Consider how poor Hannah was driven through the sorrow of her life to coin the phrase " the Lord of hosts" for the first time in Scripture (1 Sam. 1:11), so strong became her sense of the strength and manifestation of Yahweh in His Angels.
The close association between Angels and answered prayer resulted in many of the early believers conceiving of God in terms of an Angel, as Jacob in particular did. Hannah is another example; she prayed to the Lord of Hosts (Angels) to "look on the affliction of Thine handmaid" (1 Sam. 1:11); and the Angels are God's eyes through which He looks on us. She came to pray "before the Lord" (v. 15)- i. e. before the Angel dwelling over the ark. Angels are associated with conception- the cases of Samson, John and Jesus quickly spring to mind.
1 Sam. 2:21 describes the LORD "visiting Hannah" so she would conceive- perhaps another reference to the physical sending of an Angel as in the case of Sarah. 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 Gen. 18:10
Notice the fascinating repetition within 1 Sam. 3:4-6,10,16: the Angel calls Samuel’s name, and he replies “Here am I”. Then Eli calls his name for the first time, and Samuel likewise responds “Here am I”- insisting that Eli has already been calling him, when in fact it had been the Angel. Clearly the Angel spoke to Samuel with the voice of Eli! Could this imply that that Angel was Eli’s guardian? At very least it reflects how closely sensitive and understanding the Angels are to their charges on earth- they can imitate the exact intonation of their voices! By all means compare this with how the early believers were sure that what appeared to be Peter standing at the door was his Angel- they imagined that his guardian Angel looked exactly like him.
4:21- see on Ez. 8:4
10:9 The association of an Angel with God's "good spirit" in Neh. 9:20 suggests that the good and evil spirits that troubled Saul were actually Angelically-controlled dispositions of mind, co-ordinated by two different Angels. This giving of a new heart to Saul by the Angel (1 Sam. 10:9) appears to be the basis of Jer. 31:33, where God says He will make a new Covenant with them (remember it was an Angel who made the Old Covenant also), when He "will put My Law in their inward parts. . . and will be their God" . 'The God of Israel' is an Angelic title. This giving a new heart to Israel described here and in Jer. 32:39 and Ez. 36:26 appears to be over and above Israel's personal spirituality, although as with the case of Saul it will probably be a vast magnification of some small spiritual effort made of their own freewill, as Saul must surely have had. Yet these words are quoted in the New Testament about God doing this to our hearts now (Heb. 8:10); inviting us to read the other passages in the New Testament concerning the Spirit creating a new mind or creation in us as referring to the Angel magnifying and developing the initial freewill effort that we make to be spiritual. In this light consider Acts 15:8,9; 2 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:14-20. The Angels being so strongly associated with the word of God invites us to think that they act in large measure through the word in effecting this 'magnification' of our own effort.
10:27- see on Ps. 38:13.
11:7-see on 1 Sam. 14:28,31.
Saul was trying to imitate Gideon when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (1 Sam. 11:11 = Jud. 7:16; 1 Sam. 13:5 = Jud. 7:12; 1 Sam. 14:24,28,31 = Jud. 8:4,5). He may have followed Samson's weak side when at this same time he demanded to be avenged of his enemies (1 Sam. 14:24); yet this wasn't Samson at his best (Jud. 15:7; 16:28).
Samuel said that to cease to pray for sinful Israel would be to sin against the Lord (1 Sam. 12:23). 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.
13:5,6-see on 1 Sam. 14:28,31.
14:7 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 Sam.14. Note how Saul also calls him " young man" in 17:58. There was evidently an intense 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) has firm connection with David and Jonathan being described as having their souls knit together in 18:1. The record of David's battle with the Philistines in 2 Sam. 5:17-24 has certain similarities with the exploits of 14:8-11; 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" (16:18), even before the Goliath incident. This would be understandable if he had gone with Jonathan in chapter 14. His becoming Saul's armourbearer (16:21) would then be seen as a logical promotion from being Jonathan's armourbearer.
There are clear connections between Jonathan and Gideon; compare 1 Sam. 14:10-20 with Jud. 7:3,10,11,14,22. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (1 Chron. 9:40), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon'. Gideon was Jonathan's hero; it's not wrong to have such Biblical heroes! See on 1 Sam. 19:5.
14:24- see on 11:11 and on 1 Sam. 14:28,31.
Paul may have had Jonathan in mind as typical of the church when he spoke of our eyes being enlightened (Eph. 1:18), using the very words of 1 Sam. 14:27 concerning Jonathan. He was a type of us, devoted to David-Jesus.
14:28,31 Saul saw Gideon as his spiritual hero, and this was a senseless, surface level imitation of Gideon devoid of spirit: 1 Sam. 11:11 = Jud. 7:16; 13:5 = Jud. 7:12; 13:6 = Gideon offering before fighting Midian; 14:5,20 = Jud. 7:22; 14:24 = imitating Gideon and his men going without food; 14:28,31 = Jud. 8:4,5; 11:7 = Gideon killing his father's oxen.
14:39- see on 1 Sam. 20:30,31
14:45 Hair- Alluded to in Mt. 10:30; Lk. 21:18. See on 2 Sam. 1:23.
Paul speaks of the church as workers together with God (2 Cor. 6:1), probably alluding to Jonathan having " wrought with God" (1 Sam. 14:45). Again, Jonathan is representative of us all.
As Jonathan wrought great salvation in Israel in 1 Sam. 14:45, so did David (the same phrase occurs in 1 Sam. 19:5). 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 1 Sam. 20:33, where Saul tries to kill Jonathan with a javelin, as he did to David. Yet wonderfully, David seems to have counted Jonathan as if he actually had been the champion against Goliath; he describes him as " the mighty" (2 Sam. 1:27), using the same Hebrew word translated " champion" in 1 Sam. 17:51 concerning Goliath. Likewise Christ shares his victory with us to the extent that he counts us as if we were the victors on Calvary.
1 Sam. 15:28,29,35: "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". This juxtaposition of such conflicting statements seems to imply that it was the Angel who allowed Israel to have kings, although it was not the will of God Himself. He allowed the Angel to permit Israel to have a king, although the Angel later repented of this. God Himself, who does not repent, then firmly intervened to replace Saul with David.
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 (1 Sam. 16:8 cp. 1 Chron. 8:33).
16:19,22- see on 1 Sam. 17:58.
16:21 Loved him - see on 1 Sam. 18:20.
God departing from Saul may mean that the Angel physically left him (1 Sam. 16:23)- 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; the present writer certainly does. It would seem logical that 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 Christ's cry "My God, My God (His Angel? see later), 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 how all things in life come and go in rhythms, and so also does our spirituality (Job 12:15; 34:29; 36:32; 39:3- the context of each of these needs to be studied to get the point). So Jesus was perhaps on a spiritual 'low' cycle due to the Angel not being with Him. Maybe Christ's question on the cross alluded back to the Angel's promise to Joshua that He would never forsake him. Joshua needed this to be repeated to him many times, implying he questioned whether the Angel really would never forsake him. Jesus maybe had the same experience- in which case the stress would have been 'Why have you forsaken Me?- when you emphasized to my great type in Joshua that you wouldn't?' 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 Gen. 18:10
David And GoliathDavid 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 Dan.2, where the stone refers to Christ. Note how lion and bear (17:34 cp. Dan.7:4,5) and brass and iron (17:5-7 cp. Dan.2:32,33) are all mentioned in the record. Goliath's death by a fatal wound in the head (1 Sam.17:49) must look back to Gen.3:15, 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 the same 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" . 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 Thess.2 refers back to Goliath as his prototype, in which case the image of Dan.2 and the man of sin are equated. 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 ye 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 killeth 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 (Rev.5:3-5)- until our Lord prevailed on the cross. 'Golgotha' meaning 'The place of the skull' may well be the place near Jerusalem where David buried Goliath's skull (17:54), greatly strengthening this connection. Whilst speaking of words, " Ephes-Dammim" meaning 'border of blood' suggests 'Aceldama', the " field of blood" . Goliath coming out to make his challenges at morning and evening (1 Sam.17:16) 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. The ultimate wagerIf David represents 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. Something of the same wager is implied in Gen. 3:`5, 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; Rom.6:17,18 may even be referring back to this passage: " Ye were the servants of sin, but (by baptism into Christ's death)...being then made free from sin, ye 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. With that weight on him was he ever jovial, light hearted, off hand? Surely the growing flippancy and laid back, humorous atmosphere in our meetings is alien to this spirit of Christ? " Wherefore...let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run (not stroll) with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus; who for the joy that was set before him (not now!) endured the cross...consider him...lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood (in your) striving against sin" (Heb.12:1-4). There is no doubt that these verses teach that Christ's personal struggle against sin in Gethsemane, prefigured by the pressure on David as he ran towards Goliath, is meant to be imitated by us. Despised and rejectedPlenty 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 (1 Sam.17:28-30). Eliab's " Why camest thou down hither?" matches Christ's brothers telling him " depart hence" (Jn.7:3). The crucifixion psalms emphasize how Jesus felt rejected by both Israel and His family as he fought his Goliath then (e.g. Ps.69:8). 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 (Ex.4:22). It is twice stressed that David's brothers " followed Saul" (1 Sam.17:13,14); 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 (Ps. 31:11), fleeing from him, as the Lord’s friends also did (Ps. 31:11 = Mt. 26:56). 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 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). David's other brothers also have names which have connections with an apostate Israel. Abinadab means " The Father is willing" ; cp. " All day long have I stretched forth mine hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom.10:21). Shammah means 'desolation, astonishment, ruin'. God would " make thy land desolate (shammah)" (Jer.4:7), and Israel were to be an astonishment to the world after their rejection. 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 (1 Sam.8:20). 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 1 Sam.16:7 implies), but was chosen because of the spiritual state of his heart. 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" (1) . 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 powerful as Goliath was. There seems to be a verbal connection at least between the Jews' mocking question of Christ " Where is thy father?" (Jn.8:19) and Saul's " whose son is this youth" (17:55)- or was Saul's question also a subtle accusation of illegitimacy? Ps.106:13 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 1 Sam.13:8. 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. Of sheep and shepherdsWe 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 (Gen.37:13) resulting in his figurative death and resurrection in the pit, and the Son being sent by the Father to inspect the Jewish vineyard, with the subsequent murder of him by the husbandmen (Lk.20:14). " As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise..." (Jn.14:31) in the context of Christ's going to fight sin on the cross 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 (Lk.15:4-6). 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 (Is.53:6). This lost sheep parable is also picked up in 1 Peter 2:25: " For ye 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 Is.53:5,6: " 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. 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 carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage" (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. Notice too how David " ran into the army" after leaving behind " his carriage" , 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. Revving up the faith" 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 (2) 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" (Is.59:16,17- cp. David's shunning of such physical armour for its spiritual counterpart. Is there a conscious allusion to David and Goliath here?). 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 killeth 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. Angelic help" 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) hath 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 thee 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 us in our crosses receive 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: " My God (Angel), Why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Mt.27:46). Total faith" And David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; thy 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" (Jn.14:1), 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. Such was his totality of faith that David could calmly call out " I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee" (17:46). David's emphasis on cutting off Goliath's head (cp.v.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, which 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 Jn.14:31: " That the world may know" that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through Christ's loving obedience to the Father (cp. Jn.17:23). Brief battleDavid 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 (Lk.22:41). 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 Col.2:15, 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. Triumph over every sin" 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 (Gen.22:18 cp. Lk.1:73-75; Acts 3:25-27; Mic.7:19). 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. The " reproach" was taken away from Israel by David's victory (1 Sam.17:26), as Christ carried away the reproach of our sins on the cross (Ps.69:9; Rom.15:3); therefore we can stand unreproachable before God at judgment, with no sin at all against us- due to Christ's victory (Col.1:22). As a final inspiration- 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 Ps.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 (2 Sam. 21:16-22)? 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. So let us too arise, shout, and pursue those sins which appear so triumphant. Additional homework for the enthusiast would be a study of Psalms 8 and 144, 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. Ps.144:3 is amazing: " What is...the son of man (Jesus) that Thou takest account of him?" , showing our Lord's humility is such that even now He is amazed that God bothered to help him, so low is his estimation of the flesh he had. Political aspectsThe political aspects of this passage have not been considered; the following points are to stimulate thought along this equally fruitful line. 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" (1 Sam.17:49), 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 an Arab? 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" (Dan.11:45). The Philistines making their constant painful incursions into an apostate Israel may well have links with the P.L.O. activities today. Goliath was from Gath (1 Sam.17:4), meaning " winepress" , with its Armageddon and judgement hints. Similarly the conflict lasted for 40 days (1 Sam.17:16)- another link with the coming Divine judgements. David's mocking " Who is this uncircumcised Philistine?" matches " Who art thou, O great mountain?" which was to be destroyed " not by might..but by My spirit" (Zech.4:6,7), 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 subtly alluded to, 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 others. But now the possibilities are opened up to the reader to work through 1 Sam.17 again from this political/ latter day prophecy perspective. Matchless JonathanIt must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, " the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (1 Sam.18:1,3). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after his victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, " Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" , pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of his victory without those things (cp.1 Sam.17:39). 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 (1 Sam.20:31); as we should in this wicked world. As Saul cast a javelin at David, so he did at Jonathan (1 Sam.20:33); 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" (1 Sam.20:34). Is this not our response to our world in its' ceaseless blasphemy of Christ? 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 (1 Sam.23:16), re-confirming their covenant together (1 Sam.18:3; 20:8,16; 23:18). No wonder their goodbyes were so hard: " they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1 Sam.20:41). 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" (1 Sam.23:17). Our communion meetings with the Lord during our wilderness journey must surely mirror those meetings. 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- re.Jonathan,v.25) slain upon thy high places...I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Sam.1:19,26). Such love should typify our relationship with Jesus. But does it? Our InspirationThe David and Goliath conflict was not only inspirational to Jonathan, but to the men of Israel generally. It seems from 1 Chron. 11:13,14 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. Notes(1) See 'The Real Devil '. |
To the Hebrew thinker, there is an unmistakeable similarity between the Hebrew words Shaul and Sheol (grave); it is a matter of pointing. In the same way as Judas personified the Jewish system and the flesh behind it (hence they are both called the devil), Saul too personified what was evil; he was the great enemy, the satan, of David, as the Jews and the flesh were the great satan for Christ. In this we see David as a type of Christ. |
17:45 hosts - see on Rev. 21:12
17:45,46 Note how the Angelic ‘hosts’ of God are contrasted with the ‘hosts’ of the enemies of God’s people (2 Sam. 5:24; 1 Sam. 17:45,46; Is. 37:36). 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” (1 Sam. 17:47). 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 Song 6:13, which speaks of the dance or company of the two hosts- those of Angels and the corresponding hosts on earth?
17:58: "Saul said to (David, after killing Goliath), Whose son art thou?" . This cannot mean that Saul didn't know David, or who his father was; for in 16:19, before the Goliath incident, " Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son" to ease Saul's depressions. So the question of 17:58 perhaps implied something like: 'Whose son are you? Jesse's? No, from now on you're adopted into my family, you're my 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 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" (16:22). 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 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" (18:11), 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 (18:26,28). 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.
18:1-see on 1 Sam. 23:16,18
18:1,2 Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him (16:23), and the very special relationship between the spiritual helper and the helped had fully developed. Yet in such cases it isn't uncommon for there to arise a bitterness between the convert and the converter; exactly as happened with David and Saul. In response to his victory over Goliath, " Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house" (18:1,2). This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. David was " pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was " pleased" at the prospect (18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of the relationship.
It must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, " the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (1 Sam.18:1,3). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after his victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, " Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" , pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of his victory without those things (cp.1 Sam.17:39). A good example of how the souls of David and Jonathan were spiritually knit together is shown by the identical style of prayer they had (20:12 cp.23:10; the question arises: Who influenced who?). After Christ's victory on the cross, he entered into a covenant with us his church. The intricately related friendship between David and Jonathan thus becomes typical of that between the Lord Jesus and ourselves. The idea of souls being knit together occurs in Col. 2:2,19, concerning how our hearts and souls are knit together with Christ. This alone encourages us to see Jonathan as typical of ourselves.
18:4 His / the robe- see on 2 Sam. 1:23.
18:4 Jonathan stripped himself of his " robe...and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1 Sam. 18:4). The triple phrase " and / even to..." indicates the totality of this stripping. "Bow" and " sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (Gen. 48:22; Josh. 24:12; 2 Kings 6:22; 1 Chron. 5:18; Hos. 1:7). Not only did he give David the weapons of his human strength (cp.13:22), but he appears to have stripped himself almost physically bare (cp. Mic. 2:8).Stripping like this is almost always associated with shame. The same word occurs in relating how the Philistines stripped Jonathan of his clothes and weapons, as he lay slain on Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:8,9). This all seems to suggest that Jonathan was saying to David: " I deserve to have been killed by Goliath (cp. the devil), so in a sense I will 'die' now by entering into a covenant with you, knitting my life / soul with yours. Rather than the Philistines (cp. our sins) killing, shaming and stripping me, I'll do it to myself'. Isn't this exactly our response to the cross in the ongoing 'baptism' we commit ourselves to? And of course we shouldn't miss the connection with Israel stripping themselves, deeply conscious of their sins, and then entering into covenant with God (Ex. 33:6). Yet does the cross of Christ really fill us with that sense of shame, that desire to throw away all our human strength and knit our souls with that of Christ...?
18:5 To achieve this state of mind must have required a lot of conscious thought and self-analysis by David. We get the sense that David pitted his wisdom against Saul's anger and bitter persecution; David's wisdom is mentioned in tandem with Saul's anger against him (1 Sam. 18:5,11,15,30). "David behaved himself wisely (AVmg “prospered”) in all his ways; and the Lord was with him" runs like a refrain through 1 Sam. 18:5,14,15,30. These words are referring back to Dt. 29:9: "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" . David's charmed life and prospering despite all manner of plotting against him was due to his single-minded devotion to the Law; to those very chapters which tired Bible readers are wont to skip over as boring and not motivating. Yet David found something immensely inspiring and practical about the Law. The word made him wiser than his foes (Ps. 119:98).
18:5,6-see on 2 Sam. 1:23.
18:11- see on 1 Sam. 17:58.
18:19 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 (1 Sam. 18:19).
18:20- see on 1 Sam. 18:1,2.
18:20 As Jonathan's close friend, it was inevitable that David got to know his sister, Michal. David and Michal began their relationship on this basis. Jonathan's spiritual side would have had some reflection in his sister. For even Saul their father had a spiritual side, and it is fair to assume that Jonathan's mother was also a spiritual woman. It is easily overlooked that David later married Saul's wives (2 Sam. 12:8)- including the mother of Jonathan and Michal. So now we can reconstruct the complex spiritual and emotional situation. David without doubt experienced a state of 'in-loveness' with Jonathan. His lament of 2 Sam.1 is proof enough of this. The spirituality which was in Jonathan was also seen in Michal his sister. And David loved Saul, too. Again, his lament over him is proof of this- it shows that David's loving respect for him was not just the result of a steely act of the will, forcing himself to patiently respect Saul. There was something in him which he loved. And we can assume that David did not just marry women whom he didn't spiritually love. There was therefore something in Saul's wives which was spiritual. And the whole thing was not just one way. Jonathan loved David, " Michal, Saul's daughter loved David" (18:20), and Saul clearly had love-hate feelings for David; there was something about him which he deeply loved and respected. The intensity of his hatred of David must have been psychologically connected to a deep-seated love. "He loved him greatly" is the comment of 16:21. The seeds of the love between David and the house of Saul would have begun early on. The reason why all this information is included is to provide comfort for us in the incredible emotional and spiritual complexities which we find ourselves in. In the flesh, David cannot have known which way to turn, mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Yet in the Spirit he could turn to his Heavenly Father, whose mind can totally fathom our pain, who can know in totality our every situation.
18:22- see on 1 Sam. 20:13.
18:26,28- see on 1 Sam. 17:58.
19:1,2- see on 1 Sam. 20:13.
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 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.
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 (1 Sam. 19:5 cp. Jud. 15:18).
19:5 Further confirmation of Jonathan seeing 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 1 Sam.14:10-20 with Jud.7:3,10,11,14,22. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (1 Chron.9:40), 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 (Jud. 9:17). In other words, Jonathan saw David as the perfect fulfilment of all he spiritually wished to be, he felt that David 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? For this is what the David and Jonathan relationship points ahead to.
20:1,2- see on 1 Sam. 20:13.
20:8- see on Josh. 2:12
20:8 Jonathan saw David as God manifest. Yet David saw Jonathan likewise. The words which he speaks to him in 20:8 he later repeats to God (Ps. 7:3,4). We should see each other likewise, in Christ.
20:12- see on 1 Sam. 18:1-3.
Jonathan saw David as God manifest; thus " Jonathan said unto David , O Lord God of Israel...." (20:12). Our reflection on Christ's great victory should also makes us appreciate the more finely the degree to which " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" . Yet despite Jonathan's deep respect for David, evidently seeing David as his spiritual superior, David speaks of himself as being so inferior to Jonathan! Three times in two verses he calls himself " thy servant" (20:7,8). And David felt that he had " found grace" in Jonathan's eyes (20:3). What a relationship was this! David truly feeling Jonathan's servant, whilst Jonathan gasped at David's spiritual stature. And with what precision do we see the Spirit artlessly capturing our position before Christ, the " servant of all" the church. There was something incredibly mutual about their relationship; Jonathan was a real inspiration to David. He strengthened him, as the disciples did Christ. It is difficult to accurately appreciate the sense in which we have a mutuality of friendship with Christ; the sense in which we actually give him something.
20:13 Jonathan certainly seems to have seen Saul in a somewhat too positive light. His statement that God would be with David as He had been with Saul in the past and was still with him (so the Hebrew seems to imply) surely bespeaks a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of Saul's apostasy (20:13). Despite Saul commanding Jonathan by clear pronouncement to kill David (19:1 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 (20:1,2). David gently pointed out, in the spirit of Christ, that Jonathan did not realize how deceptive Saul was (20:3). Saul gave the impression that he 'delighted' in David (18:22), using the very same word as in 19:2: " Jonathan...delighted much in David" . In other words, Saul and our surrounding world can appear to have the same attitude to David / Jesus as ourselves. Those who see the apostasy as good 'fellow-Christians' have fallen headlong into this trap. 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. Again, the similarities with ourselves should be clear; our familiarity with sin, our hereditary closeness to it, leads us to question the real danger it has for the Christ-man. Our sense of the seriousness of sin likewise tends to blow hot and cold.
20:14,15,42 seem to hint at some kind of nervousness, even fear, in Jonathan, despite his closeness to David. He seems to have almost feared that David would take revenge 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 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 nature, the problems of our natural ancestry, struggle to reassure ourselves of the love of Christ that passes knowledge, just as Jonathan must have looked deeper and deeper into the malice-less love of his friend David.
The covenant between Jonathan and David was an eternal one (20:15; 23:17), and was reconfirmed during their brief meetings together, during which they earnestly looked ahead to the Kingdom (23:17). 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. 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.
20:30 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 (2 Sam. 12:8); in other words, they were really close in their relationship; so close, 2 Sam. 12:8 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: " Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman...thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to...the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" (1 Sam. 20:30). This hints at least two things: firstly, Saul had a bad relationship with his wife; and secondly, he suspected some kind of unfaithfulness in her, perhaps only on a mental level.
20:30,31 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 (20:30,31). 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 (1 Sam. 23:17). There must be hundreds of Christians-cum-high flying executives worldwide who can identify completely with this scenario. The bitterness underlying Saul's words in 1 Sam. 20:30,31 indicates a certain element of love-hate in Jonathan's relationship with Saul. We can sense this in the record of 1 Sam. 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 passively aggressive (cp. Gen. 3:15), 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 (1 Sam. 14:39), 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.
20:31-34 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 (1 Sam.20:31); as we should in this wicked world. As Saul cast a javelin at David, so he did at Jonathan (1 Sam.20:33); 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" (1 Sam.20:34). Is this not our response to our world in its' ceaseless blasphemy of Christ?
20:33- see on 1 Sam. 14:45.
20:41 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 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 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" (20:41). "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 (Eph. 3:19).
20:42-see on 1 Sam. 23:16,18
22:5 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 (1 Sam. 22:5). 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 (1 Sam. 23:2). 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.
23:2- see on 1 Sam. 22:5.
23:10 - see on 1 Sam. 18:1-3.
23:16,17 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 (1 Sam.23:16), re-confirming their covenant together (1 Sam.18:3; 20:8,16; 23:18). No wonder their goodbyes were so hard: " they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1 Sam.20:41). 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" (1 Sam.23:17). Our communion meetings with the Lord during our wilderness journey must surely mirror those meetings.
23:16,18 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 23:18: "David abode in the wood , and Jonathan went to his house " . " Jonathan Saul's son (note the emphasis again!) arose, and went to David into the wood" (23:16). 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 20:42: "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 Gen. 13:8-12. 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 (18:1). What company we are in! 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?
23:17- see on 1 Sam. 20:15 and 1 Sam. 20:30,31.
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 (1 Sam. 23:27).
24:3 To relieve himself. David and his men were temporarily living [AV “remained” is a poor translation] 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. He 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. 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 Sam. 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. 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 1 Sam. 26:19- 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.
24:4 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 2 Sam. 18:4 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.
Another reading would be that God hadn’t said this at all (24:6 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.
24:4 Skirt- the hem of blue which was to remind the Israelite of their dedication to Yahweh’s holiness. Num. 15:38,39 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 (1 Sam. 15:22-28). 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.
24:5 Heart smote him- but David hadn’t done anything wrong. Conscience isn’t ultimately reliable (1 Cor. 4:4); 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 2 Sam. 24:10, 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 Ps. 102:4, 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: “My heart is smitten, and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread” (Ps. 102:4). 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.
24:6 We are all anointed in that we are in Christ, the anointed (2 Cor. 1:21). 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 (1 Chron. 10:4,5).
24:7 Rebuked- 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 1 Sam. 26:8 that David failed to convince his men to share his attitude to Saul.
24:15 - see on Ps. 119 (introduction).
25:5 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 Sam. 25). And yet the same situation repeated in its essence when he sent messengers to Hanun who were likewise misinterpreted and rebuffed (2 Sam. 10:3). 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…?
25:31 The way Abigail asked David to remember her for good when he came in his kingdom, knowing that he was perfect and suffering unjustly....is exactly the spirit of the thief on the cross. And David like Jesus responds that he has “accepted thy person”.
27:1- see on Ps. 119 (introduction).
Note the similarities between the David / Nabal / Abigail experience and those of Jacob, whilst he too kept flocks (1 Sam. 25:35 = Gen. 32:20; 25:18 = Gen. 32:13; 25:27 = Gen. 33:11).
Chapter 31 Here Saul and Jonathan are described in terms representative of apostate Israel; see Am. 2:14,15; Micah 1 and 2 and expositions there.
It is really stressed that Saul and Jonathan " fell" on Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:1,8; 2 Sam. 1:10,12,19,25,27), using a Hebrew word which is often used about spiritual falling. The fact that "the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons" (1 Sam. 31:2) gives the impression of them fleeing from the Philistine soldiers. This sends the mind back to the Law's warning that an apostate Israel would flee before their enemies (Dt. 28:25 ).
31:6 There were times when Jonathan's relationship with Saul and the court became more strained than at others. Their all consuming desire was increasingly the destruction of David. Our surrounding world has a similar, obsessive, anti-Christ enthusiasm to which we are diametrically opposed. It would seem that Saul's whole family turned against David. A comparison of 1 Chron. 10:6 and 1 Sam. 31:6 shows a parallel between the house of Saul and his men; and it was the men of Saul who aided Saul in persecuting David (23:25,26). Further divergence between David and Saul's family is shown by the fact that Michal, Saul's daughter, either left David or was divorced by him (2 Sam. 2:2 cp. 6:20).