Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1. the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David ] The same expressive phrase is used of Jacob’s love for Benjamin in Gen 44:30, which might be rendered “seeing his soul is knit up with the lad’s soul.”
loved him as his own soul ] Cp. 1Sa 20:17; Deu 13:6 ; 2Sa 1:26. Thus commenced that attachment “which is the first Biblical instance of a romantic friendship, such as was common afterwards in Greece, and has been since in Christendom; and is remarkable, both as giving its sanction to these, and as filled with a pathos of its own, which has been imitated but never surpassed, in modern works of fiction. Each found in each the affection that he found not in his own family.” Dean Stanley in Dict. of Bible, I. 1122. Theseus and Peirithous; Achilles and Patroclus; Orestes and Pylades; Damon and Pythias; Epaminondas and Pelopidas; are the most familiar instances in classical literature.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ch. 1Sa 18:1-5. Jonathan’s friendship for David
1 5. This section also is not found in the Septuagint (B).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Was knit with the soul of David – The same forcible phrase occurs of Jacobs love for Benjamin (marginal reference). Jonathans truly heroic character is shown in this generous love of David, and admiration of his great deed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Sa 18:1-4
The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.
The story of a great love
True Christianity consists in devotion to a Person, not in the acceptance of a series of doctrines or theories, nor even in the adoption of a certain line of conduct. Doctrines have their proper place, and conduct which is pure and godlike will necessarily flow from it; but the essence of true Christianity consists, as I have said, in the devotion of the human heart to a Person–a personal God revealed in Jesus Christ. Without this our religion is but sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; we are devoid of that which is absolutely essential to a truly Christian life. How strange a thing it is that we are able to love One whom we have never seen, whose voice we have never heard, with whose form we have never been brought into contact! This is altogether at variance with ordinary human experience. For a great man who lives at a distance we may be able to feel a certain amount of enthusiastic admiration; he may be the leader of some great cause in which we are deeply interested, or his personal talents and character may command our respect; but can we truly say that we love him? We ere living in an age in which not a few remarkable men have attracted public attention, and some of these, like the great Italian patriot, Garibaldi, have stirred our hearts to their inmost depths by their exploits; but while we have admired such persons, could we with any degree of truth have said that we loved them? No; to love them we need to be brought into some kind of direct personal contact with them. But here is One whom having not seen men yet have loved with a greater love than any earthly object. Truly a wonderful thing is the love of God in the heart of man! Indeed, no less can be said of it than that it is a miracle, a thing that cannot be naturally produced, a thing that belongs not to earth, and that can only exist here when it is brought down from heaven by the Spirit of Love, and planted, like a precious exotic, in our heart, a flower of Paradise on the soil of earth. In considering the story of this most remarkable instance of unselfish devotion, we shall find ourselves supplied with a very striking illustration of that higher affection of which I have been speaking, and from this we shall be in a position to learn some important lessons with respect to that life of love which should bind together the true disciple and his Divine Master.
1. And first we observe that the love of Jonathan for David seems to have been caused in the first instance by the act of heroism on the part of David which brought life and liberty to the thousands of Israel. Jonathan had sat by his fathers tent, and washed the single combat on which the destinies of two nations might be said to hang. He had seen the gigantic champion of Gath march down with stately stride into the valley, and his youthful antagonist advance to meet him, and all the chivalrous enthusiasm of his nature seems to have been stirred at the sight. David has been brought into the presence of Saul with the head of Goliath in his hand, and the king proceeds to enquire his parentage, in order that he may mete out the reward promised to the victor. While the conversation is going on between Saul and David, Jonathan, Sauls son, is standing by, all eyes and ears. Interested from the first in this remarkable young man, he now feels his interest ripen into affection. He admired him at first; he loves him now. Consider the elements of this affection. There was an overpowering sense of gratitude. They were all saved, and David was the saviour. He himself, more than almost anyone else, was under the deepest obligation to the youthful hero; for his life and his honour and his crown had been redeemed. Had David been overthrown, and Goliath victorious, never would he have filled the throne of his father, and reigned over his people. Israel would have become a nation of serfs. Here we have our first lesson, which may serve to show us what it is that first kindles the love of God in the heart of man. We begin to love when we apprehend the first great deliverance which Christ has wrought out for us, and gaze with adoring gratitude upon the Deliverer. We may be interested in the character of Christ, even as David no doubt had excited the interest of Jonathan before the deliverance was wrought; we may admire the Christ as Jonathan did David, when he went forth to meet the Philistine; but love does not spring into life till the moment of deliverance, or of apprehension of deliverance. And even so is it with our Deliverer. The birth of love takes place in the apprehension of that which his love has wrought for us. But here much must depend upon the line of conduct that we assume towards the Deliverer. It is possible to check love at its very birth by averting our inward gaze from Him who has so loved us, and I fear too many believers make a false start here. I fear it is so with many of us who have taken Christ for our Saviour. We needed a deliverer, and we found one in Jesus. The revelation of the cross brought us peace and joy, and set our fears at rest. We rejoiced in the deliverance; but did we cling to the Deliverer? We raised the shout of triumph; we welcomed the happiness and the security and the immunity from condemnation, the freedom from fear, the hope of heaven. But what then? Did we turn from the gifts to the Giver, and fix our adoring gaze of loving gratitude on Him till all our heart flowed out towards Him, and our soul was knit unto Him, and we loved Him as our own soul? Or did we go our way, well pleased to reap the benefit of His work, but forgetful of the obligation under which we rested, and of the debt we owed? It is no use trying to make ourselves love God. All love that deserves the name must be spontaneous, and such love can never be generated by an effort of the will, still less by a process of moral analyses and introspection. Love grows by acquaintance with the loved object. Christ will become more to us than Deliverer. We shall love Him because of what He is, as well as because of what He has done, and our souls will be knit unto Him, and we shall love Him as our own soul.
2. Proceeding with the narrative, we observe the immediate results of the establishment of this affection. The first thing that follows is the making of a covenant between the two friends–a covenant involving reciprocal obligations, and binding each to be true to the other in all the various changes and chances of life. Not dissimilar to this is the order of events in the life of love between thy soul and its Lord. The act of Baptism, which in the case of the adult believer would naturally follow immediately on the acceptance of the great deliverance, brings the soul within the bonds of a spiritual covenant, involving reciprocal obligations. Remember, too, that the covenant involves reciprocal obligation.
3. We pass on to the next incident in the story of this great love, and we read that Jonathan stripped himself of his robe, and also his garment, even to his sword, and his bow, and his girdle. It is only in the school of grace, and under the influence of love, that we learn to divert ourselves of all that we naturally prided ourselves upon, and to present all, cheerfully and with an enthusiasm of devotion, to Another. Nor is this all. Jonathan makes over to David, what must always be dear to the warriors heart, his sword, and his bow, and his girdle. The very weapons which he had carried on many a hard-fought field–weapons with which he had performed already notable and splendid exploits. What is there you most naturally pride yourself upon, or if you do not pride yourself upon it, what faculty or quality are you most conscious of possessing in a special degree? Is it your intellect? Has God given you a strong head, and a clear judgment? Put the bow and the sword into Davids hands. He wont despise the gift, but use it for his own glory. Has God bestowed on you the gift of language, fluency and readiness in speech? You are quick at repartee; or perhaps you possess a lively humour, and the dangerous gift of wit, and those qualities you were wont to exercise in order to gratify your vanity, or to make yourself highly acceptable to society. Let those lips of yours be anointed with the holy unction of the blessed Spirit, so that through Him you may speak as the oracles of God. Give Him the bow, give Him the sword. Has He given you wealth? Remember it is all His already; but He gives you the privilege of giving it back to Him. Lay it at His feet. Has He given you influence? Consecrate that influence to Him, it belongs to Him. Do not let Him have to ask you for it twice. Give it to Him because you love Him. Whatever it is, my friend, that belongs to you in an extraordinary and unusual degree, these are the special presents that you are privileged to make to Him to whom your hearts are already given, and whom having not seen you have begun to love. (W. H. M. H. Aitkin, M. A.)
Love story of David and Jonathan
Now it is my purpose to use this beautiful love scene between David and Jonathan as an illustration of the love which Christ offers to us.
1. In the first place, it truly suggests that Christ, the Prince of Heaven, comes seeking a compact with us. Christ sees something in man, at his worst, that He loves, and that seems to Him worth living and dying to save.
2. There is another suggestion that is very comforting, and that is that as Jonathans love prompted him to give his own clothes to David, so that his humble friend might look as much the prince as himself, Christ comes offering to clothe us in his own beautiful garments of purity and righteousness. It is the glory of Christians that Christ helps them to become like Himself. Our ragged clothing of sin and of evil habit is to be east off, and we are to be clothed with goodness and gentleness and meekness and love and hope. That is the most glorious thing about Christianity. It is not that a man may be simply saved from sorrow and despair and punishment on account of his sins, but the sinners nature may be transformed and he may become a prince of Gods realm, a holy man. The drunkard may put on sobriety. And the promise is that this robing of the soul, this beautifying of the character, shall go on until, when we awake in heaven, we shall awake in the likeness of Jesus Christ.
3. There is one other suggestion here which we find also fulfilled in Christs treatment of the sinner: Jonathan bestowed upon David, not only his own clothing, but he gave him his own armour and weapons. So Christ equips us with the very weapons with which He battled in this world when He was tempted in all points like as we are and yet came off victorious without sin. He gives us the girdle of truth, and the breastplate of righteousness; on our feet He puts shoes made of the preparation of the Gospel of peace; on the left arm we carry the shield of faith–a wonderful shield that is able to stop every fiery dart of the wicked one. (L. A. Banks, D. D.)
Friendship
I. The choice of friends. The commonest advice given to young men on this subject is to choose their friends well. But do we really choose our friends? Like love, friendship may kindle at first sight. The instant you see a man, something within you may say, This is the man for me. This is the man who is going to be the other half of my soul. My friends, says Emerson, have come to me unsought. The great God gave them to me, and I expect some of us could say that too. Although in the initial stages friendship seems to be more a matter of good luck than of choice, or, rather, let me say a matter of Gods kind Providence, there are subsequent stages when friendship does need to be cultivated. For instance, when friends separate in Providence to live in different towns or in different countries, unless friendship is to lapse it must be cultivated by correspondence, and letters long unanswered are very apt to cool the heart of a friend. Or when other ties are formed friendship is apt to be sacrificed to them, as, when a man is married, he is apt to drop his friends; but that is a great mistake, because the home is enriched with the visits of friends if they are good ones. What is a man to do if he has been unfortunate enough to contract a friendship which is injurious? There may be such friendships. There are more instances than one of this kind, for example, in the life of Robert Burns, the poet, but one of them was especially influential in determining his moral history. One winter, chancing to be at the town of Irvine, learning flax dressing, a detail of farming in those days, he fell in with a young man rather older than himself, and much more versed in the ways of the world, for whom he instantly contracted a romantic attachment. I loved and admired him, says he himself, to a degree of enthusiasm, and, of course, strove be imitate him. His mind was fraught with independence, magnanimity, and every manly virtue, but he spoke of illicit love with the levity of a sailor, which hitherto I had regarded with horror. Here his friendship did me a mischief. And the mischief turned out to be more lasting and decisive than, even at the time when writing this sentence, Burns himself had any conception of. Is there not something horrible in the name of friendship being attached to a relationship which is undermining the character and threatening the whole future of one who is engaged in it.
II. The gains of friendship. The prime gain of friendship is just the knowledge of a noble soul. That was what Jonathan felt. It is the man who has most in himself to give who gives most, not the man who has most of what is external to give. No counter gifts can altogether balance those which an opulent nature bestows when it gives itself. That, then, is the first gain of friendship, simply to know a noble nature.
2. The second gain of friendship is that it develops the powers of those engaged in it. History contains many striking instances of how friends have stimulated one another to the highest intellectual attainment. For instance, Goethe and Schiller, the two greatest chiefs of German literature, though differing widely in genius and disposition, both produced their grandest works when living in the same town and daily enjoying each others conversation. And German history has a still more striking example. Just as Goethe and Schiller lived together at Weimar, so Martin Luther and Philip Melancthon lived together at Wittenburg, and their friendship did a great deal to stamp its character on the Reformation. It is perfectly delightful to hear Luther and Melancthon speaking about each other. For instance, Luther says on one occasion, Philip is a wonder to us all. If the Lord will, he will beat many Martins as the mightiest enemy to the devil and scholasticism. I am the rough woodman who has to make a path; but Philip goes quietly and peaceably along it, builds and plants, sows and waters. On the other hand, the younger man said on one occasion, Luther supplies the place of all my friends. He is greater and more admirable in my sight than I dare express.
3. Then a third gain of friendship is that a friend can often speak a good word for his friend, and otherwise promote his advantage. Flattery is the poison of friendship, because it is false, and it has always been counted one of the greatest gains of friendship that cane friend can, without offence, tell the other his faults. An ancient Chinese philosopher says about this close friendship, The heaven-ordained relationship, on which depends the correction of ones character; and a very ancient Indian poet expresses this still more beautifully in these words:
The words which from a strangers lips offend
Are honey-sweet if spoken by a friend,
As when the smoke of common wood we spurn,
But call it perfume sweet when fragrant aloes burn;
and the Scripture clinches this matter by saying, Faithful are the wounds of a friend.
III. The qualifications for friendship. Philosophers are too apt to speak as if friendship were possible only to philosophers, or men of genius. Thus Sir Thomas Browne says, This noble affection falls not on vulgar or common constituents, but on such as are marked for virtue. La Bruyere, the French philosopher, says, Pure friendship is something which men of an inferior nature can never taste; and Charles Kingsley says, It is only the great-hearted who can be true friends; the mean and cowardly can never know what true friendship means. If a man only be genuine he is quite fit for this relationship, and if in addition he be tender and unselfish he can give the highest pleasure in this relationship. It was part of the low estimate of women universal in the ancient world that the ancient philosophers deny that women could be friends. Christianity, however, has corrected this, as so much else, and we know that women are not only as capable as men of being friends to one another, but of being friends to men. I might quote such historical examples as St. Francis and St. Clara, or as between the poet Cowper and Mrs. Unwin. Is the highest friendship possible without religion? One of the most obvious and inalienable qualities of friendship is this, that friends talk confidentially to each other on important subjects. They exchange with each other their deepest subjects. Now, if the deepest subject of all is excluded–if religion is kept out of the conversation–must we not pronounce the friendship to be imperfect and mutilated? The most elementary dictate about friendship is that one friend must do the other as much good as he can. (J. Stalker, D. D.)
Friendship, a circumstance of holy youth
There have been certain proverbial friendships stereotyped on the social history of the world; those of Pylades and Creates, Nisus and Euryalus, Jonathan and David. Certain similar features marked them all, they were in all cases the friendships of youth, of self-sacrifice, of heroic generosity, and of perseverance to death. Another feature distinguished them. The friendship wag in each case vowed upon the altar of boyish devotion. The boy did not mistake the character of his own disposition or the friend whom he selected; and the experience of after life confirmed and verified the choice of youth. There are many occasions in life in which the boy is not the best decider upon truth, and in which the decisions of early days and first choices are not confirmed by the experience of riper years. It is happily not the case with friendship. There, often, he whom we have chosen as the depository of our first conscious feelings, the chosen companion of the long walk on the school holiday, the friend to whom we have applied in the difficulty of the lesson, is the companion of the sore struggle of after days, the accepted friend of the wife of our choice, and sometimes our kind and tender comforter when we are mourners over the grave of the wife or of the child. In the advance of onward years, the friend of boyhood sits by us when we are dying, follows us to the grave, places the tablet in the church or the inscription on the tombstone, and is steadfast at the last hour, as he was in the schoolroom, by the rivers bank, on the playground and on the holiday. The love of David and Jonathan was singularly beautiful and true.
1. All boys have a natural tendency towards forming friendships. Such friendships tend to bring out the character; without them the powers of a boy will very often lie dormant and undeveloped through his future life. Up to a certain age a youth, though full of affection towards those who are the relations of his life, may be unconscious of them. For his friend at school, in connection with whom none of those relationships exist he is able to realise love and regard, and in connection with him first becomes conscious of the power of love at all. The knowledge of this fact alone expands and invigorates the whole disposition.
2. The friendship of youth frequently ends in important results of usefulness in after life. There is something striking in the altered circumstances which in turn affected the sons of Kish and Jesse; and it was in these very adversities that each was so invaluable to the other. It is very hard to tell what our lot may be in future life. Vicissitudes, as untoward as that which lost Jonathan his throne, may affect us in our onward career; and fortune, as unexpected as that which fell to Davids lot, may fall to our share. Many a boy is flushed with high birth or illustrious parentage, or has some bright promise of future position, which will elevate him above his fellows; but the possibility of a future change in the position of boyhood is strongly brought to mind by the story of Jonathan and David. But while this covenant was thus acted upon in after days, the covenant itself was a very striking and beautiful circumstance. Two young men, each of them full of high energies; ambitious, brave, and noble; were, nevertheless, so deeply conscious of their dependence upon God and the necessity of serving Him, as to bind themselves by an agreement of a distinctly religious character; thus evincing their piety and showing that the claims of God infinitely transcend the highest earthly employment. Such a thing is rare.
3. And again, there is something very grand in the long pause in the personal communications between David and Jonathan. They loved each other as boys and as youths. When David walked forth fresh and ruddy from the wilderness of Bethlehem, and Jonathan shone in all the lustre of the son of a great king, the prince and the shepherd boy loved each other. They took delight in telling their love one for the other, and made their covenant before God in the field of Ezel, and their souls were satisfied. They saw each other no more in the passage of years. Indeed, Davids eye rested not on the countenance of his friend until it was brought a corpse from the streets of Bethsban. Trouble of all kinds marked the interval. Nevertheless, all this sufficed not to shake the foundations of Jonathans love for David. It is a very poor and narrow view, to imagine that real friendship should need constant expression. It is a deep, wide, lasting thing, whose seed is sown, as in some eases, in the period of boyhood, and may spring up into a plant which may shadow a long-after day, though the interval that elapses between the ratification of that friendship and the hour of death, may be marked by a long suspension of intercourse: aye! and even by circumstances.
4. Another lesson that we learn from the friendship of these two youths is, that true friendship exists in a desire to discover points of beauty and nobility in everything, however otherwise defective or polluted. Through the outward circumstance of a lineage opposed to the present and future interest of David, he was able to perceive, to value, end to love the noble qualities of Jonathan. While in the shepherd boy, whose destiny had been already declared by an unerring voice to be one which would finally eclipse the house of Saul, Jonathan was able to see the lustre of those qualities which eventually made David the sweet psalmist of Israel and the man after Gods own heart; and seeing them, he had the disinterestedness to love them, and to ally himself to them. (E. Monro.)
Friendship
How dreary would this world be if there were no friendships in it, if no heart union between man and man, husband and wife, parent and child, young man and maiden. How narrow must be the soul of that man who has never known what it is to be absorbed in someone else, so absorbed, that the mention of the name of that one will cause a peculiar thrill of joy. How sad to care only for oneself. How woeful to be uncared for. Miserable the state of one represented as saying, Theres not much to live for. I dont suppose I have a friend in all the world. Still sadder to me is the one who replied, If you have no friend, you have nobody to borrow money of you; nobody to call when you are in the middle of an interesting book; nobody to tell stories about you to other people; nobody, in short, to bore you before your face and abuse you behind your back. That was a cynical view of a selfish man, of one who never could have tasted the sweets of a real friendship or the magnetic power of love. David drew Jonathan and held him as the magnet does steel filings. You cannot see the subtle power that attracts, but it is there. It is a mystery in evidence.
I. Friendship through respect. Love blazed up towards David very suddenly. Still, it was love, founded on respect. With some love may be more slowly kindled, but may die very hardly. Love at first sight is a possibility, and a constantly-renewed experience in this old world. Thank God that romance is not yet banished from the earth. In some nations affections are more kept under control than in England; marriages are made to depend on the amount of the dowry. Harmony of taste and principle characterised the friendship of the son of Saul and the son of Jesse. There was true piety in both. There is little prospect of happiness in any union without piety. First impressions are not always right. We may not always follow them. Reciprocal was the affection between Israels prince and its future sweet singer. Sometimes a man may care for one who cares nothing for him. Many a maiden, too, has given affection to one who may not really have had a serious thought about returning it. Imagination can throw round another a glamour of qualities he or she may not possess. People do not always meet with a return of affection. And yet some are as greedy of it as the eucalyptus is of water. Affection should beget affection, but it is not always successful in the transfer. Even when Christ loved with an infinite and Divine love it has not always found a response in souls.
II. Discriminating friendship. Seneca tells of a distinguished citizen of Rome who introduced the fashion of separating his visitors. Some were left in hall or court, others were admitted to the antechamber, and others were led into the boudoir of privacy and rest. Today some are acquaintances of the street, others of the church, and others of the home. A sensible man will know how to discriminate. He will not carry his heart on his sleeve. He will not be like bill distributors who thrust their papers into anybodys hands. He will find an intensified interest in the special affection he has for one of like mind to himself.
1. Unreservedness and unsuspiciousness will be found in a true friendship. A Jonathan will pour out his admiration and affection to a David. He will have nothing to hide. There will be free interchange of feeling. When danger threatens one the other will be alive to it. Faithfulness in a friend is promoted by absolute trust. But let me here say that this absolute trust should not lead to presumings. Some are always ready to act as if the surest signs of friendship were found in free comments on conduct.
2. Disinterested and ready to bestow will be the attitude of a true friend. A Jonathan gives his bow and his robes to David. For him he foregoes his claim to a kingdom. He esteems the friendship of David of greater worth than a crown. How suggestive of that Divine love that gave up majesty, glory, heavens rest, for reviling, rejection, mocking, scourging, loneliness, and death, even the death of the cross for sinners such as ourselves.
3. Unchangeable and unwavering to the end will a true friendship be. Some friendships are like the strings of musical instruments that snap so easily when there is an alteration in the temperature.
III. The test of friendship. Adversity is a test of faithfulness. When a man is prosperous he will have many friends. They will flock around, bend heads, and bow bodies. Let the tide of prosperity, however, turn, and many will rapidly fade from vision, having wind and tide in their favour as they speed away. One said, Early fruits rot soon, so friendships too rapidly ripened. Gushing protestations are often followed by tantalising flirtations and bitter and cruel estrangements. Trifling is the death of friendship. Not so was it with David and Jonathan. What misery can be wrought into hearts and homes by those who are unfaithful, and who are not worthy the sacred name of friend! Such bitter experiences were unknown to David and Jonathan. They were faithful to each other right to the end. David would have readily died for Jonathan if he could. (F. Hastings.)
Jonathan
In heavens vault there are what are known as binary stars, each probably a son, with its attendant train of worlds, revolving around a common centre, but blending their rays so that they reach the watchers eye as one clear beam of light. So do twin souls find the centre of their orbit in each other; and there is nothing in the annals of human affection nobler than the bond of such a love between two pure, high-minded and noble men, whose love passes that of women. Such love was celebrated in ancient classic story, and has made the names of Damon and Pythias proverbial. It has also enriched the literature of modern days in the love of a Hallam and a Tennyson. But nowhere is it more fragrant than on the pages that contain the memorials of the love of Jonathan and David.
I. Consider the qualities of this friend whom Jehovah chose for the moulding of the character of his beloved; and then be prepared to surrender to his care the choice of your most intimate associates. He knows what your temperament needs, and where to find the companion who shall strengthen you when weak, and develop latent unknown qualities.
1. He was every inch a man. In true friendship there must be a similarity of tastes and interests. The prime condition of two men walking together is that they should be agreed. And the bond of a common manliness knit these twin souls from the first. Jonathan was every inch a man; as dexterous with the bow as his friend with the sling.
2. He was withal very sensitive and tender. It is the fashion in some quarters to emphasise the qualities supposed to be specially characteristic of men–those of strength, courage, endurance–to the undervaluing of the tenderer graces more often associated with women. But in every true man there must be a touch of woman, as there was in the ideal Man, the Lord Jesus. There should be strength and sweetness, courage and sympathy; the oak and the vine, the rock and the moss that covers it with its soft green mantle.
3. Jonathan had a marvellous power of affection. He loved David as himself; he was prepared to surrender without a pang his succession to his fathers throne, if only he might be next to his friend; his was the love that expresses itself in tender embraces and tears, that must have response from the object of its choice. We judge a man by his friends, and the admiration he excites in them. Much is said of the union of opposites, and it is well when one is rich where the other is poor; but the deepest love must be between those whose natures are close akin.
4. He was distinctly religious. He must be strong who would strengthen another; he must have God, and be in God, who would give the consolations of God to his brother; and we can easily understand how the anguish of Jonathans soul, torn before filial devotion to his father and his love to his friend, must have driven him back to those resources of the Divine nature, which are the only solace of men whose lives have been cast in the same fiery crucible.
II. Consider the conflict of Jonathans life. He was devoted to his father. He was always found associated with that strange dark character, melancholy to madness, the prey of evil spirits, and yet so keenly susceptible to music, and so quick to respond to the appeal of chivalry, patriotism, and generous feeling; resembling some mountain lake, alternately mirroring mountains and skies, and swept by dark storms. Father and son were together in life, as they were undivided in death. When he woke up to find how truly he loved David, a new difficulty entered his life. Not outwardly, because, though Saul eyed David with jealousy, there was no open rupture. David went in and out of the palace, was in a position of trust, and was constantly at hand for the intercourse for which each yearned. But when the flames of hostility, long smouldering in Sauls heart, broke forth, the true anguish of his life began. On the one hand, his duty as son and subject held him to his father, though he knew his father was doomed, and that union with him meant disaster to himself; on the other hand, all his heart cried out for David. His love for David made him eager to promote reconciliation between his father and his friend. It was only when repeated failure had proved the fruitlessness of his dream that he abandoned it; and then the thought must have suggested itself to him: Why not extricate yourself from this sinking ship while there is time? Why not join your fortunes with his whom God hath chosen? The new fair kingdom of the future is growing up around him–identify yourself with it, though it, be against your father. The temptation was specious and masterful, but it fell blunt and ineffectual at his feet. Stronger than the ties of human love were those of duty, sonship, loyalty to Gods anointed king; and in some supreme moment he turned his back on the appeal of his heart, and elected to stand beside his father. From that choice be never flinched. When David departed whither he would, Jonathan went back to the city. It was one of the grandest exhibitions of the triumph of principle over passion, of duty over inclination, that the annals of history record. Jonathan died as a hero; not only because of his prowess in battle with his countrys foes, but because of his victory over the strongest passion of the human heart, the love of a strong man, in which were blended the strands of a common religion, a common enthusiasm for all that was good and right. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The attachment of Jonathan and David
I. The first particular belonging to this remarkable and most interesting attachment, was its sudden formation. It was from predisposition that this friendship so suddenly arose; from the possession and exhibition of modesty, piety, and courage, that it derived its strength and ardour, and finally its permanence. And all this will, in a great degree, account for the otherwise strange mutability, which we observe in human affections. History, poetry, society, are all eloquent in praise of friendship; yet when we look for such an affection, and tax memory and observation on the question, all we have is an account of sudden or violent attachment, formed upon fancy, and not upon predisposition; of friendships as rapidly dissolved as they are raised; oftentimes converted into animosity and hatred; more frequently wasting and decaying into indifference from their first enthusiasm, and seldom durable except when self-interest was largely and deeply involved. This is no slander upon worldly amity, for every mans experience will corroborate the truth of the account.
II. The admiration of Jonathan terminated in his affection for David, but the affection became mutual. The friendship of the world, in its best form, seems to be rather favouritism or partiality, than mutual and equal attachment, something more like parental regard or patronage, than that which the word friendship properly expresses. This one-sided regard, this favouritism, has in it none of the advantages of friendship. He who has a friend, as old writers say, has got a second self, doubled powers, for good or for evil. In friendships, and we speak only of religious friendships, how many advantages arise to both parties! Their equality and freedom lead to the communication and increase of piety; to the correction of errors in judgment, and errors of infirmity in moral disposition and practice; to a greater facility of approach to God, and a steadier advance through life to his kingdom.
III. It will be well to thine a little on the means used for its preservation and permanence. These were pious exercises. Thus we read, that Jonathan and David entered into a solemn league and covenant of friendship, with every appeal to heaven to bless their mutual regard, and promote its effects to the advantage of their descendants.
IV. There is one friend to be found, one true heart, one faithful soul, well tried in the furnace of afflictions and temptations, whose proffered regard, with all its enduring and imperishable benefits and excellences, men too frequently overlook. That friend, who, in Scripture language, is said to stick closer than a brother, and is a brother born for adversity, you anticipate me by naming, the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Jonathan, captivated with David, stripped himself of all his robes of honour, in order to array him with these, as a proof of his affection–the overture of a covenant attachment, never to be violated. So did Christ.
2. Again we are prompted to consider from this narrative the abiding mercies of the Redeemer. Our first acquaintance with Him (if we possess any) arose from His own gracious condescension.
3. On every occasion of intimacy we read that Jonathan failed not to encourage Davids hand in God. This was the part of a holy friend, one who saw the value of better things than this world contained, and knew the value of such consolations and encouragements as religion–the true religion alone can give in our times of weakness, and depression, and suffering. Has it not ever been so between Christ and the believer?
4. Finally, we learn that it was never in Davids power to requite the fidelity of Jonathan, save only in the person of his child, Mephibosheth. Yet him he sought out diligently, and to him repaid, as far as possible, the kindness of his departed friend. Oh! is not this a stirring appeal to us in behalf of Christian gratitude and Christian benevolence. Our friend is removed from us, departed to make way for our inheritance to kingly honour. We cannot even pour out our tears upon his grave, or embalm his sacred remains with ceremonious sorrow. Nevertheless his children are amongst us, the poor ones of his flock–the despised and forgotten of the world. Seek them out, feed them, clothe them, comfort them, cheer them; this tribute, and this tribute only, will be accepted. Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these, My brethren, ye have done it unto Me. (C. M. Fleury, A. M.)
Jonathan the friend
The absence of friends makes the busiest place a solitude; nor is there any vacuum Nature abhors more than that. She teaches us to seek a heart that beats in unison with our own; looks of sympathy and kindness; a bosom into which we can pour the secrets of our souls; when burdens press heavy, an arm to lean on; when our back is at the wall, an ally to stand fighting by our side; in our difficulties a counsellor to advise with; in our sorrows one to divine, and in our joys one to double them. This is so natural, and to possess such a friend is both so delightful and profitable, that, whether his home be a castle or a cabin, and he himself a king or a beggar, oven though he was rich with the wealth of banks, and filled the earth with his fame, for a man to want friends, true friends, according to Lord Bacon, is to find this world a wilderness. The value which all ages and countries have set on friendship may be estimated by the honours they have paid to it, and the care they have taken to embalm the memory of those whose lives have afforded remarkable illustrations of what friendships could dare, and bear, and do. We have an example of this in the beautiful story of Damon and Pythias, where we see how it has filled the worst of men with admiration, disarming the hand and quenching the rage of tyrants. The first, a Pythagorean philosopher, was condemned to death by Dionysius; the execution of the sentence, however, being suspended in consequence of his obtaining leave to go home to settle his domestic affairs–a favour which the tyrant granted on condition of his returning by a stated day to suffer the penalty of death. The promise was given, but not reckoned sufficient. He dies on the spot, unless he finds a hostage–a friend who will pledge himself to die in his room. At this juncture Pythias steps forward; and delivering himself up to the hands of the tyrant, becomes Damons surety–to wait his friends return, or suffer in his stead. At length the day arrives and the hour; but no Damon. Pythias must be his substitute; and he is ready. Thanking the gods for the adverse winds that retarded the ship in which Damon sailed, he prepares to die, a sacrifice on the altar of friendship. And had fallen, but that before the blow descends, Damon rushes panting on the scene. Now the strange and friendly strife begins. Each is eager to die for the other; and each, appealing to Dionysius, claims the bloody sword as his right and privilege. Though inured to scenes of cruelty, the tyrant cannot look unmoved on such a scene as this. Touched by this rare exhibition of affection, be is melted: nor only remits the punishment, but entreats them to permit him hereafter to share their friendship and enjoy their confidence. What an honour it were to the Gospel were there many instances of such friendship among its professors! Why should there not? Has not Jesus laid this injunction on us all, Love one another, even as I have loved you? There is another, and almost equally remarkable, example of friendship told of such as never heard of Him who is the friend of sinners. It is so remarkable indeed that it procured Divine honours to Orestes and Pylades from the Scythians–a race so bloody, rude, and savage that they are said to have fed on human flesh, and made drinking cups of their enemies skulls. Engaged in an arduous enterprise, Orestes and Pylades, two sworn friends, landed on the shores of the Chersonesus to find themselves in the dominions and power of a king whose practice was to seize on all strangers and sacrifice them at the shrine of Diana. The travellers were arrested. They were carried before the tyrant; and, doomed to death, were delivered over to Iphigenia, who, as priestess of Dianas temple, had to immolate the victims. Her knife is buried in their bosoms, but that she learns before the blow is struck that they are Greeks–natives of her own native country. Anxious to open up a communication with the land of her birth, she offers to spare one of the two, on condition that the survivor will become her messenger, and carry a letter to her friends in Greece. But which shall live, and which shall die? That is the question. The friendship which had endured for years, in travels, and courts, end battlefields is now put to a strain it never bore before. And nobly it bears it. Neither will accept the office of messenger, leaving his fellow to the stroke of death. Each implores the priestess to select him for the sacrifice; and let the other go. While they contend for the pleasure and honour of dying, Iphigenia discovers in one of them her own brother. She embraces him; and sparing both flees with them from that cruel shore. Both are saved; and the story, borne on the wings of fame, flies abroad, fills the world with wonder, and carried to distant regions, excited such admiration among the barbarous Scythians, that they paid Divine honours to Orestes and Pylades, and deifying these heroes, erected temples to their worship. But to illustrate what a friend has been, and friends should be, we haves yet brighter example and more certainly truthful story in that of Jonathan–at once so touching and so tragic. It finds its type in those rivers, the Rhine and Rhone for instance, which, fed by exhaustless snows, and springing into light in lofty regions, high above the sea to whose distant shores their waters wend, are rivers at their birth; bursting from the icy caverns of Alpine glaciers in full, impetuous flood. It has its origin in a very memorable event, and on one of the most notable days in the whole history of Israel.
1. The friendships are few that survive years of separation; the shock of conflicting interests; the drain made on our old affections by new claims; the trials they are put to by infirmities of temper, by plain dealing with faults, by a manly independence, by requests refused, by favours unrequited, by the rivalries of business, by the partisanship that springs from creeds or politics, and by a thousand other nameless circumstances. Fragile as the flowers the winter frost traces on our windows, there are friendships that a breath will melt away. It may be very wrong and very pitiful, but, as the wise man says, a whisper separateth chief friends; and who lives long lives to see so many, like leaves the frost has nipped, fall off, and the ties which friendship had formed, so often and sometimes so easily dissolved, that he comes to read with little astonishment, and no great sense of exaggeration, the words of one who, describing his relationships, said, Though the church would not hold my acquaintances, the pulpit is large enough to bold all my friends. Happily, there are friendships that stand the test of time and the severest strain; but among these, what poet or panegyrist has recorded with glowing pen one to be compared with Jonathans? It is quite unique; remarkable as his fathers stature. The words of the poet may be justly applied to Jonathan–
None but himself could be his parallel.
For example, men will praise their friends, but how few are generous enough without jealousy to hear others praise them, at their expense, in eulogiums they feel to be disparaging to themselves.
2. Then see what severe trials this friendship endured; and enduring, triumphed overse Sauls gloomy eye fixed on David, the javelin he hurled to pin him to the wall, the cry of his soldiers echoing from the rocks as they hunted the fugitive from cave to cave, and hill to hill, not more illustrating the words, Jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals of fire, than the friendship of Jonathan did those which follow, Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it. The reed that bends its head to a breath of wind, and the old grey rock which withstands the hurricane that strews the plain with trees and the foaming shore with wrecks, are not more unlike than Jonathan where his own interests, and the same Jonathan where Davids interests were concerned. Such was the depth and power of his affection for his friend. Here neither Sauls entreaties, nor anger, nor violence could move him. He would part with life to please his father, but not with his love for David.
3. If piety is shown by a regard to God and a Child-like submission to His sovereign will, by taking up our cross and denying ourselves daily that we may follow Christ, by saying, like Jesus Himself, as He book the bitter cup of our sorrows from His Fathers hand, Father, not My wilt, but Thine be done, what finer example of this grace than Jonathan? David is to supplant him; David is to enter on the honours and fortune he expected to enjoy; and out of the ruins of Sauls house, David is to build his own; yet Jonathan ceases not to regard him with unabated and the tenderest affection. Tender as a woman, and yet true as steel, overflowing with generous kindness, utterly devoid of selfishness, trusting as much as he wad trusted, with a heart that reflected Davids as face answereth to face in water, Jonathan was the paragon and perfect pattern of a friend.
4. To make some practical use of this matter, I remark–
(1). Everyone should seek and cultivate friendships. Man has no room in his heart to accommodate many friends; but, as God said in Eden, it is not good that man should be alone. Isolation breeds selfishness, moroseness; and these are apt to run into misanthropy. So necessary, however, is it for the happiness of man and the complete development of his nature, that kings, who are often required by policy to stand aloof on their cold, unenviable elevation from their highest nobles, have raised servants into favourites, and sought the pleasures of friendship in the confidence and company of menials. There is a touching story of a captive, cut off from human society and long immured in a lonely dungeon of the Bastille, whose heart, craving some object of friendship, found it in a spider be had tamed, and which his brutal jailer cruelly destroyed.
(2) In choosing friends, we should select such as promise, by the tone of their conversation, and by their moral and religious character, to prove friends indeed–such as we can trust in the hour of adversity, and would like to see by our dying bed. Acquaintances are one thing, but friends another.
(3) We should seek a friend in Jesus Christ–the best, truest, kindest, surest friend man ever had. Everliving, everloving, and everlasting. Like summer birds which come and go with the sun, like our shadow which deserts us when his face is clouded, like fair flowers that close their leaves as soon as rain begins to fall or cold winds to blow, earthly friends may desert us when we most need their sympathy and support–at the time, and in the circumstances, expressed in the well-known adage, A friend in need is a friend indeed. But such a friend is Jesus Christ. One of the old Fathers tells a parable, which, with a slight alteration, illustrates this subject; and, in view of an hour of death, and a day of judgment, may well recommend to our acceptance and confidence and peace and joy the friendship of the Friend of sinners. A man summoned to answer for his crimes, and called in question for his life, sought help of three friends he had. The first agreed to bear him company for a part of the way; the second would lend him some money for his journey; while the third undertook to go all the way with him, to appear in court, and plead his cause. So runs the story. In this man, the representative of a lost and guilty race, we see ourselves: and in the three friends whose help he sought, we see the flesh, or our fellow creatures, the world with its wealth, and Christ, the sinners Friend. (T. Guthrie, D. D.)
David and Jonathan
Goliaths death day was the birthday of the beautiful, memorable friendship between David and Jonathan.
I. Theirs was the friendship of godly men. Enter into no friendship that is displeasing to Christ and that is incompatible with friendship with Him. And in reference to that closest of earthly attachments–which unites for good or ill two lives till death them do part, let young Christian people see to it that they walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise.
II. Unselfish was the friendship between David and Jonathan. The favour of princes has too often been secured by the designing and depraved; men who pandered to vice, and made more tempting the primrose path to perdition. Unsought, unselfish, was Jonathans friendship to David. Here is a valid test for friendship. Is it unselfish? Free from rivalry? Able to rejoice at the growing prosperity of the other even while adversity is darkening round itself? Cheerfully willing to pass down from first to second that the other may pass up from second to first? How much of Jonathans spirit is in it? The friendship that claims congratulations but is slow to congratulate, that looks for sympathy, but is reluctant to sympathise, or falls away altogether from the friend in his dark and cloudy day–such may be the friendship of the world. But how unlike the virtue that ennobled Jonathan, the memory of which keeps his name green and beautiful from age to age.
III. Severely tested by adversity was the friendship between David and Jonathan. True friendship can stand the test of adversity. It can not only live in the sunshine but can also illumine our darkness. When sorrows come; when all things seem against us; when men speak evil of us falsely, then we need a friend. A brother is born for adversity; and such a friend as David called my brother Jonathan.
IV. Mutually valuable was the friendship between David and Jonathan. (G. T. Coster.)
David and Jonathan
After the death of Goliath all would seem to go well with David. The admired of all admirers, high in favour, beloved of Jonathan, and living with the king–whose state is so enviable as his? Yet let no one be sure of anything in this world, that is, of anything capable of vicissitude. Davids sufferings and persecutions are beginning now when, to the outward eye, all seems brilliant and prosperous. God, who saw the evil coming, gave him the animating support of dear friend. You will often see how a compensating element is blended with great calamity, and neutralises much of its virus.
1. Put asunder by Sauls malignant envy, yet I suppose that the remembrance of that great surpassing love of Jonathans must have been a presence and a power to David. There is no influence on a feeling mind stronger than the sense of being loved; nothing more elevating, more securing to the inner life. We are dearer to ourselves when we are dear to someone else. Danger, of a very subtle and fatal kind, lurks in the feeling, No man careth for my soul. This is, indeed, the fruitful source of suicide. Youths are steadied when away from home by the confidence they have of a mighty love felt for them by their mothers. Is it not Jeremy Taylor who says, He who loves is happy, but he who is loved is safe! See how in the constitution of the family, in marriage, in children, in friendship, God has provided a shield for our weakness in the love borne to us. Jonathan saw himself magnified and improved in David, who was his better self. Read the fourteenth chapter to discern the valorous soul of Jonathan. Look at him, with one attendant likeminded with himself, climbing up upon his hands and upon his feet into the garrison of the Philistines. And they fell before Jonathan, and there was trembling in the host: and that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armour bearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plough. Here was Davids adventurous spirit: Jonathan had seen Goliath for forty days defying Israel, and had not dared to meet him, but he saw David kill him. He loved that which went beyond his own spirit, yet was of the same heroic order. He saw in David a higher and greater Jonathan, the ideal of his own actual life, himself transfigured and perfected. What he had dreamt he might be, he beheld in David.
2. Now, let us turn to the father. Was Saul ever like his son? David, in his song, unites them in a very beautiful harmony: Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. And when we look at Sauls early history, there gleams on us a ray of his sons noble spirit. When the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought him no presents, it is added, but he held his peace. That faculty of self-control stands in terrible contrast with the utter loss of self-respect and self-government which he afterwards evinced. Moreover, the grief of Samuel at the Divine rejection of Saul (it grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the Lord all night) is a touching proof of the truth that Saul was lovely in the early part of his career. Here was a noble nature ruined; but we must confess that his was a situation of such extraordinary difficulty that, while he could have retained his uprightness had he remained in favour with God, yet when we think of his constitutional malady, and of the human and almost necessary vexation which the song of the women must have occasioned; when we think that the praise of higher prowess was bestowed on one who was known to be the aspirant to the throne, as we learn from Jonathans words to David, we cannot wonder that jealousy caused his ruin.
There is no habit so easily acquired, so hardly cast off, as jealousy or envy.
1. We may safely affirm that, if you prize communion with God as your greatest blessing, you will be a stranger to envy. It is the presence of God with us which shuts out the base passions, or keeps them from having dominion over us. And let this be a touchstone to us all. When we feel the rising of envious emotion, let us alarm ourselves, let us be sure we are going back; we are descending to a lower level of the Christian life; we are satisfied to pass the day without a hearty effort to realise Gods presence, and therefore has this evil come upon us. Cleave to the Lord, and all virtue, all goodness, all excellence in people whom you meet will be dear to you, because they are His gifts whom you prize higher than all gifts. Envy the gifts! How is that possible when the Giver is yours. Of the Giver of every good and perfect gift, you can say, He is my God.
2. This is the first great rule to show us how we may shun envy.
3. But, after this, get into the way of admiring worth, independence, and all moral excellence in whomsoever you see it. Love it in an enemy, and then you cannot have one. Sometimes we are slow to recognise high qualities in people who differ from us; but rid yourselves of this meanness, and delight yourselves in the discovery of nobleness, of generosity, of moral worth in books or men. Wordsworth says–
My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky;
but what is Gods bow in the clouds for beauty compared to Gods gift of genius, of wisdom, of disinterestedness, of charity, when in our human life they arch heaven and earth with a glory that fadeth not away? The nobility of Jonathans character cannot easily be over-estimated. (B. Kent, M. A.)
Our social relationships
I. The intimate friendships of life.
1. Friendships spring up often, we can hardly explain why, but they are most real, most helpful, very precious, and frequently lasting. It is an unspeakably blessed thing to have a true friend in whose wisdom you can confide, in whose strength you can shelter your weakness, whose sympathy understands the ever-varying moods of your soul.
2. Advice as to how to obtain and to retain friendship could not be more forcibly given than in the words, A man that hath friends must show himself friendly. All expressions of confidence and affection are not to be on one side only; they must be mutual.
3. Our companionships bear testimony to our natures end our convictions. For friendship as I understand it does not consist in the perpetual interchange of compliments and sweet flatteries, but in the endeavour to increase the goodness and the happiness of each other, and sometimes this can be done only by gentle reproof and warning. It is a delicate task, and not unfrequently a most painful and hazardous one. Yet, as one truly says, the best of friends are they that deny themselves of pleasure for the sake of making me better; they that incur the risk of anger and dislocation of friendship for the sake of telling me a truth that nobody else dares to tell me, and that I die for the want of hearing; they that are more choice of my souls interior and essential good than they are of my satisfaction with the pride and the vanities of life, and seek to be physician of my soul, they are my best friends.
4. The other characteristics of friendships are expressions of love and faithfulness in adversity. Do not, expect to get all and give nothing–to have affection and confidence lavished upon you as though it were your right, and return none. Not so will you acquire and keep friendship.
II. Social acquaintances. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (Rom 15:2.) Beyond those dear and gracious ties we form with souls with whom ours are knit we are compelled to enlarge the circle of our associations, and we make acquaintances in a variety of ways, who never become our friends. Either because we know little about them, or are unattracted by what we do know, our intercourse is limited to those few occasions when we meet in social life, our conversation to those superficial topics which may be called the useful but not valuable counters that serve instead of anything more real or worthy. How many of such acquaintances most people can boast. We are familiar with their names, with some facts of their history, and we encounter them at houses where we visit, or are on tolerable visiting terms with them, but they never show us their hearts, and we are equally reserved. That is not altogether unnatural or undesirable. We cannot, take the oaths of true friendship with everybody. The society in which we move is not to be lowered in its tone by our laxity in fashion or in speech. We are not to descend to the level of the standards which satisfy irreligious people, and sometimes are accepted by those who profess to be religious, but we must follow what is right even if it looks ideal. Those around us are gathering from our conduct what is true and pure and good. We mingle amongst various people, and our influence may be felt. What is wanted is a more intelligent conviction of the duties we owe to society, of its need of a constant purifying influence, and that we Christian men and women have a mission to raise its tone and elevate its life. It will be of little avail to stand sway in isolated carelessness, or in a spirit of indignant asceticism from the worlds life, raising an angry protest against its evil; we must resolutely carry the influence of our own principles into its life, and strive by all means in our power to transform and regenerate it. We are to be in the world,–as salt to save it from corruption, as light to guide, to beautify, to increase the true joy of it–yet we may not be of the world. (W. Braden.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVIII
Jonathan and David commence a lasting friendship; and David
acts prudently with respect to Saul, 1-5
Saul becomes jealous of David, on account of the esteem in
which he is held in Israel; and, in his fury endeavours to
destroy him, 6-12.
David is made captain over a thousand; and the people love and
respect him, 13-16.
Saul, in order to ensnare him, offers him his daughter in
marriage, 17-24;
and requires a hundred foreskins of the Philistines for dowry;
hoping that, in endeavouring to procure them, David might fall
by the hands of the Philistines, 25.
David agrees to the conditions, fulfils them, and has Michal to
wife, 26-30.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVIII
Verse 1. When he had made an end of speaking] These first five verses are omitted by the Septuagint. See the notes on the preceding chapter.
Jonathan loved him as his own soul] The most intimate friendship subsisted between them; and they loved each other with pure hearts fervently. No love was lost between them; each was worthy of the other. They had a friendship which could not be affected with changes or chances, and which exemplified all that the ancients have said on the subject; , , ; “Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Partly for his excellent virtues and endowments, which shone forth both in his speeches and actions; partly, for the great and good service which he had done to God and to his people; and partly, for the similitude of their age and qualities.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. the soul of Jonathan was knitwith the soul of DavidThey were nearly of an age. The princehad taken little interest in David as a minstrel; but his heroism andmodest, manly bearing, his piety and high endowments, kindled theflame not of admiration only, but of affection, in the congenial mindof Jonathan.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,…. In answer to his questions about his descent and family, and doubtless more things were talked of than are recorded:
that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David: he won his heart, made a conquest of his affections, these went out towards him, and cleaved unto him; such were the comeliness of his person, his graceful mien and deportment, his freedom and fluency of expression, his courage and undauntedness, joined with prudence, modesty, and integrity, that they strongly attached him to him:
and Jonathan loved him as his own soul; not only according to the excellency of David’s soul, and the greatness of it, as that deserved respect and love, as Abarbinel suggests, but he loved him as he loved himself. There was a similarity in their persons, in their age, in the dispositions of their minds, in their wisdom, courage, modesty, faithfulness, and openness of soul, that attracted them to each other, that they became as another self; as one soul, as Aristotle speaks r of true friends: instances of very cordial friendship are given by Plutarch s, as in Theseus and Pirithous, Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades, Pythias and Damon, Epaminondas and Pelopidas; but none equal to this.
r Ethic. l. 9. c. 4, 9. So Porphyr. de Vita Pythagor. s Apud Patrick in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The bond of friendship which Jonathan formed with David was so evidently the main point, that in 1Sa 18:1 the writer commences with the love of Jonathan to David, and then after that proceeds in 1Sa 18:2 to observe that Saul took David to himself from that day forward; whereas it is very evident that Saul told David, either at the time of his conversation with him or immediately afterwards, that he was henceforth to remain with him, i.e., in his service. “ The soul of Jonathan bound itself ( lit. chained itself; cf. Gen 44:30) to David’s soul, and Jonathan loved him as his soul.” The Chethibh with the suffix attached to the imperfect is very rare, and hence the Keri (vid., Ewald, 249, b., and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 469). , to return to his house, viz., to engage in his former occupation as shepherd.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Jonathan’s Love to David. | B. C. 1060. |
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And 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. 5 And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.
David was anointed to the crown to take it out of Saul’s hand, and over Jonathan’s head, and yet here we find,
I. That Saul, who was now in possession of the crown, reposed a confidence in him, God so ordering it, that he might by his preferment at court be prepared for future service. Saul now took David home with him, and would not suffer him to return again to his retirement, v. 2. And David having signalized himself above the men of war, in taking up the challenge which they declined, Saul set him over the men of war (v. 5), not that he made him general (Abner was in that post), but perhaps captain of the life-guard; or, though he was youngest, he ordered him to have the precedency, in recompence of his great services. He employed him in the affairs of government; and David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, showing himself as dutiful as he was bold and courageous. Those that hope to rule must first learn to obey. He had approved himself a dutiful son to Jesse his father, and now a dutiful servant to Saul his master; those that are good in one relation it is to be hoped will be so in another.
II. That Jonathan, who was heir to the crown, entered into covenant with him, God so ordering it, that David’s way might be the clearer when his rival was his friend. 1. Jonathan conceived an extraordinary kindness and affection for him (v. 1): When he had made an end of speaking to Saul he fell perfectly in love with him. Whether it refers to his conference with Saul before the battle (1Sa 17:34; 1Sa 17:37), or to that after (v. 51), in which it is probable much more was said than is there set down, is uncertain. But, in both, David expressed himself with so much prudence, modesty, and piety, such a felicity of expression, with so much boldness and yet so much sweetness, and all this so natural and unaffected, and the more surprising because of the disadvantages of his education and appearance, that the soul of Jonathan was immediately knit unto the soul of David. Jonathan had formerly set upon a Philistine army with the same faith and bravery with which David had now attacked a Philistine giant; so that there was between them a very near resemblance of affections, dispositions, and counsels, which made their spirits unite to easily, so quickly, so closely, that they seemed but as one soul in two bodies. None had so much reason to dislike David as Jonathan had, because he was to put him by the crown, yet none regards him more. Those that are governed in their love by principles of wisdom and grace will not suffer their affections to be alienated by any secular regards or considerations: the greater thoughts will swallow up and overrule the less. 2. He testified his love to David by a generous present he made him, v. 4. He was uneasy at seeing so great a soul, though lodged in so fair a body, yet disguised in the mean and despicable dress of a poor shepherd, and therefore takes care to put him speedily into the habit of a courtier (for he gave him a robe) and of a soldier, for he gave him, instead of his staff and sling, a sword and bow, and, instead of his shepherd’s scrip, a girdle, either a belt or a sash; and, which made the present much more obliging, they were the same that he himself had worn, and (as a presage of what would follow) he stripped himself of them to dress David in them. Saul’s would not fit him, but Jonathan’s did. Their bodies were of a size, a circumstance which well agreed with the suitableness of their minds. When Saul put these marks of honour on David he put them off again, because he would first earn them and then wear them; but, now that he had given proofs of the spirit of a prince and a soldier, he was not ashamed to wear the habits of a prince and a soldier. David is seen in Jonathan’s clothes, that all may take notice he is a Jonathan’s second self. Our Lord Jesus has thus shown his love to us, that he stripped himself to clothe us, emptied himself to enrich us; nay, he did more than Jonathan, he clothed himself with our rags, whereas Jonathan did not put on David’s. 3. He endeavored to perpetuate this friendship. So entirely satisfied were they in each other, even at the first interview, that they made a covenant with each other, v. 3. Their mutual affection was sincere; and he that bears an honest mind startles not at assurances. True love desires to be constant. Those who love Christ as their own souls will be willing to join themselves to him in an everlasting covenant.
III. That both court and country agree to bless him. It is but seldom that they agree in their favourites; yet David was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also (which was strange) in the sight of Saul’s servants, v. 5. The former cordially loved him, the latter could not for shame but caress and compliment him. And it was certainly a great instance of the power of God’s grace in David that he was able to bear all this respect and honour flowing in upon him on a sudden without being lifted up above measure. Those that climb so fast have need of good heads and good hearts. It is more difficult to know how to abound than how to be abased.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Samuel – Chapter 18
Saul’s Jealousy Exhibited, vs. 1-9
Jonathan was a silent, but interested observer of the interview with David. Once again he comes through as a far more understanding and submissive man to God’s will than his father, King Saul. In that his soul was knit with the soul of David is indicated that he realized that his life was bound up in the life of David. Jonathan had evidently taken the word of the Lord from Samuel as final and resolved himself to comply with the will of God. He seems to have recognized at once that here is the man the Lord is readying for king of Israel.
Saul’s mind must have been stirred with the same thoughts, but with cautious apprehension instead. He no longer permitted David to leave him, but kept him nearby where he could be watched. Jonathan, however, stripped himself of princely attire and put it upon David. Off came the royal robe and garments; the princely weapons were girded on David, and he was dressed as the prince rather than the king’s son. Jonathan was ready to acclaim David as the new king and made the first covenant between them at that time.
At this time Jonathan was a mature man, perhaps even old enough to have been David’s father. He was not certainly the youth which is often portrayed as David’s friend and companion. Jonathan doubtless used his years of experience in the army and the king’s council to train David in many of the things he must know when he becomes king.
Saul put David into the armed service; where he conducted himself discreetly. He was loved and admired by the men over whom he was placed. Saul’s servants also respected him highly all of which seems to have been displeasing to the king.
An incident which roused the king’s strong animosity toward David occurred as they were returning from the battle in the valley of Elah. In all the towns and villages the women of Israel came out singing joyfully of Israel’s victory over the Philistines. Someone had composed a hit song which all of them were singing. The refrain was, “Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands.” This indicated the immense popularity of David after his brave feat of killing Goliath.
Certainly Saul, in his long military career, had slain many times more than young David. It aroused the king’s anger, and he was filled with wrath. The singers had credited David with ten times as many as they had Saul. With all this popularity what was left for him but to assume the kingship, as Samuel had foretold. Therefore Saul watched David thereafter with the strongest of suspicion.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE FRIENDSHIP OF DAVID AND JONATHAN
1Sa 18:1
HUGH BLACK in his volume entitled, Friendship, speaking of the persons named in this text, remarks, The classic instance of David and Jonathan represents the typical friendship. They met, and at the meeting knew each other to be nearer than kindred. By subtle elective affinity they felt that they belonged to each other. Out of all the chaos of the time and the disorder of their lives, there arose for these two souls a new and beautiful world, where there reigned peace, and love, and sweet content. It was the miracle of the death of self. Jonathan forgot his pride, and David his ambition. It was as the smile of God which changed the world to them. One of them it saved from the temptations of a squalid court, and the other from the sourness of an exiles life. Jonathans princely soul had no room for envy or jealousy. Davids frank nature rose to meet the magnanimity of his friend.
In the kingdom of love there was no disparity between the kings son and the shepherd boy. Such a gift as each gave and received is not to be bought or sold. It was the fruit of the innate nobility of both; it softened and tempered a very trying time for both. Jonathan withstood his fathers anger to shield his friend; David was patient with Saul for his sons sake. They agreed to be true to each other in their difficult position. Close and tender must have been the bond, which had such fruit in princely generosity and mutual loyalty of soul. Fitting was the beautiful lament, when Davids heart was bereaved at tragic Gilboa, 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. Love is always wonderful, a new creation, fair and fresh to every loving soul. It is the miracle of spring to the cold dull earth.
I want to take this classic instance to illustrate and emphasize the ground, the growth and the godliness of friendship.
THE GROUND OF FRIENDSHIP
One who has given himself to the study of this subject by either extended observation, or investigation of the Scriptures, is led to feel that
Unselfishness is the first essential! History furnishes few such instances of unselfishness as the Scriptures record to the credit of David and Jonathan. When Saul, the ambitious, godless man, saw Jonathan voluntarily resign his prospect of crown and throne in Davids behalf:
Then Sauls anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mothers nakedness?
For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom.
There are instances out of number in which men have made sacrifices for their friends. There are exceptional examples of laying down life for friendships sake. Jesus referred to these latter, saying, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. And Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans said, Scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die (1Sa 5:7).
But, if greater unselfishness than that of laying down a life were possible, Jonathan manifested it when, out of pure admiration for his character, and a clear conviction that David was the anointed of God, he turned over to him, without consideration, crown and throne. The same spirit of unselfishness continues to form the true ground of friendship.
Trumbull says, Friendship is to be valued for what there is in it, not for what can be gotten out of it * * To seek friendship for its utility is as futile as to seek the end of a rainbow for its bag of gold. A true friend is always useful in the highest sense, but we should beware of thinking of our friends as brother members of a mutual benefit association, with its periodical demands, and threats of suspension for non-payment of dues.
Solomon says, The rich hath many friends, but one of the acknowledged curses of riches is at this very point. It is so difficult for people that possess them to tell whether they are loved for their own sake, or patronized for profit. If you would be a true friend to any one of your fellows, sound the recesses of your heart, search them for the spirit of selfishness, and call upon the Son of God to cast out that spirit, as He cast the demons out of the man of Gadara. There is no true ground of friendship where selfishness reigns.
Again, similar aspirations are equally fundamental to friendship. And let us never imagine for a moment that Jonathan was without ambition, and surrendered his inheritance because, like Esau, he esteemed a mess of pottage more. Let us never imagine for a minute that Jonathan was without spirit and surrendered his throne, as Charles the Fifth abdicated his, because he preferred ease to responsibility. When, on one occasion, Jonathan went to David in the wood, he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be the king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee (2Sa 23:17). What was that but voicing his ambition? What was that but discovering his spirit? And when, in time of battle, was Jonathan ever wanting? I do not believe that these men could have dwelt together in such love had one been a spirited, ambitious seeker of office, and the other a shiftless ease-loving lad. The old Prophet Amos puts a question of occasion, Can two walk together except they be agreed? (Amo 3:3).
Once when Jowett was writing to Stanley he said, I earnestly hope that the friendship which commenced between us many years ago, may be a blessing to last us through life. I feel if it is to be so, we must both go onward, otherwise the tear and wear of life, and the having travelled over each others minds will be sufficient to break it off. When Jowett said, I feel that if it is to be so, we must both go onward, he emphasized the very point in question. The circumstance that friends must be filled with similar aspirations accounts for the fact that the truly great of earth have so few friends. Their admirers may be, often are, a host; but their friends, those who have been admitted into the inner sanctuary of the life, those who have been communed with, counselled with, honored and loved, are small enough in number.
It is reported of Socrates that when he was building for himself a house in Athens, his plans called for a very small building. An observer questioned him as to why a man of his eminence did not put up a dwelling of better proportion, and one more suitable to his dignity, to which Socrates replied, I should think myself happy to see even so narrow a habitation filled with real friends. Dr. Samuel Johnson commenting on this incident said, Such was the opinion of this great master of human life concerning the unfrequency of the union of minds as might deserve the name of friendship, that among the multitudes whom vanity or curiosity, civility or veneration, crowded about him, he did not expect that very spacious apartments would be necessary to contain all who should regard him with sincere kindness, or adhere to him with steady fidelity. And when we remember how few there were in Socrates times that entertained in any degree the lofty sentiments that made his name immortal, we can understand why he despaired of ever filling a great house with the trusted, since similar aspirations are fundamental to friendship.
But as one goes on in the study of Davids and Jonathans fellowship he sees that he must account not only for the ground thereof, but also for
THE GROWTH OF FRIENDSHIP
It was friendship at first sight. I believe you will find that many of those who become the fastest friends feel a mutual drawing in the first meeting. I recall perfectly how many years ago now a young Baptist minister came into my study at Lafayette, Ind. He was small of stature, and as I looked into his honest eyes, and felt the touch of his hearty hand, I realized that I was face to face with a friend. The years that have passed, nearly forty now, have not so much deepened that impression as they have established it, and today, if I walked in darkness, and felt the necessity of a friend who would bring me at once dependable cheer and counsel, there are few people on earth I would prefer to have called to my assistance.
Friendship is fed also by familiarity. On the day of their first meeting, Jonathan saw much in David to admire, and David found equal occasion to love Jonathan. But, doubtless, the close fellowship of the succeeding days gave occasion for friendship to strike deeper root still. There is an old English proverb, Before you make a friend, eat a peck of salt with him, by which is meant merely, familiarize yourself with his character. Nothing short of time is a sufficient test of what may be in a man. I was impressed afresh with this fact in reading a few days ago The Life of Moody, compiled by George T. B. Davis. The article by Dr. James Buckley asked this question of Moodys ministry, How are we going to prove that any man has the Spirit of God? Will oratorical preaching? Will pathetic preaching? Will persuasive preaching? Is the power of discerning spirits left in the church? Have not some of the most famous evangelists the world ever saw gone into the depths of iniquity? Did not the author of that wondrous hymn, Come ye sinners poor and needy, spend ten years in depravity and go mourning all his days after he emerged from it? Have we not in our day absolutely known them to renounce the doctrines they held when they were most prosperous as evangelists, and with brazen faces confess that in the midst of their greatest efforts for sinners, they did not believe what they were supposed to believe? How shall a man prove that he has the Spirit of God? He must prove it by a long career, by a spotless reputation, by meeting men face to face as well as upon the rostrum; and the men who have slept with him, and travelled with him, and prayed with him, and suffered in evil report as well as in good report, these men must stand up and be able to declare, in the face of God, and in the presence of man, that this man, all through this period lived as he professed, prayed as he professed, preached as he professed, denied himself as he professed, and then if God gives such a wondrous death to a man as this, we have all the evidence, probable and conclusive, that he was a man of God. And we have come to feel that Buckley is right, and that true friendship can only grow, as it ought to grow, as one increases in familiarity with its subject.
We believe also that friendship is strengthened by storms. In the day of prosperity it is more difficult to decide who ones real lovers are than it is in the days of adversity.
Shakespeares Timon of Athens is an illustration of this point which has been practically repeated in hundreds of instances. You will remember that while Timon was prosperous, crowds of flatterers followed him everywhere, just as the multitudes followed Jesus when they found that He could feed the thousands. Timon wasted his substance in presents and hospitality, and succeeded in surrounding himself with parasites who loudly professed their friendship, but when adversity came, they treated him as the same kind of a crowd treated the prodigal son, and in his loneliness and degradation he cursed the very name of friendship, and denied that there was any such thing. But the trouble with Timon was that he misunderstood the whole subject. He had never realized that unselfishness on the part of both subjects to this fine sentiment was absolutely essential, and that the man who is playing host to human parasites that he may hear himself praised is as unworthy of love as his flatterers are incapable of feeling it. Hence Shakespeare wrote. He that loves to be flattered is worthy o the flatterer. Set over against Shakespeares Timon, Hall Caines Bondman, and, in the latter, you have a story of friendship which the fiercest storms only sufficed to strengthen. Jason when he came to know Michael truly was made acquainted with him by their mutual sufferings, and the work that was killing Michael in the sulphur prisons of Iceland was making him so dear to Jason that he came to be willing to die in his stead, and when opportunity offered, he did die willingly, and with the flush of conscious victory upon his fine face, because he knew that when the fiendish anger of Jorgen Jorgenson had spent itself by spilling his blood that Michael Sunlocks, the sufferer, and the woman of their mutual love and the little babe, would be safe. Nothing short of such suffering as Michael Sunlocks passed through would have sufficed to grow in the heart of the great Jason such friendship for him. And one of the comforts for any man who is passing through trial is that it is a testing of friendships. If he is afflicted in body, if he has met with financial reverses, if he has been made the subject of needless persecutions, if he has lost his loved ones and sits in bereavement, his true friends will then take occasion to show the hand of help, and the heart of holy love.
You remember that Jesus had fallen beneath the weight of His cross, when Simon, the black man, came to His assistance; and when we have fainted beneath the load of life, our true friends will be found at our side, for it is true as Will T. Hale has sung,
Though we are worn and weary from some loss,
Yet on lifes journey many friends there be
The Simons who assist to bear the cross
Along the stony road to Calvary.
Solomon long since expressed this same fact in his proverb, A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
A few words on the
GODLINESS OF FRIENDSHIP
and I have finished.
It binds a man to his brother. The longer men study the Word of God, the more emphasis they lay upon brotherly love, the more thoroughly they believe that religion expresses itself there. We have come upon a time when Cains question, Am I my brothers keeper? is regarded as the very antithesis of all true Christian sentiment.
A few days since I was asked this question, Do you love people? If I did not love people, I should be compelled to call into question my profession.
John, you will remember, in his Epistle said, Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love (1Jn 4:7-8).
True friendship compels men to feel after God. One needs only to look back a little to see how fleeting and perishable are the friendships of earth. Many of those we loved ten years ago are removed far from us, and we do not so much as send them a letter any more. Some have sinned and brought shame to themselves, and we think of them only to feel disappointment; others have gone to fill the grave, and one must find, as he grows older, that God and God alone is the only abiding Friend. There is no man so much to be pitied as the man who comes to the end of life and has to put out his hand for a last good-bye to every friend of earth, and in that hour is unable to say, God is my friend.
When Seneca went to comfort Polybius, he encouraged him to bear his afflictions patiently because he was the emperors favorite, adding, You have little reason to complain since Caesar is your friend. The man who knows that he is a favorite of the Heavenly Father, and that the Emperor of the universe is his Friend, has in that consciousness a cordial for life, and a conquest over death.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
1Sa. 18:1. The soul of Jonathan was knit, literally, chained itself. (Kiel). In almost all languages friendship is considered as a union of souls bound together by the band of love. (Clericus). Loved him as his own soul. To the conception of firmness is here added the idea of innerness of friendship, the complete identification of essence of two souls. (Erdmann).
1Sa. 18:2. Would let him go no more home. See last comments on 1Sa. 17:54 of the preceding chapter.
1Sa. 18:3. Made a covenant. Such covenants of brotherhood are frequent in the East. They are ratified by certain ceremonies, and in presence of witnesses, that the persons covenanting will be sworn brothers for life. (Jamieson).
1Sa. 18:4. Stripped himself of the robe, etc. The mention of several weapons, which together make a complete war outfit, suggests that Jonathan wished to honour David as the military hero. His clothing David with his own war-dress sets aside the barrier which his rank and position would raise between them in the first instance on the common ground of the theocratic chivalry, as whose representatives they had come to love one another. (Erdmann). The gift of ones own garment, especially by a prince to a subject, is in the East still the highest mark of honour. (Philippson). See Est. 6:8.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.1Sa. 18:1-4
DAVID AND JONATHAN
I. The possession of analogous moral qualities will breed mutual love. There are material substances which have a singular affinity for each other because there are elements in each which are mutually attractive. The steel filings in the midst of a mass of other material will find their way to the magnet if it is placed anywhere near to them, and cleave to it with persistent force. And there are many bodies which possess elements which give them so strong an affinity the one for the other, that when the chemist places them together they lose their separate identity and the hitherto distinct substances become but one. So human characteristics and qualitiesespecially human excellencesform a basis of mutual affinity between those who are like-minded. A bold and courageous man is attracted to another who shows that he is also bold and courageous, and a man of strong emotions feels a drawing to another of an emotional nature. Jonathan and David evidently possessed some kindred excellences of character. If the shepherd boy had shown his courageous faith by meeting the giant single handed, the prince had displayed the same trustful boldness when he scaled the rock and entered the Philistine garrison, and they were evidently both possessed by an ardent concern for the welfare of their people, and by that humility of heart which is an accompaniment of all true greatness. When, therefore, the youthful son of Jesse stood before Saul, and both by his bearing and his word revealed what motives had prompted his action, the presence of kindred qualities in the breast of Jonathan sent his soul out to David, and that friendship was formed which will be renowned so long as the world shall last.
II. Love based upon affinity of soul is strong and will bear a great strain. Jonathan loved David as his own soul. Self-love is strong and deep and is a Divinely commanded love. We are but obeying an instinct implanted within us by God when we manifest a due regard to our own personal welfarein fact it is inconceivable that any being should be a stranger to such a feeling. Our Lord Himself tells us that our own spiritual well-being is to be the first object of our care when He asks, What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mat. 16:27), and it is natural and right that our lower and secondary interests should be dear to us also. But there is a love which sets all these latter below the interests and the welfare of another, and such a love was that which David bore to Jonathan. It affords an example of the intensity to which love often grows when it is founded upon similarity of moral tastes and aspirations. It is then often equal to any test which can be brought to bear upon it, and forms a tie stronger than mere blood relation, making a man willing to forego all his earthly advantages for the good of his friend. The brook which is but a few inches deep will soon dry up under the rays of the summers sun, or freeze when visited by the frosts of winter, but the deep broad river rolls on without being affected by either. So there are superficial friendships which vanish altogether when circumstances change, but the love born of kinship of soul outlives all the heats of prosperity and the frosts of adversity. Such was the love which Jonathan bore to Davida love which was as deep and abiding when his friend was an outlaw and a fugitive as when he was the favourite of the court, and a love which took no account of the fact that David was destined to occupy the place which Jonathan had once hoped to fill, and the duties of which he was fully competent to discharge. Although he never sat upon a throne, Jonathans conduct to his rival gives full proof of his kingly nature.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1Sa. 18:1-4. Jonathan, the man of generous soul.
1. Generous in admiring. (a) Not jealous, though his own military fame is eclipsed, (b) Fully appreciating the merit of a new and obscure man. (c) Admiring not only a brilliant exploit, but modest, grateful, and devout words.
2. Generous in proposing friendship where he might so naturally have indulged jealousy (as his father did).
3. Generous in giving what was not only valuable and suitable to his friends present wants, but honourable as being associated with himself. Generosity, shown in mutual appreciation and mutual benefits, is the basis of sweet and lasting friendships, and in general is one of the noblest traits of human character.Trans. of Langes Commentary.
This was not a worldly friendship in which one, in loving another, in reality loves only himself and his own personal interests, but one of a higher nature, which formed the uniting bond. They loved each other truly in God, to whose service they had devoted themselves in the hours of holy consecration, and friendship which thus grows up and blossoms, rooting itself in a similarity of sanctified dispositions, takes a first place among our earthly blessings and possessions. There that communion of heart so unites together that one man becomes to another like a living canal, through which the inner life pours forth to him a stream of enriching and never-failing fulness of refreshing consolations and enjoyments. A Cleophas and his companion on the way to Emmaus; a Peter and the disciple who lay on Jesus bosom; a Paul and his Timothyhow lovely are these double stars of sacred history pouring forth their rays upon us from heaven. Whoever is the object of such affectionate friendship, let him esteem it as a treasure of high and precious worth. Whoever, on the contrary, complains that he enjoys no such friendship, let him seek the cause of this, not in others, but in himself; since to him, without doubt, there are a-wanting, if not every endeavour after that which is noble, yet at least the heart-attracting virtues of humility, of purity, and love.Krummacher.
There are, I fear, few such friendships between those who are nearly equals in eminence in the same profession. The proverb says, that two of a trade never agree, and it takes high-toned principle to rejoice in the rise, to an equal position with ourselves, of one who is in the same calling with us. Provided there be sufficient distance between us, either in excellence, or success, the difficulty is not felt on either side. The young statesman, just entering on public life, has neither jealousy nor envy of the veteran leader who has by genius and perseverance made his way to the front rank of politicians, and the leader, in his turn, feels it easy to be cordial and encouraging to the young aspirant. But let the one see the other as nearly as possible on a level with himself, even in his own chosen department of excellence, and feel that he must probably soon consent to be second to him, and the case is altered. Then, almost in spite of themselves, jealousies and envyings will spring up between them; they will look askance at each other, and though they may not break out into open foes, there will be what I may call a sort of armed watchfulness between them, and a very little matter will set them in direct antagonism. The nearer individuals come into competition with each other, the greater is their tendency to be spiteful toward each other. It is easy to be a patron, and, stooping down from a lofty height, to take by the hand some struggling beginner; it is easy, too, to be an admiring pupil of one who is acknowledged to be a great way above us; but it is a much harder, and therefore a much nobler thing, to be the warm appreciative friend of one who is in the same calling with ourselves, and who is bidding fair to outshine and surpass us. But it was just this hard and noble thing that Jonathan did, when he took to his heart the youthful David.Dr. W. M. Taylor.
Similitude of dispositions and estates ties the fastest knots of affection. A wise soul hath piercing eyes, and hath quickly discerned the likeness of itself in another; as we do no sooner look into the glass of water, but face answers to face, and, where it sees a perfect resemblance of itself, cannot choose but love it with the same affection that it reflects upon itself.
No man saw David that day, which had so much cause to disaffect him; none in Israel should be a loser by Davids success, but Jonathan. Saul was sure enough settled for his time: only his successor should forego all that which David should gain; so as none but David stands in Jonathans light; and yet all this cannot abate one jot or dram of his love. Where God uniteth hearts, carnal respects are too weak to dissever them, since that, which breaks off affection, must needs be stronger than that which conjoineth it.Bishop Hall.
In merciful adaptation to the infirmities of his human spirit, God opened to David this stream in the desert, and allowed him to refresh himself with its pleasant water; but to show him, at the same time, that such supplies could not be permanently relied on, and that his great dependence must be placed, not on the fellowship of mortal man, but of the ever-living and ever-loving God, Jonathan and he were doomed, after the briefest period of companionship, to a life-long separation, and the friendship which had promised to be a perpetual solace to his trials, only aggravated their severity when Providence deprived him of its comforts In another view, Davids intercourse with Jonathan served an important purpose in his training. The very sight he had of Sauls outrageous wickedness might have nursed a self-righteous feelingmight have encouraged the thought so natural to man, that as Saul was rejected by God for his wickedness, so David was chosen for his goodness. The remembrance of Jonathans singular virtues and graces was fitted to rebuke this thought; for, if regard to human goodness had decided Gods course in the matter, why should Jonathan not have been chosen? From the self-righteous ground on which he might have been tempted to stand, David would thus be thrown back on the providence of God, and in deepest humility constrained to acknowledge that it was by Gods grace only that he was made to differ from others.Blaikie.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Sauls Reception of David Into His Court, 1Sa. 18:1-30.
Davids Covenant With Jonathan. 1Sa. 18:1-4
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more to his fathers house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And 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.
1.
What took place between David and Jonathan when he told about his family? 1Sa. 18:1-4
Davids victory over Goliath was a turning-point in his life, which opened the way to the throne. This deed brought him out of the rural shepherd life to the scene of Israels wars. In these wars Jehovah blessed all his undertakings with success. It also brought him, on the other hand, into such a relation to the royal house, which had been rejected by God, though it still continued to reign, as produced lasting and beneficial results in connection with his future calling. In the king himself, from whom the Spirit of God had departed, there was soon stirred up such jealousy of David as his rival to whom the kingdom would one day come, that he attempted at first to get rid of him by stratagem. When this failed, and Davids renown steadily increased, he proceeded to open hostility and persecution. Jonathan, however, clung more and more firmly to David with self-effacing love and sacrifice. This friendship on the part of the son of the king not only helped David to bear the more easily all the enmity and persecution of the king but awakened and strengthened in him a pure feeling of unswerving fidelity towards the king himself.
2.
Why did David remain permanently with Saul? 1Sa. 18:2
When David first came to Sauls court, he went to and fro to feed his fathers sheep (1Sa. 17:15). His habit must have been to spend some time with Saul, then as Saul would show improvement, David would be free to go back to his fathers house. If Sauls condition deteriorated, David would be called again to the court. After David slew the giant he vaulted into such a prominent place in the life of Israel that Saul kept him with him permanently. This change of his schedule must not have been because of the worsening of Sauls condition, but rather the fact that his courage had been demonstrated in such a way as to make his services in constant demand.
3.
Why did Jonathan give his armor to David? 1Sa. 18:4
As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armor. This seems to have been a common custom of very ancient times. The manifestation of Jonathans love is seen in the covenant. Saul had earlier been willing to clothe David in his armor, but his was a temporary measure. Jonathans gift was a permanent bestowal of honor and favor.
4.
When did David become Sauls armor-bearer? 1Sa. 18:4
When Absalom was brought back from Gilead, he prepared a chariot of horses and fifty men to run before him (2Sa. 15:1). Saul did not have as much equipage, but he must have had several armor-bearers. When David first came to be with Saul, Saul loved him greatly, and David became his armor-bearer (1Sa. 16:21). Since David came and went and was not constantly at Sauls court, David was probably not his only armor-bearer. After he killed Goliath, it would appear that David was made Sauls personal armor-bearer. Saul set David over his men of war. This prominent position given to David was pleasing in the sight of the people. The servants who were under Davids jurisdiction were also pleased with his leadership.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.We have in this and the following chapters somewhat of a detailed account of David at the Court of Saul. In 1 Samuel 16 this Court life of the future king has been already touched upon, notably in 1Sa. 18:21-23, where the affection of Saul for David was mentioned, where also the appointing of the young shepherd to a post about the kings person is recorded. But this mention in 1 Samuel 16 considerably anticipated the course of events. In relating the results of this affection of Saul for David, the writer of what we may term the episode treating of the influence of music and poetry passed over, so to speak, the story of several years, in the course of which took place the single combat of David with the Philistine giant, and the victorious campaign in which the young hero took so distinguished a part. The history here takes up the thread of the future kings life, after the campaigns which immediately followed the discomfiture of the Philistine champion (1Sa. 18:6 and following). 1Sa. 18:1-4 simply relate the beginning of the world-famous friendship between Prince Jonathan and David.
The Hebrew is rendered was knit, or better, was bound up. This is a strong term, and is used in Gen. 44:30 of Jacobs love to Benjamin: seeing that his life is bound up in the lads life. Aristotle, Nicom. ix. 8, has noted that friends are called one soul.
Jonathan loved him as his own soul.As has been before remarked, the character of the princely son of Saul is one of the most beautiful in the Old Testament story. He was the type of a true warrior of those wild, half-barbarous timesamong brave men seemingly the bravesta perfect soldier, whether fighting as a simple man-at-arms or as the general of an armychivalrous and generousutterty free from jealousya fervid believer in the God of Israela devoted and loyal sona true patriot in the highest sense of the word, who sealed a devoted life by a noble death, dying as he did fighting for his king and his people. The long and steady friendship of Jonathan no doubt had a powerful and enduring influence on the after life of the greatest of the Hebrew sovereigns. The words, the unselfish, beautiful love, and, above all, the splendid example of the ill-fated son of Saul, have no doubt given their colouring to many of the noblest utterances in Davids Psalms and to not a few of the most heroic deeds in Davids life.
We read of this friendship as dating from the morrow of the first striking deed of arms performed by David when he slew the giant. It is clear, however, that it was not the personal bravery of the boy hero, or the rare skill he showed in the encounter, which so singularly attracted Prince Jonathan. These things no one would have admired and honoured more than the son of Saul, but it needed more than splendid gallantry and rare skill to attract that great love of which we read. What won Jonathans heart was the shepherd boys sublime faith, his perfect childlike trust in the Glorious Arm of the Lord. Jonathan and David possessed one thing in commonan intense, unswerving belief in the power of Jehovah of Israel to keep and to save all who trusted in Him.
The two were typical Israelites, both possessing in a very high degree that intense confidence in the Mighty One of Israel which was the mainspring of the peoples glory and success, and which, in the seemingly interminable days of their punishment and degradation, has been the power which has kept them still togethera people distinct, reserved yet for some mighty destiny in the unknown future.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
FRIENDSHIP OF DAVID AND JONATHAN, 1Sa 18:1-4.
1. When he had made an end of speaking unto Saul That is, after the interview mentioned in the last verse of the preceding chapter, in which David informed Saul of his father. All their conversation on that occasion is not recorded, for it is manifest that that verse contains but a very small part of it. Enough is given, however, to acquaint us with the main subject of their conversation.
The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David An instance of more touching and tender friendship is not recorded on the page of history, nor even in works of fiction. Here was a fellowship of souls. On the part of Jonathan it was the more remarkable, inasmuch as David became his rival for the throne. But even after this became well known Jonathan’s love never cooled, but rather warmed with intenser devotion to his friend, and he often gave aid and comfort to the son of Jesse in the time of his persecution. 1Sa 23:17. Well might the psalmist king say, in his requiem over the fallen hero, (2Sa 1:26,) “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
On this subject Ewald’s note is fine. “Nothing can establish a true bond between two friends and produce pure friendship except a loftier necessity which stands above them both, and which both alike burn to satisfy with ever-increasing fulness the necessity. namely, of finding and loving in others, if possible in a yet higher degree, the purely divine power already felt within, and thus mutually living under its influence. It is in an age which is possessed, above all things, by a pure aspiration to obtain noble gifts, that the blessing of such a genuine friendship will also most readily be realized; and so the period in Israel’s history with which we are now concerned furnishes, among so many other glorious spectacles, that of a friendship which shines for all ages an eternal type.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jonathan’s Comradely Love For David ( 1Sa 18:1-4 ).
Verse 1 follows directly on after 1 Samuel 17, taking up where that chapter left off, so that what follows is to be seen in its light. And the first important result of David’s triumph was that Jonathan, Saul’s firstborn son, took a great liking to David, so much so that they became comrades-in-arms..
It was in fact one of the ironies of life for Saul, and an evidence of YHWH’s love for David, that the more Saul hated David, the more some of Saul’s close family loved him and tried to protect him. For in this chapter we learn that first Jonathan and then Michal, Saul’s daughter, acted on David’s behalf to save him from Saul. Unfortunately this serves to bring out the insaneness of Saul’s jealousy and hatred for David, for it is portrayed as in direct contrast with their love for him. But that would come a little later and this first passage brings out Jonathan’s love for David, a love which resulted in a covenant between them
Analysis.
a
b And Jonathan loved him as his own soul (1Sa 18:1 b).
c And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house (1Sa 18:2).
b Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul (1Sa 18:3).
a And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, and his (military) clothing, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle (1Sa 18:4).
Note that in ‘a’ Jonathan’s inner self is knit with that of David, and in the parallel this is made apparent by Jonathan giving to David all his own military dress including his armour. In ‘b’ Jonathan loved David ‘as his own soul’, and in the parallel he made a covenant with him because he loved him with his own soul. Centrally in ‘c’ Saul took David into his court as a permanent member of it.
1Sa 18:1
‘ And it came about when he had made an end of speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.’
Impressed by David’s bravery and audacity, which blended well with his own, Jonathan, Saul’s firstborn son, was attracted to him from the start. And the result was that a great love and friendship developed between them, the friendship of fellow comrades-in-arms, a kind of friendship which is as strong as any friendship known to man. From then on these two would be closer than brothers. A similar phrase is used of Jacob’s special love for his youngest son Benjamin in Gen 44:30. It was a pure, true and spiritual love.
1Sa 18:2
‘ And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.’
Saul was also impressed, at least for the time being, and took him on that day as a permanent member of his staff and would no longer allow him to return to his father’s house. This did not, of course, mean that he was never allowed to go and see his family. It simply indicated permanent employment in the king’s service which was different from his previous on and off employment. He was now an established member of the court.
1Sa 18:3
‘ Then Jonathan and David made (cut) a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.’
The comradeship between Jonathan and David was such that they made a binding pact of friendship, because of the warmth of the undying friendship that lay between them. This was sealed in the form of a covenant, and witnessed in a way that demonstrated Jonathan’s regard for David. (‘Cut a covenant’ does not necessarily mean that blood was shed. The verb had become usable of the making of any covenant whether sealed with blood or not).
1Sa 18:4
‘ And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, and his (military) clothing, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.’
The friendship and the covenant were then sealed by Jonathan giving to David his own armour and weapons, a token of his great esteem and affection, and an indication that he now saw him as his ‘other self’ (loved him as his own soul). It was a singular honour for David to receive such gifts from the king’s son. It bound the two together as true comrades, and was a reminder to all of their close bond. This comradeship was in distinct contrast with Saul’s forthcoming attitude towards David and emphasises the personal nature of the latter. It is being made clear that even Saul’s close family found no fault with David. Any enmity was therefore due solely to Saul’s own personal suspicions, and of course the paranoia and delusion that went with his illness.
Note on the use of clothes as a symbolic gesture in 1 Samuel.
A man’s outer garments were generally seen as indicating both his position and status and also something of himself. Thus at Ugarit when an heir apparent to the throne was given the choice of remaining with his father and thus continuing as crown prince, or going with his divorced mother and losing that privilege, he was to demonstrate his decision by either retaining his clothes denoting his status, or by leaving them on the throne when he departed. There are a number of references in 1 Samuel to a similar use of clothes as a symbolic gesture.
1). Saul clothed David in his own armour in order to demonstrate that he went out to meet Goliath as Saul’s champion (1Sa 17:38). This act was intended to confirm all that David was Saul’s representative.
2). Here Jonathan stripped himself of his war apparel and gave it to David. This was seemingly his way of indicating that they were bound together in a covenant (1Sa 18:3-4). From then on they would look out for each other as though they were closer than twins, and from then on they would share each other’s honour and each other’s problems.
3). When Saul later approaches Samuel with a view to arresting David, Saul, unable to help himself, strips himself of his outer clothing and prophesies before Samuel and lays down, ‘undressed’ as he is, all day and all night (1Sa 19:22-24). This would seem to be suggesting that in spite of himself he had no choice but to divest himself of his authority before YHWH’ prophet and His Spirit. YHWH was seen to be still his Overlord.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Sa 18:5 And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.
1Sa 18:5
During the times in our life when we are given a greater level of responsibility, such as a job promotion or marriage or a family, our character is also changed. We become more conscience of how we act and how others perceive us. We begin to behave ourselves more wisely, conscience of our need to be careful of what we do and say. In 1Sa 18:14, because of persecution from an angry person who had authority over him, David intensified his caution. Thus it says, “David behaved himself wisely in all his ways .” Everything he did was prayerfully considered before he acted. These difficult experiences in life can cause us to rise to a higher level of character as we are challenged to walk upright in the midst of adversity. We become increasingly aware of how we must act and speak when we enter into difficult situations.
So, when we are in God will, in the place that God has placed us, rather than quitting a job, or leaving a marriage, or trying to leave a difficult situation, we can allow this environment to shape us into a better character, as David did. It was in these very difficult circumstances that David’s heart was being prepared to become a leader. It is in these situations that we must pass God’s approval and tests before He will promote us to greater levels of ministry and responsibility. The greatest leaders are not people who came to this position by chance, but those who have endured trials, and have came out with a better character, a divine character. It is this seasoned character that others recognize and that compels them to willingly and joyfully work under someone as their leader.
The greatest men of God on earth watch every word they say and every action they do. They set counsellors about them to help in decision-making. My experience in business leadership has confirmed that this is the only way to make correct decisions.
Pharaoh had Joseph, David had Ahithophel, Nebuchadnezzar had his wise men and Daniel, Ahasuerus had Mordecai, the kings of Judah and Israel had the prophets of God, the kings of the ancient world had wise men and magicians. Those kings who did not receive wise counsel fell. Those kings who did seek good counsel became established.
The worst decisions I have ever made were made without council (Pro 24:6).
Pro 24:6, “For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.”
1Sa 18:17 And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD’S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him.
1Sa 18:17
1Sa 18:18 And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?
1Sa 18:18
1Co 13:4-5, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;”
David began humbling himself at this time in his ministry and later, God highly exalted him (1Pe 5:6).
1Pe 5:6, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:”
1Sa 18:19 But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul’s daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife.
1Sa 18:19
Heb 12:14-15, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you , and thereby many be defiled;”
1Sa 18:25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
1Sa 18:25
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Saul’s Regard Changes to Hatred
v. 1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, v. 2. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house; v. 3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, v. 4. And Jonathan, v. 5. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, v. 6. And it came to pass, as they came, v. 7. And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands. v. 8. And Saul was very wroth, v. 9. And Saul eyed David from that day and forward, v. 10. And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God, v. 11. And Saul cast the javelin, v. 12. And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, v. 13. Therefore Saul removed him from him, v. 14. And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways, v. 15. Wherefore, when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he was afraid of him, v. 16. But all Israel and Judah loved David because he went out and came in before them;
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
PERSONAL RELATIONS OF SAUL AND DAVID (CHS. 18-27). FRIENDSHIP OF DAVID AND JONATHAN (CHS. 18-20).
EXPOSITION
JONATHAN LOVES DAVID (1Sa 18:1-5).
1Sa 18:1
When he had made an end of speaking. This conversation took place as soon as the pursuit of the Philistines and the collecting of the spoil were over. There would then be a muster of the Israelites, and Abner would naturally present the youthful champion to the king, who is represented as having virtually forgotten him, and as anxious to learn his history; nor had his stay been long enough for Abner to remember him. As this conversation is narrated as an introduction to the account of Jonathan’s friendship for David, the last four verses of 1Sa 17:1-58. ought to be prefixed to 1Sa 18:1-30. A new beginning commences with them, in which we are told of the commencement of this friendship, of the growth of Saul’s hatred, and of the trials which befell David, proceeding on the king’s part from bad to worse, till at last he was driven away and compelled to lead the life of an outlaw. But by his envy, cruelty, and bad government Saul was alienating the minds of the people from him, and preparing the way for his own downfall and David’s ultimate triumph. The episode of Jonathan’s love is as beautiful as Saul’s conduct is dark, and completes our admiration for this generous and noble hero. The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David. These kindred spirits had so much in common that, as David with modest manliness answered the king’s questions, an intense feeling of admiration grew up in the young warrior’s heart, and a friendship was the result which ranks among the purest and noblest examples of true manly affection. The word rendered knit literally means knotted, tied together firmly by indissoluble bonds.
1Sa 18:2-4
Saul took him that day. Bent solely on war, Saul gladly took so promising, a young soldier as David to be one of his bodyguard (1Sa 14:52), and henceforward he was constantly with him. Thus in two ways, first as a musician, and now as a soldier, David was forced into those intimate relations with Saul, which ended so tragically. For a while, however, those happier results ensued summed up in 1Sa 16:21. Jonathan and David made a covenant. We are not to suppose that this happened immediately. David continued on friendly terms with Saul for a considerable period, during which he went on many expeditions, and grew in military renown (see 1Sa 16:5). And thus the love which began with admiration of David’s prowess grew deeper and more confirmed by constant intercourse, till this solemn bond of mutual friendship was entered into by the two youthful heroes, by which they bound themselves under all circumstances to be true and faithful to one another. How nobly Jonathan kept the bond the history proceeds immediately to tell us; nor was David subsequently unmindful of it (2Sa 9:1-13 :l, 7). Jonathan stripped himself of the robe, etc. In confirmation of the bond Jonathan gave David first his robe, the meil, which, as we have seen on 1Sa 2:19, was the ordinary dress of the wealthier classes; and next his garments, his military dress (see on 1Sa 17:38, 1Sa 17:39), worn over the meil, and which here seems to include his accoutrements,the bow, sword, and girdle,though elsewhere distinguished from them (2Sa 20:8). In thus clothing David in his own princely equipments Jonathan was showing his friend the greatest personal honour (Est 6:8), and such a gift is still highly esteemed in the East.
1Sa 18:5
David went out. I.e. went on military expeditions. As the verb has thus a technical signification, it makes a complete sense, and the verse should be translated, “And David went forth (i.e. on warlike enterprises); whithersoever Saul sent him he prospered, and Saul set him over the men of war.” These expeditions were not upon a very large scale; for it is not until 1Sa 18:13 that we read of David being made “captain over a thousand.” Still, even while only a centurion in rank, yet, as being in constant attendance upon the king, he would often temporarily have the command of larger bodies of men, or would go on campaigns as one of the king’s officers. As it is mentioned that his promotion caused no envy because of his great merits, it follows that it was rapid enough to have given occasion to ill will under ordinary circumstances. Behaved himself wisely. This is the primary meaning of the verb; but as success is the result of wise conduct, it constantly signifies to prosper. This verse is a summary of events which may have occupied a very considerable space of time. It was only gradually that David’s fame became so great as to rouse all the worst feelings in Saul’s mind.
SAUL‘S HATRED OF DAVID (1Sa 18:6-16).
1Sa 18:6
When David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine. Or more probably, as in the margin, “of the Philistines.” The allusion is not to the combat with Goliath, but to one of the expeditions referred to in 1Sa 18:5, in which David had gained some decisive victory. The women would not have described the slaughter of one champion as the slaying of ten thousand, nor would there have been any contrast between this act and the military enterprises of Saul. Probably he too would have looked with indifference upon this Oriental exaggeration of the daring bravery of a boy; but what galled him was David’s continual success in repeated campaigns. The Philistine means the whole people of that name; and as the war between them and Saul lasted all the days of Saul’s life, and was his main kingly work, he saw with envy the rapid growth of David’s reputation; and when, after some noble achievement, the women gave David an ovation, and declared in their songs that he had achieved a success ten times as great as Saul, an outburst of ill feeling was the result. Saul suddenly became aware that the young captain on whose shoulders he had devolved the chief labours of the war had supplanted him in the popular estimation, and hatred took the place of the good feeling which he had previously entertained towards him. The women came out of all cities of Israel to meet king Saul. It is evident that this refers to some grand occasion, and probably to the conclusion of a peace between the two nations. The battle in the valley of Elah was probably followed by several years of warfare, during which David developed those great military qualities which made him subsequently the founder of the wide empire over which Solomon reigned. It was unendurable for Saul, himself a great soldier, to find, when the war at last was over, that the people recognised in his lieutenant higher military qualities than they had discovered in himself. With tabrets. See on 1Sa 10:5. With joy. As this is placed between the names of two instruments of music, it must mean some kind of joyous shouting or singing to the sound of their tabrets. With instruments of music. Hebrew, with triangles, a very ancient but effective instrument for an outdoor procession accompanied with dancing.
1Sa 18:7
The women answered. I.e. they sang alternately. It was this alternate singing which led to the psalms being composed in parallel sentences, and not in metre; and we from the temple service have inherited our method of chanting antiphonally. As they played. The word is ambiguous, and to an English reader would suggest the idea of the women playing upon the musical instruments. It usually refers to merriment, and so in Zec 8:5 it is used of the children playing in the streets, but especially it refers to dancing. Thus in 2Sa 2:14 it is used of a war dance ending in a real conflict; and again (2Sa 6:5, 2Sa 6:21; 1Ch 13:8; 1Ch 15:29) of David dancing to instruments of music, before the ark. Michal probably would not have despised David for playing an instrument of music during a religious ceremony; it was the posturing of the dance which seemed to her beneath the dignity of a king. So these women danced in alternate choruses to the beating of their tambourines and triangles. In Jdg 16:25, where, however, it is in a different conjugation, the verb is translated “to make sport.” Really Samson was compelled to dance Israel’s national war dance before the Philistines.
1Sa 18:8, 1Sa 18:9
What can he have more? etc. Literally, “And there is beside for him only the kingdom. Though many years had passed since Samuel pronounced Saul’s deposition, and the choice of another in his place (1Sa 15:28), yet it was not a thing that a king could ever forget. No doubt he had often looked out for signs of the person destined to be his successor; and now, when he had stood powerless before the enemy, a shepherd boy had stepped forth and given him the victory. And this stripling, taken to be his companion in arms, had shown so great qualities that the people reckoned him at ten times Saul’s worth. Had Saul been the high-minded man he was when appointed to the kingdom (1Sa 11:13), he would have thrust such thoughts from him. But his mind had become cankered with discontent and brooding thoughts, and so he eyed David from that day and forward. In many nations the eye of an envious man is supposed to have great power of injury. Here it means that Saul cast furtive glances at David full of malice and ill will.
1Sa 18:10, 1Sa 18:11
It came to pass on the morrow. The day had been a time of public triumph, and yet one of the chief actors goes home to a sleepless couch, because he thinks that another has received higher honour than himself. His melancholy deepens till a fit of insanity comes on. For the evil spirit from God came upon Saul. Literally, ” an evil spirit (breath) of God descended mightily upon Saul” (see 1Sa 16:15). Just as all mighty enthusiasms for good come from God, so do strong influences for evil, but in a different way. In all noble acts men are fellow workers with God; when evil carries them away it is of God, because he it is who has made and still maintains the laws of our moral nature; but it is by the working of general laws, and not by any special gift or grace bestowed by him. Saul had brooded over his disappointment, and cherished feelings of discontent at his own lot and of envy at the good of others to such an extent that his mind gave way before the diseased workings of his imagination. And so he lost all control over himself, and prophesied. The conjugation employed here (Hithpahel) is never used of real, true prophecy (which is always the Niphal), but of a bastard imitation of it. Really Saul was in a state of frenzy, unable to master himself, speaking words of which he knew not the meaning, and acting like a man possessed. In all this there was something akin to the powerful emotions which agitated the true prophet, only it was not a holy influence, but one springing from violent passions and a disturbed state of the mind. In order to soothe him David played with his hand, as at other times, but without the desired effect. On the contrary, Saul brandished the javelin, which he carried as a sort of sceptre in his hand, with such violence that David twice had to escape from this threat of injury by flight. It is not certain that Saul actually threw the javelin. Had he done so it would be difficult to account for David escaping from it twice. After such an act of violence he would scarcely have trusted himself a second time in Saul’s presence. Instead of Saul cast the javelin, the Septuagint in the Alexandrian codex and the Chaldee render lifted, i.e. retaining the same consonants, they put vowels which refer the verb to another root. But even with the present vowels it may mean “made as though he would cast,” or aimed “the javelin.” On a later occasion Saul actually threw the javelin, and struck the wall where David had been sitting (1Sa 19:10).
1Sa 18:12-16
Saul was afraid of David. new feeling. To his jealousy succeeded a sense of powerlessness, as knowing that a higher power was with David, while he had lost the Divine protection. This miserable feeling grew upon the unhappy king, till before the battle of Gilboa we find him with all his old heroic spirit gone, a miserable wreck, seeking for comfort at the hands of a woman of the most worthless kind (1Sa 28:5, 1Sa 28:7, 1Sa 28:20). In this despondent state of mind he dismisses David from attendance upon him, but in an honourable manner, giving him the command of a thousand men, at the head of whom he went out and came in before the people, i.e. in a public capacity, as an officer of state. As Saul seems entirely to have neglected the internal administration of the kingdom, this would refer to military expeditions (see on 1Sa 18:5); and in these David behaved himself wisely. Rather, “prospered” (see on 1Sa 18:5). His great success only increased Saul’s fears; but both Israel and Judah loved David, now that in this higher command they had full opportunities for judging of his high qualities. Thus again his removal from his place in Saul’s bodyguard only served to make him better known. The separate mention of Israel and Judah is an indication of the Books of Samuel having been written at a post-Solomonic date, though the distinction was a very old one (see on 1Sa 11:8).
SAUL, UNDER PRETENCE OF A MARRIAGE WITH HIS DAUGHTER, PLOTS DAVID‘S DEATH (1Sa 18:17-30).
1Sa 18:17, 1Sa 18:18
Behold my elder daughter Merab. Saul had promised that he would give his daughter in marriage to whosoever should slay the giant (1Sa 17:25); and not only was there in this the honour of a close alliance with the royal house, but, as it was usual to give large presents to the father in return for the daughter’s hand, the gift had also a substantial value. After long delay Saul now refers to this promise, not so much with the intention of fulfilling it, as of leading David on to enterprises which might cost him his life. The marriage may have been deferred at first on account of David’s youth; the subject is now revived, but with evil intentions. My eider daughter is literally “my daughter, the great one,” while Michal is “the little one,” a way of speaking used only where there are but two daughters. Be thou valiant, etc. This exhortation would be natural under the circumstances; but Saul hoped that David, in order to secure so great a prize, would be encouraged to undertake rash adventures. For Saul said. I.e. in himself; his purpose was to urge David to perpetual fighting, that so in some rash undertaking he might be slam. Thus Saul s malice grows, and though not prepared as yet to put David to death himself, he would have felt relief if he had died by the fortune of war. David answers modestly and discreetly that he is not worthy of so great an honour. We are not to suppose that he discerned Saul’s treachery, which only came-to light afterwards. What is my life,i.e. my condition,or my father’s family? The or is not in the Hebrew, and the meaning is, What is my condition, even my father’s family? etc. David’s condition or rank in life was settled by the rank which his father held.
1Sa 18:19
Merab was given unto Adriel. A large dower was doubtless offered to Saul in return for his daughter, and, as he had never wished David to have her, he proved untrue to his word. For the unhappy death of the sons of Merab and Adriel see 2Sa 21:8.
1Sa 18:20, 1Sa 18:21
Michal loved David. Probably there was some short lapse of time between Merab’s marriage and the growth of this affection, the news of which pleased Saul. He was not an ungenerous man, and possibly may have felt ashamed at having acted so meanly by David after having exposed him to danger. And yet evil thoughts again are uppermost, and his purposes are selfish; for either way Saul will be the gainer. David will probably be slain, he thinks, in trying to get the dowry asked of him; and if not, at all events he will himself be cleared of the stain of public dishonesty now resting upon him. Therefore Saul said to David. Not in person, which accounts for David giving no answer, but through his servants, as is recounted more fully afterwards.
1Sa 18:22, 1Sa 18:23
Commune, etc. This is a more full and exact account of what was said summarily in 1Sa 18:21. We cannot suppose that Saul first spoke to David himself, and then told his servants to coax him, as this would also require us to suppose that when offered her by Saul, David refused Michal in marriage. But we may well believe that he was displeased at having been deceived, and that the renewed proposal of marriage with one of the king’s daughters had to be made carefully, as he might naturally think that there was danger of his being cajoled a second time. David replies, in fact, very discreetly, saying that to be the king’s son-in-law was indeed a great honour, but that he was too poor to provide a sufficient dowry. Strictly the promises given in 1Sa 17:25 bound Saul to give her without dowry; but it appears quite plainly from David’s words that he had lost Merab because not able to purchase her as Adriel had done. For the custom of giving large sums to the bride’s father see Gen 34:12; Exo 22:16, Exo 22:17.
1Sa 18:24, 1Sa 18:25
David’s answer exactly fell in with Saul’s purposes, and he forthwith asked as a dowry proof of David having slain a hundred Philistines. As this slaughter would have to be effected not in regular warfare, but in a sort of private raid, there would be every likelihood of David being overpowered by a rapid gathering of the Philistines and slain in attempting it. It marks the unscrupulous character of ancient warfare that the lives of enemies should thus be taken, without any public provocation, for private purposes (comp. Jdg 14:19).
1Sa 18:26, 1Sa 18:27
It pleased David well to he the king’s son-in-law. Besides the great honour, David, not suspecting any malicious purpose on Saul’s part, may have hoped that this relationship would put an end to the miserable state of things which existed between him and Saul. He harboured no treasonable purposes, and would have gladly served Saul faithfully if he had been permitted. The nature also of the dowry fell in with his adventurous and war-loving disposition. The days were not expired. Wherefore, etc. A difficulty arises here from the wrong division of the verses, and from our translators having rendered the clauses as if they were independent of each other. The Hebrew is, “And the days were not full, and David arose, etc. The dowry was to be given within a fixed time, and before it had expired David, who had been forming his plans, set out with his men and made an incursion into the Philistine territory, whence he brought back to the king twice as many foreskins as had been stipulated; and thereupon Michal became David’s wife.
1Sa 18:28, 1Sa 18:20
The failure of his evil purpose, and the knowledge that Michal loved her husband, and would protect him against his intrigues, and that the marriage had brought rank and influence to David, made Saul hate him all the more bitterly, because he could not now openly put to death one so closely connected with him.
1Sa 18:30
The princes of the Philistines went forth. See on 1Sa 18:5. This new war was the result of David’s raid, but it only led to an increase of his fame and popularity. For he behaved himself more wisely. I.e. was more successful and skilful than any of Saul’s other officers.
HOMILETICS.
1Sa 18:1-4
Religious friendship.
The facts are
1. Jonathan, on becoming acquainted with David, forms a strong attachment for him.
2. Saul, to show his gratitude for David’s aid, constrains him into his service.
3. Jonathan and David enter into a solemn covenant of friendship. It is obvious that David desired to retire to the quietude of rural life, thus displaying simplicity of purpose and freedom from the ambition charged on him by Eliab (1Sa 18:28), as also superiority to the temptation of success. Saul’s will that he should “go no more home to his father’s house” was fraught with a long train of consequences which told on the development of the higher qualities of the coming king. The first of these was the formation of that beautiful friendship with Jonathan, which shines as a welcome light amidst the gloom of the last years of Saul’s reign. There are in this section two matters deserving special attention.
I. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE HARMONIES OF PROVIDENCE. On a priori grounds we may conclude that always, in all things, however apparently clashing, there is an interior harmony in the ordinations and unfoldings of Providence. In many instances we seem to hear discord; faith only enables us to refer the discord to our defective organs of knowledge. But here, as in some other instances, we can trace the exquisite harmony between David’s detention by Saul, involving his friendship with Jonathan, and David’s subsequent entrance on the duties and dignities foreshadowed by the anointing by Samuel. Unquestionably, as seen in the history and in the Psalms composed during the period, David’s trials and the public position arising out of this forced detention by Saul were, in their effects on his character and abilities, wonderfully harmonious with his pre-ordained kingship. Moreover, this providential opportunity for forming personal friendship beautifully harmonises with both the cutting off of Saul’s line (1Sa 15:27-29) from the succession and the acquisition by David of the title, in virtue of his religious and general qualities. Such friendship, formed on the purest religious basis, and before developments with respect to the succession were made, would save both David and Jonathan from the possibility of regarding each other as rivals, and would also be a blessed counterpoise to David’s unmerited sorrows during Saul’s violent persecutions. Jonathan never lived to see the throne taken by another; but his life was not embittered by the griefs of jealousy, because of the deep love he had for his friend. David, while in the decree of God destined to be king, loved Jonathan too well to think of setting him aside. Beautiful providence that could insure a succession out of the line, and yet sweeten and ennoble the lives of those whose interests were involved in it! It would be easy for Jonathan to resign to David, should they both survive Saul’s decease; for did he not love him with a love passing that of women? (2Sa 1:26). And it would be far from David’s desire to set him aside, seeing the loving esteem in which he was held. Yea, was there not an instinctive homage paid to David’s character, as though the pure soul saw in him the coming king, when Jonathan stript himself of his princely attire and placed it on David? Harmonies of Providence are constant, if only we had the eye to discern them. Paul’s early training worked into his life’s mission, though at first tending another way. The flight of Mary and Joseph into Egypt no doubt checked a premature notoriety of the child Jesus.
II. AN ILLUSTRATION OF A TRUE RELIGIOUS FRIENDSHIP. Friendship in some degree is a necessity of man’s life. A perfectly solitary being, whose feelings cling to no one, and around whom no one clings, is truly lost. Ordinary friendships are based on the existence of natural affinities and contrarieties. That similarity of mind is the basis of friendship is only true in a limited sense, for one is drawn to another not only by the affinity of common tastes and qualities, but because of a recognition and admiration of qualities that are lacking in self. We seek to supplement the deficiencies of our own life by taking into ourselves, as far as possible, the excellences of another life, and friendship is the means to this end. This is not indeed a full rationale of friendship, nor must it be inferred that cool calculation of personal profit enters into it. The love, the sympathy, the tender, undefinable interest and absolute trust cannot be disentangled from the perception of qualities supplementary to one’s own. The friendship of David and Jonathan embraced all that enters into ordinary friendship,appreciation, love, confidence, tenderness, fidelity, unsuspicious intercourse,with an additional religious element. This religious friendship may be considered as to
1. Its nature. In David and Jonathan we recognise, besides the usual essentials of friendship, the responsive action of a common faith in God and delight in his service. Each saw in the other, as by a higher spiritual insight, a spiritual kinship. The circumstances of the age intensified this mutual attraction. As holy, consecrated young men, they cherished a secret sorrow over the unhappy spiritual condition of their countrymen; and their joy in the recent victories was joy in God and the holy cause for which Israel was chosen out from among the nations. Among Christians the same religious feeling operates in the formation and maintenance of friendships. It is true that all are one in Christ, and each sees in every other a member of the household of faith: religiously there is a common interest in all (1Co 12:26, 1Co 12:27). So far, therefore, there is a friendship subsisting between each member of Christ’s body and every other, as distinguished from his interest in men of the world. But affection needs for its own life concentration; and while, therefore, we are in general friendship with all Christ’s people, and are conscious of a blessed and indestructible bond, the necessities of our life lead to the formation of personal friendships in which all ordinary feelings are intensified and beautified by the infusion of a spiritual element. Some modification of the view just given is requisite in considering the friendship of Christ for John and the family at Bethany. But although the perfect Saviour saw not in others qualities deficient in himself, he did see in the ardent John and the tender sympathy and fine appreciation of the family at Bethany that which he was so eagerly in quest of in this rough, unspiritual world. His weary heart delighted to rest in such pure love and sympathy, and he returned the affection a hundredfold.
2. Its maintenance. The noblest form of friendship needs culture if it is to be permanent. How David and Jonathan nourished theirs is a matter of history, and should be noted. Few things are more sad to reflect on than a broken friendshipit means the embitterment and sad solitariness of two human beings. No detailed rules can be set for nourishing that which in its very nature overleaps all formalities and rigid lines. Ordinarily we may strengthen our friendships by cherishing a conviction of their sacrednessnot to be rudely handled and lightly thought of; by making it a point to secure sufficient intercourse or interchange of feeling (Pro 18:24); by a studied respect for the minor differences which advancing age and changed circumstances may develop; by prayer for the blessing of God on each other; and, if possible, by sharing in some common work for Christ. Why should not friendships continue through life?
General lessons:
1. Knowing the force of impulse and the growth of interest when once aroused, we should be careful in placing youth in such circumstances as may lead to the formation of true and lasting friendships.
2. It should be a question for each how it is that Christian feeling does not enter so fully as it ought into the friendships of some professedly religious people.
3. It would be an instructive study for young and old to trace out in history some of the achievements in religious work and fidelity promoted by the maintenance of strong personal friendships.
1Sa 18:5-11
Some dangers of persistent sin.
The facts are
1. David, behaving wisely in his public position, wins favour with the people, and in the welcome to him on his return from the battle the women ascribe to him, in their song, higher praise than to Saul.
2. The fact excites Saul’s envy henceforth.
3. In a fit of envious rage Saul seeks to smite David. The victory over Goliath brought Saul and David into a proximity highly favourable to the development of their respective characters. Their mutual influence acted powerfully on the main springs of life; and as these were so utterly different in moral quality, so the sequel reveals very diverse conduct, We have in this section an instance of
I. MISINTERPRETED PROSPERITY. The decisive words of Samuel (1Sa 15:26) and his entire separation from Saul (1Sa 15:34, 1Sa 15:35), as also the threatening attitude of the Philistines, were certainly enough to depress the spirit of the king; and his melancholy was but the outward sign to men of his painful secret. But the appearance of David, and the consequent defeat of the enemy, was an unlooked for gleam of light, and at once raised hopes which of late had been lost. He even set David over his men of war. The old prosperity was returning; the kingdom was saved; Saul was not dishonoured in battle. After all, with such helpers as David, might not the dreaded doom be avoided? Thus do we see a man, conscious of moral degeneracy, and sensible of being rejected, putting an interpretation on events according to his wishes, and not from a perception of their real bearing. The heart, when destitute of the spirit of true repentance, obstinately clings to unwarranted hope, and, by its own perverse ingenuity, obliterates or weakens the force of hard facts and moral laws (1Sa 15:26-29). In the eye of God the recent victory was the public presentation of the “neighbour,” as a preliminary to his supplanting Saul; in the eye of Saul it was the postponement, if not the rendering void, of the dreaded doom. The tendency thus to misinterpret facts is common to sinful men. An impenitent heart is unwilling to believe in the vindication of justice. Not being in moral sympathy with the purposes of God, it will not, if possible, see those purposes.in process of realisation. The very riches of goodness are perverted into an occasion for persistence in sin (Rom 2:4), and the temporal prosperity of life, despite the voice of conscience and the clear word of God, is supposed to be a sign that the issue will not be so fearful as was anticipated (Psa 10:6, Psa 10:11; Heb 2:3).
II. THE SOUNDNESS AND the DEFECTS OF POPULAR INSTINCTS. The mass of the people were quick in recognising the fact that David was the hero of the day, and only expressed the real truth in ascribing to him his “ten thousands,” and to Saul his “thousands.” Their instincts led them to honour above the king the man who was proved to be better than the king. But while correct in their appreciation of fact, they had no adequate, if any, perception of the moral bearings of it. Samuel, probably Jesse, and a few other devout men, would trace in David’s exaltation of the “name of the Lord” (1Sa 17:45-47) a spiritual power and a spiritual man destined to work wonders for Israel. It is a good philosophy that trusts the popular mind in reference to the recognition of the broad facts of life. It is this faith which lies at the foundation of constitutional governments and the judicial administration of our own country. The common sense of mankind is a safe guide in ordinary matters of fact. But by reason of the low condition of man’s spiritual life, and his inveterate proneness to look at the “things that are seen,” the mass of men do not recognise quickly the moral and spiritual bearings of facts. There is a moral and spiritual “intention,” to use a logical term, in human facts; they carry with them qualities that determine the future; they exhibit to the spiritually enlightened powers that will germinate, and that, too, not always in the form desired by the populace (Mat 16:3).
III. THE LIABILITY OF MEN, WHEN WARRING AGAINST PROVIDENCE, TO FALL INTO NEW SINS. We have seen (1Sa 15:24-31) that Saul cherished impenitent feelings when told of his sin. As a consequence, he tried not to believe that the threatened disaster would come. One of the consequences of this mental condition was, that as soon as he heard the honest, popular approval of David’s prowess, he, dreading lest after all the decree might be fulfilled, eyed David as a rival, and fell into the grievous sin of ceaseless and cruel envy. The grievous character of this sin is seen if we notice its manifestation, and the main features are true of all envy.
1. It blinded him to actual facts. It was true that David had slain “his ten thousands,” as compared with Saul’s “thousands;” but to the envious eye this was as though it were not. Its reality must not be tolerated. The Pharisees in like manner were wilfully blind to the fact that Christ had opened the eyes of the blind.
2. It led to the imputation of base motives. He at once charged David with readiness for treasonous designs on the kingdom. The pure man was deemed impure. This is the common practice of narrow and base men, as appeared in the instance of Joseph (Gen 37:8, Gen 37:11), and of Christ (Joh 7:20).
3. It made himself perfectly wretched. His life lost all joy and hope, and suspicion and fear entered in. And whoever falls into this sin finds that it slayeth him (Job 5:2), and is as rottenness to the bones (Pro 14:30).
4. It impelled to deeds of blood. The thrust of the javelin was virtual murder. The same process wrought in the heart of Cain, of the scribes and Pharisees, and is active in many who are guilty of no overt act (1Jn 3:15). The dark thoughts, the unspoken intents of envious minds; who shall declare them? How true it is that he who hardeneth his heart, not bowing in true penitence, submissive to all God’s judgments, falleth into mischief (Pro 28:14) again and again, till at last he is destroyed suddenly and without remedy (Pro 29:1; cf. 1Sa 31:3, 1Sa 31:4).
General lessons:
1. All human judgments on the course of Providence are to be discounted in so far as sin is cherished in the life.
2. The key to the future of the individual and national life is to be sought in moral conditions
3. It is important that the popular mind should be trained to estimate things in their moral relations.
4. Christians should strive to be entirely free from the spirit of envy, both in relation to worldly prosperity and to position in the Church of God (Psa 37:1; 1Co 13:4; 1Pe 2:1).
5. In so far as we indulge in any envy we lay ourselves open to temptations to further sins.
1Sa 18:12-16
The disturbing power of goodness.
The facts are
1. Saul, seeing the signs of God’s presence with David, fears him, and removes him to a distance.
2. Increasing wisdom of David adds to Saul’s fear, and secures the favour of the people.
3. The departure of God from Saul explains his self-abandonment to the Influence of this fear. We have here a statement of the diverse relation of God to David and Saul,he was with the one and was departed from the other,and the consequences ensuing thereon in their respective lives. Each man made his own position, and was answerable for the state he was in and attained to; nevertheless, the presence and absence of God accounted for much. Thus, also, we have the diverse effect of the same wise and holy life upon different personsthe diversity arising from the moral condition of the persons acted upon.
I. The RELATION OF GOD TO MAN IS NOT IN EVERY INSTANCE THE SAME. There are certain natural relationships which God sustains to all men, in all time, irrespective of their character. His power upholds them in life; his equitable rulership is never withdrawn. All this was true in reference to David and Saul, while it was equally true that God was to the one what he was not to the other. There was the relation of moral nearness and support to David, and of moral abandonment and disapproval to Saul. The Lord “knoweth the way of the righteous” (Psa 1:6). His delight is in his people (Psa 22:8). “The proud he knoweth afar off” (Psa 138:6), and is “angry with the wicked every day” (Psa 7:11). The effects of moral nearness and support are seen in the instance of David:piety was sustained and rendered beautiful in development; abilities, under such favouring influences, were more fully and evenly exercised; the vision being cleared, practical sagacity found wider scope; and the Divine energy acting everywhere in harmony with moral ends, opportunities would be created for usefulness, and the minds of men disposed to favour. On the other hand, moral nearness and support being wanting to Saul, the evils long cherished found more unrestrained exercise; conscience became more remorseful; natural abilities were impaired in their development, and foolish deeds became habitual.
II. The DIVERSE RELATION OF GOD TO MAN ARISES FROM MAN‘S PREVIOUS CONDUCT, The recent history of David shows that from a youth he had quietly and consistently followed the measure of light vouchsafed to him; while Saul’s course reveals a deliberate and persistent preference of his own will to the revealed will of God. Grace was added to valued grace. Light disregarded had become darkness. In this diverse consequence there is nothing unusual. It is the New Testament law that “to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that he hath” (Mat 13:12; Hos 11:8; Luk 19:42; Joh 12:35-40; 1Ti 4:8).
III. A RECOGNITION OF THE DIVERSE RELATION OF GOD TO MAN IS AN OCCASION OF TROUBLE TO THE DELIBERATELY WICKED. While David won the affection of the mass of the people, his name and presence were disturbing to Saul. “Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul.” The reasons for this effect on Saul are obvious. David’s holy life and glorying in the name of the Lord (1Sa 17:45-47) revealed by contrast the spiritual condition of Saul to himself; and, being destitute of the spirit of repentance, he trembled under the silent rebuke. There was also a reminder of joys and privileges once within reach, but now gone forever; and he could not but associate the rising character of David with the predicted doom of his own monarchy. It is a well known fact that goodness does exercise a disturbing influence in the domain of sin. Goodness in its own nature is a repellant power. It creates a commotion whenever it enters the realms of darkness. The powers of evil know it as their natural foe, and quail in consciousness of its predestined triumph. There appears to have been fear and excitement among the evil spirits when the holy Saviour drew near to their sphere of influence on earth. While the natural effect of embodied goodness on minds not bent on sin is to soothe, to cheer, and to gladden, as when Christ drew near to the poor and needy, the sick and penitent, and as we all feel when a very wise and holy man enters a home or a sick chamber, yet the effect is the reverse when sin is being deliberately practised. It is in this way that we may understand Herod’s fear on mention of the name of John, Ahab’s fear of Elijah, and the evident uneasiness of scribes and Pharisees at the presence of Christ.
General lessons:
1. We see the value to the ordinary affairs of life of a consciousness of the favour of God (Psa 30:1-12.).
2. The development of our powers is intimately connected with our faithfulness in spiritual things.
3. In proportion as we attain to true holiness of life will the power of our presence and actions be recognised.
4. We must expect the actual antagonism of those who have rejected God in so far as we come into contact with them, but this should be regarded as proof of the truth of our religion.
1Sa 18:17-30
The plot and its lessons.
The facts are
1. Saul, in hopes of compassing the death of David, promises him his eldest daughter to wife, on condition that he is valiant against the Philistines.
2. David expresses his unworthiness of so great an honour.
3. Saul, having broken this promise by giving Merab to Adriel, offers David his daughter Michal.
4. On David intimating that, being poor, he was not able to provide a becoming dowry, Saul is content with proof of the death of a hundred enemies of Israel.
5. David presents double the number required, and takes Michal to wife.
6. In spite of his devices, Saul sees the growing prosperity of David, and becomes more than ever afraid of him. This section further unfolds, on the one side, the downward progress of the man who has wilfully sinned under circumstances favourable to obedience, and has consequently been left to the tendencies of his impenitent heart; and, on the other side, the steady advance in wisdom and aptitude for affairs of the man who gloried only in the “name of the Lord of hosts.” The narrative relates events as they appeared to observers at the time, and introduces statements of the sacred historian designed to indicate how those events were regarded by God. The outward acts are connected with the hidden motive, and so made to bear their proper moral character.
I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLOT. Did we not know Saul’s entire history, there is much in the narrative of this section which might suggest to a casual reader no thought of a plot. The addition of statements unveiling the hidden purpose of his words and deeds changes the moral bearing of the whole, and sets forth the triple characteristics of the plot.
1. Cleverness. It is said that insane persons often display unusual cunning and skill in compassing their ends; and also the “devices” of the wicked, both in relation to God and to man, are in Scripture proverbial (Job 5:12; Psa 10:2; Psa 33:10). The incipient madness and settled wickedness of Saul at this period of his life indicate the truth of these remarks; for consider the plausibility of his conduct.
(1) There was a fair appearance of truthfulness. He had virtually promised his daughter to the man who should slay Goliath (1Sa 17:25). To keep one’s word was becoming a king and due to a youthful hero.
(2) There was an obvious display of magnanimity. For the recent violent attempt on the life of David (1Sa 18:11) must have produced an impression of injustice on both David and the people. What then more proper than that a fit of unreasonable anger should be followed by some expression of the wrong done, and some effort to render compensation.
(3) Religions feeling was conspicuous. Had not David appeared on the arena to fight the battle of the Lord? (1Sa 17:47). Was it not proper, after the signal victory in the Lord’s name, that the king should recognise the conflict with the heathen oppressor in its theocratic aspect, and encourage the valiant youth still to go forth in the same holy name?
(4) Personal interest was natural. Saul’s instructions to the courtiers to endeavour to induce David to accept of Michal had an appearance of naturalness, as it was important to honour so able a man and to ally him with the interests of the monarchy, as also to remove any chagrin on account of Merab having been given, probably for state reasons, to Adriel.
(5) There was a kindly consideration for David’s position. A sense of poverty is hard to bear when it stands in the way to honour and influence. David felt that, despite his services, he was too poor to comply with custom in offering as dowry what became a suitor to a king’s daughter. It was, therefore, very thoughtful on the part of Saul to ask as dowry what certainly few men could provide, but what the conqueror of Goliath would, no doubt, readily and with increasing honours secure. A kindly, considerate bearing disarms suspicion. The plot was clever, like all the plots whereby our great adversary, the devil, seeks to ensnare the innocent. A parallel might be developed without much difficulty.
2. Vileness. The cleverness is discovered by tracing the course apparent to men; the vileness by the light thrown upon that course by the Searcher of hearts. We are enabled to look beneath the surface, and to estimate words and deeds by their relation to motive. The vileness is seen in
(1) The deliberate intent to commit murder. The whole procedure originated in a determination to insure David’s death. Blood was shed in intent. The true universe is the unseen, for it is enduring. In that sphere Saul slew, before the clear, searching eye of God, the best friend he ever had next to Samuel.
(2) The covering of murderous intent, with professions of kindness and esteem. Open hostility is bad enough in an evil cause, but to play the hypocrite for compassing a cruel purpose is the blackest of crimes (Psa 10:7). To be clothed as an angel of light is not confined to Satan.
(3) The attempt to make Providence subservient to a secret intent. Saul dare not lay hands on David, but he dare lay a train of circumstances by which Providence should be charged with doing what all men would deplore except himself. Man would make God the servant of his vile designs. Cowards wish Providence to do what they have not the courage to avow.
3. Foolishness. It is no uncommon thing for the cunning and skill of the wicked to turn out the veriest foolishness. Such is the force of right and justice, that wicked wisdom is always found in the issue to be mad folly. That it was so in this case is seen by observing
(1) God knew all from the first. It is a proof of the utter stupidity of the sinful heart that it acts as though God were not. This unreasonableness enters into all sin. The wicked heart retires into its own darkness, and says, “He will never see it” (Psa 10:11).
(2) The plot secured to David the special protection promised to the innocent.’ God pledges his care to the poor and needy when they walk in innocency. He “sayeth the upright in heart (Psa 7:10). The “needy shall not alway be forgotten” (Psa 9:18; Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33). Saul ought to have known that a holy man, one who had been blessed in conflict, would not be left to himself in the day of danger.
(3) It issued in David’s advantage. Saul really fell into a pit prepared for another. The man who was to be put down rose higher, while Saul himself sank in the esteem of all. The scheme brought out in clear and beautiful form David’s personal integrity (1Sa 18:18, 1Sa 18:23). Its issue gave him greater influence with Israel (1Sa 18:30). He became a greater terror to his enemies (1Sa 18:27), and his marriage with Michal subsequently proved a great help in escaping the snares of Saul (1Sa 18:21; cf. 1Sa 19:12).
II. THE GENERAL TRUTHS IT TEACHES. Among the many truths set forth in the plot of Saul and escape of David, the following may be specially noticed:
1. The moral value of conduct? seen when the light of God shines on it. Saul’s conduct, as watched by casual observers ignorant of the secret between him and Samuel (1Sa 15:26-28, 1Sa 15:30), would have attached to it a moral value quite inconsistent with real truth. It is the light which God enabled the historian to pour on the inner motive that reveals the whole as vile. Our estimate of conduct is necessarily approximate. A measure of doubt or suspense attends our judgments of character. There is no principle more clearly held than that the secret intent, the private, unexpressed, and often inexpressible motive, is the real determinant of moral character in actions. Yet such are the depths and intricacies of human thought and feeling, that every man is largely an unknown being to his fellows. This uncertainty creates a belief in a future manifestation of character, when every man shall receive from all exactly his due. Otherwise justice is defeated, and moral worth is cheated of its honour. Scripture assures us of the truth that the day will come when the true spring of conduct shall be manifested; the inner real man will be known. The day is coming on when men shall see themselves and others in that all-revealing light (Ecc 12:14; Mat 10:26; Mat 25:31, Mat 25:32). Hence the good cheer of the upright in heart whose actions are misinterpreted, whose position is obscure, who suffer from the scorning of the proud, and whose outward success in life is not commensurate with the largeness and purity of their desires. Hence, also, the warning for those who cover up a defiled heart beneath an attractive exterior.
2. Integrity is the best human defence against wicked craft. The manifest integrity of David in all his relations to Saul and the people was better to him than all possible contrivances to cunningly checkmate the movements of his enemy. There was a moral power in his blameless, unaffected conduct which caused his secret foe to dwell in fear. Looking back on this period, he could say, “I have walked in mine integrity” (Psa 26:1); and doubtless, knowing the value of such defence in the past, he could say, in view of future dangers, “Let integrity and uprightness preserve me” (Psa 25:21). It is ever so. As simple truth is mightier than all ramifications of falsehood, so an upright heart, an innocent life, is, in the issue, more than a match for all cunning combinations of evil. Were men more simple in purpose, less given to mere policy, keeping their hearts free from petty jealousies and ambitions, their foot would be less often caught in a snare, and their reputation would take care of itself.
3. God takes care of his faithful servants who have a work to do in the world. David’s innocence was an object of interest to God, and received his protection; but David was a chosen servant in course of unconscious preparation for high and important duties. He, therefore, was cared for by God in the midst of unknown dangers. Nor was there anything exceptional in this, for such is the heritage of all who fear the Lord. Bodily suffering, and even death, may come on the innocent and true, but these are not the worst of evils. There is a more fearful fall; and in this respect, such is the care of God, that though a thousand fall at the side of the faithful, the great spiritual evil does not touch him (Psa 91:7, Psa 91:14). Every one has a charmed life in Christ’s service as long as his work is not finished. No weapon formed against David could prosper before he became king. No power was allowed to take away our Saviour’s life till he had finished the work the Father gave him to do. No stones and lying in wait of wicked men were of any avail against Paul before he had preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Act 9:15, Act 9:23, Act 9:24; 2Co 11:24-27).
4. The ulterior object of a sinful course is never attained. One object of Saul s cunning was to get rid of David. History tells us how this object was frustrated. The Lord was with David. Disappointment, vexation, intenser misery were the result to Saul. It is not too wide an assertion to affirm that the ulterior object is never attained in a sinful course. A careful analysis of the workings of sin in every instance will show that the end in view is to secure a pleasure deemed greater and more welcome than any supposed to result from obedience to God’s will. If sin in its origin be self-assertion, as against conformity to a supreme will, the object in view is evidently to attain to a state of being superior to that involved in conformity. It seeks a rise, and, behold, it is itself a fall. It is always self-defeated. This can be shown to be true of all who wilfully refuse to have rest in Godthey miss the bliss they sought in rebellion; of all who prefer to be saved by other means than by the one Mediatorthey never attain to the pardon and purity which alone constitute salvation; of all who sacrifice Christian principle to acquire wealth or powerthey get the wealth and power, but not the satisfaction of soul which their possession was believed to insure. It cannot be insisted on too strongly, that not only is sin essentially evil and degrading, however fascinating its form, but is also in its issue a bitter disappointment. “He that sinneth against me ‘wrongeth his own soul’ (Pro 8:36). The desire, the expectation, the way of the wicked “shall perish” (Psa 1:6; Psa 112:10; Pro 10:28).
5. Exalted piety and simplicity of life are consistent with pre-eminence in secular affairs. It is often supposed that a very pious man, and one of simple purpose in life, cannot compete with men less spiritual in character. The language of Christians has sometimes given sanction to this belief. But facts and reason are against it. David, the most pious of men, attained to a capacity for affairs far in advance of others (1Sa 18:30). Newton was not a worse mathematician and astronomer for his deep and simple piety. It is reasonable that a mind pure, devout, calm in sense of God’s favour, free from the distraction induced by waywardness of will, and enjoying the promised blessing of God, should, when called by Providence to any sphere of activity, excel those of equal natural powers, but destitute of the spiritual tone. If such men do not attain to highest public stations, it may be because Providence has other work for them to do; or if only a few rise to pre-eminence, it may be because the combination of great piety and great natural aptitude for special pursuits is rare.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 18:1-30. (GIBEAH.)
David’s life at court.
On his victory over Goliath, David was conducted by Abner (1Sa 14:50) into the presence of Saul, “with the bead of the Philistine in his hand.” He appears to have been unrecognised by the king, perhaps because of the alteration that had taken place in his personal appearance. Henceforth he resided at Gibeah (1Sa 18:2), where he remained for two or three years. The court of Saul, while unlike that of Solomon, half a century later, was not destitute of worldly show, and was marked by the obsequiousness, self-seeking, emulation, and intrigue which too often prevail in such places, especially when the monarch is capricious, proud, and without the fear of God (1Sa 22:6, 1Sa 22:7). David’s connection with it was of great importance in relation to the position which he was destined by Divine providence to occupy; continued his education for it; and afforded
against the enemies of Israel, and ultimately from loyal obedience to royal rule.
II. ACQUAINTANCE WITH MEN, and the knowledge of human nature. David was familiar with “fields, and flocks, and silent stars,” but needed training in another school.
1. There are few things more valuable than an accurate and extensive knowledge of men: their divers temperaments, tendencies, and capacities; their peculiar excellences and defects; their varied wishes and aims; and underneath all the great principles of humanity that are the same in all.
2. Some circumstances afford special opportunity for the attainment of such knowledge. What a field of observation were the court and camp of Saul to one of such mental activity and profound insight as David!
3. The knowledge of men produces in the heart that is sincere, devout, and acquainted with itself a large sympathy with them in their sorrows, joys, imperfections, and strivings after higher things. Of this sympathy the psalms of David are a wonderful expression.
4. It is necessary to the knowledge of the most effectual methods of dealing with themone of the most needful and desirable qualifications in a ruler.
III. THE TRIAL OF PRINCIPLE. David, no less than Saul, must be put to the test, and his fidelity to Jehovah tried as silver “in a furnace of earth.”
1. Trial is needful to prove the reality of principle, and manifest its strength and brightness.
2. One trial is often followed by another and a greater. The royal favour into which David was suddenly raised was as suddenly succeeded by royal jealousy, hatred, and craft. Surely no man was ever more fiercely assailed by temptation.
3. When endured aright, in faith and obedience, trial, however painful, is morally beneficial.
4. The victory which is gained over one temptation is an earnest of a victory over the next. The triumph of humility in David was followed by that of simplicity, patience, and forbearance.
IV. ADVANCEMENT IN POPULAR FAVOUR (1Sa 18:7, 1Sa 18:16, 1Sa 18:30), which, in the case of David, paved his way to the throne; though he neither coveted nor, during the life of Saul, put forth any effort to gain that object.
1. A course of wise and prosperous action, as it well deserves, so it generally obtains the approbation of the people.
2. Such a course of action ought to be aimed at, rather than the popular favour with which it is attended.
3. The favour of the people is to be valued only in subordination to the favour of God, and in so far as it accords with it.
4. Popular favour should be regarded not as an end in itself, but as a means of promoting the Divine glory and human welfare.D.
1Sa 18:1-4. (GIBEAH.)
True friendship.
(References:1Sa 19:1-5; 1Sa 20:1-23; 1Sa 23:16-18.)
1. Friendship is a mutual affection between persons of congenial minds, arising out of their esteem for each other’s excellence, and expressing itself in kindly offices. Attachment to kindred is in some respects surpassed by that which is felt towards the friend “who is even as thine own soul” (Deu 13:6). In allusion to it “Abraham was called the friend of God” (2Ch 20:7; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23)possibly in the first instance by God himself; and “God spake to Moses as a man to his friend” (Exo 33:11). The Book of Proverbs abounds in statements concerning the worth and claims of friendship (Pro 17:17; Pro 18:24; Pro 27:6, Pro 27:9, Pro 27:10, Pro 27:17). And Jesus said to his disciples, “I have called you friends” (Joh 15:15).
2. Much that is usually called friendship is not worthy of the name. “There are three things that engender friendshipprofit, pleasure, virtue. The first two do not beget true friendship, for as soon as the profit or pleasure ceaseth, friendship is gone; but virtue only maketh love and friendship to continue” (Willet).
3. The true friendship which subsisted between Jonathan and David “shines for all ages an eternal type.” It is “the first Biblical instance of such a dear companionship as was common in Greece, and has been since in Christendom imitated, but never surpassed, in modern works of fiction” (Stanley). The most celebrated of the instances referred to were those of Orestes and Pylades, Damon and Pythias, Nisus and Euryalus.
4. The friendship of Jonathan toward David (the formation of which is here described) was Divinely provided as a means of guarding the life of the latter from the attacks of Saul, and of preserving his loyalty to the king and his faith in God. “Thy love to me was wonderful” (2Sa 1:26). On the other hand, that of David toward Jonathan exerted an elevating and sanctifying influence upon him. Of true friendship observe that
I. IT EXISTS ONLY IN NOBLE SOULS. Both Jonathan and David were virtuous, generous, and devout. They were one in “the love of virtue and the fear of God.” Persons destitute of these principles can neither esteem the excellence of others nor be esteemed for their own. “We are so formed by nature that there should be a certain social tie among all; stronger, however, as each approaches each. Now friendship is nothing else than a complete union of feeling on all subjects, Divine and human, accompanied by a kindly feeling and attachment. The entire strength of friendship consists in an entire agreement of inclinations, pursuits, and sentiments” (Cicero, ‘On Friendship’).
“A generous friendship no cold medium knows,
Burns with one love, with one resentment glows” (Homer).
“A good man in the best friend, and therefore soonest to be chosen, longest to be retained, and, indeed, never to be parted with, unless he ceases to be that for which he was chosen” (Jeremiah Taylor).
II. IT IS FOUNDED UPON MUTUAL ESTEEM. When David “had made an end of speaking unto Saul,” in which he doubtless said much more than is recorded, the soul of Jonathan was knit (linked or chained) with the soul of David, etc. (verse 1). Nothing is said of Jonathan at the time of David’s conflict with Goliath. He may have been absent; or, if present, not permitted to risk his life in the encounter. Perhaps his faith and courage were not strong enough. But “he loved that which went beyond his own spirit, yet was of the same heroic order. He saw in David a higher and greater Jonathan, the ideal of his own actual life, himself transfigured and perfected. What he had dreamt he might be he beheld in David” (B. Kent). He admired the faith, courage, modesty, and moral excellence which lay beneath the “outward appearance.” “Now they are worthy of friendship in whom there exists a reason why they should be loved; a rare class, for in truth all that is excellent is rare” (Cicero).
III. IT CONSISTS OF DISINTERESTED AFFECTION. “Jonathan loved him as his own soul “(verses 1, 3; 1Sa 20:17); with the same kind and the same measure of affection. Hence the sympathy, generosity, fidelity, and constancy which he displayed. A friend is “another self.” “Though judgment must collect the materials of the goodly structure of friendship, it is affection that gives the cement” (Melmoth). “It really seems to consist in loving rather than being loved. It is the wishing a person what we think good for his sake, and not for our own, and, as far as is in our power, the exerting ourselves to procure it. And a friend is he who entertains and meets a return of this feeling” (Aristotle, ‘Ethics,’ 8.; ‘Rhetoric,’ 2). “I hope I do not break the fifth commandment if I conceive I may love my friends before the nearest of my blood, even those to whom I owe the principles of life. I have loved my friend as I do virtue, my soul, my God” (Sir T. Browne, ‘Religio Medici’).
IV. IT UNITES IN A STEADFAST BOND. Knitsincerely, closely, firmly joined, grappled together “as with hooks of steel.” “A friend loveth at all times,” in adversity as well as in prosperity; and his friendship endures the strain caused by conflicting interests, misrepresentation, and many imperfections; it may even be said to be “one soul dwelling in two bodies.” “Now the foundation of that steadfastness and constancy which we seek in friendship, is sincerity; for nothing is steadfast which is insincere” (Cicero). Friendship founded on worldly principles is natural, and, though composed of the best elements of nature, is not exempt from its mutability and frailty; but friendship founded on religion is spiritual, and therefore unchanging and imperishable” (R. Hall, ‘Works,’ 5.).
V. IT IS CONFIRMED BY A SOLEMN COMPACT. “And Jonathan and David made a covenant,” etc. (verse 3; 1Sa 20:16, 1Sa 20:17). In it they gave and received assurance of affection, agreed to be faithful to each other under all circumstances, and called the Lord in whom they trusted to be witness between them; to it they were impelled by the strength of their love and “a loftier necessity of finding and loving in one another, if possible in a yet higher degree, the purely Divine power already felt within, and thus mutually living under its influence” (Ewald); and by it their friendship was rendered sacred and strong and permanently established. In times when “the love of many waxes cold and iniquity abounds,” men of a common faith and love toward God do well to draw closely together and strengthen each other’s hearts and hands by sacred vows.
VI. IT IS MANIFESTED IN GENEROUS GIFTS. “And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him,” etc. (verse 4). He gave him what best expressed the gift of himself, and what would continually remind David of his friend and increase his confidence and love. It was little that David could give him in return of an outward kind, but he gave him confidence for confidence, love for love, life for life. Friendship is practical, self-sacrificing, and helpful, and gives of its best. “David is seen in Jonathan’s clothes that we may take notice he is Jonathan’s second self. Our Lord Jesus Christ has thus showed his love to us, that he stripped himself to clothe us, humbled himself to enrich us. Nay, he did more than Jonathanhe clothed himself with our rags, whereas Jonathan did not put on David’s” (M. Henry).
Exhortation:
1. Seek friendship only among the wise and good. If you would have a true friend, make a friend of him who is a friend of God.
2. Strive to be as worthy of the friendship of the good as David was of the friendship of Jonathan.
3. Be as sincere and faithful to your friend as Jonathan was to David.
4. Value the friendship of Christ beyond all other.D.
1Sa 18:4
Divine friendship.
“He loved him as his own soul” (1Sa 18:3). Human friendship is a shadow of Divine. The greatest and best Friend is God in Christ Jesus. Happy is every one who can say from the heart, “This is my beloved, and this is my friend” (So 5:16). Consider
I. ITS CONDITIONS, on the part of man.
1. Rationality: capacity of thought, voluntary choice, moral esteem. “Amidst the ashes of our collapsed nature there slumber certain sparks of celestial fire” (Owen).
2. Reconciliation; inasmuch as man is alienated from God, and under condemnation.
3. Renewal in righteousness and true holiness, so that we may be “partakers of the Divine nature” (2Pe 1:4). “Friendship is a union of souls, and souls can be united only where there is more or less accord” (Amo 3:3).
II. ITS CHARACTERISTICS, on the part of the Lord. All his perfections render it in every respect transcendently excellent. But notice more particularly
1. Its disinterestedness. “He first loved us,” with a pure, free, condescending, self-sacrificing love. “Greater love hath no man,” etc. (Joh 15:13).
2. Its faithfulness.
3. Its constancy. “The love of friends of this world is defective in three respectsthey begin to love late, cease early, love little. But the love of God is an unequalled love. He loves us without beginning, without intermission, and without end” (Nouet).
III. ITS BENEFITS, or the blessings enjoyed by those who have fellowship with him.
1. Counsel, warning, rebuke. Reproofs are “the graver looks of love.”
2. Defence, support, and effectual help.
3. Sympathy, encouragement, and everlasting consolation. “And now,” said Jonathan Edwards, on his death bed, turning from his earthly friends toward the approaching darkness, “where is Jesus of Nazareth, my true and never failing Friend?”
IV. ITS CLAIMS, or the duties of those who enjoy such benefits and desire their continuance.
1. To cherish proper feelings toward himconfidence, affection, and delight in intercourse with him.
2. To do those things that please him. “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
3. Not to be ashamed of him, but to confess his name before men; to love and serve his friends for his sake, and to seek in all things his honour and glory.D.
1Sa 18:6-16. (GIBEAH)
Envy.
“And Saul eyed David from that day forward” (1Sa 18:9). How extraordinary are the moral contrasts which are often presented in human life! The friendship of Jonathan here stands in opposition to the envy of Saul. Hardly had David experienced the one before he was exposed to the other. “His victory had a double issue, Jonathan’s love and Saul’s envy, which God so mixed that the one was a remedy of the other” (Hall). On the day of public rejoicing the seeds of jealousy, envy, and hatred were sown in his heart. He eyed David not with favour, as before, but with dislike on account of the honour given to him beyond himself. The general suspicion which he entertained in consequence of the intimations of Samuel concerning his successor also seems to have fastened on him as the man; and henceforth he looked upon him as a dangerous rival. “Mingling with his constitutional malady, it poisoned his whole future relations with David.” Of envy notice that –
I. IT TAKES ROOT IN AN EVIL HEART. In the case of Saul the soil was congenial and ready prepared by
1. Alienation from God and conviction of his disfavour.
2. Selfishness and morbid concentration of thought upon himself.
3. Self-will, pride, and worldly ambition, still continuing and increasing.
4. Wrathful passion. He was very wroth, and the saying displeased him (1Sa 18:8). “He who is apt to feel indignation, feels pain at those who are undeservedly successful; but the envious man, going beyond him, feels pain at every one’s success” (Aristotle, ‘Ethics’).
II. IT GROWS IS THE SHADE OF ANOTHER‘S PRE–EMINENCE in
1. Popular estimation. “They have ascribed unto David ten thousands,” etc. (1Sa 18:8). “What properly occasions envy is the fruit of the accomplishments of others; the pre-eminence which the opinion of the world bestows, or which we dread it will bestow, on their talents above ours” (Blair).
2. Successful achievements, from which such preference proceeds. “The bright day brings out the adder.” Prosperity is generally attended by envy.
3. Personal excellences. David “behaved himself wisely” (1Sa 18:5); “very wisely” (1Sa 18:15); “more wisely than all” (1Sa 18:30). He acted prudently, cautiously, skilfully, and therefore prosperously.
“Base envy withers at another’s joy,
And hates the excellence it cannot reach”
(Thomson).
4. Divine approbation, which appears in prosperous enterprises. “And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him,” etc. (1Sa 18:12). “And Cain was very wroth,” etc. (Gen 4:5; 1Jn 3:2). The envy felt at the favour shown to another by God is peculiarly criminal, because of its opposition to God himself.
III. IT IS MARKED BY MANY ODIOUS FEATURES.
1. Unreasonableness.
2. In most cases ingratitude. David had conferred a great benefit on Saul and Israel by his victory over Goliath; he “went out whithersoever Saul sent him,” and fought his battles; and often soothed his melancholy with the music of his harp (1Sa 18:10).
3. Injustice. He did him “shame” (1Sa 20:34) by entertaining suspicions of his loyalty and treating him as a traitor.
4. Ungodliness and all uncharitableness. “Charity envieth not.” “Envy is the worst of all passions, and feedeth upon the spirits, and they again upon the body; and so much the more because it is perpetual, and, as it is said, keepeth no holidays” (Bacon, ‘Essays’).
IV. IT IS PRODUCTIVE OF MUCH DEADLY FRUIT, in relation both to others (Pro 27:4) and to the envious man himself (Pro 14:30); partly of hatred and partly of grief. “As it shows itself in hatred it strikes at the person envied; but as it affects a man in the nature of grief it recoils and does execution upon the envier. It lies at the heart like a worm, always gnawing and corroding and piercing it with a secret, invisible sting and poison” (South, ‘Sermons,’ 58.). In Saul it produced unrest of soul, increased subjection to the power of evil”it came to pass on the morrow,” etc. (1Sa 18:10); ungovernable rage”he poised the javelin” twice; craft and hypocrisy; fear (1Sa 18:11, 1Sa 18:15); continual enmity (1Sa 18:21); deliberate avowal of murderous intentions (1Sa 19:1); open and unceasing persecution; despair and self-destruction. “When in the last judgment envy is placed at the bar of God, what an indictment will he laid against the evil spirit! The insulting anger of Eliab, the cruelty of Joseph’s brethren, the murderous wrath of Cain, and the greatest share in the greatest crime in the worldthe crucifying of the Lord of glorywill be charged upon him. To cast this demon out of our bosoms before that final condemnation is one purpose of Jesus, and with all our hearts we should pray for his complete and. speedy victory” (C Vince).
Conclusion:In order to the cure or prevention of this evil passion, seek a renewed heart; dwell much on the Divine love “that spurns all envying in its bounty;” estimate aright temporal advantages; entertain lowly thoughts of self; learn to admire excellence in others, and regard it as if it were your own; check the first impulse of jealous or envious feeling; and “commit thy way unto the Lord.”
“O man! why place thy heart where there doth need
Exclusion of participants in good?
Heaven calls, And, round about you wheeling, courts your gaze
With everlasting beauties. Yet your eye
Turns with fond doting still upon the earth.
Therefore he smites you who discerneth all”
(Dante, ‘Purg.’ 14.).D.
1Sa 18:17-30. (GIBEAH.)
Simplicity.
There is a simplicity which springs from ignorance, and is displayed in folly and presumption (Pro 22:3). There is also a simplicity which is the fruit of innocence, truthfulness, and goodness, and appears in an ingenuous mind, a guileless disposition, and straightforward speech and conduct. In its best sense (simplicitaswithout fold or twist) it is opposed to duplicity, deception, and “cunning craftiness” (Rom 12:8; Rom 16:19; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 11:3); and it was exemplified, in an eminent degree, by David, especially in his earlier intercourse with Saul; for, through familiarity with court life, and much more in consequence of the straits to which he was reduced by the craft and persecution of the king, the simple-minded, open-hearted shepherd youth once and again turned aside:from the right path (1Sa 21:2). Consider simplicity as
I. BESET BY THE WORKING or CRAFT. Having given way to envy, and in a violent fit of madness threatened the life of David, Saul continued to hate and fear him (Mar 11:18), and sought to get rid of him, though indirectly from restraint of conscience and secretly from fear of the people (Mar 6:20; Luk 22:2). Sin works in the dark. Malicious craft often
1. Seeks to accomplish ends which it may not dare to avow. Springing from jealousy for personal position and renown, it aims at the depreciation of every one by whom they seem to be endangered; and at his removal, whether accidentally by the hands of others, or by his committing some overt act which may justify his open punishment (1Sa 18:17, 1Sa 18:21, 1Sa 18:25). And toward these ends it works with ever greater directness and less concealment; for that which is hidden in the heart must sooner or later come to light.
2. Makes use of fair professions, and uses pretexts which are specious, false, and hypocritical. David was assured that no harm was really meant him, and made “captain over a thousand” (1Sa 18:13); whereas he was removed from the presence of the king because he was hated and feared, and that he might be exposed to greater danger. His not receiving the fulfilment of Saul’s promise (1Sa 17:25) was probably accounted for by his lack of wealth and social status (1Sa 18:25); but the promise was repeated insincerely. “Only be thou valiant for me” (expose thyself to every hazard),” and fight the Lord’s battles” (with zeal for Jehovah, which I know thou hast), and (sub voce) “let not my hand be upon him,” etc. (1Sa 18:17). On the loss of Merab he was consoled by the promise of Michal (1Sa 18:21), but only as “a snare,” and her love was made use of for the purpose. And at length (when the king had formed his plan, and felt sure of its success), he was told by his servants (as if in confidential communication), “Behold, the king hath delight in thee,” etc. (1Sa 18:22), “desireth not any dowry,” etc. (1Sa 18:25); “but Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.”
3. Adopts means which are unworthy, base, and godless. Scheming, plotting, murderous attempts on life under the sanctities of affection and religion; at heart, infatuated opposition to the will of God. If it were not the Divine purpose that David should be king, why fear him? if it were, of what avail would resistance be?
II. DISPLAYED IN THE MIDST OF CRAFT. The snares that were woven around David seem plain enough to us; but there is no reason to suppose that they were at first observed by him. The simple-hearted man
1. Is accustomed to look upon others as sincere like himself, regards their statements and assurances as truthful, and is slow to suspect their evil intentions. Even to the last David could hardly believe that Saul, of his own accord, sought his life (1Sa 26:19). He is “simile concerning evil.” Large experience makes men cautious; but it is better to be deceived a hundred times than to lead a life of continual suspicion.
2. Entertains modest and lowly views of himself, takes contempt and disappointment without complaint, and accepts humbly and cheerfully whatever honour may be conferred upon him (1Sa 18:18, 1Sa 18:23). “Seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not” (Jer 45:5). “A pious man is even in prosperity humble in heart.”
3. Is intent upon the honest, faithful, and efficient discharge of the duty that lies before him, and fears danger little because he fears God much (1Sa 18:5, 1Sa 18:14, 1Sa 18:27). “David’s calm indifference to outward circumstances affecting himself were very strikingly expressed in his conduct. Partly from his poetic temperament, partly from his sweet, natural unselfishness, and chiefly from his loving trust in God, he accepts whatever happens with equanimity, and makes no effort to alter it” (Maclaren). It has been remarked that “genius is rumply the carrying into the maturity of our powers the simplicity and ardour of childhood.”
III. PRESERVED FROM THE DEVICES OF CRAFT. It is the best means of preservation, inasmuch as
1. It affords the least occasion for an adversary to take an advantage. Although the ingenuous man may appear to lie open to attack, yet he is really most effectually guarded against it.
2. It attracts the respect of other men (1Sa 18:16), gains the love of those who warn and help him (1Sa 18:28; 1Sa 19:11), and makes it difficult for his enemies to prevail over him.
3. It insures the favour of God. “The Lord was with him” (1Sa 18:12, 1Sa 18:14, 1Sa 18:28) to guide, defend, and help him (Psa 37:24, Psa 37:33). “In thee do I trust.”
IV. RESULTING IN AN END OPPOSED TO THAT OF CRAFT.
1. Instead of returning no more from the conflict, he returns in triumph, and receives an unwilling honour from the hand that was lifted up against him (1Sa 18:27, 1Sa 18:28; Rev 3:9).
2. Instead of being less an object of terror to the wicked, he is more so (1Sa 18:29).
3. Instead of being deprived of the love of the people of God (1Sa 18:16 : “All Israel and Judah loved David”), he is more completely enthroned in their hearts (1Sa 18:30).
Remark
1. How ineffectual are the devices of the wicked against “the upright in heart.”
2. How beneficial may even their devices become when met with “simplicity and godly sincerity.”
3. How inexpressibly beautiful is the character of the Son of David”meek and lowly in heart.”
4. How necessary is the “anointing of the holy One,” that we may become like unto him.D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
1Sa 18:1-9
Love and jealousy.
One great exploit performed in the sight of two armies took David at once and forever out of obscurity. Thenceforth he was a man much observed. The quiet pastoral life at Bethlehem was ended, and could never be resumed. Sudden success brings rapid distinction, but also brings trials and risks from which the obscure are free. David leaped at a bound into honour and fame, but for that very reason he found himself at the beginning of his troubles. Well that, before those troubles began to press him, he knew the Lord as his refuge; well, too, that he won to himself in the very sphere of danger a loving and faithful friend.
I. JONATHAN‘S LOVE. If there was a man in Israel who had reason to be jealous of David, it was the Prince Jonathan. He was a gallant soldier, and here was a greater hero to eclipse him. He had by personal valour gained a signal victory over the Philistines, and here was a personal courage still more brilliant, and a discomfiture of the enemy more easy and more complete. He was the heir to the throne, and if this youth should aspire to rule as well as deliver Israel, it was Jonathan whom he would supplant. Yet in this generous prince there appeared not even a shade of envy. He saw in the young shepherd a congenial spirita temper adventurous as his own, with a faith in God firm and ardent as his own. The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David. It was good for Jonathan to find a friend who could evoke an admiration and affection so intense. He could no longer look up to his own father with respect or confidence. In the circle or court about the king the finer qualities of Jonathan’s nature found no harmony, no encouragement. But here was one who could understand him, and in whom he could see and admire what a leader in Israel ought to be. It was good for David, too, to find that he was cared for, that his pure and devout patriotism was appreciated, and that he had the fraternal sympathy of at least one in that higher grade of life on which he was now so suddenly to enter. The time was at hand when such strong and faithful love would be very precious.
II. SAUL‘S JEALOUSY. At first it appeared as though David was to have nothing but honour. The king obeyed his good impulse, and gave the young hero high promotion among his officers, with the evident approval of the soldiers and all the people. But a black cloud of jealousy soon gathered. Saul could not bear to hear this new champion praised more than himself; and he began to brood over the thought that this might be the man at whom Samuel hinted, to whom the Lord would give the kingdom. “What can he have more but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day forward.” We soon read of the jealous king trying to take David’s life. Oh, cruel envy! No worthiness, no goodness is a defence against it. The sight of good excites it to evil. It is the passion of a mean spirit; or, if it fastens on a character which has some great qualities, it tends to weaken and degrade it. Indeed, no more wretched fate can befall any man than to be filled with envy, and so to chafe and jibe at all who surpass him; to become a prey to jealousy, and mistrust or disparage all who seem to please God or man more than he. How fatal for Saul himself was this jealous passion! By the help of David the king might have recovered something of his lost health and happiness, and repaired some of the errors of his reign. But once jealousy took possession of him all this was impossible. Saul became gloomy, crafty, and cruel; and the more David did for the kingdom, hearing himself wisely in camp and court, the more was he watched with envious eyes, and pursued with sullen hatred. “Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?” This seemed an ominous beginning for David; but it served its purpose in the training through which God meant him to pass. After Saul was anointed he was put through no such ordeal. The slight opposition which was made to his sudden elevation was soon surmounted, and the son of Kish stepped up to the throne of Israel with very little difficulty. But this was really ominous. It was a sign that God was to have little service or glory from King Saul. The son of Jesse had a higher destiny, and therefore he was tried and proved. His faith was tested as by fire; his discretion was ripened by the knowledge that jealous eyes were watching him; his patience was perfected; his staying power developed through an experience hard and harassing.
III. SUGGESTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST, LOVED AND HATED. As David in his youth, and on the threshold of his public career, overcame the strong enemy of Israel in single combat, so Jesus in youth, and on the threshold of his public life, encountered the adversary of the people of God, and overcame the tempter in the wilderness. Then, as David endured much before he reached the throne, so Jesus Christ endured much before God raised him up and gave him glory. And during that time of his lowly suffering Jesus was, like his human ancestor David, solaced by love and pursued by envy.
1. Loved. The Son of David had the applause of the multitude, and bore himself so wisely that the keenest observers could find no fault in him. Withal he had the power of knitting souls to himself, so as to make them willing to forsake all for his sake. Now this was always a strong characteristic of Davida charm of character and bearing which attached to him many lovers and friends. Jonathan loved him in youth as his own soul. His warriors were so devoted to him, that he had but to wish for water from the well of Bethlehem, and three heroes dashed through the ranks of the Philistines to draw water and bring it to their chief. Ittai the Gittite and others are evidences that David retained this attaching power even in old age. And did not the Son of David, with an attraction which we cannot analyse or define, draw to himself the sons of Zebedee, and the sons of Jonas, the brother and sisters at Bethany, Mary of Magdala, and many more who found in his companionship and favour all that their hearts desired? Did he not afterwards draw to himself the persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, and engage the all-enduring loyalty and love of Paul? And are there not thousands on thousands who, though they have not seen him, love him, and in whose eyes he is never more worthy of love than when contemplated as One despised and rejected of men, “a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief”? It was a solace to Jesus in his deepest suffering that they who knew him best loved him. How often he dwelt on it, on the night in which he was betrayed 1 “If ye love me keep my commandments” “He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father.” “The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me.” Just as it comforted David when hunted and proscribed to know that Jonathan loved him truly and well, so it comforted the Son of David, that though men might hate and kill him, there were those who loved him truly and well, and whom neither death nor life could separate from his love.
2. Hated. We have seen how David’s courage and discretion stirred Saul’s jealousy. A man so rare in his qualities, so evidently fitted for greatness, drew after him eyes of cruel envy. So it befell the Son of David. Because Jesus drew to him disciples and friends, the priests and rabbis hated him. Because he was followed by multitudes, the rulers took counsel together against him. Because he answered and acted wisely, the scribes and Pharisees were filled with malice against him. Wherever he went, jealous eyes watched him, and crafty questions laid wait for him. The Scripture was fulfilled: “They hated me without a cause.” Pontius Pilate easily detected the motive (no just cause)which led the Jewish Council to arraign the Son of David at his judgment seat. “He knew that for envy they had delivered him.” So it is today. Jesus Christ is proclaimed as mighty to save. The world is being filled with his name, and everywhere cries ascend of “Hosanna to the Son of David.” And how is it taken? Some love, but some also hate. Some feel as Jonathan did. They are quite drawn out of themselves to the Lord Jesus. He is, he must be, their Beloved and their Friend. And how significant of his greatness it is that he, now unseen, awakens in human hearts a faith as strong, an attachment as ardent, as thrilled the breasts of apostles who accompanied him and women who ministered to him in Galilee! Paul, who had not seen him in the flesh, loved him as truly and served him as enthusiastically as Peter and John, who had. Christians of the eleventh century, like Bernard of Clairvaux, or of the fifteenth, like him who wrote as Thomas a Kempis, clave to him as devoutly as the Fathers who lived within a few generations of the apostles. And comparative moderns, like Herbert, Bengel, Rutherford, Madame Guyon, Brainerd, Whitefield, the Wesleys, Toplady, Hervey, Henry Martyn, McCheyne, Adolph Monod, have held him as precious as did the most fervent spirits of earlier times. Jesus Christ has always known how to draw men to himself, and hold them by cords of spiritual attraction, so that they have loved him as their own souls. Others, however, eye him as Saul eyed David, in order to find fault with him. Oh, what a triumph it would give to a certain class of men if they could only find a blot in the Lord Jesus; if they could show him to have been no better or higher than ether men! But it cannot be done. His way is perfect. His character, however closely scrutinised, reveals no flaw. It comes to this, that men hate him because he is so good. They love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil.F.
1Sa 18:29, 1Sa 18:30
David proved and tried.
I. EXEMPLARY CONDUCT UNDER TRIAL. One can hardly imagine a course of events more likely to turn a young man’s head and make him giddy with elation than the rapid promotion of the youthful David. Brought at once from comparative obscurity into the full blaze of public admiration as a national hero, appointed as an officer of high rank in the army, made son-in-law to the king, and at the same time trusted and honoured by the people, the son of Jesse had much to tempt him to self-complacence. It is a sign that the Lord was with him that he bore himself meekly, circumspectly, and with “sublime repression of himself.” A man who is conscious of fitness for a great position can afford to wait. It must come to him, if he lives long enough; and if he is not to live, why should he fret his few years with an idle ambition? David had something better than such a consciousness; he knew himself to be anointed and ordained of God to fill an eminent place in his service. True, that nothing seems to have been said about the kingship at the private anointing in Bethlehem; and David’s gift of sacred song seemed to point him out as successor of Samuel rather than of Saul. But kings, not prophets, were anointed; and the thought of being king, especially after the exploit at Elah, must have passed and repassed through the young hero’s mind. Yet because he believed God he did not make haste. If the high and perilous seat of a king of Israel was destined for him, let it come; but he would not grasp it, or climb into it by dispossessing its first occupant. Not by him would Saul be dethroned, or any dishonour done to a head which had received a holy anointing. God would give what he pleased, as and when he might see fit. Enough that David should act wisely and justly in the station to which he was assigned. This was no fatalism. The history shows that David used all lawful (and some rather questionable) endeavours to preserve his own life, and that he missed no opportunity to advance his public interest. He was far from inferring that, as God had marked out for him a destiny, he must not give any heed to his way or to his safety, because God would bring his own purpose to pass. On the contrary, he knew that the fulfilment of the destiny must be through his own discretion, valour, and proved fitness for the royal dignity. Therefore, while David would not push his way ambitiously to the throne, he was careful to do nothing that would make such promotion impossible. In fact David took the course which may be recommended to every young man who desires to rise in the esteem and confidence of others. He did well whatever was given him to do. He behaved himself wisely as a minstrel, as a soldier, as a prince. The historian marks the steps of his advance “wisely,” “very wisely,” “more wisely than all the servants of Saul” (1Sa 18:14, 1Sa 18:15, 1Sa 18:30). If we read “prospered,” “prospered exceedingly,” prospered more, the lesson remains the same. We are reminded of the youthful Joseph, always prosperous in administration, whether in Potiphar’s house, in charge of the prison, or in the government of Egypt. It was because the Lord was with him (Gen 39:2, Gen 39:23). Yet the promotion of Joseph was through his well approved discretion and fidelity winning for him more and more confidence (Gen 39:1-23 :39-41). So David prospered; every step of his elevation bringing out more clearly to view his fine combination of boldness and discretion, and his consequent fitness to rise yet higher, and to be the leader and ruler of all Israel. Happy the nation where such proved fitness counts for more than the highest birth or the strongest interest! If survival of the fittest be a rule in nature, selection of the fittest is the true principle for the public service. Not that every one who holds an inferior position well is fit to hold a higher and rise toward the highest. Men have their range, beyond which they are ill at ease and incapable. But this is certain, that men who ale fit for a leading position will reveal their capacity while serving in a subordinate place. Only in judging of this account must be taken not of brain power and acquired knowledge merely, but of character, and that moral influence which character and conduct give. Is it not on this principle that God promotes the heirs of glory? All who have received his grace are anointed ones; but they have to serve before they rule, and to be tested in labours and patience before they can reign with Christ. Has not our Saviour taught in parables that his people must be servants till he returns, and that only good and faithful servants are to enter into the joy of their Lord? Has not St. Paul spoken of eternal life as given to those “who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, honour, and immortality”? Behold the way to “the honour that comes from God only.” Behave wisely in the present sphere of duty. Do well, and do it with patience. Make not your advancement in this world, or even in the world to come, a matter of passionate anxiety. Foster and obey the sense of duty, attend conscientiously to the obligations of your present station, and fear not but the Lord will give you as much elevation as is good for you in this present time, and in the age to come a place and a portion with the King and with his saints.
II. THE IMPRESSION WHICH DAVID PRODUCED.
1. On the people. They were captivated by his gallantry and his discretion. Both in martial skill and in civil administration he surpassed all the public men of his country, and was fast becoming a popular idol. It is too true that, notwithstanding this, Saul was able to drive him into exile, and found soldiers enough to pursue him for his life. Popular favour did not protect him from such outrage. Yet two facts are worth noting.
(1) That David gave clear evidence of a man who could, and therefore should, sooner or later, lead his countrymen. This early approval of himself to all observers, however obscured or disparaged during the days of his persecution, was not forgotten by the people, and helped his ultimate elevation to the throne.
(2) That, though many turned against him at the bidding of Saul, David from this very time drew to himself friends that would not forsake him, for they saw in him the hope of Israel; and, following him to the caves among the rocks of Judah, and even to the land of the Philistines, were the companions, first of his tribulation, and then of his kingdom and glory.
2. On the king. The effect of David’s well doing on Saul was sinister and shameful. The good points which had once appeared in this unhappy man now recede from view, and the bad points of his character come out in strong relief under the baleful influence of jealousy. When he was himself the sole hero, and the eyes of all Israel turned to him, he could be gracious and even humble in his bearing. But elevation had made him proud; power had made him wilful; and a bad conscience made him hate and fear a well doer near the throne. He felt that this youth from Bethlehem was far the better man, and he suspected that the nation thought so too. Envy completed the moral ruin of Saul. As the worm seeks out the best fruit to eat the heart of it, so envy fastens on the best and noblest persons to hate and hurt them. It goes by quick steps to injuryeven to murder. “Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David.” O cursed envy! O hideous ingratitude! O foul and furious jealousy!
III. THE TREATMENT OF JESUS CHRIST FORSHADOWED. The Son of David lived unblamably, answered discreetly, behaved himself wisely. The people gathered to him in multitudes, with eyes and ears of admiration. They judged him worthy to be made their king. It is true that the fickle populace took part with their rulers against our Lord, just as the fickle subjects of Saul took part with him against the son of Jesse. But, in the one case as in the other, some hearts clave to the persecuted One. And as all the malice that pursued David failed to keep him from the kingdom to which God had destined him and for which God had fitted him, so the rejection, betrayal, and crucifixion of Jesus could not keep him from the throne far above all principality and power which was his in virtue of an eternal covenant. The rulers bated him without a cause; his very wisdom and goodness irritated them, and they took counsel together how they might slay him. For envy they delivered him up to judgment, and demanded that he should be crucified. At the period described in our text a crisis had arrived in Israel. Men were forced to choose between Saul and David, for these were contrary the one to the other, and could not live in unity. We know what side such a man as Doeg took. But David had his friends, who dared everything rather than renounce his cause. Better, in their opinion, to be exiles and pilgrims with him than to remain with the moody tyrant from whom the Lord had departed. So, in the days of his showing to Israel, many refused Jesus, but some clave to him. Better, in their opinion, to be cast out of the synagogues, to go forth without the gate, bearing his reproach, than to take part with the world that hated him, especially with that hard and gloomy Judaism from which the Lord had departed. The crisis continues. Before all men the alternative liesfor Christ, or against him. Oh, receive him whom the world has rejected; give him your hearts; identify and associate yourselves with the “once despised Jesus.”F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Sa 18:1. The soul of Jonathan was knit We shall have occasion in the close of this history to speak particularly concerning this amiable and virtuous friendship. It is plain from the 2nd verse, that David had gone back to his father’s house after his first introduction to Saul; which confirms the remarks made respecting this history in the former chapter.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2. Davids Friendship with Jonathan. He is made General of the Army
1Sa 18:1-5
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his 2own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him no more go home 3[would not let him return] to his fathers house. Then [And] Jonathan and David 4made a covenant, because Hebrews 1 loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments [war-dress], even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
5And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely.2 And Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Sauls servants.
3. David is hated by King Saul. 1Sa 18:6-16
6And it came to pass as they came, when David was [om. was] returned from the slaughter of the Philistine,3 that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing,4 to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy and with instruments 7of music [triangles]. And the women answered one another as they played,8and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Saul was very wroth,5 and the [this] saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed [given] unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed [given] but thousands; and what can he have more but the kingdom? [there remains for9 him only the kingdom.]6 And Saul eyed6 David from that day and forward.
10And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied7 in the midst of the house; and David played [was playing] with his hand as at other times, and there was a javelin in Sauls hand [and 11Sauls javelin was in his hand]. And Saul cast8 the javelin, for he [and] said, I will smite David even to [I will pin David to] the wall with it [om. with it]. And 12David avoided out of his presence [turned away from him] twice. And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord [Jehovah] was with him, and was departed from 13Saul. Therefore [And] Saul removed him from him, and made him his [om. his] 14captain over a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people. And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord [Jehovah] was with 15him. Wherefore when [And] Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, [ins. 16and] he was afraid of him. But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.
4. Sauls Artful Attempt against Davids Life in the Offer of Marriage with his Daughter. 1Sa 18:17-30
17And9 Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife; only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lords [Jehovahs] battles. For [And] Saul said, Let not my hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines 18be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what10 is my life, or [om. or] my fathers family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the 19king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab, Sauls daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel,11 the Meholathite, to wife. 20And Michal, Sauls daughter, loved David; and they told Saul, and the thing 21pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may [and she shall] be a snare to him, and that [om. that] the hand of the Philistines may [shall] be against him. Wherefore [And] Saul said to David [ins. the second time],12 Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain [om. in the one of the twain]. 22And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune [Speak] with David secretly, and say, Behold the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee; now, therefore, be the kings son-in-law. And Sauls servants spake these words in the 23ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a [the] 24 kings son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man and lightly esteemed? And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David.
25And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry but13 an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the kings enemies. 26But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when [om., when] his servants told David these words, [ins. and] it pleased David well 27to be the kings son-in-law; and the days were not expired.14 Wherefore [And] David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two15 hundred men, and David brought their foreskins, and they [better om. they16] gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the kings son-in-law. And Saul 28gave him Michal his daughter to wife. And Saul saw and knew that the Lord [Jehovah] was with David, and that [om. that] Michal,17 Sauls daughter, loved 29him. And Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul became [was] Davids 30enemy continually. Then18 [And] the princes of the Philistines went forth. And it came to pass, after [as often as] they went forth, that David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was set by.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Sa 17:55-58. David at the royal court, his lineage better known, and himself permanently taken up.On the relation of this section to 1Sa 16:14-23 (the two coming from different sources), and to the general narrative, see the full discussion in the Introduction, p. 16 sqq. Considering the undeniable difference between the account here (where Saul is ignorant of Davids person and family), and that in 1Sa 16:14-23, (where Saul, after negotiation with Jesse, takes David to his court, and keeps him till the outbreak of the war), and considering the vain attempts which have been made to harmonize this difference, we accept Ngelsbachs conclusion (Herz. xiii. 402): All attempts at reconciliation failing, we can only, till a satisfactory explanation is found, suppose that these two accounts come from really different and discrepant sources. [Without laying stress on the fact that Saul here inquires after Davids father, and not after David himself (which, though urged by Houbigant, Chandler, Wordsworth, and others, does not seem to amount to anything), we may still insist that the two accounts, though different, are not necessarily discrepant in the sense that both cannot be true. It is only necessary to admit that Davids absence at home had been long (and there is no exact chronological datum), that Saul had rarely seen him except in moments of madness, that Abner had been absent from court when David was there, and that the personal appearance of the latter had changed (suppositions which, taken singly or together, are not improbable), and Sauls ignorance becomes natural, These old narratives, giving brief and partial views of occurrences, may well sometimes seem to contradict each other, and it is wise (as Ngelsbach hints) in view of the historical authority of the Heb. text, at least to suspend our judgment.Tr.]
1Sa 17:55. We need not take the verbs here as Pluperf. (Then., Keil, &c.), since this narrative is to be regarded simply as an addition to the preceding. In their context 1Sa 17:55-56 belong after 1Sa 17:40 and form a supplement to the vivid description of Davids advance against Goliath. The words against the Philistine refer to the close of 1Sa 17:40. Sauls question is to be understood not merely of Davids father and family, but also of his person. According to this Saul does not know him. The question and Abners answer must necessarily be taken in connection with the surprise and astonishment felt at Davids bold procedure. Sauls question could not be answered till Davids return; it is therefore mentioned here, and connected with Davids appearance before Saul under Abners guidance.
1Sa 17:57-58. The concluding words of 1Sa 17:57 : and the head, &c., show that this statement is to be put between 1Sa 17:53 and 1Sa 17:54. According to this Abners leading David to Saul was occasioned by the latters question. Davids words in 1Sa 17:58 are not to be regarded as forming his whole answer; from 1Sa 17:1 we infer that he had a somewhat long conversation with Saul.
2. 1Sa 18:1-5. Davids friendship with Jonathan and permanent residence at Sauls court as commander of the army. 1Sa 18:1. The consequence of this conversation was the formation of a friendship between David and Jonathan, as is indicated by the words: when he had ceased speaking with Saul. The word knit ( as in Gen 44:30) denotes, under the figure of a chain, the firm union and inseparable unity of souls in friendship, expressing the thought that their inner lives of feeling work deeply into each other, and so each has perpetually fast hold of the other. Clericus: In almost all languages friendship is considered as a union of souls bound together by the band of love. Grotius: An admirable description of friendship. So Aristotle (Nicom. IX. 8) has noted that friends are called one soul. The same thing is set forth by the Lat. concordia and the Greek . Papinius says that souls are bound together.And Jonathan loved him as his own soul. To the conception of firmness is here added the idea of innerness of friendship, the complete identification of essence of two souls.19 (The Kethib has the rarer contracted suffix , the Qeri the commoner . Ew. 249 b).Davids heroic courage, firm trust in God, and splendid feat of arms had won him Jonathans heart.20
1Sa 18:2. Not till after the narrative of this friendship follows the statement that Saul took David permanently to court: he took him, that is, into his service, and allowed him not to return to his fathers house, as he had done in 1Sa 17:15; the words presuppose that David had desired to return thither. That Saul virtually ordered Davids permanent stay with him immediately after their conversation (Keil) is not necessarily to be assumed. Rather from the sequence of the sentences it seems as if the narrator intended to connect the rise of the friendship of David and Jonathan with the friendly relation which Saul first assumed in his conversation with David, and then to set forth Davids permanent stay at court as a consequence of this friendship.
1Sa 18:3. Jonathans love for David (he loved him as his own soul) is the ground of this solemn and formal sealing of their friendship. The covenant indicates the mutualness of the love which they pledged one another. Grot.: they mutually-promised perpetual friendship, comp. 1Sa 20:3.
1Sa 18:4 is closely attached to 1Sa 18:3 in so far as here by the gift of the upper garment, the robe () and the separate parts of the war-equipment to David, the conclusion of the covenant of friendship on Jonathans part is solemnly confirmed. Clericus supposes that the object of this gift was to enable the poorly-clad David to appear at court in seemly dress. But the mention of the several weapons, which together make a complete war-outfit, rather suggests that Jonathan wished to honor David as the military hero; and this manner of sealing their friendship was a proof that the two, as heroes, equally crowned by God with victory, could love one another, and that Jonathan was far from feeling envy and jealousy of David for his heroic deed. Jonathans here taking the initiative is in keeping with his position at court as kings son in respect to the young shepherd. His clothing David with his own war-dress is sign that his hearty friendship sets aside the barrier which his rank and position would raise between them in the first instance on the common ground of the theocratic chivalry, as whose representatives they had come to love one another. [Philippson: The gift of ones own garment, especially by a prince to a subject, is in the East still the highest mark of honor. So in Esther (1 Samuel 6) Mordecai is clothed in the kings apparel.Tr.]
1Sa 18:5 belongs to what goes before as the declaration of the honorable position which David (along with this relation to Jonathan) took at Sauls court, as generally beloved in his office and calling. First, his position was a military one; for that the went out (which is to be taken separately, and not connected with the following)21 refers to war, and not to general business [Clericus] is plain not only from the following account which mentions not only military undertakings for Saul, but also from the statement of the position of General which he received in consequence of his success in what was entrusted to him, and from the account of the military equipment which Jonathan (1Sa 18:4) presented to him. In all, whereto Saul sent him, he was successful.His warlike undertakings were fortunate and successful. The Verb () means to act prudently, wisely and then to be successful, as in Jos 1:7 [Eng. A. V. prosper]. It always refers to conduct, to act wisely, and then to be prosperous in ones undertakings. Saul set him over the men of war, that is, made him a military officer. He was appointed commander of a body of soldiers.David soon attained to high consideration and acceptance in the eyes of all the people, and also in the sight of Sauls servants.By this term we are to understand the officials at Sauls court. Davids winning loveliness of character is here brought out more strongly by the statement that he did not excite the envy and jealousy of his fellow-officials at court. Clericus: he pleased even the courtiers, who are commonly envious, especially of those who have newly found favor with the king. This idea is involved in the and also [= and even]. [Philippson: As he was afterwards promoted to be chiliarch, he must here have been made centurion. But see on 1Sa 18:13.Tr.]
3. 1Sa 18:6-16. Here is related how Sauls deadly hatred against David springs from envy and jealousy. As the section 1Sa 17:54-58 lays the foundation for Davids permanent stay at the royal courtand as the section 1Sa 18:1-5, being the summary description of Davids personal relations to Sauls family as Jonathans friend, and to the court-officials and the people as military commander, explains what is afterwards said of Davids relation to Jonathan and of his military careerso in this section, 1Sa 18:6-16, we have the cause of the deadly hate which Saul henceforth bore in his heart against David, there being preserved (a fact to be noted) in 1Sa 18:5 a significant silence as to Sauls feeling towards him, only the friendly disposition of Jonathan and of the officials and people being mentioned. That no strict chronological advance is attempted in the narrative in 1Sa 17:55 sq. is clear from the above remarks. As in 1 Samuel 17. 1Sa 17:55 belongs as to its contents to 1Sa 17:40, and 1Sa 17:57 belongs next to 1Sa 17:54, so 1Sa 17:6 here is not connected in context and time immediately with 1Sa 17:5, but goes back to 1Sa 17:52-53. In 1Sa 17:1-4 is told what happened to David immediately after his victory over Goliath; he became Jonathans friend, and was permanently fixed at court. That was the immediate result of his exploit (which decided the issue of the war with the Philistines.) In 1Sa 18:5 we have a further consequence: Saul employs David in warlike enterprises against the Philistines, and gives him command of a body of troops. But, according to 1Sa 17:52-53, the war with the Philistines was not ended by the victory over Goliath; on the contrary, they were again several times defeated, and their camp was plundered by the victorious Israelites on their return from pursuit. That Saul in thus finishing the war employed David as a bold leader is clearly stated in 1Sa 18:5, wherewith is also summarily told how David in his new position won the favor of the people and also of Sauls servants, while it is not said that Saul in appointing him to office bestowed his favor on him. The narration of 1Sa 18:6 now, going back to 1Sa 17:53, connects itself with the return of the people and of David from the concluded war, in order to point out how on this occasion Sauls ill-will and hatred towards David arose, on which is founded the whole of the following narrative of the relation between David and Saul. The as they came refers to the return of the whole army from the happily ended war (comp. 1Sa 17:53); at the same time is mentioned Davids return with express reference to his victory over Goliath, which had determined the successful issue of the war, in order to bring into its proper historical connection the honor which then accrued to him. This return of David, therefore (along with the whole army), is not synchronous with his return to Saul in 1Sa 17:57 immediately after the killing of the Philistine, but occurred after the victory over the whole Philistine army was completed. Here began Sauls envy and hatred against David. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the statement that Saul kept David by him and gave him a military command (1Sa 18:2; 1Sa 18:5), and the following statement (1Sa 18:6 sq.) that in consequence of the honor shown David he conceived a lasting hatred against him (1Sa 18:9).We have the description of the festive reception given by the women from all the cities of Israel to the returning victorious army, Saul at its head. In the words: with song and dance the Art. [in Heb.] points to the usual employment of song and dance in such receptions. They met Saul with tabrets, with joyful outcry, and with triangles. Here [joy], standing between the two instruments of music, must denote, in distinction from the song of joy, the joyful cry which accompanied the beating of the tabrets. For dances accompanied by tabrets see Exo 14:20.
1Sa 18:7. The women performed an antiphonal song; they answered one another in turn (Cleric.). The Partcp. ( [Eng. A. V. played]) means perhaps alternate dancing, corresponding to the alternate song (Winer: Contredance s. v. Tanz), along with the choral dancing (). The Piel of , laugh, properly = sport, play, e.g., of children on the street, Zec 8:5.22The song: Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands (comp. 1Sa 21:12 and 1Sa 29:5)a part of a folk-song, which shows the great consideration in the sight of the people which David had obtained by his victory over Goliath.
1Sa 18:8. Saul was very wroth that greater honor was paid to David than to him. And there is yet only the kingdom for him, that is, for him to obtain. In this outburst of wrath he expresses in a curt ejaculation the well-founded anticipation that the so highly honored David would receive the royal dignity in his place. Clericus: especially since Samuel had more than once predicted that it would pass into another family.
1Sa 18:9. From this point dated the evil, curious eye with which Saul henceforth looked on David.23 Clericus: in these words we see envy and jealousy. Luther: And Saul looked sourly on David. It is an express statement of the continuous bitterness of Saul against David from now on.
1Sa 18:10-11. Sauls anger against David rises to madness and to murderous purpose. The evil spirit from God came upon Saul. Comp. 1Sa 16:14 : [Eng. A. V. prophesied; Erdmann, raved], the influence of the evil spirit, analogous to the ecstatic condition of inspiration in which the good spirit from God put the prophets: he raved, raged. The old condition of internal disorder again came over Saul, now heightened by envy and jealousy against David. As in 1Sa 16:23, David seeks by playing on the harp to mitigate Sauls rage. But as he was its object, the madness takes the form of an attempt on his life. The harp in Davids hand and the spear in Sauls handtaking the place of the sceptre, 1Sa 22:6are here put in sharpest contrast to one another.[Sauls condition of mind is neither that of simple madness nor that of true prophecy. He is under the control of a power higher than himself; but it is an evil power. For the precise expression of this supernaturally-determined condition of mind and soul, in which the whole spiritual energy of the man moves freely, yet in a sphere into which it is supernaturally brought, becoming for the time one with the spirit, the Heb. has no other word than naba (), and the Eng. no other word than prophecy. R. P. Smith (Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, II. 54 sq.) points out a difference between the Niphal (generally but not always used of true divine prophecy) and the Hithpael (generally but not always of false prophecy), and we may here render: he acted the prophet (so here Junius); but it is desirable to exhibit in the translation, if possible, the supernatural element. Whether the Eng. prophesied will bear the meaning spoke like a prophet or raved supernaturally is doubtful; but it is so used of false prophets in Eng. A. V. in 1Ki 22:10 (Hithp.) and 12 (Niph.).Tr.]
1Sa 18:11. (, Hiph. of , properly to stretch out longitudinally, comp. Psa 37:24). As it is not said, that Saul actually threw the spear against the wall (as in 1Sa 19:10), the sense rather is: he purposed to throw; and we are to suppose a threatening movement of the arm.24David turned, withdrew before this threatening movement. Twice he did so; this supposes that Saul twice lifted his spear. This also proves that Saul only moved, did not throw the spear, as in 1Sa 19:10. Bunsen well observes: If Saul actually threw the spear, we could not understand Davids twice retiring. Saul held the spear in his hand, and David stood so near him that he could save himself only by withdrawing. This is therefore not the same thing as what is told in 1Sa 19:9-10, where Saul actually throws the spear, which pierces the wall. The Sept. has after its manner arbitrarily omitted this section 1Sa 18:9-11, because it wrongly assumed the identity of the two accounts.
1Sa 18:12 relates how Sauls heart was divided between fierce envy and fear of David; the latter became an object of fear to him. The reason given for this is that the Lord was with David, and was departed from Saul. Through the honor accorded David for his God-given victory Saul became aware of what had already taken place, namely, that he was forsaken and rejected by the Lord.
1Sa 18:13. Enmity against David (born of envy and jealousy) and fear of him (as one specially blessed by God) led Saul to remove him from his presence.He made him captain over a thousand. This means a different military position from that mentioned in 1Sa 18:5, whether it denotes a higher position than the first, or the latter means an undefined promotion, as to which we can now hardly determine with certainty (Keil).He went out and in before the people is to be understood of Davids military undertakings.
1Sa 18:14. Here as before (1Sa 18:5) David is in everything prosperous. Whereby Sauls fear (which had led him to remove David from his side) is only increased, he was afraid of him (1Sa 18:15); for he saw afresh that God was with David (1Sa 18:14), but was departed from him.
1Sa 18:16. The love of the whole people for him now grew still greater, his consideration rose still higher. This must needs have increased Sauls fear, and along with it his envy and jealousy. So Sauls condition of soul is portrayed in progressive development with psychological truthfulness. Of this nothing is said in 1Sa 18:5, not a word of Sauls feeling towards Davids success. Here, therefore, in 1Sa 18:15-16, we have not the same situation (as if from a different source) as in 1Sa 18:5. The difference between them and the advance in the exhibition of Sauls inner life and his attitude towards David is obvious.25
4. 1Sa 18:17-30. Sauls attempt on Davids life in connection with his marriage with his daughter. In fulfilling his promise to give his daughter to the conqueror of Goliath (1Sa 17:25), Saul takes occasion to prepare the way for Davids death in battle with the Philistines by requiring him to inflict a heavy defeat on them, thus artfully hoping to get rid of him. Such a murderous purpose Saul doubtless had when, after the failure of his murderous attempt in the house, he gave David command over a thousand. A clear light is thus thrown on his new appointment here to a definitely determined military position.
1Sa 18:17. My oldest daughter (Heb. large, as in 1Sa 16:11 small = youngest). Sauls words: only be valiant, etc., are not to be taken as a condition, for the condition of receiving Sauls daughter to wife was the conquest of Goliath; but they contain an obligation which Saul lays on him, and which David is to accept in return for the honor of becoming Sauls son-in-law. Such exhortation and expectation on Sauls part would not seem strange to David, since in his continued wars against the Philistines Saul needed valiant heroes as leaders of his soldiers. It was also in itself perfectly proper for Saul to say to David: Fight the battle or wars of the Lord; for in thus designating Israels wars against the Philistines, he expresses the same idea which David expressed in the words (1Sa 17:36; 1Sa 17:47): He has defied the ranks of the living God, and The battle is the Lords. These wars were the wars of Jehovah, because Israel, whom the Philistines oppressed, was Gods chosen covenant-people, in which the kingdom of God was to take shape within the territory contested by the Philistines, in attacking whom, therefore, the Philistines were trying to make void Gods purpose of salvation. So must God needs oppose these enemies of His people and of the holy affairs of His kingdom. And this is the meaning of the title of that old collection of songs, Num 21:14 : Book of the Wars of the Lord. And as it was the war of God Himself, the combatants therein were necessarily sure of the Lords assistance.But behind this proper language of Canaan was hid Sauls cunning and wickedness towards David.Saul thought: My hand shall not be on him, but the hand of the Philistines shall be on him.This he thought shows the same disposition in Saul as the same expression [Eng. A. V. said] in 1Sa 18:11. There he had stretched out hand and spear; but the deed had not come to performance. Here Saul resolves that David shall not die by his hand; but guile shall lead him to the desired end. So deep-sunken is he morally and intellectually that he seeks to avoid only the outward completion of the evil deed with his own hand, separates between the criminal hand and the wicked heart, and besides covers his wickedness with the hypocritical tongue, which speaks zealously for the things of the Lord. Berl. Bib.: The finer the words the greater the deceit. Further, he would rather see the Philistines triumph than David survive.
1Sa 18:18. Davids artless simplicity and honest humility are here sharply contrasted with Sauls artfulness and trickiness. As heretofore the struggle between Sauls better and worse impulses and the progress of the latter has been set forth with admirable delicacy and clearness, so now, on the other hand, Davids disposition and character is most excellently exhibited by the simple narration of his conduct.By the question: Who am I? David intimates the distance between his insignificant person as shepherd-lad and the high honor offered him. The question: [Eng. A. V.: what is my life?] does not refer to Davids life; for if it mean his personal life, it involves a tautology with the preceding, and reference to his official life does not suit the connection, where the point is only of his person and family, apart from the fact that grammatically the personal interrogative pron. [so in the Eng.: who is my life?Tr.] does not suit the noun life. Nor can it mean in general position in life; never means this. Keil, in defence of this view, says, that refers to the persons of the class of society to which David belonged, in which he admits that it is not the neuter real [Germ, sachlicheTr.] conception condition of life, but the fundamental meaning of the word The living that is here employed; for never refers to things, but always to persons (Bttcher). The word means here (as in Psa 68:11; 2Sa 23:11; 2Sa 23:13) a troop, people, or, from the connection: my folks, my family. See Ew. 179 b. To this is added: My fathers family.In his own eyes David seems too insignificant in person, in family and the House of his father to be son-in-law to the king.26
1Sa 18:19. In the time of giving, that is, when she ought to have been given. Ew. 237 a: When the time is clear from the connection, a future event may be expressed by the Inf. with . Comp. Deu 23:14; 2Ki 2:2.Saul did not keep his word; for some reason he gave Merab to Adriel, the Meholathite to wife, which cannot surprise us, considering Sauls capricious disposition in his advanced age (Sthelin, Leben Davids, p. 11). A place, Abelmeholah, is mentioned in Jdg 7:22, in Manasseh, west of the Jordan.The section 1Sa 18:17-19 is arbitrarily omitted in the Sept. because the translators did not understand why Saul failed to keep his promise, and why his action was so contradictory or undecided.One really does not see why the oscillating, self-contradictory Saul, governed by the momentary whims of his discordant soul, should not have been guilty of such breach of faith. Thenius confident assertion that these verses contain nothing but a popular story made out of the fact related in 1Sa 18:20 in imitation of Jacobs marriage with Leah and Rachel, is wholly without ground. To such an imitation there is lacking agreement in the chief features of the two narratives.
1Sa 18:20-30. Michal becomes the wife of David, who issues victoriously out of the great dangers in battle with the Philistines, into which Saul had sent him to a certain death, as he hoped. That it is expressly said of Michal: She loved David, does not warrant the conclusion that Merab did not love him, and was therefore not given to him. The reason for this is not mentioned, simply because Sauls procedure was arbitrary. Perhaps there was at this moment no war with the Philistines in which he might have looked for Davids destruction. It pleased Saul that Michal loved David. Between the transpiring of Michals love and Merabs marriage we must suppose a space of time, during which Michals love was developed.
1Sa 18:21. Michal was to be a snare to David, that is, Saul would impose such conditions on him in the marriage as would secure his death: on her account or occasion the hand of the Philistines should be on him (comp. 1Sa 18:25): [Eng. A. V. in the one of the twain, see Text and Gram.] is literally: in two [feminine]. Accordingly it is proposed to render (as Bunsen): David is to make a double marriage with Merab and Michal, as Jacob did; in this case (so Tremell.) 1Sa 18:19 is to be taken as Pluperfect: she had been given. Similarly, S. Schmid, only he takes 1Sa 18:19 in this way, that Saul excused himself to David, and offered to restore Merab to him, she having been already married to another; but if he did not wish this, he should at least marry Michal. Or it is rendered: Twice shalt thou sue for my alliancehaving failed in Merabs case, thou shalt succeed in Michals (Cler.); or it is translated in duabus rebus gener meus eris hodie [in two things27 thou shalt be my son-in-law to-day] (Vulg.), or, by the second thou shalt contract an alliance with me to-day (S. Schmid in the 2d ed. of the Bib. Heb. of Ev. v. d. Hooght, Lips., 1740). But all these renderings are materially [that is, as to content; German, sachlich.Tr.] and linguistically untenable. The difficulty lies in their taking the numeral as a cardinal number. But there are passages where it = the second time, as undoubtedly in Job 33:14, and Neh 13:20. If now we connect the word with the following (according to the accents), it reads: a second time wilt thou become my son-in-law, that is, according to the explanation first given by Bunsen: The first time by the betrothal to Merab (afterwards broken off), the second time by the actual marriage with Michal. Bunsen remarks that this explanation is forced and grammatically hard, as to which (1) grammatically the second time, is justified by the above-cited passages, and (2) as to content or meaning this view is far less difficult and suspicious than that preferred by Bunsen, though it must be confessed to be open to the objection that the first marriage did not actually take place.Keils explanation: in a second way thou shalt be my son-in-law, is unclear, and the rendering second way seems not grammatically sustained.We escape all the difficulties of a connection with what follows if, with De Wette and Thenius, neglecting the accents (which cannot be finally decisive), we connect with the preceding and translate: And Saul said to David the second time (understanding the first time to be in 1Sa 18:17).Thenius thinks that the words And Saul said * * * * to-day [Eng. A. V. Saul said * * * * twain] are an interpolation by the same hand as 1Sa 18:17-19, (1) because Saul would not have made the proposition first himself and then through the courtiers (1Sa 18:22); (2) because he certainly acted only through others, the better to conceal his shameful purpose, and (3) because, if Saul had spoken first directly to David, we should expect also a direct answer from David (as in 1Sa 18:18). But these three reasons seem insufficient to establish his view; for (1) it does not appear why Saul should not first make this proposition himself, when we recollect that David returned no answer, and he thought it necessary to employ the agency of the courtiers28; (2) in making the proposition himself he could the better conceal his purpose, as he had not performed his first promise to David, and might now seem to make it good by offering his second daughter; (3) Davids experience of deceit was sufficient to make him silent at first in respect to Sauls offer. O. v. Gerlach here well says: Saul proposed this matter to David; but the latter did not answer, as he knew Sauls vacillation, and distrusted him; it therefore needed the persuasion of others to induce him to come into Sauls views.
1Sa 18:22 sq. In the fluent discourse of the courtiers we see (1) something of the flattering, conciliatory tone usual in such circles, and (2) Sauls lively interest in the success of his plan to destroy David through Michals love. Sauls servants were to speak with David in secret, that is, as if they did it behind the kings back (Keil).Davids answer (1Sa 18:23) is two-fold: (1) he affirms the great importance of such a step as marrying the kings daughterreferring to the distance between him and the honor for which he was to strive, and probably also herein alluding to Sauls former breach of faith in respect to Merab, which proceeded from contempt for his person; (2) he declares himself too poor to furnish a dowry suitable for a kings daughter. As to the dowry, or morning-gift, see Gen 34:12.
1Sa 18:25. In consequence of the courtiers report of Davids reasons for declining the marriage, Saul advances another step.29 To attain his end he dispenses with the usual dowry, and demands only a hundred foreskins of Philistines (Jos. Ant., vi. 1027, 600 heads)! It is herein supposed that the Philistines were again attacking Saul. This appears also from the fact that David was in this way to show that he had killed a hundred Philistines, to avenge the king of his enemies. Thus Saul thought to put David out of the way by the hand of the Philistines.
1Sa 18:26. David accepts Sauls proposition the more gladly as the demand was in keeping with his military calling, and he was to win Michal by a heroic achievement. And the days were not expired, that is, the time to the marriage, or the time set by Saul for the performance of the warlike deed, though Saul is not expressly said to have set any limit. Ewald explains that the time for the marriage with Merab was not yet expired [so Bib. Com.Tr.]; but it is more natural to refer to the marriage with Michal.
1Sa 18:27. David marched to battle with his men, that is, with the thousand which had been assigned him (1Sa 18:13), not with a few valiant followers (as Ewald, Bunsen, and others hold, because with a large body there would have been no danger); we are to suppose that David attacked a large Philistine force, as is intimated in the words he slew among the Philistines two hundred men, which he could not have done with a small party. David doubly fulfills Sauls demand by bringing two hundred foreskins. And they counted out the full number. The arbitrary method of the Sept. is seen in their reading one hundred from 1Sa 18:25 instead of two hundred. [Many modern critics, neglecting the spirit of the narrative, prefer the Sept. reading to the Heb., referring also to 2 S. 1Sa 3:14. Ignoring the enthusiasm and prowess of David, they insist on an arithmetical correctness in his slaughter, as if a youthful warrior on such an occasion would not rejoice in going beyond the mark. In 2 S. 1Sa 3:14 David properly mentions the price demanded by Saul; all beyond was not price, but free gift.Tr.] 1Sa 18:28 sq. Here, similarly, the Sept. for Michal, Sauls daughter, puts all Israel. Bunsen: A completely unfounded change of the Heb. text, taken from 1Sa 18:16. The issue of the hostile schemes set on foot against David is the opposite of what Saul intended. The narrative asserts not only that God was with David, but also that Saul knew it. Michals love to David, and Sauls hate, which had grown into permanent enmity, are here sharply contrasted. Saul was yet the more afraid points back to 1Sa 18:12-15. Sauls perception of the fact that David was under Gods special protection only increased the feeling that he himself was forsaken and rejected by God, who shielded David against his wicked designs.30
1Sa 18:30 stands in pragmatic connection with the following narrative of Sauls conduct towards David, whose brilliant exploits against the Philistines and rising reputation still more inflamed the jealousy and hatred of Saul.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The history of sin in Sauls inner life shows a steady and rapid progress in evil after it had gained footing and mastery in his heart. When a man once gives place to passion in his soul, he comes more and more into its power, and is at last completely ruled by it, and driven even more violently on from sin to sin. He that doeth sin is the slave of sin.Jealousy, which, in a heart that has lost Gods love and honor as its centre, is born of selfishness (wanting all love, honor, joy for itself alone), has always for its companion envy of the successes, the honor and the good fortune of others. From envy come gradually hatred and enmity, and then, by hidden or by open ways, murderhe who hateth his brother is a murderer. Parallel to the example of Saul are those of Cain and Josephs brothers.
2. With the deeds which God the Lord performs in the history of his kingdom through chosen instruments, whom He has thereto prepared and enabled by the wise leadings of His grace, are often connected immediate consequences, which (like the consequences of Davids victory for him,) are of far-reaching importance for their further course in life, and provide them with broader and higher equipment of the inner and outer life for greater tasks which are assigned them for the kingdom of God. And the more willingly they thus enter the school of suffering and conflict, as David did, the more do they grow in humility, obedience, and childlike submission to Gods will, but the more also do they learn the truth of the word: God gives grace to the humble, He makes the upright to prosper. He who, like David, walks humbly and obediently in Gods ways, unmoved by the good fortune granted him, or by the trials and conflicts which often come upon him out of such good fortune through the sins of others, sees himself everywhere led by the Lords hand, and accompanied by His blessing.
3. True friendship in two souls must be rooted in a like attitude of the heart to a loving God, must exhibit itself in a mutual unselfish devotion of heart in love which is based on a common love to the Lord, and must approve itself in the school of suffering.
4. In the character-pictures which it presents to us (as is clear in the history of Saul and David), Holy Scripture never exhibits a pause in religious-moral life, but always holds up the mighty Either * * * Or, which man has to decide,either forward on the way in which man walks at the hand of God with giving up of his own will and humble obedience to the will of God, or backwards with uncheckable step, when man puts Gods guidance from him, and, following his own will, suffers not Gods will to be accomplished in, on, and through himself.
[Maurice: (Prophets and Kings of the Old Test.): I have not tried to ascertain the point at which the moral guilt of Saul ends and his madness begins; the Bible does not hint at a settlement of that question. It is enough for us to know, and to tremble as we know, that the loss of all capacity for discerning between right and wrong may be the rightful and natural result of indulging any one hateful passion. On the other hand, it is comforting to believe that there are conditions of mind to which we must not and dare not impute moral delinquency; a still greater and deeper comfort to know that in these conditions, as well as those where there is most of wilful wrong, God may still be carrying on His great and wonderful work of bringing souls out of darkness and the shadow of death, of breaking their bonds asunder. There are glimpses of light in the later life of Saul which must be referred to the divine source.
Chandler (Life of David, p. 60): David, in the destruction of the Philistines, acted contrary to no rules of religion and morality; for the men he destroyed were the enemies of his country, in a state of actual war with his prince and people, and therefore lawful prize wherever he could lay hold of them.Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa 17:1 sq. J. Lange: To love good people, and that in such a way that one loves and esteems them for the good he sees in them, is a sign that one is good himself.Schlier: True friendship is a gift of God, and God grants it to those who fear Him.Berl. Bible: The connection which God establishes between truly converted men is almost indescribable. There is an incomprehensible something that out of two such souls makes a single one in God. No blood relationship or natural friendship comes up to this, because such a union proceeds from utter conformity. When men have experienced such a oneness of soul, they make with each other an everlasting covenant.[1Sa 18:3. Taylor: A league of friendship, which for sincerity, constancy, and romantic pathos, is unrivalled in the annals of history, whether sacred or profane.Tr.]
1Sa 17:4. Schmid: True and genuine love delights to show itself also by outward signs.Cremer: They are true friends who help not only in prosperity but also in necessity.F. W. Krummacher: These two loved each other truly in God, to whose service they had devoted themselves in holy hours of consecration, and their views, judgments, opinions and strivings were completely harmonious.When such conditions concur, there grows up the sweet flower which the apostle, in distinction from universal love, calls peculiar. There blooms the friendship, which, rooting itself in similarity of sanctified natural disposition, and working an improvement of this on both sides, takes one of the highest places among earthly blessings. There knits itself the communion of heart, in consequence of which one man becomes to another, as it were, a living channel, through which there incessantly streams upon him a fulness of refreshing consolation and encouragement, enriching his inner life.
1Sa 17:5. Schlier: The Lord makes everything right and good! That God who so wonderfully led David, and even in the least and most trifling things trained him up for his calling, will also lead us by the hand step after step, and if we let ourselves be led, will certainly lead everything to a good result. Let us always hold to the old saying: As God will, hold I still!
1Sa 17:7. F. W. Krummacher: Let us always celebrate our heroes, perpetuate their memory in monuments, twine laurel crowns for all who have done good service for the common weal, or through their creative gifts have enlarged the domain of elevating and wholesome ideas. Only let us not forget, through whatever of great, noble and blessed is achieved by the sons of man, to be reminded first of the Father of spirits, from whom every good and perfect gift comes down to us, and let us in humility and modesty give to Him, before all others, the honor which is His due.
1Sa 17:8. Starke: Where prosperity comes, envy soon follows (Gen 37:8, Dan 6:1-5). [Henry: Now begin Davids troubles, and they not only tread on the heels of his triumphs, but take rise from them; such is the vanity of that in this world which seems greatest.Scott: Lavish commendations of those whom we love and admire, in such a world as this, often prove a real injury.Tr.]
1Sa 17:9. sq. F. W. Krummacher: Were it granted us in our own local circles everywhere to look behind the curtain, who knows how often we too should behold like scenes! Scenes of a wild outpouring of an injured feeling of honor, or of unrestrained vexation at losses, or of flaming and heart-consuming envy, so that we too could not avoid designating these paroxysms by the expression demoniacal.Berl. Bible: Selfishness occasions a deadly jealousy, for it makes one grudge the favors which God grants to others.Schlier: If everything had gone on so, if all the people had continually shouted to meet the bold hero, how easily might pride have taken possession of him, how easily might he have fallen from his humility, and become full of vanity and assumption. Therefore God the Lord took him into His own school, and such a school of trouble is indeed bitter, but it is good and wholesome, and he who learns in it first rightly becomes a man after Gods own heart.F. W. Krummacher: Scarcely one trying condition of life can be thought of, in which David had not found himself at some time or other during his pilgrimage. Even for his own sake, that he might not be exalted above measure through the abundant favors vouchsafed unto him, he needed continual reminders of his dependence on Him who, on high and in the sanctuary, dwells with those who are of contrite and humble spirit. Besides, David was to become even for thousands of years a loved and comforting companion to the weary and oppressed of every sort, and for that reason, also, no cup of trouble must pass him by untasted.[Scott: For every great and good work a man must expect to be envied by his neighbor; no distinction or preeminence can be so unexceptionably obtained, but it will expose the possessor to slander and malice, and perhaps to the most fatal consequences. But such trials are very useful to those who love God; they serve as a counterpoise to the honor put upon them, and check the growth of pride and attachment to the world; they exercise them to faith, patience, meekness, and communion with God; they give them a fair opportunity of exemplifying the amiable nature and tendency of true godliness, by acting with wisdom and propriety in the most difficult circumstances; they make way for increasing experience of the Lords faithfulness, in restraining their enemies, raising them up friends, and affording them His gracious protection; and they both prepare them for those stations in which they are to be employed, and open their way to them: for in due time modest merit will shine forth with double lustre.Tr.]
1Sa 17:10. Cramer: When one opens the door of his heart to the devil by envy, pride, scorn, sour looks and rudeness, he is not far off, but soon enters in with his hellish forces (Gen 37:8; Gen 37:18 sq.). Wurt. Summ.: How unhappy is a man who has turned away from God, and yet will not acknowledge and confess his guilt, but still assumes that he is in the right! This makes him discontented with God, and grudging and hostile to others who are favored by God.
1Sa 17:11. Starke [from Bp. Hall]: It is well for the innocent that wicked men cannot keep their own counsel. [Henry: Compare David, with his harp in his hand, aiming to serve Saul, and Saul, with his javelin in his hand, aiming to slay David; and observe the sweetness and usefulness of Gods persecuted people, and the brutishness and barbarity of their persecutors.Tr].
1Sa 17:12. Osiander: God turns away the blows of enemies, be that they are in vain and do no damage.Starke: Those who have in God a gracious father and a protector are feared by others (Mar 6:20).
1Sa 17:13. S. Schmid: The evil which ungodly men threaten and do to the pious God knows how to change into something good (Gen 1:20).
1Sa 17:15. Schmid: One can avenge himself on envious men in no better and nobler way, than when with Gods help, he behaves himself wisely, and seeks in prayer the increase of the divine blessing.
1Sa 17:16. Starke: When ungodly men think to lessen the honor and consideration of the pious, it is often so much the more increased.Chrysostom (3 Homilies on David and Saul): But that holy man even after all this, continued caring for the others interests, and incurring perils to promote his safety, and taking place in the ranks in all battles, and preserving by his own perils the one who wished to slay him, and neither in words nor in deeds did he provoke that savage wild beast, but in all things yielded and was obedient.Tr.].
1Sa 17:17. Friendlier face, worse rogue; therefore try the spirits (Psa 28:3; Psa 55:22 [21]). [Saul a hypocritical pretender, both to paternal affection (comp. 1Sa 18:20-21), and to pious devotion, the Lords battles.Tr.]Osiander: Hypocrites persuade themselves that they have done no evil if only they do not put their own hand to it, although they manage to do it through others.Starke: A true Christian must also be a good soldier, and fight the Lords battles (2Ti 2:5; 2Ti 4:7).
1Sa 17:18. A pious man is even in prosperity humble of heart.Berl. Bible: This humility of David may teach us much. He knew well that he was to be king, and that God had caused him to be anointed thereto; yet he never spoke of such a favor, but rather gives it to be understood how utterly nothing he is, and how unworthy he thought himself.
1Sa 17:20. Schlier: When God does not give us something which we have desired, we should be certain that our wish would not have been good for us, and should be not less certain that God has something better in store for us.
1Sa 17:22. Starke: One should not let himself be used for the purpose of causing others to fall.
1Sa 17:23. Berl. Bible: A truly humble man never seeks his own honor, even though opportunities should occur in which he might well do so.Simplicity and uprightness put all the devices of evil subtlety to shame. And those who always go straight forward often catch those who wanted to catch them.
1Sa 17:29. Osiander: The greater injustice and violence any one does to innocent people, the more must he be afraid of them.
[Henry: Observe how God brought good to David out of Sauls projects against him. 1. Saul gave him his daughter to be a snare to him, but that marriage made his succeeding Saul less invidious. 2. Saul thought by putting him upon dangerous service to have him taken off, but that very service increased his popularity and facilitated his coming to the crown. Thus God makes the wrath of man to praise Him, and serves His designs of kindness to His own people by it.Tr.]
1Sa 17:1-2. F. W. Krummacher. The fruit which David personally gained from his triumph over Goliath was threefold: a joyful acquisition, a perilous honor, and a threatening displeasure.
[1Sa 17:12. Taylor. Three lessons from this chapter: (1) The evil of centering our thoughts and plans entirely on ourselves. This was the root of Sauls misery. (2) The servant of God may expect to encounter adversity in an early stage of his career. (3) The wisest course in time of danger is to do faithfully his daily duty, and leave our case with God.Tr.]
Chap. 18. Disselhoff: Pleasure and Burden, or, Temptation and Victory: (1) In the pleasure lies the temptation, (2) in the burden lies the power to overcome.
[1Sa 18:1-4. Jonathan, the man of generous soul. (1) Generous in admiring, (a) Not jealous, though his own military fame is eclipsed. (b) Fully appreciating the merit of a new and obscure man. (c) Admiring not only a brilliant exploit, but modest, graceful and devout words (Davids speaking, comp. 1Sa 17:37; 1Sa 17:45-47, and remember that he was a poet of rare genius). (2) Generous in proposing friendship, where he might so naturally have indulged jealousy (as his father did). Love at first sight, seeking permanent union. (Hall: A wise soul hath piercing eyes, and hath quickly discovered the likeness of itself in another. * * * * That true correspondence that was both in their faith and valor, hath knit their hearts.) (3) Generous in giving, what was not only valuable and suitable to his friends present wants, but honorable as being associated with himself.Generosity, shown in mutual appreciation and mutual benefits, is the basis of sweet and lasting friendshipand in general, it is one of the noblest traits of human character.
1Sa 18:1-9. How David gained a friend and an enemy. (Hall: Davids victory had a double issue, Jonathans love and Sauls envy, which God so mixed that the one was a remedy of the other.)
1Sa 18:5-30. Davids prudence. (1) Amid the perils of sudden prosperity. The shepherd-youth honored with the friendship of the prince, the plaudits of the multitude, military command, the prospect of entering the royal familybut he behaved wisely and prospered all the more. (Henry: Those that climb fast have need of good heads and good hearts. Hall: Honor shows the man. * * * * He is out of the danger of folly, whom a speedy advancement leaveth wise. Comp. Joseph and Daniel.) (2) Amid the plots of jealous rivalsSaul, the courtiersbut he avoids the javelin of rage, and foils the cunning of hypocrisy. (3) Amid provocations to wrath, by promises broken (1Sa 18:19), and fresh demands (25). The brilliant young warrior and poet as prudent as a sage statesmanfor the Lord was with him (1Sa 18:12; 1Sa 18:14; 1Sa 18:28).
1Sa 18:17. The shrinking hand and the scheming heart.
1Sa 18:28-29. Growing prosperity, growing hate.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa 18:3. The Sing. pron. is due to the fact that Jonathan is the real subject in the foregoing clause.Tr.]
[2][1Sa 18:5. The verb means in Hiph. properly to act prudently; but there is sometimes connected with this the notion of success, as probably throughout this chapter. is to be supplied before the verb.Tr.]
[3][1Sa 18:6. Margin of Eng. A. V. Philistines, and so the Arab.; the other VSS. have the Sing., which is to be preferred here, though the return at the end of the campaign is meant, because the slaying of Goliath was its most prominent event.Tr.]
[4][1Sa 18:6. The Heb. is difficult. The Sept. has merely: And the dancers came out to meet David, etc., omitting the first clause perhaps to avoid the statement that David excited Sauls jealousy on the day of his combat with Goliath, and yet was afterwards preferred by him to places of honor. This difficulty is removed if we suppose this verse to refer to the end of the campaign (Philippson).Chald. has to praise with dances, Syr. renders the second word drums. Wellhausen proposes to substitute (after the Sept.) for . According to Ew., 339 a we may translate: for song and dance; but this is difficult here on account of the Art. and the nature of the words, and it seems better to change the Art. into and render as in Vulg. and Eng. A. V., or with Thenius to insert , and render song with dancing.The Kethib to sing (so Chald. and Syr.) is preferable in the latter case, the Qeri for song in the former.Tr.]
[5][1Sa 18:8. These two clauses are omitted in the Sept., which has thus a noticeable simplicity and directness in its narrative, but loses much of the warmth and life of the Heb. To reject these clauses as exaggerated and psychologically inaccurate (Wellhausen) is obviously carrying subjective criticism too far. The historical authority is every way in favor of the Heb. text.Tr.]
[6][1Sa 18:9. Keth. Partcp. of stem , Qeri of st. . Sept. omits 1Sa 18:9-12, as to which see remark on 1Sa 18:8. This passage may be omitted without injuring the sense; but it adds to the vividness of the narrative, agrees with 1Sa 16:14-23, and rests on the same authority as the other portions of the chapter.Tr.]
[7][1Sa 18:10. Erdmann and Philippson: raved, and so Wordsworth and the Targum; the Syr., Arab. and Vulg. and most Eng. commentators (Patrick, Gill, Clarke, Bib. Com.) render prophesy. See the Exposition.Tr.]
[8][1Sa 18:11. The Greek (Alex. MS.) and Chald. have lifted, as if from , and this seems better (), since it does not appear that he actually cast the weapon (see 1Sa 19:10).Tr.]
[9][1Sa 18:17. The passage 1Sa 18:17-19 is omitted in Sept. (Vat.), namely, the story of Merab, perhaps as apparently useless in advancing the narrative. The name Merab means increase. Comp. in Eng. the well-known Increase Mather.Tr.]
[10][1Sa 18:18. Literally who is my life? which is explained by the following clause; but this clause is not therefore necessarily a marginal (unauthorized) addition. The Alex. Sept. has: what is the life of my fathers family? which is clear, but unsupported.Tr.]
[11][1Sa 18:19. Some MSS. and VSS. have Azriel.Tr.]
[12][1Sa 18:21. The Heb. text () seems to be supported by all the VSS. (the clause is omitted in Vat. Sept.). The translation here given (which is that of Thenius. Erdmann, Wordsworth, Bib. Com.) is the most satisfactory as to sense; but its correctness is open to doubt. Philippson renders: with the second, the older Eng. Comms. follow the Targ.: in one of the two. Theodotion has the ingenious rendering: , and another Gr. VS.: . The Arab. cuts the knot by translating: I wish thee to be my son-in-law, herein forsaking the Syr., which has in both of them. Some Jews held that David married both the daughters.Tr.]
[13][1Sa 18:25. Some MSS. have , which is not necessary, since alone may mean but; or it may be taken as=for.Tr.]
[14][1Sa 18:26. This clause is omitted in Vat. Sept. See on 1Sa 18:8.Tr.]
[15][1Sa 18:27. This number is sustained by all the VSS. except Vat. Sept., which has one hundred, probably to avoid an apparent contradiction. Here the presumption is not in favor of the smaller number (Wellhausen), but in favor of the harder reading. Wellh. refers to 2Sa 3:14, where the Heb. has 100, and the Syr. 200, which perhaps shows a disposition to exaggerate, but cannot be regarded as decisive against our text.Tr.]
[16][1Sa 18:27. The Sing. is found in Sept., Aq and Theod., as well as in Vulg., Syr., Arab.Tr.]
[17][1Sa 18:28. Sept.: all Israel, which is better suited to the context.Tr.]
[18][1Sa 18:30. This verse is omitted in Sept. (Vat.).Tr.]
[19][The German (obviously by oversight) has: and he loved Jonathan as his soul, and explains it as the expression of the formation of friendship on Davids part.Tr.]
[20][Jonathans conduct no less exhibits his own lofty and generous nature (Bib. Com.).Tr.]
[21][Erdmann translates (not so well): And David went out; everywhere, whither Saul sent him, he was prudent (successful). This is to avoid supplying and before was prudent; it seems better (with Chald., Syr.) to supply and. See Text. and Gram.Tr.]
[22][And see Jdg 16:25 for its use on festive occasions.Tr.]
[23] , eyeing, Denom. from , eye.
[24][For a different pointing of the verb=he lifted, see Text. and Gram. Erdmanns rendering is allowable, but rare.Tr.]
[25][The separate mention of Israel and Judah in 1Sa 18:16 points to the independence and separateness of Judah even at that time (Bib. Com.), and perhaps also to a post-Solomonic date for the authorship of the book.Tr.]
[26][On the text of this verse see Text. and Gram. Philippson explains: My life offered in battle would be a poor gift, which, however, the text will hardly bear.Tr.]
[27][That is, by two deedskilling Goliath and slaying the Philistines (1Sa 18:25.)Tr.]
[28][That is, Davids silence as to Sauls proposition explains why the latter had recourse to his courtiers.Tr.]
[29]It is unnecessary to read, with Sept., Vulg., Chald., and others, , instead of . Maurer: Here, as often elsewhere, after a negative, signifies but, or rather for in this sense: the king desires no dowry, but (for) he desires a hundred Philistine foreskins.
[30] contracted from and prefix Ew. 328 c. Olshausen, Gr., pp. 297, 530, regards it as a clerical error for .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This forms an interesting Chapter, because it opens that account of the loves of David and Jonathan, which in the after history of David forms so very interesting a subject. Jonathan’s heart is won by David. Saul at first seemed to be much pleased with David, but because the women in their songs and dances praised David’s victories more than Saul’s, from that day forth Saul envied David. This Chapter relates some of the evidences by which Saul manifested this malice towards him, in casting his javelin at him twice to slay him; then proposing to give him his eldest daughter to wife, but afterwards giving her to another; then offering his younger daughter, but with the hope of proving his ruin. Notwithstanding these things David prospers.
1Sa 18:1
(1) And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
There is somewhat very sweet and engaging in this account of Jonathan. Among carnal men such a success as David’s would have called forth the greatest dislike. But in the breast of Jonathan we find love. And was it not grace that made all the difference? But how doth Jonathan’s love sink to nothing, compared to thine, thou blessed Jesus, which thou hast manifested towards our poor nature? Of thee is it not the prophet speaks, when in allusion to thine unequalled love to thy people, he saith, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly, with my whole heart and with my whole soul? Jer 32:41 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Discipline
1Sa 18:9
WE now enter upon scenes which show that long and most painful discipline is compatible with divine election to high office. David had been anointed, yet he afterwards was hunted as a beast of prey. The secret of the Lord was in his soul, yet the hand of an enemy was madly against him day and night. The inference of mere reason was obvious, it was this: “Samuel has deceived me the old prophet has mistaken me for another man; and now through his blunder I am exposed to intolerable vexations and injuries: had God chosen me, he would have set me on a high mountain, where no evil hand could have reached me, or hidden me in a defence far away from the storm.” This reasoning, as a mere intellectual effort, would have been sound and unanswerable. Yet David never uttered words so reproachful and distrustful. He accepted his ill-fortune in a spirit of wisdom, and went in and out before his enemy with a circumspection more terrible than anger. “Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him.” Saul himself could see the divine presence. There is an indefinable something about elect men which guards them without display, and announces them without ostentation.
Let us gather what instruction and comfort we can from a study of the severe discipline which David underwent immediately after victory. Remembering the undoubted anointing of David, let us see what untoward and heart-breaking experiences may befall men whom God has sealed as the special objects of his favour and the high ministers of his empire. Given, a man called of God to a great work, and qualified for its execution, to find the providences which will distinguish his course. A child might answer the easy problem: His career will be brilliant; his path will be lined with choice flowers; he will be courted, blessed, honoured on every hand. Look at the history of David for a contradiction of this answer. We shall find persecution, hatred, difficulty, hunger, cold, loneliness, danger upon danger; yet he who endures them all is an anointed man a favourite of Heaven.
The history shows four things respecting the discipline of an anointed man:
1. That great honours are often followed by great trials. The graciousness of this arrangement in human training. These trials not to be looked at in themselves but in their relation to the honours which went before. Imagine a garden discussing the year as if it were all winter. Look at the temptation assailing David in the fact that he alone had slain the enemy of Israel. Something was needed on the other side to chasten his feeling. Men must be taught their weakness as well as their power.
2. That great trials generally bring unexpected alleviations, “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And 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.” The love of one true soul may keep us from despair. Love is fertile and energetic in device. See what Jonathan did. Love is more than a match for mere power. Love is most valued under such circumstances as David’s. “There is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother.”
3. That no outward trials can compare in severity with the self-torment of wicked men. We are apt to think that Saul did all the mischief, and David suffered it. That is an incomplete view of the case. Saul was himself the victim of the cruellest torment. When the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music, they said, “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” Then there entered into Saul the cruellest of all infernal spirits, the spirit of jealousy. “Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.” And truly, even in suffering, Saul had the worst of it. See how unjust is jealousy, the great work of David undervalued. Saul was the slave of jealousy, and as such all his peace was destroyed. There was bitterness in his wine; the charm of sleep had perished; the bloom of summer had faded; there was a cruel serpent gnawing at his heart. “The way of transgressors is hard.” Let us not suppose that unjust opposition or enmity has an easy life. Better be the martyr than the persecutor, the oppressed than the oppressor. Read Saul’s inner life, anger, envy, madness, murder, evil scheming, chagrin, hell!
4. That great trials, though calling for self-scrutiny, may not call for self-accusation. This is a point which should be put with great delicacy, because we are too apt to exempt ourselves from self-reproach. David would be utterly at a loss to account for his treatment so far as his own behaviour was concerned; for he had the distinct consciousness that God was with him: and as to his outward relations, it is upon record that “David behaved himself wisely in all his ways,” and that Saul was afraid of him because of the wisdom of his behaviour.
The question which the tried man generally asks himself is, What have I done? Days of misery have been spent in brooding over that inquiry. The question is only good so far as it goes. It should be succeeded by another What is God doing? Imagine the silver in the refining fire asking, What have I done? not knowing that it is being prepared to adorn the table of a king! Imagine the field asking, What have I done, that the plough should cut me up? We are strong only so far as we see a divine purpose in the discipline of our life. “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” “Let patience have her perfect work.” We are polished by sharp friction. We are refined by divine fire. Sorrow gives the deepest and sweetest tone to our sympathy. We should be driven mad by uninterrupted, ever-augmenting prosperity. Over every jealous soul the hand of the Lord is omnipotent. Look at Saul, and the case of David is hopeless; look beyond him, and see how by a way that he knew not the shepherd was being trained to be mighty among kings, and chief of all who sing the praises of God.
Selected Note
” And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” ( 1Sa 18:7 ). This is quite characteristic of the manners of the East. Everywhere in that part of the world the people are accustomed in this manner to hail the arrival of those who have been any time absent from them. More especially do they do so on the return of a victorious army. Multitudes then issue from the towns and villages through which they are expected to march, in order to form a triumphal procession to celebrate their valour, the principal part being composed of women and children, who band together, and, as they go along, gratify the heroes with dancing, music, and songs in honour of their martial deeds, particularly of such of the chiefs as have greatly distinguished themselves. We find this custom in Persia, Turkey, etc Mr. Campbell, the missionary, witnessed it even in Africa. When he was leaving the city of Lattakoo, he fell in with a party of men who were returning from a distant expedition, after an absence of several months. The news of their approach had reached the town, and the women were hastening to meet them. On joining the party the females marched at their head, clapping their hands and singing with all their might, till they arrived at their homes in the town.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XI
THE WAR BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE
THE STORY OF A LOST SOUL
1Sa 18:1-19:17
This discussion commences at 1Sa 18:1 , and here we are confronted, first of all, by another text difficulty. We saw in a former discussion that about 27 verses of 1 Samuel 17 did not appear in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but we know that those omissions must have been in the original Hebrew, for Josephus follows the text of 1 Samuel 17 strictly in his history of the Jews, but when we come to the omissions in 1 Samuel 18 from the Septuagint, Josephus does not give them. I repeat that our present Hebrew text was derived from late manuscripts of about the ninth or tenth century. I do not mean to say that there were no Hebrew texts before that, for Jerome, who translated the whole Bible into Latin, the edition called the Vulgate, in the fourth century, had Hebrew texts before him, and in a Roman Catholic English Bible we find Jerome’s Latin Bible translated into English and called the Douay Bible , which contains every word of our text. There are about fourteen verses of 1 Samuel 18 that do not appear in any manuscript of the Septuagint which we have except the Alexandrian manuscript, and it seems to be added there. It is not in the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint, but we may thoroughly rely upon everything set forth in 1 Samuel 17-18 as being a part of the Word of God.
Before commencing to expound this section I call attention to a word in 1Sa 18:27 , “tale” “a full tale.” That is an old English word not much used now. I give an example of its old English use. Milton in one of his poems, “L’Allegro,” uses this language: Every shepherd tells his tale, Under the hawthorne in the dale.
What is the meaning of the word, “tale”? Does it mean that every shepherd tells his story, or narrative? No; that is not the meaning of the old English word, “tale.” “Every shepherd tells his number, his reckoning of the sheep.” From that we get our English word, “tally.” The shepherds number their flocks in the evening to see if they have the same number ! that they took out in the morning. “Every shepherd makes his tally, under the hawthorne in the dale.” That is what’ Milton means. ;
There is another old English word in 1Sa 18:30 , “set,” I “much set by.” What does “set” mean there? The meaning: of “set” in such a connection is “esteem.” We say, “I set great , store by such a man,” which means, “I esteem him very much.”
Yet another English word in this section, where Jonathan’s , bow and arrows are called “artillery.” Our meaning of the word “artillery” is confined to cannon, but the original word; meant any implement of war. These remarks on “tale,” “set” and “artillery” are to show the changes that have taken place in the signification of words in the English language since the Bible was translated by the King James revisers. Paul says, “I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto).” Now “let” means “permitted;” then it meant “hindered” “I was hindered hitherto.”
Having disposed of the reference to the text, and those four instances of the changed meaning of old English words, we will take up the discussion proper. I commence with this observation, that in 1 Samuel 18-26, we have a section of the history that ought to be studied at one sitting. It is a pity to break it up into fragments. The parts are so intimately related that we need to have the whole of the story before us in order to get in their relations certain great lessons. These lessons are: l. These nine chapters (1 Samuel 18-26) show a protracted conflict between hate and love, and love’s final triumph; Saul’s hate against David; the love of Jonathan, Michal, the people, the prophets, and the priests for David, warring against Saul’s bate of David, and we see Satan inspiring the hate and Jehovah inspiring the love. That is the first lesson of these nine chapters.
2. These chapters show that there is a conflict between folly and wisdom, for hate is folly and love is wisdom; therefore the hating man is showing himself to be a fool at every step of the history, and the loving man is showing himself to be wise at every step of the history. Not only is hate criminal, but it is the most foolish passion in which you can indulge. The remarkable wisdom and forbearance of David defeat all the folly of Saul’s hate. That is one of the most evident things in the nine chapters. Under similar conditions not one man in a million would imitate David; not one in any number of millions under similar conditions would do as David did unless he were influenced by the Holy Spirit of God. History abounds in lessons to show that men, under long, continued provocations, not only strike back, which David didn’t do, but they become traitors to their own countries when the persecuting one is the ruler of the country. If they are not under the influence of God, they will end in becoming traitors.
We have a signal example in Benedict Arnold. There was not a more valiant soldier and capable general in the army of the Revolution than Benedict Arnold. He was the bravest of the brave, but Congress not only showed lack of appreciation of him, but put one indignity on him after another. Then he acted unlike David he sold his country to the British and became a general in the British army.
In studying Roman history we see the same thing in Coriolanus. When the Romans mistreated this great general he went over to the enemy of Rome, the Volsci, and led a triumphant army to the very gates of Rome. The Romans in terror asked his mother to go and plead with him to spare Rome. She went out and appealed to his patriotism and to his love of family. He said, “Mother, you have saved Rome, but you have lost your son; for the Volsci will kill me unless I capture Rome,” and they did kill him when he refused to capture Rome.
When a man is not under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit and injuries are put upon him, he will strike back and resort ultimately to any expedient to glut his vengeance.
3. The third great lesson is the historian’s graphic description of the progress of the passions, whether good or bad, ever developing until each one comes to a final crystallization. More than once I have told you that power of the historian in 1 Samuel in tracing developments.
4. The fourth lesson is that both hate and love recognize the will of Jehovah in the passing events. We see Saul’s hate discovering in David’s triumph that he is the rival whom God has appointed to succeed him, and we will see Jonathan’s love discovering the same thing.
5. The fifth lesson is the distinct stages of Saul’s remorse when under the influence of Jonathan’s counsel and David’s good will.
6. The sixth lesson is the progress in the attachment between David and Jonathan. There is nothing like it in the history of the world, though we find in the classics the remarkable love between Damon and Pythias. There are three distinct covenants between Jonathan and David.
7. The whole story shows that if God be for a man, neither man nor devil can be against him successfully, and that if God be against a man none can be successfully for him. As Paul puts it: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” Oftentimes we have to fight public opinion. Oftentimes we feel that we are isolated from our kind on account of the position that we are compelled to take as God’s representative, but let this comfort us, that if God be for us; if, indeed, we are on God’s side nothing ultimately will prevail against us.
8. The eighth lesson is that high above Saul, Jonathan, Michal) David, we see two worlds interested Satan endeavoring to thwart the establishment of the kingdom of God and using Saul and others as his instruments, and Jehovah proceeding to establish his kingdom and using David, Jonathan, and others as his instruments.
If we don’t recognize the fact that the world above and the world beneath touch human lives and have much to do with events, then we never can understand the history of any one man, much less one nation.
That was the trouble in Job’s mind. If he could have seen what the historian tells us about, that coming together of the angels, good and bad, when God held his stated meeting of angels, and knew that an evil angel was seeking to do him harm, and that he could not do this except as God permitted it, then he could have understood why undeserved afflictions came upon him, and why God permitted them. Homer, while holding to the wrong kind of gods, not only follows the true poetical idea, but he follows the true idea in representing all the gods and goddesses as interested in the Trojan War. I have studied it so much that when a war commences, say between Japan and Russia, I look for the devil’s tracks and also look for the tracks of Jehovah, and I can better understand the issue of wars when I do that.
These are the great lessons that are set forth in the nine chapters. We will commence now and discover these great lessons one after another as we take up the story seriatim, and we note first the progress of Saul’s hate. What was the origin of Saul’s hate? When he committed his first sin God announced to him that he had selected a man after his own heart to whom he would give the kingdom, and when Saul committed his second sin God again refers to his purpose to substitute for Saul a better man. That rankles in Saul’s mind. Always he carries that thought with him: “Somebody is to be put up to succeed me,” and hence he will be looking around, watching every arriving man “Maybe he is the one.” There we see the origin of it.
The first expression of it comes in this section, which says that after the great victory over the Philistines by David described in the last chapter, and the pursuit clear to the gates of the Philistine cities, that when the army returned home the women, according to a custom of that time and of this time, determined to celebrate the return of the victorious army, so they sang, antiphonally. It was like the responsive singing of Miriam and her choir in the paean of deliverance after the safe passage of the Red Sea. The record says that they sang antiphonally, and the first part of them would sing, “Saul hath slain his thousands” and the other part would respond, “But David hath slain his ten thousands.”
When these women sang that way it excited Saul’s wrath, and he instantly thought of what God had announced, and he says, “What more is there for him but the kingdom? Here is a man who has gained a great victory and the people are with him, and even the women are putting him above me,” hence the text says that from that day Saul eyed David. When a man looks at another sideways under lowered lids, that is what we call eyeing a man. He is under suspicion from that time on. That is the first expression of the hate of Saul, and you find it in 1Sa 18:8-9 .
We now come to a truth of very great importance. In a previous part of the book we have seen that God, in David’s music, could exorcise the demon in Saul, and did do it, and for quite awhile Saul was not under the possession of the demon, but here comes a word from our Lord fitting the case exactly. It is found in Mat 12:43-45 : “The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth be and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.” That is pertinent to this case. A demon may be cast out once, then, as Jesus says to a man under similar conditions, “Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.” Should that demon come back he cannot again be exorcised. The text here is the proof. When that evil spirit, taking advantage of Saul’s hate, re-entered Saul, they sent for the usual remedy David must come and play for him. But David plays and the spirit does not leave. On the contrary, he prompts Saul to thrust a javelin at the heart of David. That is the pivotal point in Saul’s case. There he passes the boundary line. There is a time, we know not when; A place, we know not where; That marks the destiny of men To glory or despair.
It is as if a man under the habit of drunkenness is cured at a sanitarium. Let him beware of ever falling into the habit again; the sanitarium won’t cure him the next time. In other words, a sinner that does not avail himself of the means of grace that are applied to him will ultimately get past feeling; like Pharaoh, his heart will be hardened until it never can be softened again. Like Ephraim, he will become wedded to his idols.
The most notable instance of this that ever came within my experience was at a meeting that I held in the old Providence Church in Burleson County. Ah! what a meeting! Seventy days and nights, until it seemed that every sinner in fifteen miles of the place was converted. One night when I made an appeal to see if we could find anybody that was unsaved, a white-haired old man got up and said, “I am the man. I have been watching your meetings. There was a time when such things moved my heart, but I kept trifling with the monitions of the Spirit of God that impelled me to turn to Christ and be saved, and in one meeting after another I resisted and said, ‘No, No, No,’ and at last, as if God had said to me, ‘Your no shall be forever,’ all feelings in that direction were taken away from me, and as I stand up here before you tonight telling you this experience, you see a man doomed, without hope of mercy, simply because the Spirit of God, who alone can lead a man to salvation, has departed from me forever.” It made a solemn impression.
We notice now that the spirit can’t be reached by music, even when God is in the music, and hence there is an attempt to destroy David’s life. The next step is found in 1Sa 18:12 . That tells us that Saul was afraid because God’s Spirit was on David, and had left him. This is one of the consequences that the Spirit of God has left fear. He was afraid, and he was afraid of David, so he takes another step to destroy David. He removed him from office near his person and gave him a position in the firing line of the army, not to honor David by that promotion, but the text tells us he did it in the hope that David might perish by the hands of the Philistines, in some of the fights. We have an old saying coming from Virgil, “Beware of the Greeks bringing gifts.” That was said when they left the Trojans that great wooden horse, which had 500 Greeks hidden in it. It was so large they could not bring it in through the gates, and had to break down the wall to get it in, and that night the Greeks came out of the horse and opened the gates and the city was taken. And that was Saul’s meaning when he promoted David to this high office in his service. He meant to destroy him by it.
The next step in the progress is in 1Sa 18:15 . When Saul saw that David acted very wisely in the new position he was “more afraid.” David didn’t get killed. God took care of him, and he acted so wisely in the administration of the new office that it increased Saul’s fear.
We come to 1Sa 18:17 , and ask what next Saul will do? What of this hate of his? To what expedient will he now resort? He approaches David secretly through his officers, as though he were conferring another great honor on him, and offers his daughter in marriage. He should be the son-in-law of the king if he will give not money for her dowry, for David did not have it but “Kill me 100 Philistines and bring evidence that you have killed them and complete the tally” that is, let the number be counted. Now what was his object? He didn’t want David in his family, but he would set a snare by the use of his own daughter, and the object of it would be to put David in a position of personal danger. Saul’s thought was that in fighting the 100 Philistines some one would kill him.
1Sa 18:20 shows progress again. “And when Saul saw it was Jehovah with David, and that all the people of Israel loved him, he was more afraid.” Your text says that Michal loved him. The real text is, “When Saul saw that Jehovah was with him and that all the people loved him he was more afraid.” Notice the progress, and that is this evil spirit in Saul increasing his madness, and they try the music remedy one more time. So David is sent for to play before Saul, and again the evil spirit prompts Saul, and he thrusts a javelin at him the second time. David saw that he could no longer fool with that kind of situation and he left and went to his own private house. There is a limit to the power of music. True, Shakespeare says, A man who has no music in his soul, Nor concord of sweet sound, Is fit for treason, stratagems and spoils.
The next step in the progress of that hate is in 1Sa 19 . Saul called Jonathan to him and certain of his officers and gave them a peremptory command to execute David. Jonathan says, “Father, what hath he done? He doesn’t deserve death. He hath never done you any harm. Why should David be slain?” The pleading of the beloved Jonathan prevails. When Jonathan so humbly pleads, Saul’s heart melts and David comes back and heads the whole army and wins another glorious victory over the Philistines. And now Saul’s hate will not respect the pleading of Jonathan, so David went to his home saying that he could not stay near Saul without provoking death.
Then follows an incident that David commemorates in the Psalms. They surround his house. One of the most despicable acts of tyranny is what is called “domiciliary visitation.” Man’s home is regarded as his castle, and when the privacy of his home is invaded by espionage or by an attempt to take life on his own hearthstone, there is no step beyond that a tyrant can go. Revolution comes when that is attempted. That is why the Huguenots left France; the dragoons were stationed ; in their homes, and the privacy of the home was violated. They could not even in private whisper to each other but the words were heard by some of these spies and reported. In the Declaration of Independence that is one of the accusations against the king that he had stationed troops in private houses without the consent of the people. It made a marvelous impression on David’s mind that night when he looked out ; and saw the sentinels all around his house. David’s wife helps , him that time. She says, “If you don’t escape tonight, tomorrow you will be a dead man,” and a woman when she is stirred up in a matter and puts her wits to work is not easy to thwart. So she puts a teraphim a wooden image in David’s bed and tied a wig or something over it and wrapped the image up to represent a man sleeping, and when the soldiers came in to arrest David she said, “You see he is sleeping,” and they waited till morning and David got away.
QUESTIONS
1. What textual difficulty is in 1Sa 18 , and what the discussion thereon?
2. What is the meaning of the old English word, “tale,” and what other English word is derived from it?
3. What is the meaning of the old English word, “set,” in the phrase, “much set by,” in 1Sa 18:30 ?
4. What is the meaning of the word “artillery,” as used in this connection?
5. What is the meaning of the word, “let,” as used by Paul in Romans 1-13 and what the lessons of these uses of the words, “tale,” “set,” “artillery,” and “let”?
6. What chapters of 1 Samuel should be studied as one section, and why?
7. What are the great lessons of these chapters?
8. In what two respects is David’s self-restraint under these persistent and murderous attacks of Saul without a parallel, and what two great men under less provocation became traitors to their native land?
9. What is the difficulty in Job’s mind, and what instance in the classics referred to in illustrating it?
10. What is the origin of Saul’s hate, and what the first expression of it?
11. What are the words which so graphically describe Saul’s hate, and the counter-progress of David’s wisdom?
12. What saying of our Lord shows the fearful state of a man who allows an exorcised demon to re-enter the soul?
13. Show by David’s music, Jonathan’s intercession, and the gift of prophesying that what expels the demon the first time will not avail the second time.
14. Quote the stanza given to illustrate the sin against the Holy Spirit.
15. Relate the incident given to illustrate this sin.
16. What are the steps of progress in Saul’s hate of David as revealed in his efforts to take his life?
17. What does Shakespeare say of a man who has no music in his soul?
18. In what Psalm does David commemorate the watching around his house at night?
19. How does David escape from that house, and what later and greater Saul escaped like David through a window?
20. What are the illustrations of this incident of watching around David’s house in later history?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Sa 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
Ver. 1. When he had made an end of speaking unto Saul. ] No doubt but David spake much more than is here expressed, abasing himself, and exalting God, as sole Author of the victory over Goliath, &c. “The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. The law of his God is in his heart,” Psa 37:30-31 and “in his tongue the law of kindness.” Pro 31:26 Hence Jonathan’s good heart was so fast glued to David, – for grace is of a uniting nature, – as also propter similitudinem morum et amorum, by reason of the similitude and suitableness of their natures and manners; for likeness maketh love.
That the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.
And Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
soul. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13.
Jonathan. At this time he was about forty; and about fifty-three or fifty-four when he died. He would be about twenty-four years older than David, and his love was maternal in character. Ish-bosheth, Saul’s second son, was forty at his father’s death (2Sa 2:10).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 18
Now when it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan [Saul’s son was just sort of] knit with the soul of David, Jonathan loved him as himself ( 1Sa 18:1 ).
Actually there became a bond between Saul’s son Jonathan and David. They were really sort of two of a kind. They were both of them, very adventuresome. They were both of them very daring. Both of them with great confidence in God, great love for the Lord.
It was Jonathan, you remember last week we were studying about him. When they were facing the Philistines, he was the one that woke up his armourbearer and said, “Hey, I’ve been thinking this morning, it doesn’t make any difference to God if we have a whole army or just ourselves. If God wants to deliver the Philistines into the hands of Israel today, He can do it with just two of us. He doesn’t need the whole army. Let’s go over this morning, and see if God wants to deliver the Philistines into the hands of Israel.”
So he and his armourbearer took on the whole army of the Philistines. “Just find out if God wants to deliver, because God’s big enough if He wants to deliver them. He doesn’t need a whole army, He only needs two.” God delivered the Philistines into the hand of Jonathan and his armourbearer that day. So Jonathan and David were really sort of two of a kind, so they just immediately hit it off. They just, you know, that kind of a thing where a bond was formed, a deep bond was formed between these two fellows Jonathan and David.
Now Saul sort of kept David. I mean he just also at this point had a very great admiration and liking for this brave, daring young kid. So he wouldn’t let him go home. He’s gonna keep him now there with the army.
And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because they loved each other so deeply. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, and his garments, and his sword, and his bow, and his girdle. [He just gave David, “Hey here, take my sword, my bow, my…” you know, he just tried to show his expression of love towards David.] And so David went with Saul wherever Saul would go, and David behaved himself very wisely: so Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of the people ( 1Sa 18:3-5 ),
Though he was just a very young fellow, he was set over a part of the army and these guys respected him so much, of course God’s deliverance of the Philistine in his hand, that they just accepted him, but then trouble began to arise.
Because as they would come into a village after David had returned from the slaughter of the Philistine that the women came out of all of the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with their tabrets, and with joy, and with instruments of music. [And the women would sing back and forth one to another.] And one group would sing, Saul hath slain his thousands ( 1Sa 18:6-7 ),
Now he was used to this. The women had started this when Saul had come back from victory. They’d come out and they’d sing with their tambourines, and they’d go through their dances singing, “Saul has killed his thousands.” Now in this particular case they started off, and old Saul is just, “All right that’s me folks. Here I am.” And then a second company of women sort of answered,
and David his tens of thousands ( 1Sa 18:7 ).
Well to a fellow that was having a problem with pride, this was a little much. Saul became extremely jealous of David and said,
what does he want more than this the kingdom ( 1Sa 18:8 )?
Of course, he was not aware of the fact that God had chosen David to be the king, and that God had anointed David to be king over Israel. So it is interesting that immediately he began to suspicion the fact that the kingdom was in jeopardy. “What does he want more than this, the kingdom?”
And Saul was very angry, and he said, Look they’ve ascribed to me thousands, but to David, tens of thousands. So from that day onward Saul was watching David very carefully. And it came to pass on the next day, that an evil spirit came upon Saul, [One of these bad ill-tempered days for him.] and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in his hand. [And he thought I’ll thrust that kid through and I’ll pin him to the wall.] So he threw the javelin at David, and David nimbly dodged the thing, but twice that day he tried to ram the javelin through David, and David dodged it both times. But David figured, It’s time for me to get out of here. And so he departed. And so Saul then made him a captain over the thousand; and he went out into the field. But David behaved himself very wisely; and the Lord was with him. So Saul began to get a little afraid of David when he saw how wisely he kept himself, and how he did always the right thing. But Israel and Judah loved David, [because he was there among them,] and he would go in and out before them. So Saul said, Here David is Merab, my oldest daughter [And of course, “I promised my daughter to anyone who would kill the Philistine.”] so he said, She can be your wife: but be valiant for me, and fight the Lord’s battles. For Saul said, Let the Philistines kill him and I won’t have to lay my hand on him. [He figured if he’d send him out against the Philistines they’d kill him, and he wouldn’t have to kill him himself.] But David to Saul said, [Hey] who am I, what is my life? what is my father’s family in Israel, that I should be a son in law to the king? And it came to pass when the time was supposed to be that Merab was suppose to be given to David as a wife, [Saul switcherooed and gave her to somebody else, pulled a dirty one on David, and gave her to someone else.] Now Saul had another daughter Michal actually loved David very much: and when they told Saul, [“Hey Michal is really in love with David.”] Saul said, [That’s all right,] I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him ( 1Sa 18:8-21 ),
So I don’t know what kind of a daughter she was. I don’t know but he figured she’d be a snare to David and give him problems, which she did in time.
and that the hands of the Philistines will be against him. So Saul said to David, You’re gonna be my son in law today. [And David said, Who am I? I’m a poor man, my family’s-I don’t have any dowry to give. So Saul’s servants spake the words in the ears of David, and they said, Saul wants you to be his son-in-law, he wants you to marry his daughter Michal.] And David said, [Hey, you guys] think it’s just a light thing to be a king’s son in law, I’m a poor man, and lightly esteemed? So they came back and they told Saul, [He doesn’t want to do it. He doesn’t feel that he should, he doesn’t have a dowry or anything else.] So Saul said, Go back and tell him that I really don’t want any dowry of money ( 1Sa 18:21-25 ),
He set up a dowry regarding the Philistines. David went out and gave him double dowry. So Saul then of course was sort of shocked and surprised. He figured David would get wiped out in going out against the Philistines.
But he gave then his daughter Michal to David as a wife ( 1Sa 18:27 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Sa 18:1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
Jonathan, the brave young soldier who had himself done great exploits, naturally admired the youthful warrior who had slain the Philistine giant, and also admired the modesty of his speech when he returned with the head of Goliath in his hand: The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1Sa 18:2-4. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his fathers house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him,
No doubt, one suitable to his rank as the heir apparent to the throne of Israel.
1Sa 18:4-5. And gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war,
Probably, Jonathan had previously occupied that position; but now that David is called to supplant him, Jonathan is not jealous of him, but he loves him as he loves his own soul.
1Sa 18:5-7. And he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Sauls servants. And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick. And the women answered one another as they played, and said,-
Singing in chorus, with answering refrains,-
1Sa 18:7-9. Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
This shows how envy will destroy a mans own peace of mind, as well as make him plot against the one of whom he is envious. Instead of being thankful to God for sending him such a valiant champion as David to deliver both himself and his people, Saul is full of malice towards the young hero simply because he receives his due need of praise for his victory over the giant. Saul eyed David with an evil and envious eye; looked askance upon him, and determined to do him mischief whenever he could.
1Sa 18:10. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house:
Probably, talking wildly and foolishly,-
1Sa 18:10. And David played with his hand, as at other times:
That is, as he had, at other times, played upon the harp to chase away the evil spirit.
1Sa 18:10-12. And there was a javelin in Sauls hand. And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice. And Saul was afraid of David,-
David was not afraid of Saul, although Saul was the man with the javelin, and with the murderous, malicious spirit, which prompted him to hurl it at the young harpist. David, guileless, brave, honest, trustful, was not afraid of Saul, but Saul was afraid of David,-
1Sa 18:12-14. Because the LORD was with him, and was departed from Saul. Therefore Saul removed him from him, and made him his captain over a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people. And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the LORD was with him.
And, young man, you also will be wise if God is with you, and you will be able to behave yourself wisely, discreetly, prosperously, as the word seems to mean. Even when malicious eyes are fixed upon you, they will not be able to find any fault in you if the Lord is with you. You will win favor where you least expect it, if you do but so live that God can be with you, if you keep the vessel of your nature so pure that the Master can use it. May it be your portion and mine to have it said of each of us, The Lord was with him!
1Sa 18:15-16. Wherefore when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he was afraid of him. But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.
This love of the people only caused Sauls hatred of David to be carried to a still greater excess; but Jonathan still loved David, and promised to cleave to him whatever might happen. In the 20th chapter, we can read still more concerning this faithful friendship.
This exposition consisted of readings from 1Sa 18:1-16; 1Sa 20:1-17.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Here, in the account of Jonathan and David, begins one of the most perfect stories of love and friendship in the world. The story is all the more beautiful because of its dark background. Love is in itself essentially beautiful, but its richest colors appear only in shadow and difficulty.
In the account of the beginning of this friendship, it would seem that Jonathan’s love for David came first. Indeed, it is questionable whether the story does not redound more to the credit of Jonathan than to David’s. Jonathan seems to have been without selfishness. He was the son of Saul, and his friendship for and loyalty to, David, was a sacrifice of his right to the succession.
Coincident with the commencement of this friendship, the hatred of Saul for David seems to have deepened, and become more dangerous to David. He became afraid of David. The reason for this is very revealing: “Jehovah was with David, and was departed from Saul.”
There is nothing more common or sadder than the jealousy of the sinful and unsuccessful of those who are blessed and succeed. Saul’s hatred manifested itself in wicked schemes to rid himself of his rival.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Loyal Friend and a Jealous Enemy
1Sa 17:55-58; 1Sa 18:1-9
These verses make very good reading. They present the one ray of light in a story which, from this point on, becomes more and more somber. Davids bearing in the hour of victory was so modest and unaffected that Jonathans heart leaped out to greet him as a kindred soul; while his advances awoke in David a love almost womanly in its tenderness. When we see Jonathan arraying his newfound friend in his own raiment, we are reminded of our Lords great exchange with us. He was made sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in him, 2Co 5:21.
Davids harp was now, for the most part, exchanged for the sword, and he became a popular hero. It was the refrain of the womens ode of victory that opened Sauls soul to the envenomed dart of jealousy. The milk of human kindness suddenly turned sour. He eyed David from that day, not with affectionate admiration, but always with desire to place a malicious construction on every act and word and look. With terrible accuracy James shows the certain progress and development of such an attitude, Jam 1:14-15.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
1Sa 18:7-8
This incident teaches three things respecting good and bad men.
I. The wicked are often jealous of a good man’s popularity. Saul’s behaviour to David reveals the progress of jealousy in four stages, (1) There is anger. (2) There is envy. (3) There is madness. (4) There is murder. Jealousy is a foolish, a wicked and a dangerous passion.
II. The wicked are often terrified by a good man’s security. Saul’s fear led to the adoption of the most desperate means to ruin David. (1) Saul resolves to dismiss David. (2) Saul endeavours to provoke David. (3) Saul determines to kill David.
III. The wicked are often defeated by a good man’s valour. In David’s conduct in his encounter with the Philistines, there are three things to be noted. (1) David fulfils the king’s stipulation. (2) David thwarts the king’s purpose. (3) David wins the king’s daughter. God can make the impediments that are thrown in the way of His children aids to their progress.
Parker, City Temple, vol. i. p. 79.
References: 1Sa 18:9.-Parker, vol, vi., p. 351. 1Sa 18:12-30.-Ibid., vol. vii., p. 1. 1Sa 18:17.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. v., No. 250; Ibid., Evening by Evening, p. 111. 1Sa 18:30.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. x., p. 331. 1Sa 19:2.-S. Cox, Expositions, 1st series, p. 416. 1Sam 19-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 52.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
3. Jonathan and David–Sauls jealousy
CHAPTER 18
1. Jonathans love for David (1Sa 18:1-4)
2. The beginning of Sauls jealousy (1Sa 18:5-16)
3. Davids marriage (1Sa 18:17-30)
A beautiful scene opens this chapter. Jonathan, the man of faith, loves David. He was about 40 years old and David about 17. Jonathan made a covenant with David and loved him as his own soul. He showed also his great devotion by giving to David, his robe, his garments, his sword, his bow and his girdle. Thus he stripped himself of all for Davids sake. Such devotion and love should we manifest towards Him, who is greater than David. No doubt Jonathans devotion was kindled by the deed young David had done in slaying Goliath. And when we think of what our Lord has done for us the devotion to Him increases.
And David the anointed is the obedient servant and conducts himself wisely. The days of suffering and exile are now rapidly approaching. The song of the women, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands, angers the rejected King. Again the demon possesses him because he gave way to his temper. He nourished the feeling of hatred against David. He eyed David from that day forward. When the evil spirit came upon him he prophesied. This has been hard to understand to some. Several translators have translated raved; but that cannot be done, for the word prophesy is the same as in chapter 5:5. Prophesying means to speak by inspiration; it does not always mean the prediction of future events. Now there is besides a divine inspiration, also a satanic inspiration. Certain cults which claim restoration of certain gifts claim inspiration, which has often been traced to the influence of demons. Saul uttered words which were the result of the indwelling evil spirit. Then he attempted twice to kill David with the javelin. This was no doubt an attempt from the side of Satan to do away with him from whose loins the promised seed, the Redeemer, was to come. The Lord shielded David and Saul was afraid of him, because the Lord was with him.
And now David has also gained the love of all Israel and Judah. Saul then offers to make David his son-in-law. Underneath it all was the mad Kings plotting to get rid of David and have the Philistines kill him. How blinded Saul had become! The Lords anointed was in the Lords own hands and his life was precious in His sight. It has its precious lessons for us likewise.
Merab is promised to him to become his wife, but Achiel receives her instead. (See 2Sa 21:8 and read Merab instead of Michal.) Then he received Michal, who loved David. We shall meet her again later when she was restored to the King by Abner and later mocked the King of Israel. And Saul, after his scheme failed, became Davids enemy continually.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the soul of Jonathan: The modesty, piety, and courage of David were so congenial to the character of the amiable Jonathan, that they attracted his most cordial esteem and affection; so that the most intimate friendship subsisted between them from that time, and they loved each other with pure hearts fervently. Their friendship could not be affected by the common vicissitudes of life; and it exemplifies by fact what the ancients have written on the subject.
, . “Friendship is an entire sameness, and one soul. A friend is another self.” 1Sa 14:1-14, 1Sa 14:45, Gen 44:30, Jdg 20:11, 1Ch 12:17, Psa 86:11, Col 2:2
loved him: 1Sa 18:3, 1Sa 19:2, 1Sa 20:17, Deu 13:6, 2Sa 1:26, Pro 18:24
Reciprocal: Gen 34:3 – soul Jos 23:12 – cleave 1Sa 17:31 – sent for him 1Sa 31:2 – Jonathan 2Sa 1:23 – pleasant 2Sa 9:1 – show him Psa 132:1 – all his afflictions Mat 19:5 – cleave Phi 2:20 – likeminded Tit 1:8 – a lover of good
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 18:1. The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David On account of the prudence and modesty of his discourse and behaviour after such an heroic action, and the other excellent virtues which shone forth both in his speeches and actions; for the service he had done to God and to his people; and for the similitude of their age and qualities.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 18:4. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David. This was the highest mark of favour he could show him, and it is still esteemed as such in the oriental courts. Traveniers Travels.
1Sa 18:6. Instruments of music. Hebrews shalashim, as in the margin, three stringed instruments, sistrums, or pandrums touched with the fingers, as among the Spaniards: but the Chaldee and the LXX read cymbals.
1Sa 18:7. Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. This is a triumphant song, or at least the chorus or burthen of one, similar to that which Miriam and the women sung. Exo 15:20-21.
1Sa 18:8. Saul was very wroth. He began to be very jealous that they would soon place David on the throne of Israel, as they now so highly magnified him above their king.
1Sa 18:11. Saul cast the javelin at David; a species of sceptre, with a spear point at the end. The thyrsus of Bacchus was both a sceptre and a spear, entwined with leaves of the vine. Sauls was a wicked act of melancholy, cunning and malice.
1Sa 18:13. Saul removed him from him. Disappointed in his intent to kill David, Saul determined to remove him from the court; and instead of commanding in the guards, as he had done before, made him a captain of another troop, where he hoped he might be slain in some expedition, or he himself have an opportunity of taking away his life.
There is an ancient version of these two foregoing chapters, viz. the Vatican, which appears to have been made from a Hebrew copy which had none of the many verses which are here supposed to be interpolated, and not genuine; which whoever considers, will find the accounts there given regular, consistent, and probable.As the nature of this work requires brevity, suffice it just to enumerate some of the verses that are supposed to have been inserted by some transcriber. Those who choose to examine these chapters further, may pursue Mr. Pilkingtons excellent remarks on the passages of sacred scripture, page 62; and Mr. Kennicotts dissertation. See index to the texts. The first passage, which is not translated in the Vatican copy, is no less than twenty verses; viz. from the 11th to the 32nd verse of chapter 17., containing an account, which if seriously examined, will not carry much probability along with it. Without these verses the connection stands thus: 1Sa 17:11, When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid. 1Sa 17:32, Then David said unto Saul, Let no mans heart fail because of him. No connection can be more proper. The next passage omitted in the Vatican copy is the 41st verse, though not specified by Mr. Pilkington; and then the 50th, which seems to be a needless recapitulation. The next interpolation is of nine verses; viz. the four last of chap. 17. and the five first of chap. 18. Leave these out, and the connection is entire, and the whole account consistent. 1Sa 17:51. David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, and he put his armour in his tent. 1Sa 18:6. And as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, the women came out. The other verses of chap. 18. which are supposed not to be genuine, are the 9th, 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 30th. On the whole, the Vatican copy is looked upon as the genuine translation of this part of Davids history. Dr. Walls critical notes. Bishops Warburton, Hall, Horsley and others do not admit any interpolation, but merely a confusion in the arrangement; the interlocutory passages having been misplaced. After these latter critics, Mr. Townsend thus arranges his HARMONY: 1Sa 16:1-14; 1Sa 17:1-41; 1Sa 18:1-10; 1Sa 16:14-23, and forward.
1Sa 18:19. Merab, Sauls daughter, was given to Adriel. This was a breach of covenant before the battle; so Samson was treated. Judges 15. How excellent was Davids piety in abstaining from revenge. By this princess David might have had sons, who would have claimed the throne. It might also have interfered with the wiser designations of heaven to give the kingdom to Solomon. All things work for good to those who love God.
1Sa 18:21. I will give him Michal, that she may be a snare to him; a snare for his life; a Delilah, a Cleopatra. This was strange counsel: he hated David more than he loved his daughter.
REFLECTIONS.
The fall of Goliath had distinguished Davids character, and unfolded the greatness of his soul. Jonathan had been equally distinguished by defeating the Philistines garrison, and spreading the panic through all their host. Jonathan was a man of sound heart and noble mind: and it is real merit which knows best how to appreciate merit. Hence his soul was knit to Davids, for they were congenial souls; the bonds were pure, and lasting as life and immortality. And how preferable was this love to the gnawing jealousy of Saul. How happy it tended to make Jonathan, while envy made his father wretched. Grace makes the soul noble; it tramples on hatred, envy and jealousy, to taste the pleasures of spotless friendship and of equal love.
But while the son is distinguished by a most virtuous friendship, the father is distinguished by the basest treasons and plots for Davids destruction; by a shameful breach of public faith in giving his daughter to another, and by a murderous hypocrisy in giving David promotion and partial command, solely with a view to procure his death. Ah, Saul, thy counsel shall not stand; the persecuted shall rise, and thou shalt fall; for the spirit of glory is departed from thee, and rested on him. Caleb, whose faith gave Achsah to Othniel, shall make thy perjury ashamed; yea, thine own conscience shall so confound thee that thou shalt be compelled to give him another daughter, though against thy will. So God is the defence of those who trust in his name. David at length received the princess who loved him for his virtues.
Christians should be cautious how they oppose and injure a young man of piety, of talents, and rising excellence in the church: let them neither spoil him by flattery, nor degrade him by unavailing efforts of envy and malice.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 17:1 to 1Sa 18:5. David and Goliath (E, with additione by R).In this section two narratives seem to have been interwoven. For the sake of convenience, we may denote one set of passages by (A), and the other by (B), thus:
(A) 1Sa 17:1-11, 1Sa 17:32-54.
(B) 1Sa 17:12-31, 1Sa 17:55 to 1Sa 18:5.
The (B) passages, together with 1Sa 17:41 and 1Sa 17:50, are omitted by very many MSS. of the LXX, including the very important Vatican Codex. (A) by itself would form a complete narrative, and would not present any very glaring inconsistencies with the previous chapters (cf., however, below). (B), even with the addition of 1Sa 17:41 and 1Sa 17:50, could hardly be read as a complete narrative.
Two explanations have been given of these facts:
(i) Apart from minor textual changes, the whole section, 1Sa 17:1 to 1Sa 18:5, belongs together and was taken from the same document. The (B) passages were omitted by LXX on account of the contradiction between them and 1Sa 16:10
1Sa 17:55 to 1Sa 18:5. Saul finds out who David is, and makes him one of his captains. It can hardly be meant that he took the place of Abner as commander-in-chief, but the author may write in a rhetorical vein and ignore the actual circumstances. Jonathan forms a passionate friendship for David.
1Sa 17:3 f. The covenant seems to be actually formed by this investiture of David with Jonathans clothes and weapons. The clothes are, so to speak, impregnated with the personality of the wearer; there is thus an actual physical bond created between the original wearer and his successor. David carries about with him always something of Jonathans personality. This physical contact, which in other forms plays a large part in covenants, is doubled if there is an exchange of garments. Nothing is said of such an exchange here, and David, of course, had no weapons. Cf. RS2, p. 335.A. S. P.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Jonathan, the son of Saul stands in refreshing contrast to his father. He was present when David returned to Saul. Doubtless David’s victory had attracted Jonathan, but David’s words decide him. When he had heard David he was drawn to love him as his own soul. How good it is if the work and the words of the Lord Jesus have such an effect on our own hearts! His WORK and His WORDS should always draw our attention to the beauty of His PERSON.
Verse 2 shows that Saul was evidently glad to employ David regularly as his servant after he had served him so well. But Jonathan did not think of David as a servant. Because he loved him as his own soul he made a most striking covenant with him. Nothing is said of David’s side of the covenant, but Jonathan stripped himself of his robe and gave it to David. More than this, he gave him his garments, his sword, his bow and even his belt. This was a plain declaration that he was there and then turning over all his potential kingly rights to David. Rather than succeeding his father, he would gladly relinquish his rights to the throne to David. If Saul had only been wise enough to do this, how much less tragic would his history have been!
Yet it has been observed that nothing is said about Jonathan’s shoes. Does this imply that, though he genuinely loved David and submitted to him, he reserved the right to have his feet go where he wanted? At least, when David was later an exile, Jonathan did not choose David’s company, though he deeply sympathized with him (1Sa 23:16-18). Instead, his feet took him into the company of his father Saul who was persecuting David, and Jonathan sadly died with Saul in battle (1Sa 31:2-6).
For a short time at least Saul appreciated David’s service. David (v.5) bore a witness of true devotion to the Lord, obediently going wherever Saul sent him and behaving himself wisely. His character and qualifications were such that Saul gave him a position over his men of war, and not only they, but all the people recognized his capability for this.
Verse 6 speaks of a time, evidently later, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistines, as the margin reads not simply his defeat of Goliath. Apparently David had been sent out and accomplished a clear victory in which Saul had little or no part. The Women coming to celebrate the victory with singing and dancing were not exactly diplomatic to sing in Saul’s presence that Saul had slain his thousands and David his ten thousands. The tide of popular opinion was evidently turning in David’s direction, and this alarmed and aggravated Saul. Samuel had told Saul that God would give his kingdom to another (1Sa 15:28), and Saul discerns the signs that David may very well be the man. This was another opportunity for Saul to willingly abdicate and give the kingdom to David, but instead he watched David suspiciously for any signs that he might desire the throne. Of course, David himself showed no such inclination. It was only the facts of his character and ability that spoke to both Saul and the people.
David continued to serve Saul in cheerful subjection. Saul’s jealousy of David gave occasion to the evil spirit from God to trouble Saul again in such a way that he prophesied (v.10). That prophecy was not from God, but from the evil spirit. To quiet this David again played with his harp for Saul. But this time it did not have a calming effect, just as the ministry of the Word of God eventually will not produce good effects after it has been given for some time and treated with indifference. Saul’s previous love for David (1Sa 16:21) turned to hatred, for he feared that David was more fitted to be Saul’s master than his servant, and he was determined to keep the place of authority. Though he was afraid to fight against Goliath, he threw his javelin at David, intending to kill him (v.11) at a time when David was obediently serving him by playing his harp. This cowardly act itself proved Saul incompetent for his place of royal dignity. At this time David was able to dodge the javelin, and also on a later occasion. We might wonder at his returning to play for Saul after Saul’s first attempt to kill him, but this proves the reality of David’s faithfulness.
David’s escape from Saul’s javelins added to the evidence that the Lord was with David and not with Saul. This increased Saul’s fear of him, so that he removed him to some distance, making him captain over a thousand men. But though absent from Saul’s presence, David could not be hid from the eyes of the people. He “went out and came in before the people,” which implies a clear, honest testimony: he had nothing to hide. We were before told that he behaved himself wisely (v.5), now it is added “in all his ways.” This wise behaviour only increased Saul’s fear of him rather than incurring his thankful respect, as was the case with the people. They loved David on this account, a perfectly normal and right reaction in contrast to the abnormal folly of jealousy.
Of course Saul knew that David was highly esteemed by the people, so he resorted to the subtlety of offering his older daughter Merab to David if David would prove himself valiant in fighting the Lord’s battles (v.17). David surely had cause to be suspicious of this, for Saul had before promised his daughter to the man who would kill Goliath (ch.17:25). Saul hoped that David would be so venturesome in his fighting that he might be killed by the Philistines. However, David showed a humble spirit in protesting that he did not consider himself worthy to be the king’s son-in-law.
The time came when David had proved himself equal to the task Saul had assigned to him and was therefore entitled to be married to Merab; but Saul again proved himself untrustworthy by giving Merab to another man (v.19). This may have been just as well so far as David was concerned, for there seems no indication that he had any love for Merab anyway.
Another of Saul’s daughters, Michal, made it known that she loved David, and Saul was pleased about this, not because he thought of his daughter’s happiness, but because this might lead to David’s death (v.21)! He wanted his own daughter to be a snare to David. Deceitfully he commanded his servants to tell David, as though in private confidence, that Saul actually thought very highly of David and would be glad to have him as a son-in-law. David should have suspected this since Merab had been promised him and not given to him, but this seemed to be no question to him because he considered himself unworthy to be the king’s son-in-law, being a poor man of no reputation (v.23).
King Saul used this to his advantage by instructing his servants to tell David he would not require any dowry except one hundred foreskins of the Philistines. This would not guarantee that the men would be killed, but evidently this was what Saul had in mind; and he expected that David would be killed in attempting to kill so many. But David doubled the number to two hundred, killing the men and bringing their foreskins to Saul. Saul could hardly then go back on his promise, and David was given Michal as his wife (v.27).
Though David was now Saul’s son-in-law, this did not make Saul feel any more kindly toward him. Knowing that the Lord was with David and that Michal loved him only increased Saul’s fear of David and his animosity against him. It is noted in verse 30 that the commanders of the Philistines went out, evidently with the object of attacking Israel, but in each case David behaved himself more wisely than all Saul’s servants, so that his name became highly esteemed.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the {a} soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
(a) His affection was fully bent toward him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
3. The results of God’s selection of David 18:1-19:17
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 (1Sa 16:1 to 1Sa 19:17). The popular reaction to Saul was fairly simple: most of the people supported him, though a few opposed him (1Sa 11:12-15). The popular reaction to David was much more complex and significant (1Sa 18:1 to 1Sa 19:17).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jonathan’s love for David 18:1-5
We have already seen that Jonathan was a man of faith and courage (1Sa 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 (1Sa 18:1). Jonathan loved David as he loved himself (1Sa 18:1; 1Sa 18:3; 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. [Note: E.g., Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, pp. 20, 26-28, 31-39.] However 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; Jdg 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 (1Sa 18:2; cf. 1Sa 14:52). Evidently Jonathan realized David’s gifts and God’s will for David’s life (cf. 1Sa 23:17), and he humbly deferred to him (1Sa 18:3-4).
"This is a virtual abdication by Jonathan, the crown prince." [Note: Gordon, p. 159.]
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. Php 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. [Note: See the chronological chart at the beginning of these notes.] His 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. 1Sa 15:27-28 . . .) and gave it to David (1Sa 18:4), he was in effect transferring his own status as heir apparent to him . . ." [Note: Youngblood, p. 707. Cf. Gunn, p. 80.]
"The covenant of friendship referred to in 1Sa 18:3 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." [Note: Laney, p. 61.]
Jonathan’s selfless action reflects his submission to Samuel’s oracle that Saul would not have a continuing dynasty (1Sa 13:13-14). Rather than trying to perpetuate Saul’s dynasty, as Abner later tried to do (2Sa 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?" [Note: Baldwin, p. 129.]
David’s commitment to God resulted in his prospering (the fertility motif). David acted wisely, the literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated "prospered" (1Sa 18:5; 1Sa 18:14-15), also because God was with him (1Sa 18:12; 1Sa 18:14; cf. 1Sa 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 (1Sa 18:5). God blesses personally those who relate to Him properly. They also become channels of blessing to others (cf. 1Sa 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 as a result of David’s increasing ability, success, and popularity with the people that stemmed from God’s help (grace).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XXV.
SAULS JEALOUS-DAVID’S MARRIAGE.
1Sa 18:1-30.
THE conqueror of Goliath had been promised, as his reward, the eldest daughter of the king in marriage. The fulfillment of that promise, if not utterly neglected, was at least delayed; but if David lost the hand of the king’s daughter, he gained, what could not have been promised – the heart of the king’s son. It was little wonder that ”the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” Besides all else about David that was attractive to Jonathan as it was attractive to everyone, there was that strongest of all bonds, the bond of a common, all-prevailing faith, faith in the covenant God of Israel, that had now shown itself in David in overwhelming strength, as it had shown itself in Jonathan some time before at Michmash.
To Jonathan David must indeed have appeared a man after his own heart. The childlike simplicity of the trust he had reposed in God showed what a profound hold his faith had of him, how entirely it ruled his life. What depths of congeniality the two young men must have discovered in one another; in what wonderful agreement they must have found themselves respecting the duty and destiny of the Hebrew people! That Jonathan should have been so fascinated at that particular moment shows what a pure heart he must have had. If we judge aright, David’s faith had surpassed Jonathan’s; David had dared where Jonathan had shrunk; and David’s higher faith had obtained the distinction that might naturally have been expected to fall to Jonathan. Yet no shadow of jealousy darkens Jonathan’s brow. Never were hands more cordially grasped; never were congratulations more warmly uttered. Is there anything so beautiful as a beautiful heart? After well-nigh three thousand years, we are still thrilled by the noble character of Jonathan, and well were it for every young man that he shared in some degree his high nobility. Self-seekers and self-pleasers, look at him – and be ashamed.
The friendship between David and Jonathan will fall to be adverted to afterwards; meanwhile we follow the course of events as they are detailed in this chapter.
One thing that strikes us very forcibly in this part of David’s history is the rapidity with which pain and peril followed the splendid achievement which had raised him so high. The malignant jealousy of Saul towards him appears to have sprung up almost immediately after the slaughter of Goliath. ”When David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music. And the women answered one another as they played, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands; and what can he have more but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.” This statement seems (like so many other statements in Scripture narratives) to be a condensed one, embracing things that happened at different times; it appears to denote that as soon as David returned from killing Goliath his name began to be introduced by the women into their songs; and when he returned from the expeditions to which Saul appointed him when he set him over the men of war, and in which he was wonderfully successful, then the women introduced the comparison, which so irritated Saul, between Saul’s thousands and David’s ten thousands. The truth is, that David’s experience, while Saul continued to be his persecutor, was a striking commentary on the vanity of human life, – on the singularly tantalizing way in which the most splendid prizes are often snatched from men’s hands as soon as they have secured them, and when they might reasonably have expected to enjoy their fruits. The case of a conqueror killed in the very moment of victory – of a Wolfe falling on the Plains of Quebec, just as his victory made Britain mistress of Canada; of a Nelson expiring on the deck of his ship, just as the enemy’s fleet was helplessly defeated, – these are touching enough instances of the deceitfulness of fortune in the highest moments of expected enjoyment. But there is something more touching still in the early history of David. Raised to an eminence which he never courted or dreamt of, just because he had such trust in God and such regard for his country; manifesting in his new position all that modesty and all that dutifulness which had marked him while his name was still un- known; taking his life in his hand and plunging into toils and risks innumerable just because he desired to be of service to Saul and his country, – surely, if any man deserved a comfortable home and a tranquil mind David was that man. That David should have become the worst treated and most persecuted man of his day; that for years and years he should have been maligned and hunted down, with but a step between him and death; that the very services that ought to have brought him honour should have plunged him into disgrace, and the noble qualities that ought to have made him the king’s most trusty counselor should have made him a fugitive and an outlaw from his presence, – all that is very strange. It would have been a great trial to any man; it was a peculiar trial to a Hebrew. For under the Hebrew economy the principle of temporal rewards and punishments had a prominence beyond the common. Why was this principle reversed in the case of David? Why was one who had been so exemplary doomed to such humiliation and trial, – doomed to a mode of life which seemed more suitable for a miscreant than for the man after God’s own heart?
The answer to this question cannot be mistaken now. But that answer was not found so readily in David’s time. David’s early years bore a close resemblance to that period of the career of Job when the hand of God was heavy upon him, and thick darkness encompassed one on whose tabernacle the candle of the Lord had previously shone very brightly. It pleased God, in infinite love, to make David pass through a long period of hard discipline and salutary training for the office to which he was to be raised. The instances were innumerable in the East of young men of promising character being ruined through sudden elevation to supreme unchallenged power. The case of Saul himself was a sad instance of this doleful effect. It pleased God to take steps to prevent it from happening in the case of the distinguished Athenian, was young, Socrates tried hard to withhold him from public life, and to convince him that he needed a long course of inward discipline before he could engage safely and usefully in the conduct of public affairs. But Alcibiades had no patience for this; he took his own way, became his own master, but with the result that he lost at once true loftiness of aim and all the sincerity of an upright soul. We do not need, however, to illustrate from mere human history the benefits that arise from a man bearing the yoke in his youth. Even our blessed Lord, David’s antitype, ”though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.” And how often has the lesson been repeated! What story is more constantly repeated than, on the one hand, that of the young man succeeding to a fortune in early life, learning every wretched habit of indolence and self-indulgence, becoming the slave of his lusts, and after a miserable life sinking into a dishonoured grave? And on the other, how often do we find, in the biography of the men who have been an honour to their race, that their early life was spent amid struggles and acts of self-denial that seem hardly credible, but out of which came their resolute character and grand conquering power? O adversity, thy features are hard, thy fingers are of iron, thy look is stern and repulsive; but underneath thy hard crust there lies a true heart, full of love and full of hope; if only we had grace to believe this, in times when we are bound with affliction and iron; if only we had faith to look forward a very little, when, like the patriarch Job, we shall find that, after all, He who frames our lot is ”very pitiful and of tender mercy”!
In the case of David, God’s purpose manifestly was to exercise and strengthen such qualities as trust in God, prayerfulness, self-command, serenity of temper, consideration for others, and the hope of a happy issue out of all his troubles. His trials were indeed both numerous and various. The cup of honour dashed from his lips when he had just begun to taste it; promises the most solemn deliberately violated, and rewards of perilous service coolly withheld from him; faithful services turned into occasions of cruel persecution; enforced separation from beloved friends; laceration of feelings from Saul’s cruel and bloody treatment of some who had befriended him; calumnious charges persisted in after convincing and generous refutation; ungrateful treatment from those he had benefited, like Nabal; treachery from those he had delivered, like the men of Keilah; perfidy on the part of some he had trusted, like Cush; assassination threatened by some of his own followers, as at Ziklag, – these and many other trials were the hard and bitter discipline which David had to undergo in the wilderness.
And not only was David thus prepared for the great work of his future life, but as a type of the Messiah he foreshadowed the deep humiliation through which He was to pass on His way to His throne. He gave the Old Testament Church a glimpse of the manner in which ”it became Him, by whom are all things and for whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering.”
The growth of the malignant passion of jealousy in Saul is portrayed in the history in a way painfully graphic. First, it is simply a feeling that steals occasionally into his bosom. It needs some outward occasion to excite it. Its first great effort to establish itself was when Saul heard the Hebrew women ascribing to David ten times as great a slaughter as they ascribed to Saul. We cannot but be struck with the ruggedness of the women’s compliment. To honour David as more ready to incur risk and sacrifice for his country, even in encounters involving terrible bloodshed, would have been worthy of women, and worthy of good women; but to make the standard of compliment the number of lives destroyed, the amount of bloodshed, indicated surely a coarseness of feeling, characteristic of a somewhat barbarous age. But the compliment was quite significant to Saul, who saw in it a proof of the preference entertained for David, and began to look on him as his rival in the kingdom. The next step in the history of Saul’s jealousy is its forming itself into an evil habit that needed no outward occasion to excite it, but kept itself alive and active by the vitality it had acquired. ”And Saul eyed David from that day and forward” (1Sa 18:9). If Saul had been a good man, he would have been horrified at the appearance of this evil passion in his heart; he would have said, “Get thee behind me, Satan;” he would have striven to the utmost to strangle it in the womb. Oh! what untold mountains of guilt would this not have saved him in after life! And what mountains of guilt, darkening their whole life, would the policy of resistance and stamping out, when an evil lust or passion betrays its presence in their heart, save to every young man and young woman who find for the first time evidence of its vitality! But instead of stamping it out, Saul nourished it; instead of extinguishing the spark, he heaped fuel on the flame. And his lust, having been allowed to conceive, was not long of bringing forth. Under a fit of his malady, even as David was playing to him with his harp, he launched a javelin at him, no doubt in some degree an act of insanity, but yet betraying a very horrible spirit. Then, perhaps afraid of himself, he removes David from his presence, and sends him out to battle as a captain of a thousand. But David only gives fresh proofs of his wisdom and his trustworthiness, and establishes his hold more and more on the affections of the people. The very fact of his wisdom, the evidence which his steady, wise, and faithful conduct affords of God’s presence with him, creates a new restlessness in Saul, who, with a kind of devilish feeling, hates him the more because “the Lord is with him, and is departed from Saul.”
The next stage in the career of jealousy is to ally itself with cunning, under the pretence of great generosity. “Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife; only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord’s battles. For Saul said. Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him.” But cunning and treachery are close connections, and when this promise ought to have been fulfilled, Merab was given to Adriel the Meholathite to wife. There remained his younger daughter Michal, who was personally attached to David. “And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” The question of dowry was a difficult one to David; but on that point the king bade his servants set his mind at rest. “The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. And Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.”
Alas! the history of Saul’s malignant passion is by no means exhausted even by these sad illustrations of its rise and progress. It swells and grows, like a horrid tumour, becoming uglier and uglier continually. And the notices are very significant and instructive which we find as to the spiritual condition of Saul, in connection with the development of his passion. We are told that the Lord was departed from him. When Saul was reproved by Samuel for his transgression, he showed no signs of real repentance, he continued consciously in a state of enmity with God, and took no steps to get the quarrel healed. He preferred the kind of life in which he might please himself, though he offended God, to the kind of life in which he would have pleased God, while he denied himself. And Saul had to bear the awful penalty of his choice. Living apart from God, all the evil that was in his nature came boldly out, asserting itself without let or hindrance, and going to the terrible length of the most murderous and at the same time the meanest projects. Don’t let anyone imagine that religion has no connection with morality! Sham religion, as we have already seen, may exist side by side with the greatest wickedness; but that religion, the beginning of which is the true fear of God, a genuine reverential regard for God, a true sense of His claims on us, alike as our Creator and our Redeemer, – that religion lays its hand firmly on our moral nature, and scares and scatters the devices of the evil that still remains in the heart. Let us take warning at the picture presented to us in this chapter of the terrible results, even in the ordinary affairs of life, of the evil heart of unbelief that departs from the living God. The other side of the case, the effect of a true relation to God in purifying and guiding the life, is seen in the case of David. God being with him in all that he does, he is not only kept from retaliating on Saul, not only kept from all devices for getting rid of one who was so unjust and unkind to himself, but he is remarkably obedient, remarkably faithful, and by God’s grace remarkably successful in the work given him to do. It is indeed a beautiful period of David’s life – the most blameless and beautiful of any. The object of unmerited hatred, the victim of atrocious plots, the helpless object of a despot’s mad and ungoverned fury, yet cherishing no trace of bitter feeling, dreaming of no violent project of relief, but going out and in with perfect loyalty, and straining every nerve to prove himself a laborious, faithful, and useful servant of the master who loathed him.
The question of David’s marriage is a somewhat difficult one, appearing to involve some contradictions. First of all we read that a daughter of Saul, along with great riches, had been promised to the man who should kill Goliath. But after David kills him, there is no word of this promise being fulfilled, and even afterwards, when the idea of his being the king’s son-in-law is brought forward, there is no hint that he ought to have been so before. Are we to understand that it was an unauthorized rumour that was told to David (1Sa 17:25-27) when it was said that the victor was to get these rewards? Was it that the people recalled what had been said by Caleb about Kirjath-sepher, a town in that very neighbourhood, and inferred that surely Saul would give his daughter to the conqueror, as Caleb had given his? This is perhaps the most reasonable explanation, because when David came into Saul’s presence nothing of the kind was said to him by the king; and also because, if Saul had really promised it, there was no reason at the time why he should not have kept his promise; nay, the impulsive nature of the king, and the great love of Jonathan toward David, and the love with which David inspired women, would rather have led Saul to be forward in fulfilling it, and in constituting a connection which would then have been pleasant to all. If it be said that this would have been a natural thing for Saul to do, even had there been no promise, the answer is that David was such a stripling, and even in his father’s household occupied so humble a place, as to make it reasonable that he should wait, and gain a higher position, before any such thing should be thought of. Accordingly, when David became older, and acquired distinction as a warrior, his being the king’s son-in-law had become quite feasible. First, Saul proposes to give him his elder daughter Merab. The murderous desire dictates the proposal, for Saul already desires David’s death, though he has not courage himself to strike the blow. But when the time came, for some reason that we do not know of Merab was given to Adriel the Meholathite. David’s action at an after period showed that he regarded this as a cruel wrong (2Sa 3:13). Saul, however, still desired to have that hold on David which his being his son-in-law would have involved, and now proposed that Michal his younger daughter should be his wife. The proposal was accepted, but David could bring no dowry for his wife. The only dowry the king sought was a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And the hundred foreskins David paid down in full tale.
What a distressing view these transactions give us of the malignity of Saul’s heart! When parents have sacrificed the true happiness of their daughters by pressing on them a marriage of splendid misery, the motive, however selfish and heartless, has not usually been malignant. The marriage which Saul urged between David and Michal was indeed a marriage of affection, but as far as he was concerned his sin in desiring it, as affording facilities for getting rid of him, was on that account all the greater. For nothing shows a wickeder heart than being willing to involve another, and especially one’s own child, in a lifelong sorrow in order to gratify some feeling of one’s own. Saul was not merely trifling with the heart and happiness of his child, but he was deliberately sacrificing both to his vile passion. The longer he lives, Saul becomes blacker and blacker. For such are they from whom the Spirit of the Lord has departed.
We may well contrast David and Saul at this period of their lives; but what a strange thing it is that further on in life David should have taken this leaf from Saul’s book, and acted in this very spirit towards Uriah the Hittite? Not that Uriah was, or was to be, son-in-law to the king; alas! there was an element of blackness in the case of David which did not exist in that of Saul; but it was in the very spirit now manifested by Saul towards himself that David availed himself of Uriah’s bravery, of Uriah’s faithfulness, of Uriah’s chivalrous readiness to undertake the most perilous expeditions – availed himself of these to compass his death. What do we learn from this? The same seeds of evil were in David’s heart as in Saul’s. But at the earlier period of David’s life he walked humbly with God, and God’s Spirit poured out on him not only restrained the evil seed, but created a pure, holy, devoted life, as if there were nothing in David but good. Afterwards, grieving the Holy Spirit, David was left for a time to himself, and then the very evil that had been so offensive in Saul came creeping forth drew itself up and claimed that it should prevail. It was a blessed thing for David that he was not beyond being arrested by God’s voice, and humbled by His reproof. He saw whither he had been going; he saw the emptiness and wickedness of his heart; he saw that his salvation depended on God in infinite mercy forgiving his sin and restoring His Spirit, and for these blessings he pled and wrestled as Jacob had wrestled with the angel at Peniel. So we may well see that for anyone to trust in his heart is to play the fool; our only trust must be in Him who is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. “He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a root and withered, and men take them and cast them into the fire and they are burned.”