1 Samuel 22: Taking It Personally

What does King Saul and Osama bin Laden have in common? Do you think you know the answer to my riddle? Read through 1 Samuel 22. Then read through what I wrote in 1 Samuel 22. Hopefully by then you’ll know the answer. But before we talk about Saul, let’s talk first about David so we can set the scene.

David doesn’t stay long in Gath. Shortly after Gath, David goes to Adullum. Adullum is located on the right on the border of Israel and Philistine, on the Philistine side, near Gath and Bethlehem. Since it’s so close to Bethlehem, word reaches David’s family that David is hiding in a cave at Adullum and they go to see him. As the text tells us, David’s family might not be going just to see about David’s well-being, but also to hide themselves. For shortly after, other refugees who are distressed, discontent or in debt with Saul follow David’s family to the cave. Apparently Saul’s degrading sanity has created quite a few enemies. When they see David, a natural leader, also becomes an enemy of Saul, they all flock to David to lead them. This may be a start of a small revolution.

All these Israelites flocking to one cave will naturally bring attention. So David moves his family and friends to Mizpah in Moab. David approaches the King of Moab and asks for permission to leave his parents there, and the king accepts. Why does the king take care of this Israelite’s family? Some have suggested that since David’s great-grandmother and Jesse’s grandmother, Ruth, is a Moabite, the king considers them partial Moabites and partial citizens. But most likely, the King of Moab believes in the phrase, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” When the king finds out David is an enemy of King Saul, he is more than happy to help David. So David drops his family off with the king, and he heads for a stronghold in Mizpah. A stronghold is some kind of fort. So David bunkers down in Mizpah.

The only problem with this is that David still isn’t showing the greatest of faith. He’s moved from just one foreign country to the next, and now that’s he’s in a new country, he just hides in a fort. David is doing his own thing for protection; he’s still not fully relying on God. This isn’t the proper behavior for the future king. So in verse 5, God sends the prophet Gad to call David out on this. The prophet Gad tells David to not stay in the stronghold at Moab, but to go back to Judah. God doesn’t want David to flee the land God promised he would rule over, but God wants him to claim his kingdom. David gets the message, and he turns his thinking around. No longer is David going to flee and hide on his own will. David will trust in God for protection, so David will go back to the land God has promised that he will rule over. He starts out heading for a forest just south of Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, back in the region of Judah, Saul receives report that David has re-entered Israel. The reader can tell from the context of the text that Saul has been searching for David all throughout Israel, so in human terms, what David did was fairly smart. His life was in danger being in the land, and so he fled the land. But now instead of flight, David is going to fight. But back to Saul. Saul calls all his officials together, who are Benjaminites. Remember that Saul too is a Benjaminiate. Saul’s close officials were all related to him. David is the son of Jesse, which makes both from the tribe of Judah. Saul begins making this a family thing. Saul rheotorically asks his men why they have left the tribe of Benjamin to side with someone from Judah. What’s he saying is, “I have given you such how positions because you are family. Do you really think life would be better for you if David was your king?” Saul attempts to guilt trip his officials to making them feel bad about not keeping Saul informed. Saul also attempts to guilt trip his officials to cough up any information they might have, but they don’t seem to know any more information than Saul does.

This is where Doeg the Edomite finds his opportunity. The reader meets Doeg the Edomite in 1 Samuel 21. He’s the one watching Ahimilech and David conversing. The reader might also might remember Doeg is being detained. In the last blog, I honestly said that we don’t know why or how Doeg was detained, but whatever way it is, it’s not good. So Doeg sees his opportunity to get in good with the king by ratting David out. Not only does he rat David out, but he rats out Ahimelech, too, as the one who gave David food, weapons and a blessing from God. Saul takes that mean to a rebellion forming against him. So Saul responds by having all the priests from Nob come before him.

Saul brings forth accusations of conspiracy, rebellion and treason for siding with David. His rhetorical question asks Ahimelech for a defense. Ahimelech doesn’t defend himself first, but rather David. He defends David five times with five descriptions: Saul’s servant, loyal, Saul’s son-in-law, captain of Saul’s body guard, and highly respected in Saul’s household. Just one of those would be a good defense, but all five of them clearly don’t sound like an enemy of the king. Then Ahimelech goes into the defense of himself. Ahimelech describes his meeting with David as a regular ordeal. He’s done it before, and he’ll do it again. Ahimelech also states that even if David’s intentions were a rebellion, he would have no knowledge of it, for David did not inform him of any such thing. Here is where David’s deceitful lie in 1 Samuel 21:3 is helpful. Ahimelech can honestly and truthfully say that he does not know David’s intention. Actually, if you remember 1 Samuel 21:3, David said he was on a mission from the king. If Ahimelech takes that seriously, for all Ahimelech knows, what David is doing is for Saul!

Ahimelech’s defense won’t work, for Saul has already made up his mind. Saul pronounces a judgment using an infinite absolute. In Hebrew, when an infinite absolute is used, an infinite verb is used next to the same conjugated verb to intensify the verb. If you were to literally translate the phrase the NIV translates as “You will surely die,” it would literally translate to “dying you shall die.” The dying is what Saul intensifies. As the rest of the verse hints, Saul is going to kill everyone and everything in the town of Nob.

Immediately Saul gives the command to his guards, but his guards don’t move a muscle. Some have suggested that these men don’t want to carry out the order because they once followed David, and they did not want to harm anyone who helped David. But I see a better reason that fits the immediate and near context. The guards probably didn’t want to kill the priests because of their sacred role. The priests spoke to God on the people’s behalf. The priests were the representatives and the messengers from the people to God. They didn’t want to send a bad message. Because of the priests sacred role, the Israelite guards might have seen the priests as righteous or holy, and to kill a righteous or holy man would be a much greater sin. I believe this is the correct view because I think this is what Saul saw in his men, and so he turned to Doeg, an Edomite. Since Doeg is an Edomite and not an Israelite, he doesn’t see what the big deal is about killing a priest. Furthermore, Doeg is still trying to get in good with King Saul. He will do anything to get in good with Saul, even if it’s mass murder. Besides, this would good revenge for the town of Nob detaining him in the last chapter. So Doeg kills all 85 priests. The author mentions the ephod as a reminder that these priests were ordained by God. Not only did Saul kill all 85 priests, but their women and their animals as well.

But Doeg doesn’t kill everyone. There is a single survivor. His name is Abiathar. He is a son of Ahimelech and the grandson of Ahitub. He is a priest just as much as his father and his grandfather. He escapes, and, being a fugitive of Saul himself, goes to find all the other fugitives, who are with David. He reports everything he saw and heard, and everything Saul did. For the first time, David has to deal with the results of his doubts. If David would have trusted the Lord more, he wouldn’t have asked the priest for food or for weapons, and maybe Saul wouldn’t have killed all the priests. David has to face what he’s done, and he does the right thing. He confesses that it is his fault, and he repents. He takes responsibility for the death of Nob. He even tries to make it up to Abiathar by taking him in, providing shelter and protection. At this point, David realizes the consequences of his wrong actions, and seeks to do the right thing by seeking what God wants him to do.

So what does King Saul and Osama bin Laden have in common? On May 2, 2011, a Navy Seal time raided bin Laden’s compound and killed bin Laden. Upon further inspection of the compound he was staying in, the place was full of pornography. Pornography is a sin in Islam just as much as in Christianity, deserving God’s punishment. Then what is an Islamic extremist terrorist doing with a pornography stash? I believe the answer is simple. At some point, bringing death to America was no longer a spiritual for bin Laden. It was no longer about Allah bringing judgment and punishment to America. It was purely for political reason, whatever those reasons may be. King Saul was in the same camp. In the beginning, he rivalry with David could have been spiritual. David’s anointing was a private matter among his family. No one else knew about the anointing. Saul could have argued that he was God’s anointed king, not David. He could have argued that God was on his side, not David’s. But the minute he ordered death to the priests, it was no longer spiritual, but political. It was no longer Saul vs. David, but Saul vs. God. Saul wants to make sure he is king and his family is dynasty, even if it is a direct defiance against God’s order. But the truth is when Samuel anoints Saul in 1 Samuel 16, any time Saul is against David, he is against God. But Saul goes from indirectly against God to directly against God. With David trusting more in God, and Saul trusting less, the outcomes will become even more obvious then they are now.

But it’s not just David and God. It’s the priests. It’s those in debt. It’s even the officials who are clueless. What do they all have in common? Saul claims they are all against him. On the opposite side, you have Doeg, the Edomite. Doeg’s a bad egg, but Saul treats him well. Why? He does what Saul asks. See what is happening? Saul is making this rivalry between David and himself person. Either you’re on Saul’s side or David’s side. The lines will be drawn, and each and every Israelite will have to choose a side. Those who will follow Saul will realize they are following a selfish madman. Those who follow David will realize they are following God.

1 Samuel 21: Just In Case

What does the phrase “just in case” mean? You’re not going to be able to find a definition in a typical dictionary, for a typical diction defines words, not phrases. But the Free Dictionary by Farlex (thefreedictionary.com) does have definitions for phrases, and even idioms, such as the idiom “just in case.” The Free Dictionary defines the idiom “just in case” to mean “in the event that…” or “only if something happens.” These definitions are quite true, but to me, they seem a bit broad. I thought about the phrase myself. I realized that a lot of time I hear or say the phrase “just in case” it’s a back plan. I bring an umbrella just in case it rains. I buy extra batteries just in case the batteries I’m using die. I pack a snack just in case I have to skip lunch. See what I mean? I plan to have lunch, but if something were to come up, my back up plan is to snack while working. I plan to have a dry walk back and forth from my classrooms to my car, but if it were to rain, my backup plan is to use an umbrella to keep me dry. Then I thought about it more, and I started to think that the phrase “just in case” does subtly and subconsciously reflects doubt. I might not see a cloud in the sky in the sky, and the weatherman could report a clear day, but I doubt both the weather report and my vision, it will be reflected in grabbing an umbrella. The phrase “just in case” could display how much you trust something or someone.

When you grew up in church and heard the stories of David, it’s very possible you were told that, besides David’s 2 sins (Bathsheba and the census), David was a righteous and upright man, always pleasing God. But that’s just not human. In our human nature, we don’t just sin, get over it and move on. Some of the “worst” sins to get over are the ones that habitual and addicting, the ones the sinful nature wants to keep going back to. Such examples would be envy, wrath, pride, lust and doubt. That last one, doubt, is the key one when it comes to David. I am going to argue that in 1 Samuel 22, David doubts God by not trusting God for help in his time of need. Instead of going to God, he goes after material possessions for help. I am going show that David does this at least 5 times in this chapter: 3 times in Nob and 2 times in Gath. I also know that this viewpoint isn’t the most popular viewpoint, although there are scholars who do agree with me. So at the end, I will show an alternative interpretation to the events of 1 Samuel 21.

Let’s set the scene before we go into these doubts. After saying goodbye to Jonathan, David heads to Nob, a Levitical city just northeast of Jerusalem, where priests and Levites lived and worshipped. There David meets Ahimelech. From the context of 1 Samuel 21-22, the readers gets the idea that Ahimelech is the priest running worship at Nob. When Ahimelech sees David, the Bible says Ahimelech trembles in fear. Perhaps Ahimelech knows that Saul considers David and enemy and Saul is hunting down David and anyone in between. Maybe Ahimelech is think about how David went to Naioth, the home of the prophets, and almost endangered the prophets there. Surely Ahimelech doesn’t want David bringing the same danger to the priests. So Ahimelech asks David why he’s alone with no company. On the surface, it seems to be a simple question. But rhetorically, Ahimelech asks, “What sneaky business are you here to do if you don’t want any witnesses around?”

Doubt #1: Lying about his purpose. The first instance of doubt we see is right away in 1 Samuel 21:2. David creates this deceptive lie, in which he claims that the king sent him on a secret mission, and he is meeting with his men at a secret place. This is clearly a lie, for it is quite opposite of the truth. King Saul did not send David to do anything. If anything, Saul sent men on a mission for David. Saul and David could not be any further apart socially. Why couldn’t David tell the truth and say, “I am running away, for I am hiding from Saul.” David’s lie shows David’s distrust. David did not trust the priest, not even a holy priest. He must have been afraid that the priest would report to Saul his whereabouts if he told the priest where he was hiding, or he might have thought the priest would not help if he was fugitive of the king. What makes this lie so bad, the worst, is that he isn’t just lying to anyone, but a priest, who is a holy man working for a holy God. It’s almost as bad as lying to God Himself. Maybe David lying to the priest demonstrates that David not only doesn’t trust the priest, but doesn’t trust God.

Doubt #2: Food Provisions. After stating his purpose, David quickly asks for five loaves of bread, and if the priest doesn’t have that, whatever food he can scramble together will do. Ahimelech replies that he does not have any household bread, but it does have the consecrated bread. Every week the priests were to offer 12 loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table of showbread at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. This bread was to be only eaten by the priest, for it symbolically represented the fellowship God had with the priests. David was well aware of this. David should have said (all of it or some of it), “Far be it from me to take the consecrated bread that is meant only for the Lord and his priests! To take that bread would be like stealing from the Lord Himself! I will not take the bread because I know that the Lord will provide food along the way. And if he does not, then he will give me the strength to not feel the pains of hunger.” But that’s not what David said. Instead, David pretty much says, “That’ll work. Good enough.” Then he proceeds to take the bread. Why does David take the bread? Doubt. David does not trust the Lord will provide food for him, so he’s got to fetch his own food. Even if he does believe God will provide the food, he takes the bread, just in case God doesn’t. Not the best of faith.

Now before you get to the bottom, both you and I can already suspect what my opponents would say. They would bring up that Jesus used this story, in Matthew 12:3,4 and in Mark 2:25,26, to explain that the disciples aren’t breaking God’s Law by picking wheat on the Sabbath. I’m not going to give details on how my opponents would use this passage to defend their view, but I will take the time to use this story to defend my point. Actually, I’m not going to use it to defend my point, but I will use it to counter-argue the typical defense we might be expecting. Simply, I will say that David is not sinning when he takes the bread. That’s the point Jesus is making, and I will also make the same point: David is not sinning. But on the same subject on the opposite end, I’m not ready to say David is making a great act of faith either. A great act of faith would be turning down the consecrated bread and depending on God and His promises to sustain you (see Deut. 8:9. It is repeated by Jesus in Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4, but David would have only known the Deut 8:9 passage). In a way, what I’m saying is David didn’t do anything wrong, but David didn’t do the right thing either. The space between the wrong thing and the right thing is doubt.

Before we move on any further, pay attention to verse 7. In the English language and literature, it’s known as an aside, but in the Hebrew language and literature it’s known as a parenthetical clause. It’s when the author wants to put information into the narrative that doesn’t belong in any special place in the narrative. This parenthetical clause mentions there’s a witness to all this. His name is Doeg. Doeg is an Edomite. Edomites are the descendants of Edom, better known to us as Esau, the brother Jacob/Israel. So you’d think the Edomites would see Israel as their cousins. Actually, you’d be wrong. Since Israelites wandering in the desert, as recorded by Numbers, the Israelites and Edomites have been enemies. We even see them battling each other in 1 Samuel 14. Now 1 Samuel 21:7 tells us that Doeg the Edomite was detained. Now the Hebrew word is netsar, and scholars debate what do with the word in both Hebrew and English. What does netsar mean and what does detain mean? Some scholars think that Doeg is an Edomite whose converted to the Israelite’s religion and become a legal immigrant to Israel. Other scholars believe that Saul captured Doeg as a prisoner of war in the Israelites’ battle in 1 Samuel 14. I personally believe the second to be the more plausible answer. The aside also tells us that Doeg was the head shepherd of Saul’s flocks. In those days, it was naturally for kings to own large flocks of animals to tailor to their personal needs. Of course, the king himself would not take care of them, so he would hire shepherds to take care of the animals. Doeg was the head of the shepherds, so he had close ties to Saul. What’s Saul doing trusting an Edomite, no one knows. This could be a sign of Saul falling even further away from God. But the text wants us to know that he was witnessing the exchange between David and Ahimelech. That’s going to be important for the next chapter, for there we will find out Doeg is a bad egg.

Doubt #3: Protection. Next David asks for some kind of weapon to protect him. Ahimelech informs David that there are no weapons there but the sword of Goliath, which David had placed there himself. David quickly takes it. Once again, I ask, “Where is David’s faith?” Remember we said that in 1 Samuel 17 David clearly demonstrates that victory is given through the Lord and not through earthly weapons. David even supports that himself when he turns down the king’s armor (which probably also included a sword) for his regular clothes because He is confident that the Lord will bring him victory. The fact that David insists he needs a sword shows that David doesn’t have that confidence that he had when he face Goliath. He needs a sword, just in case the Lord doesn’t protect.

Doubt #4: Fleeing to Gath. This doesn’t take much explanation if you know the geography and the history. Israel is God’s chosen people in the Promised Land. Gath is the land of the Philistines, the enemy of God’s people who keep invading the Promised Land. Gath is also the hometown of Goliath, and even might be a capital of Philistia. No good, God-fearing Israelite would dare leave Israel for that land. That’s exactly what David does. He leaves the Promised Land, God’s land, for a foreign land. To me, this shows doubt. To me, it seems like David does not trust God to provide him protection in the kingdom that has been promised to him. So he leaves everyone and everything behind to tread in the enemies territory.

Doubt #5: Acting insane. David goes to Gath, hoping that no one will notice him and that everyone will leave him alone. It’s hard, though, to try to keep yourself hidden in the hometown of the champion you just slaughtered. Everyone immediately recognizes David as the one the sing about in Israel. So much for leaving your past life behind. Now David fears that the Philistines will also seek to kill David in order to avenge Goliath. So David comes up with a brilliant plan: to act like an insane madman. In Bible times, if someone were to act like an insane madman, people would automatically assume he’s demon-possessed and would want to avoid such evil. David acts insane so people think he’s demon-possessed and will leave him alone. I hope that you see where this is going. This cannot be the godly response to danger. Instead of trusting in God, David relies in a deceptive act to keep him safe. What makes it even worse is that David acts like there’s demons inside of him, not the Holy Spirit. David should be living a life that lets the Holy Spirit shine, not hide it.

Alright, as promised, now I will quickly give my opponents objections to my 5 doubts that David has. Their objections will be followed by what they see in those 5 sections.

#1: Lying about his purpose. While David may not have told the full truth, he did not lie. He was generic. David doesn’t say “King Saul” or even “Saul,” David just says “king.” Many times in the psalms David refers to the Lord God as king. So David might be saying he’s sent on a secret mission from King Yahweh because many times in the Bible both Yahweh and Jesus have asked people to keep secrets to themselves.

#2: Food provisions. David was not sinning by taking the bread. The bread had already completed its week-long life cycle as an offering to God, and now it’s up to the priests to decide what to do with it. The priest Ahimelech decides it’s alright for David and his men to eat of it as long as they act like priests; they must be ceremonially clean. Just as God used this bread to provide food to the priests, so God used this bread to provide food to David. Besides, Jesus mentions this story in Matthew 12:3,4 and Mark 2:25,26. If David had done something wrong, would Jesus really use this story as part of an argument? Speaking of Jesus, these few verses provide foreshadowing. Remember that Jesus was prophet, priest and king. If Jesus is to be the second, last and final David, David needs to foreshadow Jesus as prophet, priest and king. This is the priest part, as David acts like a priest.

#3: Protection. When Goliath’s sword enters the holy sanctuary, the sword becomes God’s property. Thus the priest giving David the sword is God’s way of providing protection of David. God provides protection by giving David the sword of Goliath. (Something similar to that could be said for point 2 on food provisions.

#4: Fleeing to Gath. This is just common sense. King Saul only has control over Israel; he does not have control in Philistia. If David goes to Philistia, he doesn’t have to worry about Saul because Saul does not reach him. Besides, leaving the Promise Land does not mean leaving God or leaving His will. Even Abraham and Jacob, with their families, left the Promised Land for Egypt when things got bad.

#5: Acting insane. A deceptive act is nothing new for the Israelites. We see the Israelite forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob deceiving left and right. Just like David deceived Achish to keep himself safe, so Abraham and Isaac deceived the king of Gerar, telling the king their wife was their sister, in order to keep themselves safe.

Now you’ve heard both sides, and both have given their reasons. With the reasons, you can choose which one to believe. But let me give you a few more reasons why I believe it’s best to see them as doubts. First, I want to remind you that I’m not suggesting that David sinned or is doing anything sinful. But at the same, it’s not that David’s doing the right thing or the good thing. He’s somewhere in the middle, struggling with doubts, having backup plans, just in case God doesn’t come through. So it doesn’t mess with the character of David, being a man after God’s heart. Second, there are application reasons. If you believe David was doing the good, right thing, then David’s example is to be followed: it’s ok to lie and deceive, take from God when he doesn’t provide, and flee from all danger. Those applications don’t seem Biblical. In fact, God seems to want the opposite from us. Third, take into consideration discourse analysis. Think about where we are in David narrative part of 1 Samuel. Some scholars seem 1 Samuel 21:10-15 and 1 Samuel 22:1-5 as a pivotal turning point in David’s story in 1 Samuel. David is faced with the question “In what or whom am I trusting in?” and he makes the pivotal change for the better. You’ll just have to wait for 1 Samuel 22 to see how David does that.