service- </p><p>This was in fulfilment of Samuel's inspired warnings of how Saul would pressgang men into his service. See on :47. He failed to rid Israel of the Philistines throughout his reign, even though he had been Divinely set up to do so.</p>


text:
<p>:1 Samuel said to Saul, Yahweh sent me to anoint you to be king over His people Israel. Now therefore, listen to the words of Yahweh- </p><p>We could interpret Samuel as meaning that he had anointed Saul to be king, and God had set Saul up for success. Yet he had been rejected from the kingship due to his impatient disobedience in 1 Samuel 13. But despite that, which apparently happened early in his reign (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>), he remained king. The fact God didn't immediately depose him may simply have been because he was being given a chance to repent. And perhaps now with the set of instructions given him regarding Amalek, he was being given an opportunity to prove he had learned the lesson, and to undo his mistake. He fails spectacularly, but we marvel all the same at God's grace in trying by all means to save him. We note too that Saul's calling began with sets of detailed instructions from Samuel, which he obeyed. Circumstances repeat in our lives, as God seeks to help us learn the lessons.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel, opposing them when they came up out of Egypt- </p><p>It was God who was to do this; Saul is being invited to be His agent on earth, and not rule and fight in his own strength and to his own glory. For this was his problem. Saul's desire for personal vengeance upon his enemies in <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a> was sadly deficient in any desire to see God's glory. God patiently now tries to correct him by now asking him to work for Him, as His agent, in executing His vengeance or punishment upon His enemies, in respect of His people Israel. And yet Saul fails, because he is more interested in showing off the best animals he has captured and to have a powerful king whom he has conquered publically paraded. Rather than slaying the king and the animals as requested.</p>


text:
<p>Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; don’t spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’- </p><p>The reason for this command was because God wanted the glorification of His Name and His people, and if these things and persons were preserved, then they would have been paraded to Saul's glory. See on :2. And that was indeed his motive in preserving them. "Utterly destroy" translates the word used for religious devotion. Amalek was to be devoted to Yahweh in its condemnation, and the murder of everything living was to be seen as a sacrifice to Him. To keep some of His offerings for himself was therefore effectively Saul thieving from God.</p>


text:
<p>Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim- </p><p>'Place of lambs'. The area was known for sheep and animals; the very best of the very best was kept by Saul for himself when clearly it was intended for devotion to Yahweh.</p><p>Two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah- </p><p>The proportion of the men of Judah is very small. It could be that Saul was seen as showing nepotism to the tribe of Benjamin and his support within Judah was waning. "Thousand" more likely refers to a brigade or family.</p>


text:
<p>Saul went to the city of Amalek and laid wait in the valley- </p><p>I have noted earlier that Joshua tried to emulate the examples of faithful men like Moses and Gideon. Here he is copying Joshua (<a href='B:60 8:4'>Jos 8:4</a>). But he was emulating on a surface level only, with no real spiritual attention.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to the Kenites, Go away from among the Amalekites so that I don’t destroy you with them, for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites- </p><p>He could have been commanded to do this by God through Samuel. But if not, this shows some spiritual awareness and familiarity with Biblical history- which makes his sins all the more culpable. By doing this, Saul lost the advantage of making a surprise attack. But he put grace and care for people first (or perhaps at least Samuel insisted he did), and won the victory all the same.</p>


text:
<p>Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur east of Egypt- </p><p>This is not the Havilah near Yemen. It means "circle" and must refer to some spot in the south of Judah. "Shur" is literally "the wall", referring to the wall which ran from Pelusium past Migdol to Hero, resulting in the name "Mizraim" for Egypt, meaning 'the enclosed / fortified'. The idea is that Saul destroyed them to the Egyptian border.</p>


text:
<p>He took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people- </p><p>"Agag" is the same consonants as "Gog", the leader of the latter day invasion of Israel in Ezekiel 38. But it is a generic name for the ruler of Amalek, like "Pharaoh". "Utterly destroyed" is the word for sanctification / devotion to Yahweh. The idea isn't that every Amalekite was destroyed, as David later fights with them. It could be argued that by keeping the best of the animals, and needing to care for them and not over drive them, Saul's men therefore didn't destroy as many Amalekites as they otherwise could have done.</p>


text:
<p>But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, cattle, fat calves and lambs and all that was good, and wouldn’t utterly destroy them; everything that was bad and worthless they destroyed utterly-</p><p>I suggested on :2,3 that the reason for this command was because God wanted the glorification of His Name and His people, and if these things and persons were preserved, then they would have been paraded to Saul's glory. And that was indeed Saul's motive in preserving them. By having a live, conquered king and impressive fat animals, Saul could boast of his personal military prowess. And the whole exercise he had been given in fighting Amalek had been designed to help him unlearn his personal pride, and work on God's behalf to God's glory, rather for his own. He failed totally. He ended up offering to God that which was "bad and worthless". And then trying to lie his way out of it. "Bad" is the word for "despise", and is used about how Eli and his sons had despised Yahweh's offerings (<a href='B:90 2:30'>1Sa 2:30</a>). Saul was intended to replace Eli but he had not learned from history. The relevance for the exiles was that they were in exile because they had likewise despised Yahweh's offerings (<a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>).</p><p></p>


text:
<p>Then the word of Yahweh came to Samuel saying- </p><p>Samuel was apparently not with Saul at this time (:12), although hovering nearby.</p>


text:
<p>It grieves Me that I have set up Saul to be king- God 'repented' (AV), He changed His mind about setting Saul up as king. And yet He gave them a king in His wrath, warning Israel how Saul would work out, although He set Saul up for success. And yet when indeed Saul fails, God changes His mind and as it were regrets having made Saul king. We have here an insight into how God feels. He enters fully into the human situation, limiting His omniscience and omnipotence to do so; and therefore has such conflicted feelings within Him, just as His many changes of mind within Him were kindled together in <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>.</p><p>For he has turned back from following Me and has not obeyed My commandments- </p><p>"Turned back" suggests God did consider Saul to have initially followed Him.</p><p>Samuel was troubled and he cried out to Yahweh all night- </p><p>God tells Samuel of His rejection of Saul, implying this opportunity to change His earlier rejection of Saul in 1 Samuel 13 has again not worked out; and Samuel cries to Him all night. I think the implication is that Samuel was pleading with God to consider another future with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>; <a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). We should be awed by Samuel's love for Saul and desire to make him work out spiritually. <a href='B:370 7:1-6'>Amo 7:1-6</a> is another case- God reveals His intention regarding Israel, but then Amos makes a case against this and is heard. In fact, these and other examples suggest that this is almost a pattern with God- to devise His purpose, and then in the 'gap' until its fulfillment, be open to the persuasion of His covenant people to change or ammend those plans. This could be what <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a> is speaking of: "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets". It's as if He reveals His plans to them so that they can then comment upon them in prayer.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning- 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><p>And he was told: Saul came to Carmel and he set up a monument for himself, then went down to Gilgal- </p><p>We see here Saul's vanity, wishing to memorialize his own great victory, although that victory had been given by God. We must be warned by this not to glory in and seek to memorialize that which was given us by God's grace and as part of His wider purpose.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, Yahweh bless you! I have obeyed the commandment of Yahweh- </p><p>Saul speaks of "Yahweh your God" in :15, as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he here uses the Yahweh Name as a formality. Personal relationship with God is not the same as using the right Hebrew names for Him and the correct religious language.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Then what is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What does this lowing of cattle mean?- </p><p>We sense through the record how angry Samuel is that Saul can tell such a childish lie; we hear the bleating and lowing of cattle coming down through the centuries, such is the power of the inspired word.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to Yahweh your God. We have utterly destroyed the rest- </p><p>Saul had defeated the Amalekites in the south, near the border with Egypt (:7), had then gone up to Carmel in the north to build a memorial (:12), and was now in Gilgal (:12). This must have required at least a week. And the animals were still alive. Saul's story was clearly untrue. We note he speaks of "Yahweh your God", as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he uses the Yahweh Name as a formality (:13). Saul excuses himself by blaming it on the people, as if he is not really king. And further, he reasons that they devoted "the rest" to Yahweh. He refuses to see that the commandment was to devote all to Yahweh. But he considers he devoted something, so that, surely, was good enough. And this is not so far from our own weakness, faced with the demand for our all, and total devotion after the pattern of the crucified Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel said to Saul, Stop! I will tell you what Yahweh said to me last night. He said to him, Tell me- </p><p>Samuel as a child had to tell Eli of God's rejection of him, a message he also heard at night, and His replacement of him with someone else. This prepared Samuel for doing this very same thing years later, with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:16'>1Sa 15:16</a>); and to some extent, he too failed in ways similar to Eli, and was in a sense replaced. Whilst it's impossible to attach meaning to events at the time they happen, they potentially prepare us for later use by God if we are willing to be used.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, When you were once little in your own sight, weren’t you made the head of the tribes of Israel? Yahweh anointed you king over Israel- </p><p>Pride was Saul's problem. A fair case can be made for his humility in not punishing those who initially mocked him, his hiding amongst the baggage, his not telling his uncle about his calling. But David in the Psalms frequently complains of Saul's pride. Saul appears to have changed his name to ‘Paul’, “the little one”, at the time of his first missionary journey- in order to not be like Saul in his later life, but "little". His preaching of the Gospel was thus related to his own realization of sinfulness, as reflected in his name change. And so it has ever been. Saul becomes Paul in so many lives. True self-abnegation, recognition of our moral bankruptcy, our desperation, and the extent of the grace we have received…these two paradoxical aspects, fused together within the very texture of human personality, are what will arrest the attention of others in this world and lead them to the Truth we can offer them.</p>


text:
<p>and Yahweh sent you on a mission and said-</p><p>"Mission" is AV "journey". It is the word used of how Saul went on his "way" to find the lost donkeys (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 9:8'>1Sa 9:8</a>), and as part of his calling process he was sent on journeys and was obedient. But now he had not been obedient. And yet Saul arrogantly insists that he has gone on the "mission" or "way" (:20 s:w:).</p><p>‘Go, and utterly destroy those sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are destroyed’- </p><p>The mission had been total destruction of the Amalekites. But Saul was content with just a tokenistic victory. We learn here that he was told they were "sinners". He was asked to manifest Yahweh's judgment against sin. But he ignored that dimension, and saw himself as simply glorifying himself.</p>


text:
<p>Why then didn’t you obey the voice of 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>). See on :23.</p><p>But took the spoils and did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh?- </p><p>Sins of omission, serving God partially and not wholly, for the sake of appearance, are described here as "evil". And they are our most likely form of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Samuel, But I have obeyed the voice of Yahweh, and have gone on the mission which Yahweh gave me and have brought Agag the king of Amalek- </p><p>This is Saul at his most inexcusable, seeking to save face before Samuel by lying when the evidence of the bleating animals was for all to hear in the background. He had indeed "gone on the mission" given by Yahweh,&nbsp; but had not fulfilled it as required. We too can have the illusion that because we are involved in God's work, have "gone on the mission", that we are thereby justified. But God works through all manner of sinful people, and awareness of His activity in and around our lives doesn't mean we are therefore pleasing to Him.</p><p>And have utterly destroyed the Amalekites- </p><p>He had not utterly destroyed them, for David later had to smite them (s:w. <a href='B:100 1:1'>2Sa 1:1</a>). Saul was empowered to smite the Amalekites 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>But the people took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of the devoted things, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God in Gilgal- </p><p>This is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a>: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p><p>Again we note "Yahweh your God". Not "our God" or "my God". Yet he freely uses the Yahweh Name in addressing Samuel in :13. It was as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he here uses the Yahweh Name as a formality. Personal relationship with God is not the same as using the right Hebrew names for Him and the correct religious language.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams- </p><p>The point was that God didn't need the sacrifices of themselves. The essence He sought was an obedient heart toward His voice. So often, form comes to eclipse content with religious people; the external sacrifices are seen as of supreme importance, rather than the attitude behind them.</p><p>David may be referring to this when he condemns Saul in <a href='B:230 119:150'>Psa 119:150</a>: "They draw near who follow after wickedness, they are far from Your law". "Draw near" is a common idiom for offering sacrifice and worshipping God. But that sacrifice must be from men who are near to God's law, and not offering just as mere tokenistic ritualism. He may be alluding to Saul's insincere sacrifices and religious rituals which led to his rejection and David's choice as the next king (<a href='B:90 14:36'>1Sa 14:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:38'>1Sa 14:38</a>; <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>).</p><p>The words of <a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a> allude to a number of OT passages which also show the superiority of knowledge and practical service over sacrifices (<a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>; <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a>; <a href='B:400 6:6-8'>Mic 6:6-8</a>). Putting them together we find the following parallels:</p><p>To obey God’s word is better than sacrifice</p><p>To listen to God’s word&nbsp;is better than sacrifice</p><p>To show mercy is better than sacrifice</p><p>To know God&nbsp;is better than sacrifice</p><p>To be humble and just is better than sacrifice</p><p>To understand God&nbsp;is better than sacrifice.</p><p>Understanding God, hearing His word, knowing God in ongoing personal relationship (all acts of the intellect) are therefore paralleled with practical things like loving out neighbour, showing mercy, justice etc. These practical things are an outcome of our correct knowledge of / active relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p>For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as the evil of idolatry- </p><p>The sin of omitting obedience was as bad as committing witchcraft (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>). Even though Saul partially obeyed God's commandments (<a href='B:90 15:20'>1Sa 15:20</a>), his omissions of some of them led to God declaring that Saul had in fact turned back from following His commandments (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>). Sins of omission are our strongest temptations.</p><p>Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, He has also rejected you from being king- </p><p>Our attitude to God's word becomes His attitude to us; see on :19. We later read that God's "soul" departed from Israel, because "the Lord has rejected you" (<a href='B:300 6:8'>Jer 6:8</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>). The connection is because these historical records were intended for the exiles to learn from. This is the same language used about Saul- God rejected him, and so His spirit departed from him (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>; <a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>). The implication was that God's very soul / spirit is "with" us, and therefore He can be so terribly wounded by us in His heart by the rebellions of those in covenant relationship with Him. For His heart / soul / spirit is so close to us His beloved people.</p><p>Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a> s:w:). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s:w. <a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a> cp. <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>; <a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a> s:w:). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>; <a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Samuel, 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. David said these same words to Nathan and was accepted, but Saul wasn't. Clearly the words were like so much in his life, a mere religious formality and not from the heart.</p><p>I have transgressed the commandment of Yahweh and your words because I feared the people and obeyed their voice- </p><p>Their words, and the unspoken 'word' of their silent opinion of Saul, struggled within Saul's mind against the words of God. And because he didn't have a deep seated respect for God's word as the ultimate authority, he therefore gave in to their words. We have this same struggle almost minute by minute in daily life. It's not only our familiarity with the Biblical text which will assist us towards victory, but our base, core conviction that God's words are of ultimate authority. One reason for Saul's lack of respect for Yahweh's words is that he seems to see them as Samuel's words ("your words"); hence he feels he has sinned against Samuel more than against God; see on :25. Our attitude to God's word, our approach to the inspiration of the Bible, will be related to our obedience to it.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please pardon my sin and come back with me so that I may worship Yahweh- </p><p>Saul's religiosity is reflected by the way in which he asks Samuel to "pardon my sin", when he ought instead to have been asking this of God. For Yahweh is the God who delights to pardon sin (s:w. <a href='B:20 34:7'>Exo 34:7</a>). But whilst Saul uses the correct vocabulary, he misdirects it- to Samuel and not to God. And he ends up using the very phrase of Pharaoh (<a href='B:20 10:17'>Exo 10:17</a>), also without ultimate sincerity. And we note Pharaoh also asked Moses to pardon his sin, rather than asking Yahweh directly:&nbsp; By contrast, David asks God directly to "pardon my sin" (<a href='B:230 25:18'>Psa 25:18</a>; <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a>). Saul's motive is clear- he wants Samuel to return to Gilgal and publically justify Saul by presiding over the sacrifice of the best animals at Gilgal, although this was perhaps not what Saul had initially planned. For he kept them for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh has rejected you from being king over Israel- </p><p>For "rejected", see on :23. Samuel appears to have concluded that Saul is now finally rejected and beyond the hope of reformation by repentance. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so in :31. This could have been due to fear of Saul, who apparently got physically violent with him (see on :27). Or it could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And perhaps he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>As Samuel turned to go away, Saul grabbed the skirt of his robe and it tore- </p><p>The translation here is misleading. He grabbed the hem, the outer border of the garment, probably at the neck or shoulder, literally grabbing him by the collar. It's possible that Saul intended the mantle to tare, because it symbolized Samuel's prophetic authority. And Saul dearly wished for God's words through Samuel to be untrue. But denial of God's word, rejecting the inspiration of the Bible, will not save us. And we see that such positions are ultimately motivated by a desire to demonstrate God's judgments of us as being untrue and somehow negated by our negation of them.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to him, Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbour of yours who is better than you- </p><p>Put this together with later verses in :29,35: "The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee (Saul)::. and hath given it to (David)::. the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that he should repent::. and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel" (AV). This juxtaposition of such conflicting statements seems to intentionally give us insight into the deeply conflicted feelings of God, which were perhaps reflected in Samuel (see on :31).</p><p>I suggested on :27 that it was Saul who had torn the Kingdom. Those who are deprived of the Kingdom will have made the decision themselves. Samuel knew that Yahweh had already decided to given the kingdom to another, as already expressed in 1 Samuel 13; and he knew that God had already selected this "neighbour"; for Bethlehem was only 12 miles away from Gibeah of Saul. But Samuel had still gone on hoping for Saul, and was apparently not proactive in seeking for this replacement- hence the implicit criticism of him by God in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p><p>Perhaps David took a cue from these 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>The Strength of Israel will not lie nor change His mind, for He is not a man that He should change His mind- </p><p>God does not “repent” as men do, but He can still change His mind. Samuel therefore wept to God for Saul to change his mind, and therefore for God to relent on His stated purpose concerning him (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>). Saul had been rejected in 1 Samuel 13, but he was given a chance to change that (see on :1), and continued as king. So perhaps the idea here is that God would not any longer change His mind over Saul. The rejection of him in 1 Samuel 13 was now confirmed. Yet despite telling Saul that “the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent”, Samuel appears to have continued praying for a change of mind from God and Saul; we can conclude this from the way God had to keep telling Samuel to stop (<a href='B:90 15:25'>1Sa 15:25</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). This is very similar to how God told Ezekiel that He would not spare nor repent of His attitude to Israel, and will judge them according to their ways (<a href='B:330 24:14'>Eze 24:14</a>); yet according to His grace, it is many times recorded that He did and will spare them, and does not judge them according to the merits of their sins.</p><p>LXX adds: "And Israel shall be divided to two: and God will not turn nor repent, for he is not as a man to repent". The division of the kingdom was therefore ultimately traced back to Saul's apostasy.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, I have sinned, yet please honour me now before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me so that I may worship Yahweh your God- </p><p>Again we note "Yahweh your God". See on :21. It really was all about appearances before men in the religious group, rather than before God. We note that all the elders of Israel were present there in Gilgal. Perhaps there was some truth in Saul's excuse that in fact he intended to offer the best animals to Yahweh at some big gathering proclaimed at Gilgal; for he had had at least a week to gather the elders. Saul had gone up to Carmel in the north of the land to proclaim his victory (:12), and perhaps he intended to offer the best animals in front of an Israel gathered to behold his military glory, and to view the humbled Agag before him. What was wrong with all this was that he had disobeyed Yahweh's commandment for the sake of his own pride, and was using the service of God for his own ego. And this pride was so disgusting to God, as it is to this day. Saul was therefore desperate that his display of victory, his victory triumph, not be marred by Samuel snubbing it.</p>


text:
<p>So Samuel went back with Saul- </p><p>"Return" or "went back" is the word usually used for repentance. In :26, Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again / go back with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so now. This could have been due to fear of Saul, who apparently got physically violent with him (see on :27). Or it could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And perhaps he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p><p>And Saul worshipped Yahweh- </p><p>Worship like prayer can be on a surface level, or the real thing. Saul “worshipped the Lord” merely for the sake of appearances, because this was what his position required of him, the hymn being sung which he had to go along with.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel said, Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites! Agag came to him confidently, thinking, Surely the bitterness of death is past- </p><p>I explained on :31 that the gathering at Gilgal had been set up as a kind of victory triumph to Saul's glory. Saul did not intend to kill Agag, and Agag had got that impression, that he would not taste the bitterness of death. It had been Saul's idea to parade him live, in some kind of Roman victory triumph- to Saul's glory. He had been commanded to kill him immediately exactly so that this would not be the case. Samuel therefore killed him, although it seems not at the victory triumph but privately, so that Saul could not glory in him.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women! Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Yahweh in Gilgal- </p><p>See on :32. "Before Yahweh" implies there was a high place there, or possibly the ark.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel went to Ramah and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul- </p><p>The idea is that they both returned to their homes, for Samuel had his home in Ramah. The fact Saul returns to his home village at this point could suggest he was as it were resigning from being king.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death- </p><p>This is proof enough that Samuel was resurrected to see Saul on the day of his death.</p><p>Yet Samuel mourned for Saul, and Yahweh grieved that He had made Saul king over Israel- </p><p>We note the parallel in feeling between Yahweh and Samuel. Samuel's desperate desire for Saul to repent, for the project with him to work out, reflected that of God. And God's efforts with people are similar to this day. And like Samuel, we should have His saving, hopeful heart for the lost and stubborn.</p><p>Any separations from brethren are brought forth from much sorrow; Corinth ecclesia were told that they should&nbsp; have mourned as they withdrew from one who had left the faith (<a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a>). "The whole house of Israel" were commanded to "mourn" the necessary destruction of Nadab and Abihu (<a href='B:30 10:6'>Lev 10:6</a>). Samuel mourned and God repented when Saul was finally rejected (<a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>). Paul wept when he wrote about some in the ecclesia who had fallen away (Php_3:17-19). It must be said that 'block disfellowship'- the cutting off of hundreds of brethren and sisters because theoretically they fellowship a weak brother-&nbsp; hardly enables 'mourning' and pleading with each of those who are disfellowshipped.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel?-</p><p>This sounds like a rebuke of Samuel for still entertaining the hope that Saul might repent. For his mourning may be mourning in prayer before God, asking Him to still accept Saul. I noted on <a href='B:90 15:26'>1Sa 15:26</a> that Samuel appears to have concluded that Saul is now finally rejected and beyond the hope of reformation by repentance, and therefore refused to "return" with Saul. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so in <a href='B:90 15:31'>1Sa 15:31</a>. This could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And he is now rebuked for this. We learned from <a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a> that Samuel knew that Yahweh had already decided to given the kingdom to another, as already expressed in 1 Samuel 13; and he knew that God had already selected this "neighbour". But Samuel had still gone on hoping for Saul, and was apparently not proactive in seeking for this replacement- hence now the implicit criticism of him by God.</p><p>God tells Samuel of His rejection of Saul, and Samuel cries to Him all night. I think the implication is that Samuel was pleading with God to consider another future with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>; <a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). <a href='B:370 7:1-6'>Amo 7:1-6</a> is another case- God reveals His intention regarding Israel, but then Amos makes a case against this and is heard. In fact, these and other examples suggest that this is almost a pattern with God- to devise His purpose, and then in the 'gap' until its fulfillment, be open to the persuasion of His covenant people to change or ammend those plans. This could be what <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a> is speaking of: "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets". It's as if He reveals His plans to them so that they can then comment upon them in prayer.</p><p>Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided a king for Myself from among his sons-</p><p>"Provided for Myself" could be an implied rebuke that Samuel had not been more proactive in searching him out. Literally, "seen", which could suggest God had searched for David and found him, having foreseen him from afar.</p>


text:
<p>:2 Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hears it he will kill me. Yahweh said, Take a heifer with you and say, I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh- </p><p>We get the impression that this is intended to recall Moses' weak reluctance to do God's work. Samuel was it seems rebuked for holding on to the dream that Saul would work out well in the end, and for not being proactive in seeking the neighbour of Saul whom Yahweh had already appointed to be king. "Go" in :1 is responded to with apparent defiance: "How can I go?". It seems Samuel was well known for going to villages and homesteads to offer sacrifice. They would have been voluntary peace offerings, with the people invited to eat of the offering; even though in this case Samuel himself brought the animal. That could imply that Jesse was not forthcoming in providing the offering.</p>


text:
<p>Call Jesse to the sacrifice and I will show you what you must do. You are to anoint for Me the one whom I name to you- </p><p>Samuel had commanded Saul earlier 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>). Now, 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 (<a href='B:90 22:3'>1Sa 22:3</a>). 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>


text:
<p>Samuel did what Yahweh said and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Do you come peaceably?- </p><p>This may reflect their deep fear of Saul. For the last we knew, the elders of Israel, including of Bethlehem, had gone to Gilgal and witnessed Samuel snubbing Saul over the matter of Agag; and it was known that Samuel had withdrawn credibility from Saul. And Saul was doubtless fuming and cussing Samuel about that. So a visit from Samuel was not particularly to be welcomed.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice. He consecrated Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice- </p><p>We wonder whether Jesse and his wife were very faithful people. His other sons all supported Saul (<a href='B:90 17:13'>1Sa 17:13</a>). He was surely one of the elders of Bethlehem who were not comfortable with the idea of a visit from Samuel, the peripatetic priest (:4). He was here asked to consecrate himself, but Samuel ends up having to consecrate him, and Samuel has to provide the animal for the peace offering himself (:2). And it's possible to understand <a href='B:230 51:5'>Psa 51:5</a> as meaning that David may have been an illegitimate child. The description of David's other sons as "rejected" (:7) uses the same word as used of Saul's rejection by God; a rather strong term, which seems to imply they were rejected by God as they had rejected Him.</p>


text:
<p>When they had come he looked at Eliab and said, Surely Yahweh’s anointed is before Him- </p><p>The very structure of Biblical Hebrew as a language is often instructive as to how God wishes us to perceive things. There is actually no literal word in Biblical Hebrew for ‘to think’ – instead there is a word meaning ‘to say in one’s heart’. And there are times when the word is wrongly translated simply “say”– here NEB correctly renders as “thought” instead of NEV "said". This provides a window into understanding how the Greek logos means both ‘speech’ and ‘reason’; and sets the backdrop for the repeated teaching of Jesus that God counts human thoughts as if they are the spoken word or acted deed. But my point is that the Hebrew Bible continually focuses our attention upon the internal thought processes – for here is the real ‘Satan’, the real enemy to true spirituality.</p><p>Samuel’s comment about Eliab was presumably to himself (<a href='B:90 16:6'>1Sa 16:6</a>); Saul’s “I’ll strike [David] to the wall” was surely said to himself (<a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>); likewise his explanation of his plan to trap David via his daughter Michael was all hatched out within his own brain (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>); other examples in <a href='B:90 27:12'>1Sa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:110 12:26'>1Ki 12:26</a> etc. Only God knew what those men ‘said in their heart’; and yet He has recorded it in His inspired word for all generations to see. In this alone we see how ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i:e. In our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh said to Samuel, Don’t look at his appearance or height, because I have rejected him. I do not look at the things man looks at; man looks at the outward appearance but Yahweh looks at the heart- </p><p>Samuel appeared to have assumed that Eliab must be Yahweh's anointed, seeing he was tall and handsome (<a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a>). But he had not learnt the lesson he should've learnt from his experience with Saul, who was exceptionally tall, and yet was no leader of God's people. God tries to remind Samuel of this by saying of Eliab: "I have rejected him"; God had used the very term about Saul very recently (<a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>; <a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a> RV). <a href='B:230 89:19-20'>Psa 89:19-20</a> imply that God had specifically told Samuel to anoint David- so his desire to anoint tall, handsome Eliab appears to have been a failure on Samuel's part, rooted in simply not joining the dots. And even when David was brought in, Samuel seems to have somewhat failed in his judgment- for he was impressed by David's fair appearance (<a href='B:90 16:12'>1Sa 16:12</a>), when God had just laboured the point to Samuel that the choice of a ruler was not to be based upon his appearance. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. He said, Neither has Yahweh chosen this one- </p><p>In all close friendships there are some aspects which just could not have been contrived by human arrangement, and which add to the closeness and sense of specialness which those relationships have. There were such aspects with David and Jonathan, intensifying the love of David for Jonathan. For example, it was a beautiful coincidence that they both happened to have a brother called Abinadab (<a href='B:90 16:8'>1Sa 16:8</a> cp. <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. He said, Neither has Yahweh chosen this one- </p><p>It's unclear whether the sons and Jesse knew what was happening. We get the impression Jesse ushered each of his sons before Samuel, perhaps to receive from him a part of the meat of the peace offering. However by this stage they had not yet sat down to eat the peace offering (:11). As they passed by him, Yahweh signalled to Samuel whether or not this was the chosen son. And David was anointed in the presence of his brothers (:13). See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. Samuel said to Jesse, Yahweh has not chosen these- </p><p>This statement is hard to understand unless Samuel had told Jesse his intention. In which case there was clearly some agreement from Samuel in this risky venture. For Samuel is alluding to <a href='B:50 17:15'>Deu 17:15</a>, "You shall set him king over you, whom Yahweh your God shall choose". The same word for "choose" is used:&nbsp; Despite their desire to choose their own king (<a href='B:90 8:18'>1Sa 8:18</a> s:w:), and God disagreeing with it, He and not they chose the king. He intervened to as it were make them obedient, even in this wrong choice they had made. We marvel at His grace. For David's choosing was totally of God and not man.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Jesse, Are all your children here? He said, There is still the youngest; he is keeping the sheep. Samuel said to Jesse, Send and get him, for we will not sit down until he comes here- </p><p>It's possible to understand <a href='B:230 51:5'>Psa 51:5</a> as meaning that David may have been an illegitimate child. This would also account for the diffidence in inviting him, and answering the question as to whether David was one of "your children". The youngest son had a bad lot in life, serving his older brothers and doing the dumb jobs like minding the sheep. But from this kind of hopeless, bottom of the ladder or hierarchy situation, God prepares those whom He can use.</p>


text:
<p>He sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with a beautiful face and handsome appearance. Yahweh said, Arise, anoint him, for this is the one- </p><p>"Ruddy" could mean he was a redhead, which was unusual for Semitic peoples and considered handsome.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers- </p><p>It's unclear whether or not they understood this anointing to be as a king to replace Saul. For they "followed Saul" (<a href='B:90 17:13'>1Sa 17:13</a>). Perhaps they did perceive what it was all about, but their jealousy over his choice led them to support Saul. There are similarities with the hateful jealousy of Joseph's brothers concerning his choice, as one of the youngest. David's Psalms connect being "anointed" with having opposition, and this was doubtless rooted in his own experience (<a href='B:230 2:2'>Psa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:230 89:51'>Psa 89:51</a>; <a href='B:230 105:15'>Psa 105:15</a>). But surely <a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a> was also based upon David's case: "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows". The choice of David is here predicated upon his love of righteousness "above" his brothers. The "gladness" at the anointing was likely only for Samuel and David, as the brothers were doubtless bitterly jealous onlookers. However when this is quoted about the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:650 1:9'>Heb 1:9</a>, "gladness" is translated by a Greek word meaning 'exaltation'; as if the anointing was a sign of David's exaltation above his brothers.</p><p>And the spirit of Yahweh came mightily on David from that day on. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah- </p><p>The Spirit departed from Saul and came to David (:14). This was the Spirit which had made Saul a new man and given him&nbsp; new heart in order to do God's work. This spoke of his psychological strengthening and transformation, which continues to be the work of the Spirit to this day. But the Spirit as it were transferred from one to the other because it was given for the intention of making them saviour king of Israel. That intention transferred from Saul to David and therefore the Spirit was transferred from Saul to David.</p><p>The Spirit came on David as it did on Samson (<a href='B:90 16:13'>1Sa 16:13</a>); they were both empowered to kill lions, whilst keeping the fact a secret. And in both those acts they were taught that they would deliver God's people from the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:34-37'>1Sa 17:34-37</a>). Indeed, David's confident words that God would deliver him from the Philistines were evidently inspired by Samson, the renowned one-man deliverer from Philistine armies. Both Samson and David wrought "great salvation" for Israel (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>). As Samson was characterized by his love of that riddle (the word occurs nine times in <a href='B:70 14:12-19'>Jdg 14:12-19</a>, and <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a> Heb. is also some kind of riddle), so David uses the same word to describe how he chose to put forth a riddle (<a href='B:230 78:2'>Psa 78:2</a>). Psalms 3 is full of reference to Samson's fight at Lehi. It was also written at a time when David was betrayed by his own people. And his failures with women would make another parallel.</p>


text:
<p>Now the spirit of Yahweh had departed from Saul and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him- </p><p>See on :13. In Old Testament times, an evil or unclean spirit referred to a troubled mental state (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>; <a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>); and in every Old Testament reference to evil spirits, they were sent by God, not an orthodox ‘Devil’. In New Testament times, the language of evil spirit/demon possession had come to refer to those suffering mental illness. The association between demons and sickness is shown by the following: “They brought unto Him (Jesus) many that were possessed with demons: and He cast out the spirits with a word… that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (<a href='B:470 8:16-17'>Mat 8:16-17</a>). So human infirmities and sicknesses are described as being possessed by “demons” and “evil spirits”. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s servants said to him, See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you- </p><p>See on <a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>. "Troubles" is the word for 'made afraid'. Saul became paranoiac as a result of his own insecurities, which in turn were rooted in his own lack of faith and security in God's grace. His pride also contributed majorly, so that he ever feared losing his crown and glory. These psychological processes were confirmed by God. This is how His Spirit works upon the human spirit. His Holy Spirit will likewise confirm us in the upward spiral of spirituality we wish to take, working through our own psychological processes.</p>


text:
<p>Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is a skilful player on the harp. When the evil spirit from God comes on you, he can play and you will feel better- </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. I suggested on :15 that God's Spirit worked to confirm Saul's own psychological processes, freely chosen by him. No amount of music would change this. At best only a surface level, placebo effect would be achieved. We too must beware of the power of music. It is good if it confirms us in the upward path we are going; but we must beware of the possibility that like Saul, we can be unspiritual people who are made to feel only temporarily better by music. The essential issues are as outlined in :15, and will not be changed by music. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to his servants, Find me someone who can play well and bring him to me- </p><p>"Find" is literally to see or provide. The Hebrew language reflects certain realities about the nature of God's ways. The common Hebrew word for 'to see', especially when used about God's 'seeing', means also 'to provide'. Abraham comforted Isaac that "God will see for himself [AV 'provide'] the lamb" (<a href='B:10 22:8'>Gen 22:8</a> RVmg:); and thus the RVmg. interprets 'Jehovah-Jireh' as meaning 'the Lord will see, or provide' (<a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a>). The same word is used here when Saul asks his servants to "provide" him a man. When Hagar said "You God see me" (<a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a>) she was expressing her gratitude for His provision for her. What this means in practice is that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He sees and knows all things.</p>


text:
<p>Then one of the young men said, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is skilful in playing, a mighty man of valour, a man of war, who speaks well and is good-looking, and Yahweh is with him- </p><p>"Young men" means just that, and is not the usual word used of Saul's servants. Perhaps they had grown up with him, having also been taken from Bethlehem to serve Saul, as Samuel had predicted Israel's king would do. They say nothing of David's victory over lion and bear which he mentions in <a href='B:90 17:34-36'>1Sa 17:34-36</a>. Instead, David was known by the other youngsters for having fought valiantly against the Philistines. His fights with the wild animals were personal things to him, he didn't share them with others, and only in extremis did he tell Saul about them in order to let him fight Goliath. There are private things which occur within our experience with God, deliverances so amazing and personal it's not appropriate to publically share them with others.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, Send me David your son, who is with the sheep- </p><p>This was in fulfilment of Samuel's warning that Israel's king would take their young men to serve him. And yet through this curse, blessing was to come. God is never defeated by sin but somehow works through it in a wider sense. They only had a "few sheep" (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>); David was not from a wealthy family, he was "a poor man" as he says himself (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>):&nbsp; His later abuse of the "poor man" Uriah once he was rich (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a> s:w:) was therefore the more culpable.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a bottle of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul- </p><p>Bread and wine had been sent to Saul during the process of training him in 1 Samuel 9. Perhaps this was to recall that, in an attempt to prod Saul back to his earlier spirituality. We marvel at God's continued working with this man, despite having already twice rejected him. His activity with those who apparently leave Him is amazing. Situations are arranged to restimulate their previous spiritual connections.</p>


text:
<p>David came to Saul and stood before him. Saul loved him greatly and he became his armour bearer- </p><p>For "loved him", see on <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>. But by <a href='B:90 17:15'>1Sa 17:15</a>; <a href='B:90 17:56'>1Sa 17:56</a>, David has returned to the sheep and Saul is ignorant of him. Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself wanted to leave the court. This verse could also be a summary statement of what happened, and then 1 Samuel 17 explains how it came about, with that chapter climaxing in David's glory and, as we would learn here, promotion to Saul's armourbearer, carrying the very armour of Saul which he himself had declined to use.</p><p>Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him, and the very special relationship between the spiritual helper and the helped had fully developed. Yet in such cases it isn't uncommon for there to arise a bitterness between the convert and the converter; exactly as happened with David and Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent to Jesse saying, Please let David stay with me, for I am pleased with him- </p><p>See on :21; <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. "Stay with me" is "Stand before me", as if this was an official position. But as noted on :21, we may be reading here a summary statement of what Saul did to David after the victory over Goliath, and now in 1 Samuel 17 we are to read how this situation came about. This is typical of Hebrew writing and prose style.</p>


text:
<p>When the spirit from God was on Saul, David took the harp and played, and Saul was refreshed and felt better and the evil spirit departed from him- </p><p>According to <a href='B:230 35:13'>Psa 35:13</a> "But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting. My prayer returned into my own bosom". Saul is in view (see on <a href='B:230 35:12'>Psa 35:12</a>). The sickness of Saul was psychological, and David not only played the harp for him but also prayed and fasted in sackcloth for him. This again is something we don't see in the historical records.</p><p>I explained on :16 that Saul's illness was confirmed by God through His Spirit working on Saul's psychological issues, which arose from his own unspirituality. Music could not resolve those issues, apart from by some temporary placebo effect. And we must be aware likewise of 'feel good' religion caused by music. This is not to decry the use of music, but it is a caveat sounded by Saul's case.</p><p>We could also entertain the possibility that God departing from Saul may mean that the Angel physically left him; for God makes His Angels Spirits, and He works through them (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>)- the Hebrew for 'depart' can imply physical movement (it is also translated 'withdraw', 'pluck away' etc:). At times in our lives we may feel the presence of God coming and going. Perhaps such feelings are connected with the presence or absence of our Angel, although the Angel leaving us does not necessarily imply God's displeasure with us. The Angel may return to God (cp. Angels ascending and descending on Jacob's ladder) to report on His actions or to seek further commands; or they may depart from us in order to give us a feeling of spiritual depression so that our faith is tempted all the more. Job and Jesus on the cross are prime examples of this- hence the real anguish of&nbsp;the Lord's cry "My God, My God (a reference to His Angel?), Why hast Thou forsaken Me". In this case, an added trial of the crucifixion would have been that Jesus did not feel at His spiritual strongest to face the ordeal. Job explains&nbsp; how all things in life come and go in rhythms, and so also does our spirituality (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a>; <a href='B:220 34:29'>Job 34:29</a>; <a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:3'>Job 39:3</a> - the context of each of these needs to be studied to get the point). So the Lord was perhaps on a spiritual 'low' cycle due to the Angel not being with Him. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. However, the essential reference here is as explained on :16; God was confirming Saul's spirit psychologically by His Spirit acting upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines gathered their armies to battle and assembled at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and they encamped between Socoh and Azekah in Ephesdammim-</p><p><strong>David and Goliath</strong></p><p>David must be one of the greatest types of Christ. At this time of the David and Goliath conflict he was a shepherd, despised by his brethren, trying to save Israel at a time of dire physical suffering and spiritual apostasy. These connections alone should make us scan this record for deeper Messianic allusions. The giant strongman falling to the earth because of a stone suggests Nebuchadnezzar's image of Daniel 2, where the stone refers to Christ. Note how lion and bear (17:34 cp. <a href='B:340 7:4-5'>Dan 7:4-5</a>) and brass and iron (17:5-7 cp. <a href='B:340 2:32-33'>Dan 2:32-33</a>) are all mentioned in the record. Goliath's death by a fatal wound in the head (<a href='B:90 17:49'>1Sa 17:49</a>) must look back to <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, again connecting David and the stone with the seed of the woman (Christ) and equating Goliath with the seed of the serpent. This is confirmed by the repetitious description of Goliath in battle with David four times as covered in "brass" from head to foot (17:5,6); which is related to the word translated "serpent" and is a symbol of sin. According to some etymologists, "Philistine" fundamentally means 'one who rolls in the dust', i:e. a serpent; and significantly, Goliath is several times described as "the Philistine". But he may also look ahead to a latter day personification of militant Palestinians, also to be brought down by the Son of David. Six being the number of the flesh it is significant that his "height was six cubits and a span::. his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels" (17:4,7). It is even possible that the "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 refers back to Goliath as his prototype, in which case the image of Daniel 2 and the man of sin are equated.</p><p>Goliath, representing the seed of the serpent, a personification of sin (i:e. the Biblical devil), needed a man to fight him (17:8,9). The men of Israel cowered in fear, wishing they could only have the strength and courage necessary, but looking one on another helplessly as the invincible giant made his boast. How to overcome him and the evil intent of this man against God's people was what the men's conversation revolved around: "Have you seen this man that is come up? Surely to defy Israel is he come up". They also discussed the glorious reward being offered: "It shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and make his father's house free in Israel" - and throw in his daughter for good measure too (17:25). But "all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid" (17:24). This may well refer to those who thought about being Israel's "champion" in fighting Goliath, rather than speaking about the Israelite army as a whole. Now what more precise description could we wish for of our feelings in the struggle against sin? There seems a similarity here with men and Angels weeping because no man was found worthy to look upon or pen the book of life (<a href='B:730 5:3-5'>Rev 5:3-5</a>)- until our Lord prevailed on the cross:&nbsp; 'Golgotha' meaning 'The place of the skull' or even a form of Gol Goliath, may well be the place near Jerusalem where David buried Goliath's skull (17:54), greatly strengthening this connection. "Ephes-Dammim" meaning 'border of blood' suggests 'Aceldama', the "field of blood". Goliath coming out to make his challenges at morning and evening (<a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a>) coincided with the daily sacrifices which should have been offered at those times, with their reminder of sin and the need for dedication to God. The thoughtful Israelite must surely have seen in Goliath a personification of sin which the daily sacrifices could do nothing to overcome.</p><p>The ultimate wager</p><p>If David represents the Lord Jesus and Goliath represents sin personified, then his supporting Philistines must be the armies of our individual sins, depending for their strength and power on this principle of the devil (cp. Goliath). The Israelites were effectively the servants of the Philistines before this battle, although with a theoretical chance of freedom; and similarly with mankind before Christ's death. However, this relationship between Israel and the Philistines was now to be formalized and made permanent: "Choose you a man for you:::if he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants" (17:8,9). This was exactly the contest between sin and our Lord; if He had failed in His mission, we would have permanently been in bondage to sin, as we were effectively even before the cross.</p><p>Something of the same wager is implied in <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, another prophecy of the cross- either the man kills the snake by hitting it on the head, or the snake will bite the man’s heel. He has to kill it outright, first time. Yet thanks to His victory we are now free from sin- and more than that, our sins (cp. the Philistines) should now be subservient to us; <a href='B:520 6:17-18'>Rom 6:17-18</a> may even be referring back to this passage: "You were the servants of sin, but (by baptism into Christ's death)::. being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness". This sheds more light on the immense pressure on our Lord, knowing that just one slip would result in the permanent servitude of man to the sin which he hated. No wonder He appeared a man of sorrows.</p><p>Despised and rejected</p><p>Plenty of other details now appear relevant to the Lord's crucifixion. Both his family and the men of Israel generally rejected David's claims to be able to save Israel (<a href='B:90 17:28-30'>1Sa 17:28-30</a>). Eliab's "Why did you come down here?" matches Christ's brothers telling him "depart hence" (<a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a>). The crucifixion psalms emphasize how the Lord Jesus felt rejected by both Israel and His family as He fought His Goliath then (e:g. <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>). Arguing back from the experience of his Lord, it would seem that David was really hurt and cut by the discouragement he received. 'Eliab' meaning 'God of my father' invites comparison with the Jews who despised our Lord's claims at the time of His death. The alternative rendering 'God is my Father' would connect with Israel being God's son (<a href='B:20 4:22'>Exo 4:22</a>).</p><p>It is twice stressed that David's brothers "followed Saul" (<a href='B:90 17:13-14'>1Sa 17:13-14</a>); is it possible to argue back from this that Christ's brothers were strong Judaists? His family appear to have later disowned him during Saul’s persecution (<a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a>), fleeing from him, as the Lord’s friends also did (<a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a> = <a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a>). David's being sent by his father to see his brethren has echoes of Joseph's experience- which was also highly typical of the Lord Jesus. Joseph's problems with his brothers may well indicate a great barrier between the Lord Jesus and His natural brothers (who surely would have always resented the fact He was the firstborn in the eyes of their mother, whilst they were most likely convinced He was illegitimate).</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p>David's other brothers also have names which have connections with an apostate Israel; see on :13. Similarly, Saul too represented the Jewish system, as the one who appeared superficially to Israel to be the one who could overcome all enemies, i:e. sin in the parable (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>). Doubtless one of the reasons they were attracted to Saul was because his large warrior physique made him seem a match for the giant Philistines in these man to man duels that often decided whole battles in those days. And the men of Israel should have learnt at the time of the crucifixion that the Law which appeared so powerful to save was unable to do so. By contrast we are specifically told that David was not of unduly great height (so <a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a> implies), but was chosen because of the spiritual state of his heart.</p><p>We have seen how Goliath was a 'man of sin'; the New Testament concept of Satan can describe both the Jewish system and also sin, because "the strength of sin is the (Jewish) law". The great height of both Saul and Goliath would inevitably have been noticed; as if to imply that Saul (representing the Law) was as superficially as powerful as Goliath was. There seems to be a verbal connection at least between the Jews' mocking question of Christ "Where is Your father?" (<a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a>) and Saul's "whose son is this youth" (17:55)- or was Saul's question also a subtle accusation of illegitimacy? <a href='B:230 106:13'>Psa 106:13</a> also seems to describe Israel's rebellions in language relevant to Saul, as if he represented them: "They sang His praise (cp. Saul prophesying). They soon forgat His works; they waited not for His counsel" - cp. Saul in <a href='B:90 13:8'>1Sa 13:8</a>. Note how Saul lost the animals (asses) he was given to look after; while David preserved his father's sheep, maybe looking forward to the Jewish system's inability to save its people compared to Christ's keeping of us.</p><p>Of sheep and shepherds</p><p>We can now attempt a more chronological analysis of the confrontation between David and Goliath: "And David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and went, as Jesse commanded him" (17:20). There being no human reason for David to leave his shepherding (17:28), there may be the implication that Jesse knew more about David's mission than appears on the surface. Thus David could say to Eliab concerning his coming to the battle "Is there not a cause" (17:29)- i:e. 'I'm not just here to bring provisions- but for something far more important'. It would be fitting if Jesse represented God, in which case the commandment to go and see the brethren would correspond to Joseph being told by Jacob (cp. God) to go and see his brethren (<a href='B:10 37:13'>Gen 37:13</a>). This resulted in his figurative death and resurrection in the pit, comparable with the Son being sent by the Father to inspect the Jewish vineyard, with the subsequent murder of Him by the husbandmen (<a href='B:490 20:14'>Luk 20:14</a>).</p><p>"As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise::." (<a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a>) is in the context of Christ's going to fight sin on the cross; and it connects very nicely with David receiving the father's command and arising to go. David leaving the sheep and going to fight Goliath recalls the parable of Christ as the good shepherd leaving the flock and going to save the lost sheep (<a href='B:490 15:4-6'>Luk 15:4-6</a>). The shepherd goes alone at night up into the hills (cp. Isaac going to be sacrificed in the hills), and carries the lamb on his shoulder- as Christ carried the cross of our sins on his shoulder to redeem the lost sheep of mankind (<a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a>). This lost sheep parable is also picked up in <a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a>: "For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the shepherd and bishop of your souls" (i:e. Christ the shepherd). But this in turn is quoting <a href='B:290 53:5-6'>Isa 53:5-6</a>: "All we like sheep have gone astray::. but he was wounded (on the cross) for our transgressions", which is thus the parallel to the saving of the lost sheep. This interpretation of the lost sheep parable- i:e. that the shepherd going to save the sheep represents Christ going to die on the cross- was first prompted by David leaving the sheep with the keeper to go and fight Goliath, representing Christ's saving us from sin on the cross. The leaving of the sheep with the keeper perhaps looks forward to Christ's entrusting the disciples to the Father's care in those agonizing days while death parted him from them, as David's encounter with Goliath did. David's subsequent leaving of them altogether to go and live in the King's court clearly looks forward to our Lord's ascension to Heaven after his victory over the real Goliath.</p><p>Note how in the fight with Goliath, David progressively shed all human distractions; he left the sheep with a keeper, then on arrival at the battlefield he "left his things in the hand of the keeper of supplies" (17:22), and finally left Saul's armour behind, representing the Law as a means of overcoming sin. And there must also have been progressive stages in our Lord's coming towards that state of total faith necessary for His final victory:&nbsp; David "ran into the army" after leaving behind "his things", and also ran towards the Philistine. The eagerness of our Lord to fight sin, despite knowing the supreme difficulty and seriousness of failure, sets us a matchless example of the enthusiasm we should have in our striving against sin.</p><p>Revving up the faith</p><p>"He came to the trench as the host was going forth to the fight, and shouted for the battle" (17:20). What a terrifying sight and sound that must have been; and similarly the strength of sin and man's inability to overcome must have struck fear into our Lord's heart as he came closer to the cross. David as a newcomer and onlooker would especially have noticed the obvious weakness of Israel. His seeing the weak knees of all the warriors of Israel must have made him feel like his Lord did on contemplating the fact that He personally would have to overcome sin: "He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation::. for he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation::. the garments of vengeance" (<a href='B:290 59:16-17'>Isa 59:16-17</a>). Connect this with David's shunning of such physical armour for its spiritual counterpart. Is there a conscious allusion to David and Goliath here?.</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p>David asked about the promised reward for killing Goliath as if it was a genuine motivation for him to rev up his faith and go ahead. "The man who kills him, the King will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel" (17:25). Our victorious Lord received these rewards in the form of the spiritual riches of greater understanding of the Father, being given us, God's spiritual daughter, in marriage, and us being made free from the legal requirements of the Law. This again suggests that Saul in his heavy duty taxation system represented the demands of the Mosaic law, from which the victory of the cross made us free. Amazingly, it was the beauty which our Lord saw in us which inspired him to take a deep breath of faith and step forward.</p><p>Angelic help</p><p>"Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (17:26). At least three times David stresses that he will overcome Goliath with the help of the Angelic armies: "This::. Philistine shall be as (the lion and bear I killed with Angelic help), seeing he (also, like them) has defied the armies of the living God ('God of the living ones'?- i:e. the Angel cherubim, 17:36). Thus David says to Goliath "I come to you in the name of the Lord of Hosts (invariably an Angelic title of God), the God of the (Angelic) armies of Israel" (17:45). The Messianic parable is so complete that this triple emphasis on David's Angelic help must have relevance to Christ's overcoming of sin on the cross. It seems highly likely that it is through the Angels that Christ (and ourselves in our crosses) received power to overcome sin (cp. Goliath), over and above any human strength which we can muster. One can therefore better understand the spiritual panic of our Lord when He felt this Angelic presence and help withdrawn on the cross (<a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>).</p><p>Total faith</p><p>"And David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine" (17:32). This must be another John 14 allusion- this time to "Let not your heart be troubled" (<a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>), spoken by Jesus as he was about to go forth to the cross, as David was about to fight Goliath. His subsequent references to his earlier delivering of sheep out of the mouth of the lion and bear indicate that Israel were in the same situation as those lambs had been; again, as if the good shepherd David/ Jesus had left the sheep safely (17:20) and gone to save the lost- and almost killed- sheep of Israel, both natural and spiritual. And on another level our Lord's previous triumphs of faith, not least in the wilderness temptations, would have given him courage for the ultimate spiritual test of the cross:&nbsp; </p><p>Such was his totality of faith that David could calmly call out " I will smite you, and take your head from you" (17:46). David's emphasis on cutting off Goliath's head (cp. :54) and the stone hitting the forehead perhaps indicates that the significance of Christ's victory over the devil was that men now have the possibility of sharing His victory over the mind of the flesh. This is where the real David and Goliath battle is worked out so many times each day. David continued: "That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel", which seems to be referred to in <a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a>: "That the world may know" that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through Christ's loving obedience to the Father (cp. <a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a>).</p><p>Brief battle</p><p>David crossed the brook and then cast the stone at Goliath (17:49). This connects with our Lord crossing the brook Kidron, and maybe echoes him being a stone's cast distant from the disciples&nbsp; (<a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a>). There is a continued emphasis on David's zeal to fight Goliath- as the Lord had to fight sin: "David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and" disarmed him (17:51). There is a possibility that this is consciously referred to in <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>, where we read that Christ on the cross "Disarmed (NIV) principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them"- as if Goliath represented the Law and the sin engendered by it which our Lord conquered on the cross.</p><p>Triumph over every sin</p><p>"And the men of Israel and Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines" (17:52). That shout of glee and triumph should be ours on considering Christ's victory- and because the devil has been destroyed by his death, we should enthusiastically pursue our sins right back to their source, confident we will have the victory- as the Philistines were chased back to their home towns, such as Sharaim, meaning 'two gates'- as if hinting at the promise that Abraham's seed, both Christ and us, would inherit the gate of our enemies. Note that the enemies that the seed of Abraham would conquer are our sins (<a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a> cp. <a href='B:490 1:73-75'>Luk 1:73-75</a>; <a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>; <a href='B:400 7:19'>Mic 7:19</a>). David seemed to have anticipated that his victory would be pressed home by the Israelites attacking the individual Philistines: "The Lord::. will give you into our hands" (17:47). And no doubt our Lord hoped that He eventually would see that the travail of His soul had produced the same effect in us. So let us too arise, shout, and pursue those sins which appear so triumphant.</p><p>The "reproach" was taken away from Israel by David's victory (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>), as Christ carried away the reproach of our sins on the cross (<a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a>; <a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a>). Therefore we can stand unreproachable before God at judgment, with no sin at all against us- due to Christ's victory (<a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a>).</p><p>Additional homework for the enthusiast would be a study of Psalms 8, 144 (see notes there), both of which appear to be about the David and Goliath struggle, and are therefore a description of our Lord's feelings after his resurrection. <a href='B:230 144:3'>Psa 144:3</a> is amazing: " What is::. the son of man (Jesus) that You take account of him?", showing our Lord's humility is such that even now He is amazed that God bothered to help Him.</p><p>Political aspects</p><p>The different metals which feature in the description of Goliath all find their place in the beasts of Daniel 7, which are destroyed by the coming of Christ. This implies that the nations of the world are confederate under one charismatic, seemingly invincible leader; the latter day Goliath. Hit by David's stone, Goliath keeled over "upon his face to the earth" (<a href='B:90 17:49'>1Sa 17:49</a>), just as Dagon his god had done earlier. Thus Goliath was treated like his gods, as the lives of people of this world consist in the idols of materialism they possess. Perhaps this "man of sin" will likewise be a Philistine / Palestinian? We have mentioned the evident similarity between Daniel's image and the Goliath man of sin. The place of the conflict was a little South of Jerusalem, halfway between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean. This sounds suspiciously like the king of the north planting his tents (cp. the Philistine's) "between the seas (Dead and Mediterranean) in the glorious holy mountain" (<a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>). The Philistines making their constant painful incursions into an apostate Israel may well have links with the Palestinian activities today. Goliath was from Gath (<a href='B:90 17:4'>1Sa 17:4</a>), meaning "winepress", with its Armageddon and judgement hints. Similarly the conflict lasted for 40 days (<a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a>)- another link with the coming Divine judgements. David's mocking "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine?" matches "Who are you, O great mountain?" which was to be destroyed "not by might:. but by My spirit" (<a href='B:450 4:6-7'>Zec 4:6-7</a>), as Goliath was killed by David without a sword in his hand, i:e. not by human might. Note that the Philistines were pitched on a mountain, comparing with the description of Babylon as "O great mountain". Thus the king of the North, the man of sin, Babylon, Daniel's image of the last days are all alluding to Goliath, implying that Christ will destroy all of them during one conflict. It is worth questioning whether all these various systems in opposition to Christ will be separate at the time of His return; present developments suggest there may be one huge opposing system (the beast) which incorporates all these historical precedents. But now the possibilities are opened up to the reader to work through 1 Samuel 17 again from this political/ latter day prophecy perspective.</p><p>Matchless Jonathan</p><p>It must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul::. then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (<a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>; <a href='B:90 18:3'>1Sa 18:3</a>). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after His victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle", pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of His victory without those things (cp. <a href='B:90 17:39'>1Sa 17:39</a>).</p><p>Jonathan&nbsp;lived in an environment which was bitterly opposed to David; yet he stuck up for him, at the risk of embarrassment and opposition, and certain damage to his own prospects (<a href='B:90 20:31'>1Sa 20:31</a>); as we should in this wicked world. As Saul cast a javelin at David, so he did at Jonathan (<a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>); as we should fellowship the sufferings of David's greater son. Saul's hate of David resulted in Jonathan being "grieved for David, because his father had done him shame" (<a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a>). Is this not our response to our world in its' ceaseless blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ?</p><p>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 (<a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>), reconfirming 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: "You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto you" (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). Our communion meetings with the Lord during our wilderness journey must surely mirror those meetings. &nbsp; </p><p>The depth of the David/Jonathan relationship introduces to the pages of Scripture the idea of agape love- a love higher than normal human experience. "The beauty of Israel is (singular- about Jonathan, :25) slain upon your high places::. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant have you been unto me: your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (<a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a>). Such love should typify our relationship with Jesus. But does it?</p><p>Our Inspiration</p><p>The David and Goliath conflict was not only inspirational to Jonathan, but to the men of Israel generally. It seems from <a href='B:130 11:13-14'>1Ch 11:13-14</a> that soon after the fight with Goliath, there was another skirmish with the Philistines at Pas-Dammim [RVmg. ‘Ephes-Dammim’- the same place where David fought Goliath]. Again, the men of Israel fled, but those who held fast were given a “great deliverance” [“salvation”, RVmg:], just as David is described as achieving. Those men who stayed and fought were doubtless inspired by David; just as we should be, time and again, by the matchless victory of our Lord on Golgotha.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and the men of Israel assembled and encamped in the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines- </p><p>The idea seems to be that the Israelites were proactive in setting the battle in array against the Philistines, but once faced with Goliath, they lost their nerve. As explained on :1 this reflects our confidence in overcoming sin in our strength being dented once we realize the enormity of the struggle and strength of the opposition.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, and there was a valley between them- </p><p>The valley of Elah was described by one visitor as "strewn with rounded and waterworn pebbles". Consistently, the Biblical record is credible.</p>


text:
<p>A champion went out of the camp of the Philistines named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span- </p><p>Joshua / Jesus had destroyed most of the Anakim (<a href='B:60 11:21-22'>Jos 11:21-22</a>), but the Israelites failed to capitalize on his victory. With the result that the few Anakim left in Gath had spawned Goliath. It's all a parable of what happens unless we totally root sin out of our lives and capitalize on the Lord's work. Depending how a cubit is defined, Goliath’s height was between nine feet nine inches and eleven feet four inches.</p>


text:
<p>He had a helmet of bronze on his head and he wore a bronze coat of mail which weighed five thousand shekels- </p><p>About 157 pounds. It is copper which is really being referred to here as bronze was unknown then. I have often suggested that these historical records were rewritten under inspiration in Babylon for the encouragement of the exiles, and maybe the reference to bronze was inserted then.</p>


text:
<p>He had bronze shin armour on his legs and a javelin of bronze between his shoulders- </p><p>"Javelin" could also be translated as some kind of armour, possibly for the throat. He was covered in armour, that is the impression. David's slingshot was therefore amazingly accurate, entering the one point which was not covered. He would have looked like a living metal image (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam and his iron spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels, and his shield bearer went before him- </p><p>About 25 pounds. All the armour made Goliath very cumbersome in movement. David had the faith to see through all this, whereas the external appearance was all that the other men saw.</p>


text:
<p>He stood and shouted to the armies of Israel, Why have you come out to line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me- </p><p>The Targum adds: "I am Goliath the Philistine of Gath, who slew the two sons of Eli the priest, Hophni and Phinehas, and carried away captive the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and brought it into the house of Dagon my idol, and it was there in the cities of the Philistines seven months. Moreover in all the wars of the Philistines I go forth at the head of the army, and we have been victorious in war, and have cast down the slain as the dust of the earth, and hitherto the Philistines have not honoured me, to make me captain of a thousand over them. But as for you children of Israel, what valiant deed has Saul the son of Kish of Gibeah wrought for you, that ye have made him king over you? If he be a valiant man, let him come down and do battle with me; but if he be a coward, choose you". Saul as the tallest Israelite was indeed the appropriate, intended person to fight on Israel's behalf, not least because God had given him the potential power to defeat the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>If he is able to fight and kill me, then we will be your servants, but if I overcome him and kill him, then you will be our servants, and serve us- </p><p>This wager (see on :1 for the typical significance), typical of how conflicts were resolved at the time, meant in practice that Saul was wary of allowing anyone to take it up. His allowing David to do so, without armour, without explaining his planned strategy of using a sling, but only on the basis of his faith in Yahweh::. therefore shows at least some spiritual perspective in Saul. And it is also a tacit admission of his own lack of such personal faith.</p><p>"Overcome" is the word Saul will later use about David (<a href='B:90 26:25'>1Sa 26:25</a>), where he sees in David's prevailing over / overcoming Goliath a sign that David will ultimately prevail to become king in his place. 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>The Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day! Give me a man and let us fight one another!- </p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>; <a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. The history here would have been inspirational when the Assyrians likewise defied the living God, and again this is a theme of the record (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 19:22-23'>2Ki 19:22-23</a>; <a href='B:140 32:17'>2Ch 32:17</a> s:w:). It was also inspiration for the exiles when they were reproached / defied (s:w. <a href='B:160 6:13'>Neh 6:13</a>). For another allusion to David and Goliath in the Assyrian context, see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine they were dismayed, and terrified-</p><p>Being "dismayed and terrified" is the term David in turn uses to his son Solomon (<a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:130 28:20'>1Ch 28:20</a>). He was thereby urging Solomon not to worry if he was out of step with all Israel; if they were dismayed and terrified, he was still to walk in faith as David had done at the time of the Goliath crisis. It is also used to urge the people toward the spirit of David rather than that of Israel in <a href='B:140 20:15'>2Ch 20:15</a>; <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>. The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). See on :10. The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p>


text:
<p>Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse. He had eight sons and was considered an old man in the days of Saul- </p><p>Heb. "that Ephrathite", meaning 'the one already mentioned'- in the account of David's anointing.</p>


text:
<p>The three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. Their names were Eliab the firstborn, next to him Abinadab and the third Shammah- </p><p>I suggested on :1 that the sons of Jesse, David's brothers, were against him and were identified with Saul. In the type being worked out here and as explained on :1, they represented Israel after the flesh in their initial rejection of the kingship and anointing of the Lord Jesus. Abinadab means "The Father is willing"; cp. "All day long have I stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (<a href='B:520 10:21'>Rom 10:21</a>). Shammah means 'desolation, astonishment, ruin'. God would "make your land desolate (shammah)" (<a href='B:300 4:7'>Jer 4:7</a>), and Israel were to be an astonishment to the world after their rejection.</p>


text:
<p>David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul- </p><p>It is stressed that David's brothers "followed Saul" and were "gone after Saul" (see on :13). And yet Saul had been dismissed from his kingly role, and in the presence of Jesse's sons, David had been anointed as his replacement. This could suggest that the brothers jealously refused to accept this and were strongly supportive of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Now David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem- </p><p>AV "went and returned from Saul", as if this was a permanent leaving of Saul by David. In :56, Saul is ignorant of him. Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself wanted to leave the court. Rather like Daniel slipping away from high profile court life when promoted to it, because of his conscience toward God.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine drew near morning and evening and took his stand for forty days- </p><p>"Forty" seems a round number; Saul, David and Solomon are all recorded as reigning 40 years, but there are some chronological difficulties if the figure is taken literally. Ancient battles rarely took so long. It seemed that the Philistines really wanted to resolve things by a duel, but the Israelites were scared. The idea may be that he offered the duel for 40 days, and if Israel refused, then the confident Philistines would attack the psychologically worn down Israelites. Perhaps it was on the final day of the challenge that David intervened. This would also explain why Saul was so desperate that despite the serious implications of the wager, he agreed to allow David to do it.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse said to David his son, Now take an ephah of parched grain and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers- </p><p>Perhaps the information about the 40 days wager, and the time running out, is inserted in :16 to show the hand of providence in Jesse sending David at the end of the period. If David was famed as a man of war already, we wonder why he was not with the army. Perhaps his return from Saul was because he didn't want to be in such an unspiritual environment; and his brothers considered him too young for army service (:28).</p>


text:
<p>and take these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand- </p><p>Supporting evidence for the comment I often make that the word "thousand" is not always to be taken literally, and can refer to a group / regiment / family. This avoids the problem of otherwise unrealistically large numbers being spoken of at places in the record.</p><p>See how your brothers are doing and bring back news- </p><p>The Hebrew means "their pledge"; they were to return a collateral on a loan. This is rather curious, until we note that David's son Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>); what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. See on <a href='B:240 6:1'>Pro 6:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and David’s brothers and all the men of Israel were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines- </p><p>The two camps were on two mountains, divided by the valley where Goliath made his challenge twice / day. It seems both sides fought a bit in the valley and then returned to their mountain top camps.</p>


text:
<p>David rose up early in the morning- 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><p>Left the sheep with a keeper and took the gifts, and went as Jesse had commanded him; he came to the camp as the army was going forth to the battle, shouting the war cry- </p><p>See on :20. "The war cry" likely included some reference to Yahweh, and yet clearly the Israelite didn't really believe it; whereas David did.</p>


text:
<p>Israel and the Philistines put the battle in array, army against army- </p><p>David was walking with his brothers at this time (:23), so this may not have to mean that actual combat was going on. Rather would there have been an exchange of curses and facing off against each other, as was typical of ancient battles, rather than actual combat.</p>


text:
<p>David left his things with the keeper of supplies and ran to the army and came and greeted his brothers-</p><p>David could have returned home after leaving his things. But we get the impression from his "running" that he was zealous for involvement in this conflict.</p>


text:
<p>As he talked with them Goliath came up, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, out of the ranks of the Philistines. He shouted the same words, and David heard them- </p><p>"The same words" might mean 'the same words which David had heard that he was shouting, but now, David heard them for himself first hand'. David's desire was clearly to engage with him.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were terrified- </p><p>The armies were each on a mountain, divided by a valley. They fled back to the top of the mountain. Fleeing before their enemies each day was living out the curse for disobedience to the covenant, and surely they were being taught that this was their essential problem.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel said, Have you seen this man who keeps coming up? He comes up to defy Israel. The king has promised to give great riches to the man who kills him, and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel- </p><p>I have noted several times that Saul seeks to emulate previous Biblical characters. This offer of his daughter in return for a military victory recalls Caleb's offer of <a href='B:60 15:16'>Jos 15:16</a>. But always Saul is portrayed as only imitating on a surface level. And in this case, he didn't give David his daughter on the terms here offered.</p>


text:
<p>David said to the men who stood by him, What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine- </p><p>It is as if David wishes to clarify the reward. It could be that to marry Saul's daughter, whom he would have met in his time laying the harp for Saul, was something which further motivated him.</p><p>And takes away the reproach from Israel?- </p><p>Saul's work was to remove the disgrace or "reproach" from Israel (s:w. <a href='B:90 11:2'>1Sa 11:2</a>), as he had done with the Ammonites. When Goliath reproached Israel, it was Saul, Israel's tallest man, who was potentially empowered to fight him and remove the reproach. But he failed to do so, and when David did, Saul fell into a complex of spiritual jealousy. See on <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> for another example.</p><p>Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?- </p><p>David was inspired by Jonathan's similar attitude in <a href='B:90 14:6'>1Sa 14:6</a>; he may have been the armourbearer for Jonathan at that time. This is the intention of true fellowship, to take inspiration from each other.</p>


text:
<p>The people repeated to him what they had said: This is indeed what is promised to the man who kills him- </p><p>See on :26. The freedom from taxation, which was one of the bad things Saul was prophesied as doing to the people, meant that for that man, Saul was no longer to have kingly power over him. David was to be king, and his victory freed him from Saul's kingship.</p>


text:
<p>Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why have you come down? With whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?- </p><p>They only had a "few sheep"; David was not from a wealthy family, he was "a poor man" as he says himself (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>):&nbsp; His later abuse of the "poor man" Uriah once he was rich (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a> s:w:) was therefore the more culpable.</p><p>I know your pride and the presumption of your heart; you have only come down to see the battle- </p><p>He may mean that David was just trying to provoke someone to go out and fight Goliath, so that he could watch the fight. For the two armies were not themselves engaged in battle, being on opposite mountains divided by the valley of Elah. David comes over as anything but proud. The false accusation of Eliab reveals more about himself than it does about David. It is a classic case of transference; in this case, transferring his pride onto David and judging him for it.</p>


text:
<p>David said, What have I done now? Can I not speak?- </p><p>This has the ring of credibility to it; it is exactly how a youngest brother would talk to his oldest brother when falsely accused. We get the impression that false accusation of David was frequent; as noted on :28, the brothers transferred guilt for their own attitudes onto David.</p>


text:
<p>He turned away from him toward someone else and said the same, and the people answered him as before- </p><p>David seems to have wanted the reward clarified; it was attractive to him. There can be few men who do not have at least some attraction to the father and family of their wife. David really loved Saul's daughter, indeed the prospect of marrying her may have been a large motivator behind his zeal in fighting Goliath and the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>). Saul was not a totally unspiritual man; there are many hints that he had a spiritual side. It's rare indeed that a totally unspiritual person can love a highly spiritual person like David. And yet this fine relationship ended in an intense love-hate affair. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind.</p>


text:
<p>When the words of David were heard, they repeated them to Saul and he sent for him- </p><p>I suggested on :16,17 that the 40 day period of the challenge to a duel was coming to an end and Saul was desperate.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of this Philistine. Your servant will go and fight him- </p><p>LXX has this as addressed to Saul, urging him not to have a faint heart because of this Philistine. These were the words of the Lord to His people just before going out to the cross (<a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to David, You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight him; you are only a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth- </p><p>David makes a play on these words by saying that he is "not able" (s:w:) to go against Goliath with Saul's armour. He was indeed not able to fight in human strength, only in God's. See on :42.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock- </p><p>The young men in <a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a> say nothing of David's victory over lion and bear which he mentions here. Instead, David was known by the other youngsters for having fought valiantly against the Philistines. His fights with the wild animals were personal things to him, he didn't share them with others, and only in extremis did he tell Saul about them in order to let him fight Goliath. There are private things which occur within our experience with God, deliverances so amazing and personal it's not appropriate to publically share them with others.</p>


text:
<p>I went out after it and struck it, and rescued it out of its mouth. When it turned on me I caught it by its beard and killed it- </p><p>Lions and bears don't have beards, so the "beard" likely refers to the chin, as the place where the beard grows. The 'rising up' ["turned on me"] of the wild animal against David was to prepare him for the 'rising up' of Goliath against him (:48 s:w:). Circumstances repeat in our lives; even incidents from youth are used to prepare us for similar circumstances, in essence, so that we have our faith tested and developed.</p>


text:
<p>Your servant- </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>Killed both the lion and the bear. This uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God-</p><p>The armies of God are the Angels, but David saw the trembling armies of Israel as their manifestation upon earth.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Yahweh who delivered me out of the paw of the lion and out of the paw of the bear, will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. Saul said to David, Go; and Yahweh be with you- </p><p>To agree to take up the challenge, with the conditions attached of :9, meant that Saul must have believed David had a chance of victory. And yet David was just a youngster with no armour. He didn't explain to Saul that he would be using a sling, he gives his confidence for victory as being in God Himself, and his previous experience of this. So Saul's decision to let the duel go ahead, given the consequences attached to it, was surely based on faith and spiritual reasoning. Saul was not completely unspiritual; and that is the tragedy of the man.</p>


text:
<p>Saul dressed David in his own clothes. He put a bronze helmet on his head and put a coat of mail on him- </p><p>To be dressed in the clothes of a king effectively meant that the king was ceding power to the person now wearing his clothes. The significance of this would only afterwards have been apparent to Saul. Saul would have realized that his anger with Samuel for as it were deposing him from the kingship was inappropriate- for he had effectively resigned it to David himself.</p>


text:
<p>David strapped his sword onto his tunic and he tried to move, but he was not used to it. David said to Saul, I can’t go with these; I am not used to them. So David took them off- </p><p>He didn't explain to Saul that he would be using a sling, he gives his confidence for victory as being in God Himself, and his previous experience of this. The human method he would use was secondary, David is presented as going ahead in total faith. Our human methods must likewise be sidelined. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>He took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag. His sling was in his hand as he drew near to the Philistine-</p><p>David took five stones but used only one. Was he faithless and doubting that the first one would hit home? Do those five stones represent the five books of Moses which Psalms 119 tells us was Christ's study all the day, it being through the word that Jesus overcame the mind of sin? Or did he aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons (<a href='B:100 21:16-22'>2Sa 21:16-22</a>)? That shows supreme spiritual ambition. In reality those four were killed later by David's closest followers- and they must have their counterparts amongst us.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine advanced and came near to David with his shield-bearer in front of him-</p><p>The focus of the record is zoomed close in on the characters, so that it is easy to play Bible television with the record.</p>


text:
<p>When he looked at David he despised him, for he was only a youth, ruddy and handsome-</p><p>Goliath and Saul had the same attitude towards David's youth (:33). 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>).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine said to David, Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks? The Philistine cursed David by his gods- </p><p>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 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>He said to David, Come here and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and the animals of the field-</p><p>The same phrase is used in <a href='B:230 79:2'>Psa 79:2</a> of how Israel were indeed given to the birds and beasts. The implication is that there was no David to arise to save them, because they had rejected him.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said to the Philistine, You come against me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of Armies, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied- </p><p>David could have drawn the contrast between Philistine weaponry and his own sling and stone. But instead he makes the contrast between human strength, and the name of Yahweh. Although the armies of Israel were cowering in unbelief or at best, very weak faith::. David has the grace to talk not simply about his God but the God of those weak armies of Israel. We note the parallel between the armies of Israel and the Angelic armies of Yahweh in Heaven. We note the same parallel in <a href='B:130 14:15'>1Ch 14:15</a>. David believed this, even though the armies of Israel didn't.</p>


text:
<p>Today Yahweh will deliver you into my hand- </p><p>The idea behind "today" is "right now" (as in <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a> s:w:).</p><p>I will strike you down and cut off your head. I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines today to the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth- </p><p>Note how the Angelic ‘hosts’ of God are contrasted with the ‘hosts’ of the enemies of God’s people (<a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45-46'>1Sa 17:45-46</a>; <a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a>). David and Goliath is the great example- David came to the hosts of the Philistines in the name of the God of Angelic hosts. And hence his faithful confidence that “the battle is the Lord’s” (<a href='B:90 17:47'>1Sa 17:47</a>). This is a comfort not only in times of physical danger but in realizing that in any situation, there are far more with us than with our opponents. In every ‘battle’, we of course should be ‘on the Lord’s side’- and the battle is His, and ultimate victory assured. Perhaps these things are the reference of the enigmatic <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>, which speaks of the dance or company of the two hosts- those of Angels and the corresponding hosts on earth?</p><p>That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel- </p><p>David had a vision of all the eretz promised to Abraham coming to accept Israel's God, and he often develops this thought in the Psalms. His language here seems to have inspired Elijah (<a href='B:110 18:36'>1Ki 18:36</a>). May our language likewise be an inspiration to others rather than pulling them downwards spiritually.</p>


text:
<p>and that all those here may know that Yahweh doesn’t save with sword and spear, for the battle is Yahweh’s and He will give you into our hand- </p><p>David's language inspired others (see on :46), but he himself in these words seems to have been inspired by the song of his ancestor Hannah (<a href='B:90 2:2-10'>1Sa 2:2-10</a>), which is so similar in spirit to these words. This is how functional believers interact with each other, inspiring and encouraging to faith and good works and words. This was especial encouragement for the exiles, that God would restore them without their own military strength but by faith (<a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>; <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistine came closer to attack David, David ran quickly towards the Philistine army- </p><p>Goliath 'rose up against' Yahweh and His people (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:48'>1Sa 17:48</a>) just as a lion had 'risen up' against David in his youth (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:35'>1Sa 17:35</a>). Goliath was in view in <a href='B:230 139:21'>Psa 139:21</a>, where David speaks of how those who rise up against Yahweh are hated by him. The visual image is of David running towards the huge army and them fleeing; one man was as it were chasing thousands, because he was in covenant with God and receiving His blessing.</p>


text:
<p>He put his hand into his bag, took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead and he fell on his face to the ground-</p><p>LXX "The stone penetrated through the helmet into his forehead". The hyper accuracy of the slingers of Benjamin is mentioned in <a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>. Again there could be the hint that this victory ought to have been won by Saul or his tribe of Benjamin. But they didn't rise up to it, whereas David did; and this heightened the sense of chronic jealousy against him afterwards.</p>


text:
<p>So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him without a sword in his hand- </p><p>The record seems to glory in the fact that David didn't use the human strength and most powerful technology, but triumphed by faith through the weaker things of this world.</p>


text:
<p>Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, took hold of his sword, drew it out of its scabbard and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled- </p><p>We see here the way that whole masses have their faith focused in one person who is their figurehead. By contrast, the Israelites had no equivalent champion. God sent a young unarmed man out of nowhere to save His people.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel and Judah arose with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gate of Ekron. The wounded of the Philistines fell down all the way to Shaaraim, Gath and Ekron- </p><p>The geography is absolutely accurate, as Gath was at the entrance to the valley of Elah. The mass of historical and geographical material in the Bible is so great that any uninspired writer would have made many slips.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camp- </p><p>David was as one man chasing the Gentile armies because he was experiencing the blessings of obedience to the covenant; but all Israel seem to share in them. We note that after Saul was anointed, he was granted victory over Nahash, the serpent. Now after his anointing, David is granted this victory. The idea was that God was repeating His project with Saul with David. Thus the Spirit was transferred from Saul to David.</p>


text:
<p>David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem- </p><p>This was done at a later date, as Jerusalem wasn't then in Israelite hands. This would have given rise to the name Golgotha, skull of Goliath; see on :1. Or it could be that as Nob was near Jerusalem, it is counted as Jerusalem. For this was where Goliath's sword was taken (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a>).</p><p>But he put his armour in his own tent- </p><p>A man's own tent refers to his own house (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>; <a href='B:90 4:10'>1Sa 4:10</a>; <a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>); presumably back in Bethlehem. But he later presented Goliath's sword as an offering to Yahweh, and it was laid up at the tabernacle at Nob (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the army, Abner, whose son is this youth?- </p><p>Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself had wanted to leave the court and had slipped away.</p><p>Abner said, As your soul lives, O king, I don’t know- </p><p>He doesn't swear as Yahweh lives, as is commonly found in the Bible, but by Saul's own life. Perhaps he felt that Yahweh was no authority to Saul to make an oath by. We note that this way of swearing by the life of the person being spoken to [rather than by Yahweh] is used of men to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:55'>1Sa 17:55</a>), by Uriah to David when he knew David had slept with his wife (<a href='B:100 11:11'>2Sa 11:11</a>) and by Hannah to Eli (<a href='B:90 1:26'>1Sa 1:26</a>). In every case the implication is that the speaker didn't think that the person being addressed really feared Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Find out whose son the young man is!- </p><p>David had previously played the harp before Saul. In :15 AV we read that he "went and returned from Saul", as if this was a permanent leaving of Saul by David. Now Saul is ignorant of him. Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself wanted to leave the court. Rather like Daniel slipping away from high profile court life when promoted to it, because of his conscience toward God.</p><p>The question 'Who is this?' as asked by Boaz of Ruth (<a href='B:80 2:8'>Rth 2:8</a>)&nbsp; is to be understood as a statement of intended action and not read on face value. The same kind of question is asked by David about Bathsheba, even though he knew who she was because she lived next door to him and was the wife of his close friend (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). Likewise when Saul enquires about who David is after his victory over Goliath, it is not because he doesn't know him. For David had been already at the court of Saul. The question 'Who is this?' means that the questioner wants to do something for the person being enquired after.</p>


text:
<p>As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him to Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand- </p><p>This could imply that David was seeking to slip away from the battlefield and return home, but Abner "took him and brought him", possibly implying the use of an element of force. In this we see David's humility; that having done the job for God, he wished to slip away out of the spotlight, and return to his few sheep in the wilderness.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to him, Whose son are you, young man? David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite- </p><p>This cannot mean that Saul didn't know David, or who his father was; for in <a href='B:90 16:19'>1Sa 16:19</a>, before the Goliath incident, "Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son" to ease Saul's depressions. So the question here perhaps maybe implied something like: 'Whose son are you? Jesse's? No, from now on you're adopted into my family, you're my&nbsp; son now, after all, you've been like a brother to Jonathan all down the years'. The fact that David replied that he was Jesse's&nbsp; son may have been a polite refusal to accept this position. It may be that Saul had tried to adopt David earlier, when after David had been at the court for some time, Saul asked Jesse if David could " stand before me" (<a href='B:90 16:22'>1Sa 16:22</a>). Another way of understanding Saul's apparent lack of knowledge of David, after having had much intimate association with him at the court in the past, is to conclude that Saul pretended&nbsp; not to know David. In chapter 16, David has left his shepherding and is at the court, as Saul's personal counsellor and armourbearer. In chapter 17, he is back keeping the sheep. It may be that he ran away from the court after Saul tried to adopt him. In other words, he found that despite the close spiritual relationship he enjoyed with the family, Saul was overpoweringly possessive, and he just had to leave. Accordingly, Saul disowned him, hence his very public appearance of ignorance concerning who David was (17:55,56). When David later "avoided out of (Saul's) presence" (<a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>), this would not have been the first time he had gone through this. His desire and need to do this was made all the more complex by his falling in love with Saul's daughter, Michal (<a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). We can well imagine how we would have loved to be Jonathan's brother-in-law. David and Michal were a marriage made in Heaven- that went wrong.</p>


text:
<p>When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan became bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>. Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him (<a href='B:90 16:23'>1Sa 16:23</a>), and the very special relationship between the spiritual helper and the helped had fully developed. Yet in such cases it isn't uncommon for there to arise a bitterness between the convert and the converter; exactly as happened with David and Saul. In response to his victory over Goliath, "Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul&nbsp; took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house" (18:1,2). This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. See on :20.</p><p>It must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul:::then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (<a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>; <a href='B:90 18:3'>1Sa 18:3</a>). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after his victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle", pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of his victory without those things (cp. <a href='B:90 17:39'>1Sa 17:39</a>):&nbsp; A good example of how the souls of David and Jonathan were spiritually knit together is shown by the identical style of prayer they had (<a href='B:90 20:12'>1Sa 20:12</a> cp. 23:10; the question arises: Who influenced whom?). After Christ's victory on the cross, He entered into a covenant with us His church. The intricately related friendship between David and Jonathan thus becomes typical&nbsp; of that between the Lord Jesus and ourselves. The idea of souls being knit together occurs in <a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a>; <a href='B:580 2:19'>Col 2:19</a>, concerning how our hearts and souls are knit together with the Lord Jesus Christ. This alone encourages us to see Jonathan as typical of ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>Saul took him that day and would not let him go home to his father’s house- </p><p>This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as his own soul- </p><p>See on :1,2. We are not told what were the terms of that covenant, but I suggest it was that Jonathan as the heir to the throne resigned that to David, aware that God had chosen David and not himself to replace his father. This shows a great humility towards God's word, requiring the resignation of human advantage in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan stripped himself of the robe he was wearing and gave it to David with his tunic and even his sword, his bow and his belt-</p><p>I suggested on :3 that the covenant was to the effect that Jonathan agreed that David should replace Saul as king, rather than the throne going to himself. To give clothes to another suggests giving of an office, as we see in the experiences of Joseph and Daniel. He gave the clothes appropriate to the next in line to the throne to David. For his / the robe- see on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. Jonathan stripped himself of his "robe::. and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a> AV). The triple phrase "and / even to::." indicates the totality of this stripping. "Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>). Not only did he give David the weapons of his human strength (cp. <a href='B:90 13:22'>1Sa 13:22</a>), but he appears to have stripped himself almost physically bare (cp. <a href='B:400 2:8'>Mic 2:8</a>). Stripping like this is almost always associated with shame. The same word occurs in relating how the Philistines stripped Jonathan of his clothes and weapons, as he lay slain on Gilboa (<a href='B:90 31:8-9'>1Sa 31:8-9</a>). This all seems to suggest that Jonathan was saying to David: "I deserve to have been killed by Goliath (cp. the devil), so in a sense I will 'die' now by entering into a covenant with you, knitting my life / soul with yours. Rather than the Philistines (cp. our sins) killing, shaming and stripping me, I'll do it to myself'. Isn't&nbsp; this exactly our response to the cross in the ongoing 'baptism' we commit ourselves to? And of course we shouldn't miss the connection with Israel stripping themselves, deeply conscious of their sins, and then entering into covenant with God (<a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a>). Yet does the cross of Christ really fill us with that sense of shame, that desire to throw away all our human strength and knit our souls with that of Christ:::? &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>David went out wherever Saul sent him and behaved himself wisely, and Saul set him over the men of war, which pleased all the people and Saul’s servants-</p><p>&nbsp;We get the sense that David pitted his wisdom against Saul's anger and bitter persecution; David's wisdom is mentioned in tandem with Saul's anger against him (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>; <a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>). "David behaved himself wisely (AVmg “prospered”) in all his ways; and the Lord was with him" runs like a refrain through <a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>. These words are referring back to <a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>: "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" . David's charmed life and prospering despite all manner of plotting against him was due to his single-minded devotion to the Law; to those very chapters which tired Bible readers are wont to skip over as boring and not motivating. Yet David found something immensely inspiring and practical about the Law. The word made him wiser than his foes (<a href='B:230 119:98'>Psa 119:98</a>), and Psalms 119 was written at the time of Saul’s persecution.</p>


text:
<p>When David and the men returned from the slaughter of the Philistine the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul with tambourines, with joy, and with instruments of music- </p><p>See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. The women were of course attracted to David, the young, handsome bashful hero. Yet ostensibly they came out to greet Saul; whereas the focus was clearly upon David. It was a perfect set up for Saul's jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>The women sang one to another as they played, Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands- </p><p>It became a kind of proverb in Israel that David was worth ten thousand; it was said right towards the end of his life (<a href='B:100 18:3'>2Sa 18:3</a>). This further developed Saul's jealousy, because he failed to perceive that the whole conflict was about the glory of God and not the human channel through which that was achieved.</p>


text:
<p>Saul was very angry; this song displeased him and he said, They have ascribed to David ten thousands and to me they have ascribed only thousands. What more can he have but the kingdom?- </p><p>We have a record here of what he said in his heart. He kept recycling those words in his mind, and it made him jealous and bitter. We too must beware of recycling upsetting words in our hearts. Saul was "displeased", the word used in <a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a> of how "life shall be grievous unto him". But it was the fault of his own jealousy and lack of humility towards God's plans for David.</p>


text:
<p>Saul eyed David from that day and onward-</p><p>Saul was precious in the eyes of David (<a href='B:90 26:21'>1Sa 26:21</a> s:w:), although Saul's eyes were only to destroy David. We see the chasmic difference in outlook, in "eyes", or worldview between these two men.</p>


text:
<p>The next day an evil spirit from God came mightily on Saul, and he prophesied in his house. David played his harp, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand- </p><p>In Old Testament times, an evil or unclean spirit referred to a troubled mental state (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>; <a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>); and in every Old Testament reference to evil spirits, they were sent by God, not an orthodox ‘Devil’. In New Testament times, the language of evil spirit/demon possession had come to refer to those suffering mental illness. The association between demons and sickness is shown by the following: “They brought unto him (Jesus) many that were possessed with demons: and He cast out the spirits with a word… that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (<a href='B:470 8:16-17'>Mat 8:16-17</a>). So human infirmities and sicknesses are described as being possessed by “demons” and “evil spirits”. It is absolutely understandable that the day after the women greeted David as having slain his ten thousands, Saul suffered an attack of jealousy, depression and bitterness. It was his own fault, originating in his pride and narcissism. But because he didn't resist it and fed it, God confirmed him in the mental attitudes he chose, to the point that his evil spirit / disposition was sent by God. This is how the Spirit works, and also positively, through the Holy Spirit. See on <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and he threw the spear saying, I will pin David to the wall! David escaped from his presence twice- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. As noted on :8, the Biblical record states the self talk of people as if it is their actual spoken words. As the Lord Jesus was to later teach, thoughts are as culpable as the words and actions. Samuel’s comment about Eliab was presumably to himself (<a href='B:90 16:6'>1Sa 16:6</a>); Saul’s “I’ll strike [David] to the wall” was surely said to himself (<a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>); likewise his explanation of his plan to trap David through his daughter Michael was all hatched out within his own brain (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>); other examples in <a href='B:90 27:12'>1Sa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:110 12:26'>1Ki 12:26</a> etc. Only God knew what those men ‘said in their heart’; and yet He has recorded it in His inspired word for all generations to see. In this alone we see how ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i:e. In our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul was afraid of David because Yahweh was with him but had departed from Saul- </p><p>Saul came to this conclusion from observing things great and small in his life, as well as in his internal awareness of God's presence; and his watching of David (:9) revealed to him that the Spirit of Yahweh was surely with this man and not him. David was the fulfilment of Samuel's words to him about a replacement being raised up. To try to murder him was therefore not only futile but a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, going against God's clearly demonstrated intentions. And yet David in depression felt that Saul would one day kill him (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>), despite all the evidence in the bigger picture that God's Spirit was working to establish him.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul sent David away from him and made him his captain over a thousand, and David went out and came in before the people- </p><p>See on :16. The idea perhaps was that he sent David off with some symbolic responsibility, to some outpost where he would not be in the public eye. To fire him from kingly service would provoke the wrath of the masses.</p>


text:
<p>David behaved himself wisely in all he did, and Yahweh was with him- </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>


text:
<p>When Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he stood in awe of him- </p><p>Saul's jealousy was on account of David's spirituality and victories, especially over Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (<a href='B:90 18:7-8'>1Sa 18:7-8</a>; <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>), and his subsequent popularity with the people. This was because these things were potentially possible for Saul, but he had refused to rise up to them. Saul watched David's spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (<a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). The Jews were jealous of the evident moral perfection of the Lord Jesus, and his popularity with the people which he seemed to effortlessly achieve. Joseph's brothers had a similar motivation to Saul. David as a type of Christ comes out clearly here. But "stand in awe" is also translated 'gathered together' in the context of Saul's persecution of David (<a href='B:230 56:6'>Psa 56:6</a>; <a href='B:230 59:3'>Psa 59:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came in before them-</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. The victories granted him were clearly setting him up to be a popular king.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to David, here is my elder daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife. Only be valiant for me, and fight Yahweh’s battles- </p><p>"Yahweh's battles" is a repeat of David's phrase in <a href='B:90 17:47'>1Sa 17:47</a>, where he triumphed that "the battle is Yahweh's" and therefore would not be won by human valiance or strength. Saul again is shown to be alluding to spiritual ideas, but getting things absolutely the wrong way around.</p><p>Saul thought, Don’t let my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him- </p><p>Again as noted on :8 and :11, we have recorded the inward words, the self talk, of a man who lived thousands of years ago. The thoughts of Saul are recorded in Heaven, and in this case are recorded in God's inspired word. Our self talk is no less significant to God.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Saul, Who am I, and what is my clan or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?- </p><p>This reflects David's humility. He could easily have argued that by slaying Goliath, Saul should have given him his daughter for free as promised. But humility often involves not making the obvious argument, true as it may be.</p>


text:
<p>But when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife- </p><p>There's a repeated circumstance of a woman promised in marriage to a man being given to another- in the lives of Samson and David. Circumstances repeat between the experiences of God's children; and if we perceive that, then we will realize that man is not alone. No experience is so awfully unique or without precedent. This is the value of the histories God chose to record in the Bible. It could possibly be inferred from :25 that Adriel paid Saul a large dowry for his daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David, and when they told Saul he was pleased- </p><p>David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship. &nbsp; See on :1,2. As Jonathan's close friend, it was inevitable that David got to know his sister, Michal. David and Michal began their relationship on this basis. Jonathan's spiritual side would have had some reflection in his sister. For even Saul their father had a spiritual side, and it is fair to assume that Jonathan's mother was also a spiritual woman. It is easily overlooked that David later married Saul's wives (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>)- including the mother of Jonathan and Michal. So now we can reconstruct the complex spiritual and emotional situation. David without doubt experienced a state of 'in-loveness' with Jonathan. His lament of 2 Samuel 1 is proof enough of this. The spirituality which was in Jonathan was also seen in Michal his sister. And David loved Saul, too. Again, his lament over him is proof of this- it shows that David's loving respect for him was not just the result of a steely act of the will, forcing himself to patiently respect Saul. There was something in him which he loved. And we can assume that David did not just marry women whom he didn't spiritually&nbsp; love. There was therefore something in Saul's wives which was spiritual. And the whole thing was not just one way. Jonathan loved David, " Michal, Saul's daughter loved David" (18:20), and Saul clearly had love-hate feelings for David; there was something about him which he deeply loved and respected. The intensity of his hatred of David must have been psychologically connected to a deep-seated love. "He loved him greatly" is the comment of 16:21. The seeds of the love between David and the house of Saul would have begun early on. The reason why&nbsp; all this information is included is to provide comfort for us in the incredible emotional and spiritual complexities which we find ourselves in. In the flesh, David cannot have known which way to turn, mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Yet in the Spirit he could turn to his Heavenly Father, whose mind can totally fathom our pain, who can know in totality our every situation.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, I will give her to him so that she can be a snare to him, and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Therefore Saul said to David, You shall this day have a second opportunity to be my son-in-law-</p><p>See on :11. By describing his daughter as a "snare" to a righteous man, Saul shows his insensitivity to the way the law of Moses warned against women who were as snares. Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e:g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). The lack of true&nbsp;amongst many raised as believers may be related to all this too. We each need to seriously examine ourselves in this connection, and know the meaning of personal conversion.</p>


text:
<p>Saul commanded his servants, Speak to David secretly and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and all his servants love you; now therefore be the king’s son-in-law’- </p><p>All this intrigue was so far from the shepherd boy who simply loved God. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. It is quite clear that David distrusted Saul, and so he communicates through his servants. But it is all rather simplistic and primitive as it was obvious they had been set up by Saul. And if Saul were genuine, he would have fulfilled his promise and given David his daughter freely.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s servants told David this. David said, Does it seem to you a light thing to be the king’s son-in-law, since I am a poor man- </p><p>They only had a "few sheep" (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>); David was not from a wealthy family, he was "a poor man" as he says himself. His later abuse of the "poor man" Uriah once he was rich (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a> s:w:) was therefore the more culpable.</p><p>And little known?-</p><p>"Lightly esteemed" is the word David will later use in <a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a> about being "loathsome" after his sin with Bathsheba. What had been mere words expressing theoretical humility were now translated into actual ownership. Our expressions of humility likewise are brought into reality by God's hand, often working through our own sins.</p>


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


text:
<p>Saul said, Tell David, ‘The king desires no dowry except one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged on the king’s enemies’. Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>This could possibly suggest that Saul had given Merab to Adriel rather than David because Adriel paid a large dowry. That David casually killed 200 men instead of 100 reflects his failure to perceive the value and the meaning of the human person, even if they were Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>When his servants told David this, he was pleased to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the allotted time- </p><p>David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship. See on :2.</p><p>There can be few men who do not have at least some attraction to the father and family of their wife. David really loved Saul's daughter, indeed the prospect of marrying her may have been a large motivator behind his zeal in fighting Goliath and the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>). Saul was not a totally unspiritual man; there are many hints that he had a spiritual side. It's rare indeed that a totally unspiritual person can love a highly spiritual person like David. And yet this fine relationship ended in an intense love-hate affair. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind.</p>


text:
<p>David arose and went with his men and killed two hundred of the Philistine men, and David brought their foreskins- </p><p>We see here the beginning of hints that David sunk into blood lust, culminating in the comment that he couldn't build the temple because of his attitude to shedding blood. He need not have murdered these men in order to get their foreskins. And he did so "that he might" marry Michal. Rather than for any more spiritual motive. If he had circumcised them rather than murdering them, he might have brought them within the hope of Israel.</p><p>And gave them in full number to the king so that he might be the king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him Michal his daughter as his wife- </p><p>A more arrogant man than David would have insisted that Saul keep his offer, that the man who slew Goliath could freely marry his daughter. He could likewise have insisted that Saul give him Merab as promised. But he instead is zealous to meet Saul's new demands, bringing 200 and not just 100 foreskins, and doing it earlier than the deadline given (:26):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David, and Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. The fact his own daughter was one of the many daughters in Israel who loved David was all so hard for Saul. If he had accepted God's rejection of him as king, he could still have built a personal relationship with God and lived in sure hope of eternal salvation in the Kingdom. But he didn't, and only hoped that he would somehow be able to destroy David and establish his own kingdom, despite God's word to the contrary.</p>


text:
<p>Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul was David’s enemy continually- </p><p>The more Saul perceived the hand of God in David's life, the more he feared and hated him. He realized, as he thought about it, that the man set to replace the king::. was now the king's son in law. But by the king's own device and encouragement. It seems that spiritual jealousy, the cancer which stalks churches and Christian relationships, is the worst form of jealousy. It knows no bounds.</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of the Philistines went forth and whenever they did so, David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was highly esteemed- </p><p>David's commentary upon this is in Psalms 8, written in reflection upon his victory: "Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!" (<a href='B:230 8:9'>Psa 8:9</a>). It was David's name which was much set by (<a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>); but David's desire was it should be Yahweh's Name which was now made majestic after the defeat of Goliath, and not his name. The ide seems to be that David was more successful in the field of battle than the other servants of Saul; instead we read that he behaved himself more wisely than them. This is to equate his victories with his wisdom, rather than his own strength or felicity in combat.</p>


text:
<p>Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David- </p><p>The simple appeal was that if David was no more, then Jonathan would be king, and the existing courtiers would remain in power. Whereas David, from another tribe, and with every reason for bitterness against Saul, would not remove them from power. But Samuel's words about David were surely known by Jonathan, and he had himself made a covenant to give the kingdom to David (see on <a href='B:90 18:3-4'>1Sa 18:3-4</a>). It could be that Saul "told" them to kill David in a mad outburst of anger whilst throwing one of his tantrums. But those words are here recorded. It could be that Saul was sharing with them a specific plan of killing David the next morning (:2); and I note on :11 that it seems his servants go along with it.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death- </p><p>Yet Saul did try to kill David. He is here taking the Yahweh Name in vain.</p>


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


text:
<p>There was war again. David went out and fought the Philistines and killed them with a great slaughter, and they fled before him-</p><p>The next verse records Saul suffering from an evil spirit. Clearly what is in view is the spirit of jealousy, arising from his own lack of faith, pride, refusal to accept Yahweh's word about the passing of the kingship to David, indeed a whole nexus of unspirituality. But Yahweh's Spirit worked to confirm that spirit, those wrong psychological positions which Saul allowed to operate and progress within him. Just as the Holy Spirit works positively in the heart / spirit / mind of the spiritual. Likewise in <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>, the 'evil spirit' also comes to Saul after a military incident which provoked his jealousy of David. Clearly 'spirit' is being used to refer to the spirit / mind of Saul, and not any external cosmic being.</p>


text:
<p>An evil spirit from Yahweh came on Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing his harp- </p><p>Saul's jealousy, confirmed by God psychologically confirming him in it through the Spirit, was on account of David's victories, especially over Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (<a href='B:90 8:7-8'>1Sa 8:7-8</a>; <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>), and his subsequent popularity with the people. Saul watched David's spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (<a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). The Jews were jealous of the evident moral perfection of the Lord Jesus, and his popularity with the people which he seemed to effortlessly achieve. Joseph's brothers had a similar motivation to Saul. David as a type of Christ comes out clearly here.</p>


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


text:
<p>Saul sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning- </p><p>They presumably didn't charge into the house and murder David there because Saul feared a public uproar if he did so. David's escape to his house implies he didn't think Saul would follow him there; he assumed this was just another temper tantrum. Psalms 59 refers to this time, and seems to speak of Saul's thugs roaming the streets looking to kill David. For the first time, the servants of Saul become proactively aggressive, having accepted his charge to kill David given in :1.</p><p>Michal, David’s wife, told him, If you don’t save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed- </p><p><a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> seems to allude here: "My soul longs for the Lord more than watchmen long for the morning; more than watchmen for the morning". Watching for the morning is the phrase used about the plot to slay David by morning (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>). <a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> would therefore have originated with David's reflections that whatever the careful watchings of man to destroy him, his focus was upon longing for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>So Michal let David down through the window. He fled and escaped- </p><p>Escape through a window and down a wall is something experienced by the spies in Jericho (<a href='B:60 2:15'>Jos 2:15</a>), and Saul in Damascus (<a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a>). Again we note how circumstances repeat between the experiences of God's children; and if we perceive that, then we will realize that man is not alone. No experience is so awfully unique or without precedent. This is the value of the histories God chose to record in the Bible.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Then he went himself to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu, and he asked, Where are Samuel and David? Someone said, They are at Naioth in Ramah- </p><p>LXX "the well of the threshing-floor that is in Sephi (or, the hill)". Saul ought to have learnt from experience. He had sent messengers to take David from his own house and murder him, but when they failed, he went himself; and failed to find David. Now circumstances repeated, as they do in lives where God is at work. When he is calmly told that David is at Naioth, and realizes that his messengers have been overcome by the Spirit; he ought to have realized that he would not prevail alone. But he continues; and despite his headlong folly, by pure grace, God's Spirit attempts to yet again burst into his life and turn him around.</p>


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


text:
<p>He stripped off his clothes and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?- </p><p>The Spirit of God usually confirms the human spirit in the way the person wishes to go. But here we see how God at times makes a direct entrance into a person's life through His Spirit, as He had initially with Saul as he was out looking for lost donkeys. Twice God had told him that he was rejected from the kingship for his disobedience. But God dearly loved Saul, and really wanted their relationship to work, despite his mental illness and unspirituality. We marvel at God's desire to save and not to condemn, to accept rather than reject; and His tireless attempts to work even with the proud who have apparently turned away from God. For here God yet again comes into Saul's life and tries to almost force him to be humble.</p><p>To take off his kingly clothes before Samuel represented his willingness to resign the kingship for the sake of Samuel's prophetic word about David replacing him. We noted how Jonathan had willingly done this of his own initiative. But time and again, Saul refuses to follow on from the path God's Spirit placed him upon.</p>


text:
<p>David fled from Naioth in Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father- </p><p>David was clearly upset that Saul's oath before Yahweh not to kill him had been broken so unashamedly (<a href='B:90 19:6'>1Sa 19:6</a>). He quotes the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 31:36'>Gen 31:36</a>; perhaps not because the surrounding context was relevant, but because God's word and Biblical precedent was ever on David's mind. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. This all recalls "You seek to kill me::. which of you convicts me of sin?" (<a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 8:46'>Joh 8:46</a>). Again, we see clearly David as a type of Christ.</p><p>That he seeks my life?- </p><p>Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David's sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David's patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said to David, Whatever your soul desires, I will do it for you- </p><p>Jonathan recognizes that what David has said in :3 is true, and as noted on :2, he realizes that indeed he is just refusing to see evil in his father. His loyalties were torn between David and Saul, and now by saying this he comes down on the side of David. "Soul" is the word for "life" in :1, and Jonathan surely means 'Whatever it takes to save your life, I will do'. As noted on :3, we might wish to see at this point more faith by both of them in Samuel's prophetic word that David shall become king. Their faith in that word went up and down, with <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a> being a high point in it.</p>


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


text:
<p>If your father misses me at all then say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem, his city, for it is the yearly sacrifice there for all the family’- </p><p>This was a lie, as David was in the field (:5). It raises the question as to whether a lie is acceptable at times. We think of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt and Rahab, whose lie was an act of faith.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>The king sat on his seat by the wall as usual and Jonathan sat opposite and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was empty- </p><p>The Divine cameraman zooms in close up. "As usual" again shows that these peace offering feasts, the rough equivalent to the breaking of bread service under the new covenant, were held regularly. And David was usually in attendance at them, despite Saul's obvious insincerity towards him. See on :18. The fact Abner and not Jonathan sat by Saul's side, with Jonathan opposite Saul, would suggest a distance between them, with Abner now hoping to be next in line to the throne after Saul; an honour which Jonathan had resigned to David.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>He said, ‘Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city. My brother has commanded me to be there. Now, if I have found favour in your eyes, please let me go away and see my brothers’. That is why he has not come to the king’s table- </p><p>This would have restimulated Saul's memories of his daughter Michal saying that David had asked her "Let me go away::.". He would have felt both his children were lying to him because of their greater loyalty to David. Jonathan's lie was really without any credibility, for nobody in Israel, let alone a Saul supporter like David's brother, would have demanded David's presence at home rather than with Saul at the palace.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully- </p><p>If as suggested this feast was a kind of peace offering celebration, this refusal to eat with them on the second day was a sign of refusing religious fellowship with his own father. To eat with someone, or not do so, was a major statement in ancient society. It was as good as quitting relationship with Saul. See on :33.</p><p>The Hebrew implies Jonathan felt shamed for the sake of the shame put on David, and was angry because of it. This again bears the hallmark of psychological credibility; for there's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a>). Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]::. and be ashamed" (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed::. their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (<a href='B:510 19:27-28'>Act 19:27-28</a>). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>Jonathan called after the boy, Go quickly! Hurry! Don’t delay! Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows and came to his master- </p><p>These words were intended to be heard by David, who was to not delay in fleeing. But Jonathan's love for David led him to change plans at the last minute; which is completely imaginable in such a relationship and emotional moment. The whole ruse with the archery practice had been in order to relay these words to David. But then the plans change- and Jonathan meets David face to face, because love overpowers him.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Then David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, Why are you alone and no-one with you?- </p><p>This Ahimelech could be the Ahijah descendant of Eli of <a href='B:90 14:3'>1Sa 14:3</a>:&nbsp; Yet Eli's family had been cursed in 1 Samuel 2, 3. It could be that this person in later life experienced the curses. But it would be far from the only time in Bible history where a curse is pronounced but not carried out. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap.</p><p>The Lord refers to Ahimelech as "Abiathar the high priest" (<a href='B:480 2:26'>Mar 2:26</a>). There were times when two high priests held the office at the same time (<a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a>; <a href='B:130 24:3'>1Ch 24:3</a>; <a href='B:110 1:45'>1Ki 1:45</a> cp. <a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a>). Or His idea may have been "Abiathar who was the high priest later on", just as we read of Jesse begetting "David the king" (<a href='B:470 1:6'>Mat 1:6</a>), not immediately, but only later was he king. Or "Rahab the harlot" (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), "Mathew the publican" (<a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has charged me with a task and has said to me ‘Let no-one know anything about it or what I have commanded you’. I have told the young men to go to a meeting place- </p><p>The LXX makes the last sentence part of Saul's supposed command, and makes it purposefully unclear what their mission was, giving it a code name which Ahimelech would not perceive: "and I have charged my servants to be in the place that is called, The faithfulness of God, phellani maemoni". But we wonder whether David's lie was right or even necessary. He was simply desperately hungry and needed help for his men. If he had told Ahimelech the truth, he likely would have helped him. But he clearly doubts Ahimelech's loyalty to him and therefore makes out that he is still working for Saul, and just needs some help whilst on a secret mission for the king. I noted throughout 1 Samuel 20 that David struggled with elements of distrust even for Jonathan. He must have felt so lonely, and must have had the impression that every man's hand was potentially against him. This again is absolutely how a man going through his experiences would have felt. It is absolutely psychologically credible, and such internal harmony gives us every reason to believe this record is true and is indeed inspired by God. Or it may be that he was seeking to preserve the priest from trouble with Saul.</p>


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>


