I Samuel Chapters 19-21:
David, Persecuted by Saul, Runs For His Life
Lord God, Heavenly Father, throughout the trials and triumphs of David’s life, he had confidence in Your guiding presence and Your gracious control over his life. Give us that same confidence in You, Lord. The confidence to trust You, the confidence to submit to Your divine authority, and the confidence to trust in Your mercy when we seek Your forgiveness or experience hardship. David was not a perfect man, but he loved You with all his heart because You forgave his sins and made him the ancestral father of the Promised Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Send Your Holy Spirit to guide us in our study of David’s path to kingship. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord and Savior. Amen.
“True martyrs are such as those of whom the Lord says, ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake.’ It is not, therefore, those who suffer persecution for their unrighteousness and for the divisions which they impiously introduce into Christian unity, but those who suffer for righteousness’ sake that are truly martyrs.” (Augustine, The Correction of the Donatists, 2.9)
David was handsome, musically-gifted, intelligent, loyal, courageous, and resourceful on the battlefield. Above all else, he was a truly Godly person. He was loved by nearly everyone who knew him – with the exception of King Saul. David’s greatest asset was that he loved and was loved by God. David was not naive; he wa wise beyond his years and politically astute. He knew what destiny God had planned for him as Israel’s king designate. In his turbulent relationship with King Saul, David exemplified a true martyr in the sense that he was someone who was persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Chapters 19 through 21 of I Samuel record for us the intense drama that consumes the lives of King Saul, Saul’s children Jonathan and Michal, and Saul’s son-in-law, David.
Chapter 19: Saul’s Hatred For David Grows
“… then innocent blood will not be poured out within your land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, nor will you be guilty of bloodshed.” Deuteronomy 19:10
1 Samuel 19:1-7 — Jonathan Intercedes for David.
Saul went from being afraid of David (18:12-14) to intensely hating him. Saul had probably come to the conclusion that David was the man Samuel spoke of as the neighbor God had chosen instead of him to be king of Israel (15:28). Saul had already attempted to kill David with a spear (18:11) and then attempted to arrange for David to be killed on the battlefield (18:17-25). Now Saul informed his staff that he had every intention of killing David. Saul’s public announcement in 19:1 not only affirms that a significant split has occurred between Saul and David but also it was apparent that Jonathan was stuck in the middle between his father and his friend.
In our lesson we’ll be reminded of one of life’s most obvious, yet hardest lessons to learn: that with choices come consequences.
Saul had the choice of giving in to his jealousy and fear to bring about David’s death or to suppress those feelings and to not give in to the sin of killing an innocent man.
Jonathan had to choose between loyalty to his father and loyalty to his friend. He could either become an accomplice to his father’s evil plan to kill David (a plan which could have been advantageous to him as it would have made it more likely that He would succeed his father as king), or he could protect David and in essence forfeit his future throne.
David had the choice of either protecting himself by assassinating Saul, or he could avoid harming Saul by fleeing to become an outcast.
Jonathan offered to act as mediator. He sent David temporarily into hiding and then attempted to reason with his father to persuade him not to kill David.
It’s worth noting that Jonathan referred three times to Saul as “my father” in verses 2-3. However, when he spoke with Saul he didn’t speak to him as son speaks to his father, but rather in verse 4 he spoke to Saul as subject addresses his king. In the original Hebrew text, Jonathan used the word “sin” three times in verses 4 (twice) and again in verse 5.
This is the first of a succession of “threes” that we will observe throughout chapters 19-21. (The number three in the Bible often is used directly, or indirectly, in connection with God. For example, in Isaiah 6:3 we have “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Armies.” Numbers 6:24 gives us the threefold blessing of Aaron: “The LORD bless you and keep you. The LORD make His face to shine on you and be gracious to you. The LORD look on you with favor and give you peace.” And there are many more instances like this.)
* The story of these chapters revolves around the relationship of three men: Saul, Jonathan, and David.
* Saul attempts to kill David three times in 19:10, 11 and 20 (two additional attempts were made in 18:11).
* Jonathan speaks about Saul being his “father” three times in 19:2-3.
* Jonathan’s three uses of the word “sin” when referring to Saul intentions regarding David in 19:4-5.
* The three groups of Saul’s agents that he sent to arrest David at Ramah in 19:20-21.
* David asks Jonathan three rhetorical questions in 20:1.
* The “third day” mentioned in 20:19 and 20.
* The three arrows in Jonathan’s plan in 20:20.
* Saul refers to David as “son of Jesse” three times in 20:28, 30 and 31.
* David bows low before Jonathan three times in 20:41.
Jonathan’s argument that Saul should not kill David focuses on the hard truth that Saul will sin grievously if he kills an innocent man who has not sinned but who risked his life for Israel when fought Goliath, and through whom the LORD brought about a great victory for Israel
For Saul to have committed a sin against innocent blood clearly would have been a violation of the fifth commandment (also see Deuteronomy 19:10; 21:8-9; 27:25). Later Abigail (David’s future wife) would tell him the same thing: that if he killed an innocent man it would become a burden for him when he finally became king. (1 Samuel 25:30-31).
The result of Jonathan’s brave and blunt conversation with his father was that Saul listened to his son. Saul swore an oath in the LORD’s name that he would not harm David.
1 Samuel 19:8-10 – Saul’s Tries to Kill David Again!
After his talk with Saul, Jonathan felt sure that issue was settled because his father had listened to reason and had taken a solemn oath in God’s name not to harm David. However, Jonathan had failed to take one very important fact into consideration: namely, that a mentally ill person is not ultimately moved by reason but by emotion. Saul was temporarily moved by the emotion of Jonathan’s argument, but the emotional resolve that he expressed not to harm David would not last. Not long afterward, Saul attempted to kill David with a spear again, and David had to evade the attack and escape.
In your opinion, would David have been justified in defending himself? Why didn’t he just take up Saul’s spear and kill his enemy? What is the lesson for us?
Obviously David didn’t retaliate against Saul. That is a testament to David’s godly, self-controlled character. After all, Saul was not only David’s king to whom he owed his loyalty, Saul was also David’s father-in-law. More important, David recognized that Saul had been appointed king by God, and he was unwilling to take the life of the man that God had placed on the throne of Israel. The over-riding lesson for us here is that David refused to take matters into his own hand, letting his negative emotions rule him. Instead, He committed himself to pursing God’s will and righteousness in his dealings with Saul – even if that decision ran contrary to his own self-interests, and although it would likely mean suffering and persecution for him.
Later on David had at least two opportunities to kill. Some among his band of followers strongly encouraged him to do so. But David resisted that temptation to take the life of the Lord’s anointed. Instead, he continued to place his life and his destiny in God’s hands. David had not intention of putting himself on Israel’s throne through assassinating the sitting king. He would leave Saul’s life in the LORD’s hands, confident that God would keep his promise to him (to eventually give him Saul’s throne) and deal with Saul in HIS own way.
1 Samuel 19:11-17 David Escapes from Saul’s Fortress at Gibeah
In addition to Jonathan’s support, Saul’s daughter Michal is the second member of the royal family who stepped up to protect David. Michal, like her brother Jonathan, was also confronted with the choice between loyalty to her father and loyalty to her husband David. Given how erratic and angry Saul could be, she clearly risked her life to help David escape by letting him climb down from the upper window of their house to avoid the king’s emissaries who were sent at night to keep watch on David in order to capture and kill him in the morning.
In addition to David’s escape by climbing down the wall of his house, two other times in the Bible God delivered special servants of His by having them – with help – climb down walls in order to escape their enemies. Can you remember those two instances?
First, the Israelite spies in Jericho were saved by Rahab, who let them climb down from the window of her house in the city wall (Joshua 2:15). Fourteen centuries later, Saul/Paul escaped from his enemies in Damascus by being lowered down from the city wall in a basket (Acts 9:23-25).
In order to give David more time to escape, Michal took a household idol and a patch of goat’s hair making it appear that David was sleeping in his bed. Then she reported to her father that David was sick, which bought David even more time to escape. Apparently Saul’s household did not strictly observe the First Commandment that prohibited the possession and worship of idols. The Hebrew term “teraphim,” used verse 13, typically refers to small household idols that were symbols of good luck. This idol, however, was larger…..large enough to make someone believe a person was in the bed.
Eventually Saul became wise to his daughter’s ruse. When confronted by Saul, Michal said that her motivation in helping her husband escape was self-preservation – she told him that David had threatened her life. But, in fact, her real reason was that she, like Jonathan, was motivated to protect him because of her love for David.
1 Samuel 19:18-24 – David Flees From Saul To Ramah
David hurried north to find Samuel at Ramah, instead of heading south to his family in Bethlehem. Ramah was only about an hour’s walk from Gibeah while Bethlehem was ten miles away. Samuel was living at Ramah with a community of prophets (much like Elijah, Elisha and possibly Isaiah in 2 Kings 2:7; 4:38-44; 9:1; and Isaiah 8:16). We find some more “threes” in this part of the story: The three groups of messengers Saul sent to Ramah to arrest David (verses 20 and 21), and the various forms of the word “prophesy” that appear a combined six times in the Hebrew original text, in verses 20 (twice), 21 (twice), 23 and 24 (each once).
Saul sent his agents after David but when they arrived at Ramah, God miraculously intervened and the Spirit of God moved the first messengers to prophesy. The same thing happened with the second and third groups sent to capture David….and finally even to Saul himself. When Saul arrived, he stopped at a storage well outside the city. It is probably a communal cistern for collecting rain water and it might have been where the young women were going who Saul met when they were coming out of the gate at Ramah when he earlier approached the city, looking for Samuel (9:11). As Saul made his way into Ramah to find David and Samuel, God intervened and God’s Spirit made Saul prophesy like the three groups of men he had sent previously.
In verse 24 the statement “Is Saul also among the prophets?” brings to mind an event at the start of his reign, recorded in I Samuel 10:10-12. Then Saul was given this same experience as a “sign” that God had chosen him to be king and the exact same thing was said about him then that was said about him here in verse 24. The earlier experience had been a positive one, but here the experience is decidedly negative, as evidenced by Saul’s disgraceful behavior as when he tore off his clothes and lay naked on the ground throughout the day and night.
Chapter 20: Jonathan Helps David Escape
11 At the beginning of each of your months, you shall present as a whole burnt offering to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, and seven one-year-old male lambs without defect, 12 along with six quarts of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering for each bull; four quarts of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering for the one ram; 13 and two quarts of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering for every lamb—as a burnt offering with a pleasing aroma, an offering made by fire to the Lord. 14 Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, a quart and a half for a ram, and one quart for a lamb. This is the monthly burnt offering for each month of the year. 15 One male goat is to be presented as a sin offering to the Lord in addition to the regular burnt offering [olat ha-tamid]. Numbers 28:11-15
The olat ha-tamid was the daily communal burnt offering of an unblemished male lamb in a morning and afternoon liturgical service (see Numbers 28:4-8). All other sacrifices were offered besides the olat ha-tamid, were simply referred to as “the Tamid.” This communal meal is going to be a key part of the story recorded in this chapter.
1 Samuel 20:1-4 – David and Jonathan Discuss Saul
Let’s start by looking at the intensity of emotion in the exchange that follows between David and Jonathan. In verse 1, David asked his best friend (and the king’s eldest son) three rhetorical questions:
“What have I done?”
“Am I guilty of something?” and
“What is my sin against your father that makes him seek my life?”
Later in this chapter, in verse 32, we’ll listen to Jonathan echo three very similar questions as he speaks to Saul..
In verse 2 Jonathan expressed his confidence that his father’s hostility toward David had abated, since Saul had said nothing critical to him about David. Jonathan’s basis for having said that was that he was his father’s closest confidant and he would surely have known if Saul was still planning on killing David. David insightful reply was that Saul was now hiding his plans from Jonathan because he knew Jonathan supported David, rather than his own father.
David is frustrated, grieved, and quite agitated as he swears a double oath to Jonathan: But as surely as the LORD lives, and as surely as your soul lives, there is only a step between me and death.” This double oath was not common, but not unprecedented either. It emphasizes the absolute seriousness of what is being promised. Later in I Samuel 25:26, Abigail will swear a double oath. Elisha will swear a triple oath to Elijah in II Kings 2:2, and the Shunemite women will make a double oath to Elisha in II Kings 4:30. Finally, later in this chapter (20:12) David will use a double oath to swear his belief that Saul’s intentions toward him are evil. Then Jonathan, recognizing the seriousness and intensity of David’s conviction agrees to do whatever he can to help David.
1 Samuel 20:5-17 – David and Jonathan’s Plan….Part I
According to the Law of God as expressed in the Sinainitic Covenant, twice each day (morning and dusk/evening) there was supposed to be a liturgical sacrifice offered at the Sanctuary. In addition, weekly (Sabbath), monthly, yearly and periodic communal holy days were to be observed with prescribed sacrifices. The Israelites were also supposed to keep to a lunar calendar with the feast of the New Moon marking the first day of every new month, and on that occasion prescribed sacrifices were to be offered at the Sanctuary during the morning liturgy of the Tamid sacrifice (Num 10:10; 28:11-15; Amos 8:5). The feast of the New Moon was supposed to be a joyful occasion celebrated throughout villages and towns of Israel by blowing horns and communal/fellowship feasts. As the king’s son-in-law, David was expected to celebrate with the royal family, but attending the feast would only provide Saul with yet another opportunity to kill David. As Jonathan and David were talking, David aid that the next day would mark the new moon. He suggested that Jonathan should tell his father that, instead of having this communal meal with the royal household, David had his (Jonathan’s) permission to attend a family feast in Bethlehem at the direction of his elder brothers. (As the youngest member of the family, David was obligated to obey his older brothers.) If Saul flew into a rage over David’s absence, then they would know that he had intended to kill David.
David also reminded Jonathan of the covenant they had sworn to each other in the LORD’s name (1 Samuel 18:3) and asked Jonathan to honor that covenant of love and loyalty between them. But, David added, if he (David) truly was guilty then it would be better if Jonathan would simply kill him then and there. It’s a suggestion that horrifies Jonathan, and it moves him to take another oath – assuring David that he knew nothing of any evil intentions on the part of his father.
When David asks how Jonathan would warn him if his life was in danger, Jonathan suggested they leave his home and go into the countryside where they would have more privacy. It’s possible that Jonathan was worried that a servant might overhear their conversation and report it to his father. When they were finally alone in the field, Jonathan then swore by God’s name to David that he would test his father’s intentions about David.
Jonathan indicates that he is willing to be put under God’s divine judgment if he failed in any way to let David know whether he was in danger from Saul and must escape.
In verse 13, Jonathan blessed David, saying, “May the LORD be with you as He has been with my father.” These words are proof positive that Jonathan knew that David was the LORD’s choice to be Israel’s next king, just as his father had once been God’s choice. And as the LORD once favored Saul, Jonathan asked that God would now bless David and that God’s spirit would remain with David (unlike had happened to his father). This blessing, then, was more than a statement of friendship. It was a statement of loyalty from Saul’s heir to the throne that He willingly was giving up his claim to the throne to his friend whose destiny had been determined by God, because God had chosen David to replace Saul as Israel’s next king. This is a verbal commitment by Saul’s heir acknowledging the transition of authority in Israel from Saul to David.
In verse 8 David had reminded Jonathan of their covenant oath. In verses 14-17 Jonathan reminded David and implored him to show the mercy of the LORD to his family if he should die. Jonathan’s love for David is deep and abiding, and the same was reciprocated by David to Jonathan. In verse 17 Jonathan renewed his covenant oath with David. It was as though Jonathan had a premonition that he would not survive the struggle between David and his father. He wanted David to swear that he would to protect his offspring. The LORD’s name was invoked, making David accountable to God if he failed to fulfill his part of the covenant concerning the protection of Jonathan’s family.
1 Samuel 20:18-23 – The Plan Progresses…..Part II
The “third day” (verse 19) probably refers to the day of the feast when Jonathan would put his plan into motion, when the two men hoped that Saul would reveal his true intentions. Meanwhile David was hiding in the countryside at a place known only to him and Jonathan. The stone named “Ezel” was probably a memorial marker of some sort. The word means “departure” and was appropriate given what would soon take place there for David.
In verse 20 we have another occasion of the number three being repeated. This time it involved three arrows that Jonathan will shoot at a supposed target. Depending on where Jonathan shoots the arrows and where they land, David will know whether it is safe to return to the king’s home, or run for his life from Saul. If it is safe for David to come out of hiding, Jonathan would shoot the arrows close in toward the stone. However, if Saul’s intentions were evil toward David and he needed to leave, then Jonathan would shoot the arrows farther down the field and would send this servant out into the field to retrieve them.
In verse 23 David reminded Jonathan of the solemn covenant sworn between them back in verse 8. It bound them permanently in a covenant of loyalty and brotherly love – a covenant to which the LORD was witness.
1 Samuel 20:24-34 – Jonathan Learns Saul’s True Intentions
The royal family had gathered to celebrate the New Moon feast. Abner was included not only because he was Saul’s commanding general, but because he was Saul’s nephew and therefore a member of the royal family. At first Saul was not disturbed by David’s absence. He assumed that David had become ritually unclean and therefore could participate in the first day of this communal meal. (Occasionally these meals spanned, depending upon the month of the Jewish lunar calendar.) It’s worth noting that Saul had taken the “strategic” position at the table with his back against the wall. That way he could not be ambushed from behind. Perhaps (though unjustified given David’s honorable character), Saul feared that David would try to assassinate him. Let’s also note that Saul doesn’t use David’s given name, but instead three times he referred to him only as “Jesse’s son.” For Saul, it was definitely not a term of endearment….but instead a term of contempt.
Those who participated in the feast of the New Moon had to be ritually clean. This was the case concerning all the sacred feasts of the liturgical calendar, including the Passover meal. Ritual uncleanliness could come from any one of a number of daily activities and experiences according to the Holiness Code found in Leviticus chapters 11-15. Ritual uncleanness (with the exception of contamination from contact with a corpse) could be lifted by sundown following a ceremonial bathing. (This was why Saul initially was not disturbed when David was unable to be present the first day of the meal. Most feast day meals occurred at noon. The Passover meal, of course, was different. It took place at sundown. We know that the New Moon feast took place during the daytime because if it had occurred after sundown Saul would have expected David to have become ritually cleansed and prepared to attend the meal on the first day of the celebration. However, on the first day of the New Moon (verse 27), David’s place at Saul’s table was empty.
A New Moon celebration could last for either one or two days, depending upon the month of the year. That’s because sometimes the new moon was not able to be seen on the evening of the first day of the month during certain months, which appears to be the case in our our story.
According to their plan, when Saul inquired about David’s absence, Jonathan gave the excuse that he had given David permission to attend an annual gathering of Jesse’s clan in Bethlehem because his presence had been demanded by his older brothers. (As the youngest brother, David was subject to the authority of his older brothers.)
Keeping in mind that when David had insisted on it, Jonathan doubted Saul’s continued hatred and intent to kill his friend. However, Saul’s angry reaction (actually, verse 30 informs us that he was overcome with rage) to David’s absence on the second day of the celebration was proof positive that David had been right about Saul’s feelings toward him.
Jonathan’s support of David was something that Saul just couldn’t understand. After all, David stood between Jonathan and (as far as Saul was concerned) his right to be Israel’s next king. Jonathan knew that. Yet, in spite of David’s “threat” to Jonathan’s eventually replacing Saul as king, Jonathan sided with David. Saul was almost as angry with Jonathan as he was with David. So, although he seemed to be insulting Jonathan’s mother, Saul was actually accusing Jonathan of not being a true, loyal son…..and so a disgrace to the family name, to his and his mother’s shame. If David was Saul’s enemy, then he was supposed to be Jonathan’s enemy too; Jonathan was supposed to realize that! Or, to put it another way, Jonathan was supposed to be supporting his father…..not his rival. Driven by his anger, Saul swore an oath that, with or without Jonathan’s support, he was going to see to it that “the son of Jesse” was dead and gone.
“Adding insult to injury” as far as Saul was concerned, Jonathan did not “come around” to see his father’s point. Instead, Jonathan defended David, insisting that David had done nothing wrong and didn’t deserve Saul’s hostility let alone any threat against his life.
His rage at David was matched by his rage against his son. It escalated to that point that it consumed Saul. (Has that ever happened to you.) Inexcusably (and incomprehensibly) Saul actually threw his spear at Jonathan……with the intention of killing the very son that he – supposedly – loved and intended to follow him as king!
Very often anger directed at someone causes that person to also become angry in return. That’s what happened when Saul, in his anger, threw his spear at his own son. What was he thinking? We aren’t surprised that Jonathan responded in anger toward his father. But now two men have sinned. Enraged, Jonathan got up and left the family table. Still, his anger was tempered by grief……probably that his father was so out-of-control, but definitely that his friend David was being treated so shamefully and unjustly by his father – even though David had been a loyal subject and faithful son-in-law to Saul.
1 Samuel 20:35-42 – Jonathan Reluctantly Lets David Know
That He Has To Go Into Exile
It must have been difficult for David to wait for Jonathan, not knowing for certain what his future would be: whether the respected son-in-law, servant and soldier for Saul, or an exiled, hunted fugitive. Depending on what Jonathan had learned David’s life was either going to be restored, or ostensibly ruined.
Early the morning after the New Moon celebration ended, Jonathan appeared in the field near David’s hiding place. He was accompanied by a young boy whose job it was to retrieve the arrows that Jonathan was about to shoot, seemingly for practice. Of course, the arrows were really going to be used to send a message to David. Depending on whether Jonathan shot them short, or far away, David would learn whether he could return to Gibeah (the shorter shots), or go into hiding (the longer shots).
Jonathan shot his arrows into the distance and had the boy chase them down and find them. Then he sent the boy back to Gibeah with his equipment, while Jonathan remained in the field. As soon as the boy was gone, David came out of his hiding place. Immediately he bowed down three times, all the way to the ground, in front of Jonathan. It was David’s way of showing his profound respect for Israel’s Crown Prince. Then they embraced and both wept in a display of genuine friendship and brotherly love..
Sending David on his way in order to save his life, Jonathan blessed him and reminded David of the oath of loyalty each had taken before God toward the other, as well as toward their families. It was a bond David would end up faithfully keeping, since he would survive Jonathan by man years. David then left, while Jonathan returned home.
Chapter 21: David the Outcast
1 Samuel 21:1-10 – David and the Priests at Nob
David hurried from Gibeah without any food, weapons, or friends. He headed south about two or three miles to Nob, a locale in the territory of Benjamin known as “the city of the priests,” since that is where the Sanctuary of the LORD was situated following the Philistine’s destruction of its former site, Shiloh.
Ahimelech was the chief priest at the Sanctuary in Nob. He was the son of Ahitub, the grandson of the former High Priest Eli, and the brother of the current High Priest Ahijah, whom Saul kept with him at Gibeah (1 Samuel 14:3). As to why Ahimelech came “trembling” to meet David, the reason should be fairly obvious. It was probably the same reason that the elders of Bethlehem trembled when Samuel arrived in I Samuel 16:4: fear of Saul’s uncontrollable and irrational temper. Perhaps Ahimilech’s brother had shared with him the report of Saul’s hostility toward David and intent to kill him.
He noted that it was unusual for David, as the king’s son-in-law and as a military commander, to be unaccompanied. And so he asked him why he was alone. It’s not a reach for us to presume that Ahimelech was afraid of what would happen to him if Saul learned that he gave David any assistance whatsoever.
Just why, Ahimelech wanted to know, had David come to Nob, of all places? David lied. He offered what must have seemed to the chief priest like an unbelievable explanation. He said that Saul had sent him on a special, secret mission, and that he was accompanied by soldiers who were in hiding, and who needed food. David asked if he had any bread to spare. But would Saul actually have sent David away on some special project without adequate supplies for his troops? Hardly.
David’s lie was meant to protect the priests at Nob from being accused of knowingly helping the king’s enemy.
Ahimelech said the priests had no bread to spare. That the only bread in the compound was the Lord’s “showbread.” This was sacred bread that had been devoted to the LORD as an offering. It consisted of twelve loaves that were placed every Sabbath on the golden table inside the Sanctuary. The week old loaves could only be eaten by the priests, and even then only after the new loaves replaced them one week later. No one else was supposed to eat it – ever!
Still Ahimelech offered five loaves of this Showbread to David, but only upon David’s promise that his unseen men were ceremonially/ritually pure. David uttered another untruth, assuring him that his mystery troops were pure. Sexual intimacy with one’s wife was good and God-pleasing, but chastity was considered to be a particularly holy act. Consider, for example, the instructions found in Exodus 19:10-15. There the Israelites were directed to wash themselves and their clothes and to refrain from sexual contact in order to purify themselves for their meeting with God. Israelite soldiers who served God as His holy warriors were also to observe these rules of ritual purity when they consecrated themselves for battle (Joshua 3:5).
A third lie followed on the heels of the second one. David told Ahimelech that he needed a weapon because he had left his behind – having been in such a hurry to begin the assignment that Saul had given him.
It was significant that Ahimelech made an exception to the law concerning the eating of the holy bread that was reserved only for the priestly descendants of Aaron. Under the circumstances, Ahimelech decided that, in this situation, mercy toward a starving man was more important than ritual law.
Doeg the Edomite was the supervisor of Saul’s shepherds. He had been detained at Nob….probably in order to spy on the priests for a clearly suspicious – and one might suggest, paranoid – King Saul.
Either Ahimelech naively accepted David’s suspect excuses, or simply had decided that he was going to help David and plead ignorance if challenged by Saul. When David asked about a spare weapon that he might have, Ahimelech never questioned him. Instead, he offered David the sword of Goliath that was being kept at the Sanctuary – probably as some sort of relic. David accepted the weapon that he had won a few years earlier in mortal combat with the Philistine giant.
Not only had Saul’s children assisted David in his escape, even the religious establishment of Saul’s kingdom – to their ultimate peril – had become involved in preserving David’s life.
In Matthew 12:1-8 (also Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:5-15) when Jesus, was criticized by the Pharisees for allowing His disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath, he cites Ahimelech’s merciful decision to feed David. It’s important to recognize, though, that in this passage Jesus identified Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar, as the high priest. Why? Because Jesus’ illustration served as a warning to the chief priests and Pharisees of day. It was not an historical error on our Savior’s part. Ahimelech’s son Abiathar would end up supporting David when he became king and David would make him the high priest. However, years later, Abiathar refused to acknowledge David’s son Solomon as Israel’s rightful king and instead became part of a rebellion against Solomon that would cost the former his position. Jesus was comparing Abiathar to the chief priests and Pharisees of His own day who acknowledged the LORD as their divine king (the Father), but who refused to acknowledge the Father’s only-begotten Son, Jesus, as their divine King and Savior. For his sin of disloyalty, Abiathar eventually lost his status as Israel’s high priestly authority in favor of Zadock, who would succeed him as chief priest. In a similar sense, the chief priests and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, by virtue of their steadfast refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the divine Messiah and in their rebellion against Him, lost their status as the religious authorities in Judah, and were replaced by Jesus’ Apostles and their successors.
21:11-16 – David Hides Among the Philistines !!!
David was an outcast. He couldn’t return to his family in Bethlehem because that was the logical place for Saul to look for him. Hiding there would all but guarantee the deaths of the members of his family. In a stroke of brilliance – and Divine providence (let’s never forget Who was superintending everything that happened to David – David embraced the age-old adage: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Heading where Saul would never suspect him going, David moved west into Philistine territory. The nearest of the significant Philistine cities was Gath….about twenty-three miles west-southwest from Nob. Gath, of course, had been the home of Goliath. It was ruled by King Achish.
The Philistines knew that Saul was the king of Israel, yet the also recognized David because of his tremendous popularity with the people and properly assumed that he was a prominent leader in Israel…..which David, in fact, had been. Their awareness of David’s (former) position in Israel gave David reason to be afraid of what the Philistines might do to him. Perhaps David had wrongly assumed that the Philistines would not recognize him. Undeterred, and thinking quickly on his feet, in another stroke of brilliance, David cleverly decided to pretend to be insane. The Philistines, startled by his bizarre behavior and not willing to take responsibility for a crazed man, did not detain him. And so David was able to escape.
If it hadn’t been so real, this incident from David’s life could almost have been humorous. It shows us how desperate David actually was. David was all alone, running for his life, without a friend except for his God. This had to have been one of the lowest points in David’s life, and yet – while clearly desperate – David was neither depressed nor angry with God for having put him in his dire situation. In this darkest of hours, David trusted totally God to care for him and to ultimately deliver him – according to the promise God had given him to one day make him Israel’s king.
Michal had lied to her father to save her husband David’s life. Jonathan had lied to his father about David’s absence from the New Moon feast in order to learn about Saul’s intentions regarding David. David had lied to the priest Ahimelech in what would become a failed attempt not to put the priest’s life in jeopardy. During the Second World War, Christians – including pastors, priests and nuns – hid Jewish men, women, and children and lied to the Nazi’s about their whereabouts.
Is there a time when a lie might be necessary or acceptable?