Earlier the writer narrated Saul's anointing, military success, and the popular reaction to him (chs. 10-11). Now he followed the same pattern by recording David's anointing, military success, and the popular reaction to him (16:1-19:17). The popular reaction to Saul was fairly simple: most of the people supported him, though a few opposed him (11:12-15). The popular reaction to David was much more complex and significant (18:1-19:17).
We have already seen that Jonathan was a man of faith and courage (14:1-15). Jonathan found a soul brother in David, a man who committed himself to trusting and obeying God as he did. This common purpose on the deepest level of life is what accounts for the love Jonathan and David shared for one another (v. 1).
Jonathan loved David as he loved himself (vv. 1, 3; cf. Lev. 19:18). He loved David, as he should have, since David had committed himself to glorifying God and fulfilling His will even at the expense of his personal safety. Some homosexuals have tried to use the writer's statements of Jonathan's love for David as support that their lifestyle has good biblical precedent.199However the Hebrew word aheb, translated "love"here, nowhere else describes homosexual desire or activity. Rather when homosexual relations are in view the Holy Spirit used the word yada, translated "know"in the sense of "have sex with"(cf. Gen. 19:5; Judg. 19:22).
Saul responded to Jonathan's affection for David, and presumably David's bravery, by keeping David with him even more than the king had done previously (v. 2; cf. 14:52).
Evidently Jonathan realized David's gifts and God's will for David's life (cf. 23:17), and he humbly deferred to him (vv. 3-4).
"This is a virtual abdication by Jonathan, the crown prince."200
The crown prince of Israel gives us one of the classic examples of self-humbling for the glory of God and the welfare of His people that we have in all of Scripture (cf. Phil. 2:5-8). Jonathan's humility is all the more remarkable since chronological references in Samuel seem to indicate that Jonathan was about 30 years older than David.201His response to David's anointing was appropriate, and it contrasts sharply with Saul's response, which follows.
". . . when Jonathan took off his robe (a symbol of the Israelite kingdom; cf. 15:27-28 . . .) and gave it to David (v. 4), he was in effect transferring his own status as heir apparent to him . . ."202
"The covenant of friendship referred to in verse 3 was a unilateral (binding on one party only) covenant in which Jonathan committed himself to David with complete disregard for self. The gift given by Jonathan served to ratify the covenant and honor David."203
Jonathan's selfless action reflects his submission to Samuel's oracle that Saul would not have a continuing dynasty (13:13-14). Rather than trying to perpetuate Saul's dynasty, as Abner later tried to do (2 Sam. 2:8-9), godly Jonathan turned over the symbols of the crown prince to David.
"In our political world, where power plays such an important role, what would be thought of a prince who voluntarily renounced his throne in favor of a friend whose character and godly faith he admired?"204
David's commitment to God resulted in his prospering (the fertility motif). David acted wisely, the literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated "prospered"(vv. 5, 14, 15), also because God was with him (vv. 12, 14; cf. 16:13). Not only did Jonathan love David, but all the people including even Saul's servants, those people who were most loyal to the king, did too (v. 5). God blesses personally those who relate to Him properly. They also become channels of blessing to others (cf. 2:30; Gen. 12:2).
Saul may or may not have known at this time that Samuel had anointed David. His growing jealousy seems to have mounted over David's increasing ability, success, and popularity with the people that resulted from God's help (grace).
These verses show how David had captured the affection of many Israelites by his victory over Goliath. Successful military heroes still do so today. Notwithstanding David's popularity, not everyone was ready to join David's fan club as the text proceeds to clarify. He became a controversial figure in Israel. Apparently Saul suspected that with such popularity David might attempt to overthrow his government. However it was personal jealousy that took root in Saul's mind and led to his downfall.205While David's actions pleased the people (v. 5), they displeased the king (v. 8). The problem was Saul's desire to be popular with the people more than being popular with God. Contrast humble John the Baptist who wanted Jesus to receive more honor than himself (John 1:26-27; 3:30).
The evil spirit from the Lord (cf. 16:4, whatever it was) afflicted Saul the very next day. David and Saul each had something in their hand. David held a harp with which he sought to help the king by playing soothing music. Saul held a spear with which he sought to harm his helper. The writer stated the reason Saul attempted to pin David to the wall clearly in verse 12. God was with David, and He had withdrawn from Saul (cf. v. 14).
Saul's unchecked jealousy bred the symptoms of paranoia; he began to think that his most loyal subject was his mortal enemy. Contrast Jonathan's implicit confidence in David. The difference was that Saul saw David as a threat to his security whereas Jonathan saw him as the savior of God's people.206
"The writer H. G. Wells says of one of his strange characters, Mr. Polly, He was not so much a human being as a civil war.'207I think that is a perfect description of Saul. He became a living civil war, miserable, possessed of an evil spirit, mentally breaking, a suspicious, angry, jealous man. As a result, he struck out against the most trusted and trustworthy servant in his camp--David."208
Next Saul sent David out from the palace, evidently so he would not be a constant aggravation to the king. Saul placed David, whom he had already appointed as his commander-in-chief (v. 5), over a large unit of soldiers in the field (v. 13).209However, Saul's decision only gave David more exposure to the people and increased his popularity with them. When Saul observed what was happening, he dreaded David even more (v. 15), but the people of both Israel and Judah loved him even more (v. 16; cf. vv. 1, 3, 20). God was causing the wrath of Saul to praise Him, to contribute toward the fulfillment of His plans. Verses 13 through 16 set the growing approval of the people and the mounting disapproval of Saul in vivid contrast.
Since he had been unsuccessful in murdering David himself, Saul also tried to get other people to kill him (cf. 2 Sam. 11:15). Saul had promised his daughter in marriage to Goliath's victor (17:25). Nevertheless now Saul added the condition that David also had to fight more battles for his king. David, on the other hand, did not aspire to marry the king's daughter even though such a marriage would have advanced his career greatly (v. 18; cf. 16:18). He evidently dismissed this possibility since he could not afford the dowry (bridal price, v. 23). Saul went back on his promise to give David his older daughter, Merab, anyway (v. 19).
Michal, like her brother Jonathan, had come to love David (v. 20). Evidently Saul meant that Michal would become a snare to David (v. 21) because as the son-in-law of the king David would have been in line for the throne. This would have made David an even more important target for the Philistines in battle. This time Saul tried to break down David's humble resistance to becoming his son-in-law by sending servants (courtiers, leading men of the kingdom) to persuade him. They assured David that his lack of wealth would not be a problem. Normally grooms paid their prospective fathers-in-law a price to compensate for the loss of their daughter.210However, Saul was willing to take 100 uncircumcised Philistine foreskins instead. He probably thought that David would respond to the challenge and perhaps die in the encounter with the Philistines. Saul used Michal as the bait to lure David into what he though would be a fatal encounter with the Philistines.
God protected David, however, and he was able to provide the king with twice as many foreskins as Saul had specified (v. 27).211This time Saul gave him his daughter.212Saul saw in these events evidence that Yahweh's blessing was with David (v. 28), and this made him even more fearful of him (v. 29). Ironically Saul from then on became David's enemy continually (v. 29) even though David had become his son-in-law as well as his faithful commander-in-chief and his effective field general. By setting himself against David, Saul was setting himself against God since David was the Lord's anointed (cf. Gen. 12:3).
"Saul's playing the part of a latter-day Laban (cf. Gn. 29:15-30) has rebounded upon himself, for now a second member of his own family has made her special contribution to the theme all Israel and Judah loved David' (v. 16)."213
David's behavior and wisdom in battle, guided and provided by God's Spirit, caused him to become increasingly effective and appreciated in Israel (v. 30). David had regarded himself as lightly esteemed (v. 23), but God made him highly esteemed (v. 30; cf. 9:2).
Throughout this chapter the writer balanced statements that credit God for David's successes (vv. 12, 14, 28) with others that credit David for them (vv. 5, 14, 15, 30). Both reasons were true. God's choice of David and David's choice of God worked together to make him successful. The opposite was also true of Saul. The Lord had forsaken Saul, but Saul had also forsaken the Lord, and the result was tragedy.
This chapter illustrates the fact that the godly often suffer through no fault of their own. It shows too that God causes even the worst intentions of the ungodly to elevate the godly (cf. Ps. 7:12-16; Rom. 8:28). We see here that the selfishness of the ungodly can produce irrational behavior (e.g., paranoia, v. 12, and schizophrenia, vv. 11, 17) and leads to their ruin. If we allow jealousy to take root in our hearts, it will devour us like a cancer. We should desire God's glory, as Jonathan did, rather than our own glory, as Saul did.
Saul now abandoned pretense (18:22) and ordered Jonathan and his servants to put David to death (cf. v. 11). He "went public"with his attacks against David feeling driven, like Pharaoh, to more desperate measures. This created a conflict of loyalties for Jonathan who needed to honor his father and king, but who also loved David (cf. 19:1, 3). Jonathan chose to tell David what Saul's intentions were, but he also tried to honor his father by urging him not to kill David. He appealed to Saul logically and rationally. He reminded Saul that he was the king and that David was his servant, that he needed to be fair with David, and that it was in Saul's best interest to let David live (v. 4). He also reminded Saul that David was the Lord's instrument who had defeated Israel's enemies and that Saul had rejoiced in his success. Moreover he appealed for justice since David's death was unwarranted (v. 5). Jonathan's words echo Saul's own statement when he had freed Jabesh-gilead earlier in his reign (11:12-15). Then Saul had generously refused to punish his detractors. Perhaps it was this memory that moved him to promise Jonathan that he would be merciful to David.
Jonathan's appeal was successful, at least temporarily, and resulted in Saul solemnly vowing not to kill David (v. 6), which vow he broke shortly (v. 10). Later Jonathan was not as successful (20:28-29). Nevertheless this time his appeal resulted in David's restoration to the court and his continuing ministry to the king (v. 7).
This section records Saul's fourth attempt to kill David. The writer set his account of these attempts in chiastic form.
ASaul directly tried to kill David. 18:10-16
BSaul indirectly tried using the Philistines. 18:17-20
B'Saul indirectly tried using Jonathan and Saul's servants. 19:1-7
A'Saul directly tried to kill David. 19:8-10
This literary structure emphasizes how thoroughly Saul wanted to do away with his rival. Not only did those who desired the best for God love David, but those who desired the best for themselves hated him.
This is the third reference to an evil spirit afflicting Saul (cf. 16:14; 18:10). This influence overcame Saul's good intentions and resulted in his breaking his vow to God (v. 6). Now David had to flee and escape. This phrase occurs three times in this chapter (vv. 12, 18), and it contrasts with David being in Saul's presence (v. 7). From now on David was no longer able to stay in Saul's presence, but he had to flee and escape seeking refuge from the king wherever he could find it. David's days as an outlaw, which began here, would continue until Saul died.
David's experience is typical of that of all people who choose to commit themselves to following God faithfully. Because God blesses them and makes them a blessing to others many people appreciate them. However others who want those blessings for themselves, but are not willing to do what is necessary to get them, despise them.
God's preservation of His anointed servant David stands out in this section as it does in the first one in this chapter (vv. 1-7). In both cases it was one of Saul's own children that came to David's rescue. Jonathan protected David at the beginning of this section (18:1-5), and Michal did so at its end (19:11-17). These acts of devotion bracket the chiasm noted above.
Saul resumed his purpose of putting David to death this time by using his servants (cf. v. 1). As Jonathan had done (v. 2), Michal told David what Saul was planning (v. 11). Then she aided his escape first by helping him flee from a window and then by fashioning a dummy in his bed and concocting a story that he lay sick. The household idol (Heb. teraphim) was a small image three or four inches high that many people carried on their persons or set up in their homes as good luck charms. Archaeologists have found many such images in Palestine. Evidently Michal intended the presence of this image beside (Heb. el) the bed to convince Saul's servants that David was seriously ill.
"Michal's ruse was probably effected by piling clothing, carpets, or the like on David's bed and covering it with a garment, allowing only the goats' hair at the head to show."214
The account of Michal's plan to provide David enough time to escape portrays her as a woman who had not committed herself completely to God. Was the household idol hers or David's? The text does not say, but other references to Michal and David elsewhere lead me to conclude that it was hers. The possessor of the household idols was sometimes the heir of the family in the ancient Near East, so perhaps Michal kept this idol for inheritance purposes as well as for worship. Perhaps teraphimhad some connection with childbearing (fertility; cf. Gen. 31:19 where barren Rachel kept teraphim).215
Saul expected more loyalty from his daughter than he received. Jonathan had described David as Saul's servant (v. 4), but Saul now called him his enemy (v. 17). Michal seems to have considered her lie justifiable (cf. v. 11). Jonathan had not lied to Saul (vv. 4-5). Both Jonathan and Michal's words resulted in David's safety temporarily, but Jonathan and Michal's characters contrast in what they said to their father and king.
Saul's daughter, as well as his son, was protecting David from death. God's care for David resulted in the breaking of strong loyalties. In the ancient world a daughter's loyalty to her father normally remained strong even after marriage. God overcame what was natural to protect His anointed and faithful servant.
