Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 19:18
So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
18 24. David takes refuge with Samuel at Ramah
18. to Samuel ] Turning naturally for direction at this crisis to the prophet who had anointed him, and hoping that Saul would at least reverence the age and authority of Samuel. No doubt David had had much intercourse with Samuel since their first meeting at Bethlehem.
in Naioth ] Naioth, which was at or near Ramah, is a quasi-proper name signifying dwellings, and in al probability denotes the College, or common residence of the society of prophets collected together at Ramah by Samuel. See Introd. ch. 6 p. 33. Cp. 2Ki 6:1-2. The Targum renders the word “house of instruction.” Hither Samuel took David, partly as being a safer place of refuge than his own house; partly that he might be spiritually strengthened by a share in the religious exercises of the society ( 1Sa 19:20).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
No such place as Naioth (or Nevaioth) is known, but the word means dwellings. Hence, it is considered that Naioth was the name of the collegiate residence of the prophets, in, or just outside, Ramah, to which Samuel removed with David from his own house, for greater safety, owing to the sanctity of the place and company.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 18. David fled, and escaped – to Samuel] He, no doubt, came to this holy man to ask advice; and Samuel thought it best to retain him for the present, with himself at Naioth, where it is supposed he had a school of prophets.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Came to Samuel to Ramah; partly for comfort and direction in his great distress; and partly for safety, supposing that Saul would be ashamed to execute his bloody designs in the presence of so venerable a person as Samuel, who had laid so great obligations upon Saul, and had such great and just reputation with the people.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18-23. David fled, . . . and came toSamuel to RamahSamuel was living in great retirement,superintending the school of the prophets, established in the littlehamlet of Naioth, in the neighborhood of Ramah. It was a retreatcongenial to the mind of David; but Saul, having found out hisasylum, sent three successive bodies of men to apprehend him. Thecharacter of the place and the influence of the sacred exercisesproduced such an effect on them that they were incapable ofdischarging their commission, and were led, by a resistless impulse,to join in singing the praises of God. Saul, in a fit of rage anddisappointment, determined to go himself. But, before reaching thespot, his mental susceptibilities were roused even more than hismessengers, and he was found, before long, swelling the ranks of theyoung prophets. This singular change can be ascribed only to thepower of Him who can turn the hearts of men even as the rivers ofwater.
1Sa19:24. SAULPROPHESIES.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So David fled and escaped,…. Fled from his own house, and escaped falling into the hands of the messengers of Saul, and so of Saul himself:
and came to Samuel to Ramah; the place where Samuel dwelt: to him David chose to come, by whom he had been anointed king, that his faith might be strengthened by him with respect to the kingdom, which might be weakened by what had happened to him; and that he might have some advice and direction from him what he should do, and what course he should take in his present circumstances, and that he might receive some comfort from him under his present troubles:
and told him all that Saul had done to him; how he had spoken to his servants to kill him, had cast a javelin at him himself, and had sent messengers to his house to slay him:
and he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth; which was in or near to Ramah, as appears by 1Sa 19:19; which perhaps was a more retired place, and so chosen for the sake of conversation between them, or reckoned a more safe place. Here being a school or college of the prophets, might be a kind of an asylum, and where it might be thought Saul would not attempt to lay hands on David, should he know where he was; for if the Philistines gave no disturbance to the hill of God, and the prophets in it, 1Sa 10:5; it might be reasonably concluded Saul would not; so the Targum paraphrases it, “he and Samuel went and dwelt in the house of doctrine”, or in the school, the school of the prophets. R. Abimi the Nothite, or Naiothite, mentioned in the Talmud i, is supposed k to be of this place; it is said l to be six miles from Jerusalem to the north.
i T. Bab. Sabbat, c. 1. fol. 17. 2. Avodah Zarah, c. 2. fol. 36. 1. k Aruch in voce , fol. 98. 4. Juchasin, fol. 74. 2. l Adrichom, Theatrum T. S. fol. 28. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
David fled to Samuel at Ramah, and reported to him all that Saul had done, partly to seek for further advice from the prophet who had anointed him, as to his further course, and partly to strengthen himself, by intercourse with him, for the troubles that still awaited him. He therefore went along with Samuel, and dwelt with him in Naioth. (to be read according to the Chethibh, for which the Masoretes have substituted the form , 1Sa 19:19, 1Sa 19:23, and 1Sa 20:1), from or , signifies dwellings; but here it is in a certain sense a proper name, applied to the coenobium of the pupils of the prophets, who had assembled round Samuel in the neighbourhood of Ramah. The plural points to the fact, that this coenobium consisted of a considerable number of dwelling-places or houses, connected together by a hedge or wall.
1Sa 19:19-20 When Saul was told where this place was, he sent messengers to fetch David. But as soon as the messengers saw the company of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon them, so that they also prophesied. The singular is certainly very striking here; but it is hardly to be regarded as merely a copyist’s error for the plural , because it is extremely improbable that such an error as this should have found universal admission into the MSS; so that it is in all probability to be taken as the original and correct reading, and understood either as relating to the leader of the messengers, or as used because the whole company of messengers were regarded as one body. The . . signifies, according to the ancient versions, an assembly, equivalent to , from which it arose according to Kimchi and other Rabbins by simple inversion.
1Sa 19:21 The same thing happened to a second and third company of messengers, whom Saul sent one after another when the thing was reported to him.
1Sa 19:22-24 Saul then set out to Ramah himself, and inquired, as soon as he had arrived at the great pit at Sechu (a place near Ramah with which we are not acquainted), where Samuel and David were, and went, according to the answer he received, to the Naioth at Ramah. There the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he went along prophesying, until he came to the Naioth at Ramah; and there he even took off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel, and lay there naked all that day, and the whole night as well. , , does not always signify complete nudity, but is also applied to a person with his upper garment off (cf. Isa 20:2; Mic 1:8; Joh 21:7). From the repeated expression “ he also,” in 1Sa 19:23, 1Sa 19:24, it is not only evident that Saul came into an ecstatic condition of prophesying as well as his servants, but that the prophets themselves, and not merely the servants, took off their clothes like Saul when they prophesied. It is only in the case of that the expression “he also” is not repeated; from which we must infer, that Saul alone lay there the whole day and night with his clothes off, and in an ecstatic state of external unconsciousness; whereas the ecstasy of his servants and the prophets lasted only a short time, and the clear self-consciousness returned earlier than with Saul. This different is not without significance in relation to the true explanation of the whole affair. Saul had experienced a similar influence of the Spirit of God before, namely, immediately after his anointing by Samuel, when he met a company of prophets who were prophesying at Gibeah, and he had been thereby changed into another man (1Sa 10:6.). This miraculous seizure by the Spirit of God was repeated again here, when he came near to the seat of the prophets; and it also affected the servants whom he had sent to apprehend David, so that Saul was obliged to relinquish the attempt to seize him. This result, however, we cannot regard as the principal object of the whole occurrence, as Vatablus does when he says, “The spirit of prophecy came into Saul, that David might the more easily escape from his power.” Calvin’s remarks go much deeper into the meaning: “God,” he says, “changed their (the messengers’) thoughts and purpose, not only so that they failed to apprehend David according to the royal command, but so that they actually became the companions of the prophets. And God effected this, that the fact itself might show how He holds the hearts of men in His hand and power, and turns and moves them according to His will.” Even this, however, does not bring out the full meaning of the miracle, and more especially fails to explain why the same thing should have happened to Saul in an intensified degree. Upon this point Calvin simply observes, that “Saul ought indeed to have been strongly moved by these things, and to have discerned the impossibility of his accomplishing anything by fighting against the Lord; but he was so hardened that he did not perceive the hand of God: for he hastened to Naioth himself, when he found that his servants mocked him;” and in this proceeding on Saul’s part he discovers a sign of his increasing hardness of heart. Saul and his messengers, the zealous performers of his will, ought no doubt to have learned, from what happened to them in the presence of the prophets, that God had the hearts of men in His power, and guided them at His will; but they were also to be seized by the might of the Spirit of God, which worked in the prophets, and thus brought to the consciousness, that Saul’s raging against David was fighting against Jehovah and His Spirit, and so to be led to give up the evil thoughts of their heart. Saul was seized by this mighty influence of the Spirit of God in a more powerful manner than his servants were, both because he had most obstinately resisted the leadings of divine grace, and also in order that, if it were possible, his hard heart might be broken and subdued by the power of grace. If, however, he should nevertheless continue obstinately in his rebellion against God, he would then fall under the judgment of hardening, which would be speedily followed by his destruction. This new occurrence in Saul’s life occasioned a renewal of the proverb: “ Is Saul also among the prophets? ” The words “ wherefore they say ” do not imply that the proverb was first used at this time, but only that it received a new exemplification and basis in the new event in Saul’s experience. The origin of it has been already mentioned in 1Sa 10:12, and the meaning of it was there explained.
This account is also worthy of note, as having an important bearing upon the so-called Schools of the Prophets in the time of Samuel, to which, however, we have only casual allusions. From the passage before us we learn that there was a company of prophets at Ramah, under the superintendence of Samuel, whose members lived in a common building ( ), and that Samuel had his own house at Ramah (1Sa 7:17), though he sometimes lived in the Naioth (cf. 1Sa 19:18.). The origin and history of these schools are involved in obscurity. If we bear in mind, that, according to 1Sa 3:1, before the call of Samuel as prophet, the prophetic word was very rare in Israel, and prophecy was not widely spread, there can be no doubt that these unions of prophets arose in the time of Samuel, and were called into existence by him. The only uncertainty is whether there were other such unions in different parts of the land beside the one at Ramah. In 1Sa 10:5, 1Sa 10:10, we find a band of prophesying prophets at Gibeah, coming down from the sacrificial height there, and going to meet Saul; but it is not stated there that this company had its seat at Gibeah, although it may be inferred as probable, from the name “ Gibeah of God ” (see the commentary on 1Sa 10:5-6). No further mention is made of these in the time of Samuel; nor do we meet with them again till the times of Elijah and Elisha, when we find them, under the name of sons of the prophets (1Ki 20:35), living in considerable numbers at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (vid., 2Ki 4:38; 2Ki 2:3, 2Ki 2:5, 2Ki 2:7, 2Ki 2:15; 2Ki 4:1; 2Ki 6:1; 2Ki 9:1). According to 2Ki 4:38, 2Ki 4:42-43, about a hundred sons of the prophets sat before Elisha at Gilgal, and took their meals together. The number at Jericho may have been quite as great; for fifty men of the sons of the prophets went with Elijah and Elisha to the Jordan (comp. 2Ki 2:7 with 2Ki 2:16, 2Ki 2:17). These passages render it very probable that the sons of the prophets also lived in a common house. And this conjecture is raised into a certainty by 2Ki 6:1. In this passage, for example, they are represented as saying to Elisha: “The place where we sit before thee is too strait for us; let us go to the Jordan, and let each one fetch thence a beam, and build ourselves a place to dwell in there.” It is true that we might, if necessary, supply from 2Ki 6:1, after , “to sit before thee,” and so understand the words as merely referring to the erection of a more commodious place of meeting. But if they built it by the Jordan, we can hardly imagine that it was merely to serve as a place of meeting, to which they would have to make pilgrimages from a distance, but can only assume that they intended to live there, and assemble together under the superintendence of a prophet. In all probability, however, only such as were unmarried lived in a common building. Many of them were married, and therefore most likely lived in houses of their own (2Ki 4:1.). We may also certainly assume the same with reference to the unions of prophets in the time of Samuel, even if it is impossible to prove that these unions continued uninterruptedly from the time of Samuel down to the times of Elijah and Elisha. Oehler argues in support of this, “that the historical connection, which can be traced in the influence of prophecy from the time of Samuel forwards, may be most easily explained from the uninterrupted continuance of these supports; and also that the large number of prophets, who must have been already there according to 1Ki 18:13 when Elijah first appeared, points to the existence of such unions as these.” But the historical connection in the influence of prophecy, or, in other words, the uninterrupted succession of prophets, was also to be found in the kingdom of Judah both before and after the times of Elijah and Elisha, and down to the Babylonian captivity, without our discovering the slightest trace of any schools of the prophets in that kingdom.
All that can be inferred from 1 Kings 18 is, that the large number of prophets mentioned there (1Ki 18:4 and 1Ki 18:13) were living in the time of Elijah, but not that they were there when he first appeared. The first mission of Elijah to king Ahab (1 Kings 17) took place about three years before the events described in 1 Kings 18, and even this first appearance of the prophet in the presence of the king is not to be regarded as the commencement of his prophetic labours. How long Elijah had laboured before he announced to Ahab the judgment of three years’ drought, cannot indeed be decided; but if we consider that he received instructions to call Elisha to be his assistant and successor not very long after this period of judgment had expired ( 1Ki 19:16.), we may certainly assume that he had laboured in Israel for many years, and may therefore have founded unions of the prophets. In addition, however, to the absence of any allusion to the continuance of these schools of the prophets, there is another thing which seems to preclude the idea that they were perpetuated from the time of Samuel to that of Elijah, viz., the fact that the schools which existed under Elijah and Elisha were only to be found in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and never in that of Judah, where we should certainly expect to find them if they had been handed down from Samuel’s time. Moreover, Oehler also acknowledges that “the design of the schools of the prophets, and apparently their constitution, were not the same under Samuel as in the time of Elijah.” This is confirmed by the fact, that the members of the prophets’ unions which arose under Samuel are never called “sons of the prophets,” as those who were under the superintendence of Elijah and Elisha invariably are (see the passages quoted above). Does not this peculiar epithet seem to indicate, that the “sons of the prophets” stood in a much more intimate relation to Elijah and Elisha, as their spiritual fathers, than the or did to Samuel as their president? (1Sa 19:20.) does not mean filii prophetae , i.e., sons who are prophets, as some maintain, though without being able to show that is ever used in this sense, but filii prophetarum, disciples or scholars of the prophets, from which it is very evident that these sons of the prophets stood in a relation of dependence to the prophets (Elijah and Elisha), i.e., of subordination to them, and followed their instructions and admonitions. They received commissions from them, and carried them out (vid., 2Ki 9:1). On the other hand, the expressions and simply point to combinations for common working under the presidency of Samuel, although the words certainly show that the direction of these unions, and probably the first impulse to form them, proceeded from Samuel, so that we might also call these societies schools of the prophets.
The opinions entertained with regard to the nature of these unions, and their importance in relation to the development of the kingdom of God in Israel, differ very widely from one another. Whilst some of the fathers ( Jerome for example) looked upon them as an Old Testament order of monks; others, such as Tennemann, Meiners, and Winer, compare them to the Pythagorean societies. Kranichfeld supposes that they were free associations, and chose a distinguished prophet like Samuel as their president, in order that they might be able to cement their union the more firmly through his influence, and carry out their vocation with the greater success.
(Note: Compare Jerome ( Epist. iv. ad Rustic. Monach. c. 7): “The sons of the prophets, whom we call the monks of the Old Testament, built themselves cells near the streams of the Jordan, and, forsaking the crowded cities, lived on meal and wild herbs.” Compare with this his Epist. xiii. ad Paulin, c. 5.)
The truth lies between these two extremes. The latter view, which precludes almost every relation of dependence and community, is not reconcilable with the name “sons of the prophets,” or with 1Sa 19:20, where Samuel is said to have stood at the head of the prophesying prophets as , and has no support whatever in the Scriptures, but is simply founded upon the views of modern times and our ideas of liberty and equality. The prophets’ unions had indeed so far a certain resemblance to the monastic orders of the early church, that the members lived together in the same buildings, and performed certain sacred duties in common; but if we look into the aim and purpose of monasticism, they were the very opposite of those of the prophetic life. The prophets did not wish to withdraw from the tumult of the world into solitude, for the purpose of carrying on a contemplative life of holiness in this retirement from the earthly life and its affairs; but their unions were associations formed for the purpose of mental and spiritual training, that they might exert a more powerful influence upon their contemporaries. They were called into existence by chosen instruments of the Lord, such as Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, whom the Lord had called to be His prophets, and endowed with a peculiar measure of His Spirit for this particular calling, that they might check the decline of religious life in the nation, and bring back the rebellious “to the law and the testimony.” Societies which follow this as their purpose in life, so long as they do not lose sight of it, will only separate and cut themselves off from the external world, so far as the world itself opposes them, and pursues them with hostility and persecution. The name “schools of the prophets” is the one which expresses most fully the character of these associations; only we must not think of them as merely educational institutions, in which the pupils of the prophets received instruction in prophesying or in theological studies.
(Note: Thus the Rabbins regarded them as ; and the earlier theologians as colleges, in which, as Vitringa expresses it, “philosophers, or if you please theologians, and candidates or students of theology, assembled for the purpose of devoting themselves assiduously to the study of divinity under the guidance of some one who was well skilled as a teacher;” whilst others regarded them as schools for the training of teachers for the people, and leaders in the worship of God. The English Deists – Morgan for example – regarded them as seats of scientific learning, in which the study of history, rhetoric, poetry, natural science, and moral philosophy was carried on.)
We are not in possession indeed of any minute information concerning their constitution. Prophesying could neither be taught nor communicated by instruction, but was a gift of God which He communicated according to His free will to whomsoever He would. But the communication of this divine gift was by no means an arbitrary thing, but presupposed such a mental and spiritual disposition on the part of the recipient as fitted him to receive it; whilst the exercise of the gift required a thorough acquaintance with the law and the earlier revelations of God, which the schools of the prophets were well adapted to promote. It is therefore justly and generally assumed, that the study of the law and of the history of the divine guidance of Israel formed a leading feature in the occupations of the pupils of the prophets, which also included the cultivation of sacred poetry and music, and united exercises for the promotion of the prophetic inspiration. That the study of the earlier revelations of God was carried on, may be very safely inferred from the fact that from the time of Samuel downwards the writing of sacred history formed an essential part of the prophet’s labours, as has been already observed at pp. 8, 9 (translation). The cultivation of sacred music and poetry may be inferred partly from the fact that, according to 1Sa 10:5, musicians walked in front of the prophesying prophets, playing as they went along, and partly also from the fact that sacred music not only received a fresh impulse from David, who stood in a close relation to the association of prophets at Ramah, but was also raised by him into an integral part of public worship. At the same time, music was by no means cultivated merely that the sons of the prophets might employ it in connection with their discourses, but also as means of awakening holy susceptibilities and emotions in the soul, and of lifting up the spirit of God, and so preparing it for the reception of divine revelations (see at 2Ki 3:15). And lastly, we must include among the spiritual exercises prophesying in companies, as at Gibeah (1Sa 10:5) and Ramah (1Sa 19:20).
The outward occasion for the formation of these communities we have to seek for partly in the creative spirit of the prophets Samuel and Elijah, and partly in the circumstances of the times in which they lived. The time of Samuel forms a turning-point in the development of the Old Testament kingdom of God. Shortly after the call of Samuel the judgment fell upon the sanctuary, which had been profaned by the shameful conduct of the priests: the tabernacle lost the ark of the covenant, and ceased in consequence to be the scene of the gracious presence of God in Israel. Thus the task fell upon Samuel, as prophet of the Lord, to found a new house for that religious life which he had kindled, by collecting together into closer communities, those who had been awakened by his word, not only for the promotion of their own faith under his direction, but also for joining with him in the spread of the fear of God and obedience to the law of the Lord among their contemporaries. But just as, in the time of Samuel, it was the fall of the legal sanctuary and priesthood which created the necessity for the founding of schools of the prophets; so in the times of Elijah and Elisha, and in the kingdom of the ten tribes, it was the utter absence of any sanctuary of Jehovah which led these prophets to found societies of prophets, and so furnish the worshippers of Jehovah, who would not bend their knees to Baal, with places and means of edification, as a substitute for what the righteous in the kingdom of Judah possessed in the temple and the Levitical priesthood. But the reasons for the establishment of prophets’ schools were not to be found merely in the circumstances of the times. There was a higher reason still, which must not be overlooked in our examination of these unions, and their importance in relation to the theocracy. We may learn from the fact that the disciples of the prophets who were associated together under Samuel are found prophesying (1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:20), that they were also seized by the Spirit of God, and that the Divine Spirit which moved them exerted a powerful influence upon all who came into contact with them. Consequently the founding of associations of prophets is to be regarded as an operation of divine grace, which is generally manifested with all the greater might where sin most mightily abounds. As the Lord raised up prophets for His people at the times when apostasy had become great and strong, that they might resist idolatry with almighty power; so did He also create for himself organs of His Spirit in the schools of the prophets, who united with their spiritual fathers in fighting for His honour. It was by no means an accidental circumstance, therefore, that these unions are only met with in the times of Samuel and of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. These times resembled one another in the fact, that in both of them idolatry had gained the upper hand; though, at the same time, there were some respects in which they differed essentially from one another. In the time of Samuel the people did not manifest the same hostility to the prophets as in the time of Elijah. Samuel stood at the head of the nation as judge even during the reign of Saul; and after the rejection of the latter, he still stood so high in authority and esteem, that Saul never ventured to attack the prophets even in his madness. Elijah and Elisha, on the other hand, stood opposed to a royal house which was bent upon making the worship of Baal the leading religion of the kingdom; and they had to contend against priest of calves and prophets of Baal, who could only be compelled by hard strokes to acknowledge the Lord of Sabaoth and His prophets. In the case of the former, what had to be done was to bring the nation to a recognition of its apostasy, to foster the new life which was just awakening, and to remove whatever hindrances might be placed in its way by the monarchy. In the time of the latter, on the contrary, what was needed was “a compact phalanx to stand against the corruption which had penetrated so deeply into the nation.” These differences in the times would certainly not be without their influence upon the constitution and operations of the schools of the prophets.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Saul Prophesies before Samuel. | B. C. 1058. |
18 So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth. 19 And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah. 20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21 And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. 22 Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah. 23 And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?
Here is, I. David’s place of refuge. Having got away in the night from his own house, he fled not to Bethlehem to his relations, nor to any of the cities of Israel that had caressed and cried him up, to make an interest in them for his own preservation; but he ran straight to Samuel and told him all that Saul had done to him, v. 18. 1. Because Samuel was the man that had given him assurance of the crown, and his faith in that assurance now beginning to fail, and he being ready to say in his haste (or in his flight, as some read it, Ps. cxvi. 11), All men are liars (“not only Saul that promised me my life, but Samuel himself that promised me the throne”), whither should he go but to Samuel, for such encouragements, in this day of distress, as would support his faith? In flying to Samuel he made God his refuge, trusting in the shadow of his wings; where else can a good man think himself safe? 2. Because Samuel, as a prophet, was best able to advise him what to do in this day of his distress. In the psalm he penned the night before he had lifted up his prayer to God, and now he takes the first opportunity of waiting upon Samuel to receive direction and instruction from God. If we expect answers of peace to our prayers, we must have our ears open to God’s word. 3. Because with Samuel there was a college of prophets with whom he might join in praising God, and the pleasure of this exercise would be the greatest relief imaginable to him in his present distress. He met with little rest or satisfaction in Saul’s court, and therefore went to seek it in Samuel’s church. And, doubtless, what little pleasure is to be had in this world those have it that live a life of communion with God; to this David retired in the time of trouble, Ps. xxvii. 4-6.
II. David’s protection in this place: He and Samuel went and dwelt (or lodged) in Naioth, where the school of the prophets was, in Ramah, as in a privileged place, for the Philistines themselves would not disturb that meeting, ch. x. 10. But Saul, having notice of it by some of his spies (v. 19), sent officers to seize David, v. 20. When they did not bring him he sent more; when they returned not he sent the third time (v. 21), and, hearing no tidings of these, he went himself, v. 22. So impatient was he in his thirst after David’s blood, so restless to compass his design against him, that, though baffled by one providence after another, he could not perceive that David was under the special protection of Heaven. It was below the king to go himself on such an errand as this; but persecutors will stoop to any thing, and stick at nothing, to gratify their malice. Saul lays aside all public business to hunt David. How was David delivered, now that he was just ready to fall (like his own lamb formerly) into the mouth of the lions? Not as he delivered his lamb, by slaying the lion, or, as Elijah was delivered, by consuming the messengers with fire from heaven, but by turning the lions for the present into lambs.
1. When the messengers came into the congregation where David was among the prophets the Spirit of God came upon them, and they prophesied, that is, they joined with the rest in praising God. Instead of seizing David, they themselves were seized. And thus, (1.) God secured David; for either they were put into such an ecstasy by the spirit of prophecy that they could not think of any thing else, and so forgot their errand and never minded David, or they were by it put, for the present, into so good a frame that they could not entertain the thought of doing so bad a thing. (2.) He put an honour upon the sons of the prophets and the communion of saints, and showed how he can, when he pleases, strike an awe upon the worst of men, by the tokens of his presence in the assemblies of the faithful, and force them to acknowledge that God is with them of a truth,1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:25. See also the benefit of religious societies, and what good impressions may be made by them on minds that seemed unapt to receive such impressions. And where may the influences of the Spirit be expected but in the congregations of the saints? (3.) He magnified his power over the spirits of men. He that made the heart and tongue can manage both to serve his own purposes. Balaam prophesied the happiness of Israel, whom he would have cursed; and some of the Jewish writers think these messengers prophesied the advancement of David to the throne of Israel.
2. Saul himself was likewise seized with the spirit of prophecy before he came to the place. One would have thought that so bad a man as he was in no danger of being turned into a prophet; yet, when God will take this way of protecting David, even Saul had no sooner come (as bishop Hall expresses it) within smell of the smoke of Naioth but he prophesies, as his messengers did, v. 23. He stripped off his royal robe and warlike habiliments, because they were either too fine or too heavy for this service, and fell into a trance as it should seem, or into a rapture, which continued all that day and night. The saints at Damascus were delivered from the range of the New-Testament Saul by a change wrought on his spirit, but of another nature from this. This was only amazing, but that sanctifying–this for a day, that for ever. Note, Many have great gifts and yet no grace, prophesy in Christ’s name and yet are disowned by him, Mat 7:22; Mat 7:23. Now the proverb recurs, Is Saul among the prophets? See ch. x. 12. Then it was different from what it had been, but now contrary. He is rejected of God, and actuated by an evil spirit, and yet among the prophets.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
David’s Flight to Samuel, vs. 18-24
David first sought refuge from Saul with the prophet Samuel at his home in Ramah. Samuel heard his account of how Saul was seeking to kill him and gave David sanctuary in the school of the prophets at Naioth. Naioth was in Ramah and scholars think is the name of the school of the prophets.
However, David was not safe from the wicked intent of Saul here, for the king did not honor the refuge. He sent his men to take David and return him to Saul, and the Lord protected him. He caused His Spirit to move on them so that they joined the class of the young prophets before whom Samuel was standing, evidently instructing them, and began to prophesy, or preach, as they were doing. When Saul heard what had happened he sent other messengers, and they also joined the prophets. This happened the third time, completely frustrating Saul’s intentions.
Finally, Saul determined to go to Ramah himself and take David. At the well of Sechu, a notable place on the road from Gibeah, he paused to get directions to Naioth. But now the Spirit of the Lord overruled the demon spirit and made Saul also join the prophets and to preach. The prophesying was not, however, in character with Saul, and the insane man stripped himself naked and lay shamefully on the ground all day and night in that condition., Though he uttered words the Lord compelled him to say, his nakedness illustrated the state of his soul before the God whom he had rejected. This incident was cause for the people to recall the old proverb made notorious by his early spell of prophesying (1Sa 10:11-12). It was, “Is Saul .also among the prophets?” and was asked in ridicule and mockery of the insincere “prophet.”
Lessons from chapter 19: 1) the Lord can raise up friends to help His people in time of need; 2) the devil will use every means to ruin the life, or testimony, of a child of God; 3) in protecting David God was protecting the line of the coming Messiah; 4) even Satan will be compelled to bow to the will of God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
1Sa. 19:18. Naioth. This word signifies dwellings, but it is here in a certain sense a proper name applied to the coenobium of the pupils of the prophets who had assembled round Samuel in the neighbourhood of Ramah. The plural form points to the fact that this coenobium consisted of a considerable number of dwelling-places or houses, connected together by a hedge or wall. (Kiel.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF 1Sa. 19:18-19
DAVIDS VISIT TO RAMAH
I. The godly naturally seek the society of the godly in times of trouble. A desire to conform to the will of God is the basis of all true godliness, and those who are ruled by this desire are bound together by a common bond and are often involved in a common persecution. Under such circumstances it is natural and wise for them to seek each others society that they may strengthen each other by mutual sympathy and help, and especially that those who have had much experience may encourage and advise those who have but lately entered upon life. Sailors who in tempestuous weather put into harbour are likely to find sympathy and help from veteran seamen who once themselves ploughed the oceanwhile they listen to the tale of their experience they gain fresh courage to meet new storms and perhaps valuable hints as to the best means of steering their vessel in dangerous waters. The common desire to serve their common God had created a strong tie between the aged prophet Samuel and the youthful warrior David, and when the latter found himself compelled by Sauls envy to flee from home, it was natural he should seek the abode of one who had been driven into retirement by the same godless man. We can imagine what help David would gain from his aged friend at this timehow Samuel would strengthen his faith and animate his courage by reminding him of the word of the Lord which had come to him as Gods prophet in past days (1Sa. 16:1), and how he would likewise, out of the experience of a long public life, give David much valuable counsel concerning not only the future immediately before him, but touching that more distant day when he should no longer be an outcast fleeing for his life but the ruler of Israel. During his short stay at Ramah he was strengthened for the long sojourn in the wilderness that came after, and he doubtless fully realised the truth that, as iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. And in such times of communion the gain is never on one side only. If the younger are helped and instructed by the elder, the elder are cheered and comforted by the younger. The veteran servants of God are gladdened by the energy and fervour of the younger men, and rejoice when they see others rising up to fill the places which they once occupied. We may be sure that Samuel gladly welcomed his young friend even although the visit was brought about by painful circumstances. In his retirement he doubtless often still grieved over the failure of his hopes concerning Saul, but when he saw David he would be cheered by the certainty that here was one who would not disappoint his expectations but would prove himself a faithful ruler of Israel.
II. When the godly find each other thus mutually helpful one great end of the existence of the visible church is attained. One great aim of every wise human father is to make his children mutually helpful to each other. Indeed one great reason for the existence of the family seems to be the formation of such strong and tender ties between the brothers and sisters, as shall enable them by the love which they bear to each other to lighten each others burdens as they journey through life. Those who are the objects of such love know well how often it has cheered them in the day of adversity and nerved them to face fresh trials and perplexities. And the children of God ought to look upon themselves as part of the one great family in heaven and earth, and to count it their duty to extend their sympathy and counsel to every afflicted member of that family. For this is indeed one of the great reasons why Gods children are required to form themselves into a community, and are required to make public profession of their faith in him. By so doing they become known to each other and are enabled to animate each others love and stimulate each other to persevere in the ways of godliness.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
Besides this intercourse with Samuel, the pursuits of the sons of the prophets, alike in their practice of music and poetry, and in the study of the Word of God, were just such as David would most thoroughly enjoy, and as would most materially tend to soothe his spirit after the trials through which he had just passed, and brace it for the difficulties which lay before him. I do not presume to fix either the date or the authorship of all the productions which have been brought together into the one book of the Psalms, but if the 119th Psalm came from the pen of David, as multitudes believe, then I do not wonder that many have connected its composition with his residence in the school of the prophets at Naioth. The calm in which he then found himself, and the studies which he then prosecuted, might well have led his musings in the direction of that alphabetic ode, while there are in it not a few expressions which, to say the least, may have particular reference to the dangers out of which he had so recently escaped, and by which he was still threatened. Such, for example, are the following: Princes also did sit and speak against me; but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes. The proud have had me in derision, yet have I not declined from thy law. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me; yet thy commandments are my delights. Then, in regard to his present enjoyment, we may quote these lines: O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold or silver; and in reference to Gods dealings with him, he says, I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me. It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. Dr. W. M. Taylor.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
David With Samuel. 1Sa. 19:18-24
18 So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
19 And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.
20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.
21 And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also.
22 Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold they be at Naioth in Ramah.
23 And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.
24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?
7.
What was Naioth of Ramah? 1Sa. 19:19
Naioth was the communal dwelling place of the company of the prophets found in Ramah. It can hardly be taken as a town for there is no reference of Samuels moving his residence to a smaller village which would be under the jurisdiction of Ramah. The Naioth would likely be located at the highest point in Ramah. This would make the ideal dwelling place of the prophet.
8.
What was Samuels position with the prophets? 1Sa. 19:20
Samuel was called the head of the prophets. He had jurisdiction over them and occupied the same place that Elijah evidently occupied at a later time. When Elijah was about to be taken into heaven, Elisha asked to be given a double portion of Elijahs spirit. Elisha was evidently asking to be recognized as Elijahs successor as head of the prophets (2Ki. 2:9).
9.
What caused the prophesying? 1Sa. 19:20 b
The Spirit of God came upon the men. The prophets could not work up an ecstatic frame of mind. They were not whirling dervishes and even the use of the musical instruments does not account for the spirit of prophecy coming upon these men. It has well been said that no prophecy is of any private interpretation. Men of God did not speak as it pleased them, for no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God being moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pe. 1:21).
10.
Who were the company of the prophets? 1Sa. 19:20
The company of the prophets are sometimes known as the band of the prophets. On other occasions they are known as the school of the prophets. Another designation is sons of the prophets. These were young men that are met in the Scripture all the way from the time of Samuel down to the time of Amos who said that he was not a son of a prophet (Amo. 7:14). These men were allowed to marry, but they lived in a common dwelling place. They had an older prophet as their leader. On occasions they were sent on such important missions as anointing kings, even in a country like Syria. They were sent on special missions such as that fulfilled by the unnamed prophet who announced judgment on Jeroboams idolatry (1Ki. 13:1).
11.
In what sense was Saul naked? 1Sa. 19:24
Saul did not have on his usual regal costume. He was probably clad only in his undergarments. This truth is brought out in such instances as the occasion on which David danced before the Ark. On that occasion, he wore a linen ephod (2Sa. 6:14). When David got to his house, Michal upbraided him because she thought he had shamelessly uncovered himself (2Sa. 6:20). Evidently Michal was incensed that her husband, the king, would dance before the Ark in such an abbreviated costume as a priests ephod. She must have thought that it was beneath his dignity to be among the common people and not to have on his robe and crown. On another occasion we learn that Peter put on his coat and jumped into the sea because he was naked (Joh. 21:7). The American Standard Version contains a footnote indicating that Peter had on his undergarment only. This must have been the case with Sauls lying on the ground all night and prophesying.
12.
Why is the proverb given twice? 1Sa. 19:24
When Saul first met a band of prophets after leaving Samuel, he fell in with them and began to prophesy (1Sa. 10:12). People learned of this, and they started the proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? On this occasion at Naioth Saul once again fell among the prophets and prophesied. The occasion received a new exemplification. It also received a new basis and was therefore the cause of the proverb being revived and emphasized.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(18) And came to Samuel.The influence and authority which Samuel still preserved in the nation even in the stormy close of Sauls career, must have been very great for the frightened David to have sought a refuge in his quiet home of prayer and learning. The exile, fleeing before his sovereign, felt that in the residence of the old seer he would be safe from all pursuit, as in a sanctuary. Davids intimate connection with Samuel has been alluded to on several occasions. He stood to the old seer in the relation of a loved pupil.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DAVID’S FLIGHT TO RAMAH, AND SAUL’S PURSUIT, 1Sa 19:18 to 1Sa 24:18.
David fled to Samuel Whither could he better go for help and counsel at a time like this? Surely, he thinks, Samuel will defend me against Saul.
He and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth Naioth is not to be regarded as a proper name. The word means habitations, dwelling places, and refers to the dwellings of the band of prophets over whom Samuel presided. The plural is used because of the number of cells or huts in this locality. The Targum renders the word house of instruction, and Ewald defines it as studium, or school. Here these disciples of Samuel dwelt, and disciplined themselves in holy exercises. How long David enjoyed this society of Samuel and these prophets before Saul ascertained whither he had fled we cannot determine, but probably not long.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David Takes Refuge With Samuel At Ramah And When Saul Tries To Take Him He Discovers That YHWH Has Other Means Of Preventing Him From Doing So ( 1Sa 19:18-24 ).
Recognising that Saul was seeking his life David turned to the only one with the power to help him, Samuel, the prophet of YHWH, who had earlier anointed him (1Sa 16:13), and who was still a power in Israel. Even Saul had to have regard to Samuel. And Samuel took him to live with him and the company of prophets in Naioth in Ramah.
But after some time, on learning of David’s whereabouts, Saul sent arresting parties to bring him back to Gibeah for trial. And each time the arresting parties were met by a large company of prophets worshipping and speaking out the praises of God, with the result that the Spirit of God came on them and they also began to worship and speak out the praises of God, losing any desire to fulfil the purpose for which they had been sent.
So in the end Saul decided that he must do the job himself, but he too was met by the prophets, with the result that the Spirit of God came on him, and he too began to worship and speak out the praises of God, and in his case he divested himself of his royal garments and lay down in his undergarments all day and all night, rendered powerless by the Spirit.
Analysis.
a
b And it was told Saul, saying, “Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah” (1Sa 19:19).
c And Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came on the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied (1Sa 19:20).
c And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied (1Sa 19:21 a).
c And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied (1Sa 19:21 b).
b Then went he also to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu, and he asked and said, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” And he went there to Naioth in Ramah, and the Spirit of God came on him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah (1Sa 19:22-23).
a And he also stripped off his clothes, and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Which is why they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” And David fled from Naioth (1Sa 19:24).
Note that in ‘a’ David goes to be with Samuel among the prophets in Naioth, and in the parallel Saul is also seen as among the prophets, at which point David flees from Naioth. In ‘b’ Saul is told that David is at Naioth in Ramah, and in the parallel he is told the same. Centrally in ‘c’ we have the threefold examples of men sent to arrest David who instead finish up praising and worshipping God under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
1Sa 19:18
‘ Now David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
Recognising that he would find refuge from Saul nowhere else David made for the only man whom he considered might be able to give him protection. Samuel was still a power in the land, and dwelt among a band of prophets who were presumably a consequence of his ministry. So David came to him at Ramah, and told Samuel all that Saul had done to him. And the result was that Samuel took David under his protection, and David went to live with him in Naioth. Naioth was where Samuel dwelt, along with a band of prophets. The word ‘Naioth’ means ‘dwellings’ and was probably the name of the compound or community in which the prophets had their dwellings. Both may well have thought that with David in such spiritual surroundings he would no longer be seen as a threat to Saul.
This idea of a company of prophets is a new one, and they were probably the fruit of Samuel’s labours as he sought to establish a spiritual core in Israel. We came across them previously in 1Sa 10:5-6; 1Sa 10:10-13. While there was no established Central Sanctuary to which the prophets could be attached as a group, a separate community was a necessity if their activities were to continue. Elijah and Elisha will similarly form a band of prophets in the Northern kingdom of Israel (there called ‘the sons of the prophets’), also unconnected with the Temple, but as there is no mention of them in between times there are no grounds for assuming that the one is the continuation of the other, except in the sense that both helped to maintain the prophetic tradition. Once David had re-established the Central Sanctuary this band of prophets presumably connected up with the Central Sanctuary, or with the Sanctuary in Jerusalem where the Ark was. Alternatively they may have spread throughout the land.
1Sa 19:19
‘ And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.’
It was inevitable that at some stage the news would reach Saul of where David was. Those who knew of Saul’s determination to get rid of David, and who were looking for political advancement would not hesitate to pass on to him the information once they received it, and Naioth was a place visited by many people as they sought prophetic help. It would therefore not be long before the word spread around of where David was. He was the kind of man concerning whose whereabouts people were interested.
1Sa 19:20
‘ And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.’
So Saul sent an arresting party to take David and bring him back to Gibeah, presumably for ‘trial’, a trial which could only have one conclusion in the view of the despotic nature of Saul’s kingship.
But when these men came to Naioth they were faced up with Samuel and the band of prophets. These were worshipping God and speaking out His praises (compare Act 2:11). We must beware of reading into this the kind of ecstasy which was a feature of prophets elsewhere, in which the person was as one possessed, but nevertheless it was with a spirit that was effective, powerful and restraining. For as a result of meeting them the Spirit of God came on the arresting party and they too were caught up in praising and exalting God (one meaning of ‘prophesying’ – compare Act 2:11 with Act 19:6).
This must not be seen as too surprising. These men had nothing personal against David. When they came to arrest him they were simply obeying Saul’s orders. And as Israelites they certainly had a great reverence for Samuel and the prophets, and for YHWH. Thus when they were moved by the Spirit, and became involved with the prophets, they would feel it only right to participate in their worship. How far they found themselves unable to do anything else is a matter of conjecture, for history reveals that when God does choose to manifest His presence, men do find themselves unable to disobey Him (consider the remarkable happenings in the revivals in Wales and in the Hebrides in the last century). But this does not necessarily signify their being in such an ecstatic state that they were powerless to resist. It indicates rather what happens to men when they are made deeply aware that God is there among them. They do not want to resist. They want to participate in the far more important worship of YHWH. It would appear from verse 24 that in order to do so they divested themselves of their outer clothing which depicted their status as Saul’s men, recognising that they were now in the presence of One Who was greater than Saul, and that Saul’s authority meant nothing here. Here they had to be open before God.
“The prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them.” They found the prophets gathered in worship under their leader and great teacher Samuel, to whose authority all yielded fully as they worshipped together. In days when the importance of God and his rights over men were fully acknowledged by most, such a gathering would have been seen as of prime importance, and as one that could not be disturbed, even on the king’s business. Rather than disturbing it, all spiritual men who came there would expect to have their part in it.
Having worshipped with the prophets these men would then no doubt be reluctant to reject Samuel’s plea for them to go and leave David with him (compare their similar reluctance later to kill the members of the High Priestly family (1Sa 22:17) even when they were not involved in a spiritual atmosphere). They may even have decided to spend some time in the prophetic circles, and have remained there. We must not overlook in all this both the importance of YHWH in their eyes and the powerful standing that Samuel still had in the land as His Prophet. To them Samuel was not a man to be trifled with, for he represented YHWH. It is in fact noteworthy that even Saul, with all his excesses, never retaliated against Samuel, so we can be sure that the people in general would have looked at him with awe.
1Sa 19:21
‘ And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied.’
When his men failed to return with David, and he was told what had happened, Saul sent a further arresting party and then another. But in each case they had the same experience once they became involved with the prophets. God’s power and working were proving to be irresistible. And there were thus more and more men involved in praising YHWH and worshipping him, and speaking out about His wonderful works (compare Act 2:11). We are not given the details of precisely what happened, but it is clear that YHWH’s power was being revealed as sufficient to protect David.
1Sa 19:22
‘ Then went he also to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu: and he asked and said, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.”
In the end Saul recognised that it would be necessary to go himself and exert his own authority. He seemingly acknowledged that his men could not be blamed for becoming involved with the prophets in their worship. They were after all Yahwists. And if YHWH called on them to partake in a special period of worship then they could hardly be expected to refuse to do so. However, it would be a different matter when he went himself. He was not to be so easily swayed.
So he made his way to Ramah, and when he came to the great public water cystern in Secu, which was where people would gather to collect water, he enquired about the whereabouts of Samuel and David, and was informed that they were at the prophetic college at Naioth.
1Sa 19:23
‘ And he went there to Naioth in Ramah, and the Spirit of God came on him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.’
Accordingly Saul approached Naioth, but then, even while he was on the way, he became aware of the power of YHWH working on him manifesting the presence of God, and he too began to speak out the praises of YHWH, and to worship him. God was clearly manifesting His presence among men in an unusual way. This may well have been genuine praise of YHWH in contrast to the situation in 18:10, constrained by a power that he did not understand and seeking to bring him to repentance.
1Sa 19:24
‘ And he also stripped off his clothes, and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?
On arrival at the prophetic college, and the worshipping group that he found there, Saul too felt impelled to divest himself of all his insignia, and his royal outer garments, being impelled by the sense of the presence of God to humble himself before YHWH and acknowledge Him as his Overlord. All clearly saw this as a holy place. And there before Samuel, moved by an irresistible power, he spoke out the praises of God, and fell on his face before God, where he remained all day and all night, prostrated by YHWH. It was a sad reflection on his reign, which had begun with a similar sign, that this time it was caused because of his murderous attitude towards David. And when the news got around of how he had been humbled before YHWH, so too would the standing joke, ‘is Saul also among the prophets?’ In 10:12 it had been asked in admiration. Now it would be asked with a snigger. But he had brought it all on himself by his own folly.
The remarkable situation described here, in which the sense of the presence of God had driven people to unexpected actions, has been reproduced at other times throughout history, in days when God has chosen to make known His power and presence in an unusual way. We have already mentioned the Welsh Revival and the Hebrides Revival. Other parallels include the time of the Great Awakening, when God moved in power through men like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, and people were moved to unusual behaviour At such times men find themselves powerless to resist God, (and often indeed do not want to do so), and were driven to actions that they would not normally have engaged in. Here at Naioth God thus gave this revelation of His protective power as a specific reminder of the importance of David in God’s future plans. The memory of it would certainly be a strength to David in the days of his exile and of his being hunted down, for he would remember that YHWH was indeed able to deliver, if necessary, in extraordinary ways. And it would help him to recognise that he was being equally protected then, even if not in such an obviously supernatural way.
“And David fled from Naioth.” This was David’s third major flight (compare 1Sa 19:10; 1Sa 19:18). He was no longer the despatcher of the Philistines but a fugitive from Saul. From now on he had nowhere to go.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Saul In Ramah
v. 18. So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, v. 19. And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah, v. 20. And Saul sent messengers to take David; and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, v. 21. And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. v. 22. Then went he, v. 23. And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God was upon him also, v. 24. And he stripped off his clothes also,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Sa 19:18. He and Samuel went, and dwelt in Naioth The Chaldee renders this as if it was an appellation, the school of learning. This was the famous school of the prophets. As many have been at a loss to ascertain the specific nature of these schools, it will not be unseasonable to endeavour to remove their difficulties. We have in this book only a partial view of the prophets; i.e. a view of them while at their devotions only, and not at their studies: for Saul and his messengers coming when the society was prophesying, or at divine worship, the spirit of God fell upon them, and they prophesied also. And thus the Chaldee paraphrast understands prophesying; adoring God, and singing praises to him: for we may well suppose, that they began and ended all their daily studies with this holy exercise. The college of the prophets was dedicated to the study of the Jewish law only; and, as such, was naturally and properly a seminary of prophets: for those who were most knowing and zealous in the law were surely most fit to convey God’s commands to his people. Samuel was set over, or was master of one of these schools. See Samuel Triplici Nomine Laudat.; by Dr. Barton.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(18) So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
It is pleasing to hear again of Samuel, who had long retired from the bustling scenes of government, to the college of the prophets, and presided over them. David’s retreat to Samuel was, no doubt, with a view to ask counsel from God, how to act in the present juncture. Reader! doth not Jesus sometimes, and perhaps not unfrequently, unsettle our rests, and stir up matters to shake the earthly props of his people, on purpose to drive our hearts to him? But beside this retreat of David to Samuel at Naioth, to seek counsel from God, it should seem that he fled there as a place of safety. For there is reason to conclude, from what is related both in this place and in a former chapter, that the general opinion concerning the schools of the prophets was, that the spot was sanctified: and that those who came within its region were under particular impressions. Oh! that it could be said so now! See 1Sa 10:10-13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
IV
THE SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS
The more important passages bearing on this subject are 1Sa 3:1-4 ; 1Sa 10:5 ; 1Sa 10:9-12 ; 1Sa 18:13-24 ; 1Ki 19:18 ; 1Ki 19:20-21 ; 1Ki 20:35 ; 2Ki 2:3-5 ; 2Ki 4:38 ; 2Ki 6:1 ; 1Ch 29:29 ; 2Ch 9:29 ; 2Ch 12:15 ; 2Ch 13:22 and other chapters in that book I do not enumerate. The last one is Amo 7:14-15 . The reader will understand that I give these instead of a prescribed section in the Harmony. These constitute the basis of this discussion.
Let us distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office , and give some examples. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, his seventy elders, Balaam, Joshua, and others before Samuel’s time had the gift, but not the office; perhaps we may except Moses as in a measure having the office. After Samuel’s time, David, many of his singers, and particularly Daniel, had the gift in a high degree, but not the office. Moreover, the high priests from Aaron to Caiphas in Christ’s time, were supposed to have officially the gift of prophecy that is, to hear and report what the Oracle said but Samuel is the first who held the office.
The distinction between a prophet and a son of a prophet is this: A son of a prophet was a candidate for the office, ministering to the prophet, a disciple instructed by him, consecrated to the work, and qualifying himself to perform the services of the office with the highest efficiency. A prophet is one who, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks or writes for God. In this inspiration he is God’s mouth or pen, speaking or writing not his own words, but God’s words. This inspiration guides and superintends his speech and his silence; what is recorded and what is omitted from the record. The gift of prophecy was not one of uniform quantity nor necessarily enduring. The gifts were various in kind, and might be for one occasion only. As to variety of kinds, the revelation might come in dreams or open visions, or it might consist of an ecstatic trance expressed in praise or song or prayer. If praise, song, or prayer, its form was apt to be poetic, particularly if accompanied by instrumental music.
As to the duration of the gift, it might be for one occasion only, or a few, or many. The scriptures show that the spirit of prophecy came upon King Saul twice only, and each time in the form of an ecstatic trance. In his early life it came as a sign that God had chosen him as king. In his later life the object of it was to bar his harmful approach to David. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 inclusive, explains the diversity of these gifts and their relative importance.
There are two periods of Hebrew history in which we find clearest notices of the schools of the prophets, the proofs of their persistence between the periods, and their influence on the nation. The notices are abundant in the time of Samuel, and in the time of Elijah and Elisha, but you have only to study the book of Chronicles to see that the prophetic order, as an office, continued through these periods and far beyond. Later you will learn that in the time of persecution fifty of these prophets were hidden in a cave and fed regularly. The object of the enemy was to destroy these theological seminaries, believing that they could never lead the nation astray while these schools of the prophets continued. Their object, therefore, was to destroy these seats of theological education. Elijah supposed that every one of them was killed except himself, but he was mistaken.
Samuel was the founder of the first school of the prophets, and the scripture which shows his headship 1Sa 19:20 , where Saul is sending messengers to take David, and finally goes himself and finds the school of the prophets, with Samuel as its appointed head. The reason for such a school in Samuel’s time is shown, first, by an extract from Kirkpatrick’s Commentary on 1 Samuel, page 33. He says:
Samuel was the founder of the prophetic order. Individuals in previous ages had been endowed with prophetic gifts, but with Samuel commenced the regular succession of prophets which lasted through all the period of the monarchy, and did not cease until after the captivity. The degeneracy into which the priesthood had fallen through the period of the judges demanded the establishment of a new order for the religious training of the nation.
For this purpose Samuel founded the institutions known as the schools of the prophets. The “company of prophets” at Gibeah (1Sa 10:10 ) and the scene at Ramah described in 1Sa 19:18 ff., imply a regular organization. These societies are only definitely mentioned again in connection with the history’ of Elijah and Elisha but doubtless continued to exist in the interval. By means of these the Order was maintained, students were educated, and common religious exercises nurtured and developed spiritual gifts.
Kirkpatrick’s is a fine commentary. The priests indeed were instructors of the people, but the tendency of the priesthood was to rest in external sacrifices, and to trust in a mere ritualistic form of sacrifice. That is the trouble always where you have a ritual. And after a while both priest and worshiper began to rely upon the external type, and on external conformity with the ritual. God needed better mouthpieces than those, hence while in the past there was a prophetic gift here and there, he now establishes the prophetic school, or society, in which training, bearing upon the prophetic office, should be continuous. The value of these schools of the prophets is also seen from Kirkpatrick, page 1 Samuel 34:
The value of the prophetic order to the Jewish nation was immense. The prophets were privy-counsellors of kings, the historians of the nation, the instructors of the people. It was their function to be preachers of righteousness to rich and poor alike: to condemn idolatry in the court, oppression among the nobles, injustice among the judges, formality among the priests. They were the interpreters of the law who drew out by degrees the spiritual significance which underlay ritual observance, and labored to prevent sacrifice and sabbath and festival from becoming dead and unmeaning forms. Strong in the unshaken consciousness that they were expressing the divine will, they spoke and acted with a fearless courage which no threats could daunt or silence.
Thus they proved a counterpoise to the despotism of monarchy and the formalism of priesthood. In a remarkable passage in his essay on “Representative Government,” Mr. John Stuart Mill attributes to their influence the progress which distinguished the Jews from other Oriental nations. “The Jews,” he writes, “had an absolute monarchy and hierarchy. These did for them what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions subdued them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. . . . Their religion gave existence to an inestimably precious institution, the order of prophets. Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their sacred character, the prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for kings and priests, and kept up in that little corner of the earth the antagonism of influences which is the only real security for continued progress.”
I was surprised the first time I ever saw the statement from Mill. He was a radical evolutionist and infidel, but a statesman, and in studying the development of statesmanship among the nations, he saw this singular thing in the history of the Jews, unlike anything he saw anywhere else, and saw what it was that led that nation, when it went into backsliding, to repentance; what power it was that brought about the reformation when their morals were corrupted; what power it was that was the real light of the nation and the salt of the earth, and saw that it was this order of prophets which was the conservator of national unity, purity, and perpetuity. I have the more pleasure in quoting that passage, as it comes from a witness in no way friendly to Christianity, just as when I was discussing missions I quoted the testimony of Charles Darwin to the tremendous influence for good wrought by the missionaries of South America.
Particularly in this case of the schools of the prophets we find their value, by noting very carefully the bearing on the case under Samuel. We have already noticed the corruption of the priesthood under Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas; how the ark was captured, the central place of worship desecrated; how Samuel, called to the office of prophet, needed assistance, and how he instituted this school of the prophets. He gathered around him the brightest young men of the nation and had the Spirit of God rest on them, and in order that their instruction might be regular he organized them into companies, or schools; he would go from one to another, and these young “theologs” were under the instruction of Samuel and for twenty years worked as evangelists in making sensitive the national conscience. It took twenty years to do it, and he could not have done it by himself, but with that tremendous power, the help he had, at the end of twenty years, he saw the nation repentant and once more worshiping God. I am for a theological seminary that will do that.
I give a modern example somewhat parallel: Mr. Spurgeon was called to the city of London, when about nineteen years old, to be the pastor of the old historic church of Dr. Gill, and in his evangelical preaching impressed a number of men to feel that they were also called to preach (if your preaching does not impress somebody else to preach, you may be sure that you are not called to preach), and it impressed the women and a multitude of laymen to do active Christian service. Therefore, Mr. Spurgeon organized what is called “The Pastoral College.” He wouldn’t let a drone be in it; he did not want anybody in it that was not spiritually minded. In other words, he insisted that a preacher should be religiously inclined, and should be ready to do any kind of work. He supported this institution largely through his own contributions, although the men and women all over England, when they saw what it was doing, would send money for its support. I used to read the monthly reports of the contributions and the list of donors that accompanied them.
Mr. Spurgeon determined to work a revolution, just as Samuel did, and he used this school of the prophets for that purpose. Consequently, hundreds of young preachers belonging to that school of the prophets preached in the slums of the city, in the byways, in the highways, in the hedges, in the mines, on the wharves to the sailors, and in the hospitals. Hundreds of laymen said, “Put us to work,” and he did; he had pushcarts made for them, and filled them with books and so sent out over the town literature that was not poisonous. He put the women to work, and established) or rather perpetuated in better form, a number of the almshouses for the venerable old women who were poor and helpless, following out the suggestion in 2 Timothy, and he erected a hospital. Then they got to going further afield. They went all over England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, crossed over into the Continent, crossed the seas to Australia, and the islands of the seas, and into heathen lands. I have always said that Spurgeon’s Pastoral College came nearer to the Bible idea of a seminary than any other in existence. There was not so much stress laid on mere scholarship as on spiritual efficiency.
It is important to note particularly what I am saying now, because it was burnt into my heart as one of the reasons for establishing a theological seminary. The nature of that society was that it was a school. They left their homes and came to stay at this school, with what we now call a mess hall in which all the theological students, by contributing so much, have their table in common. It was that way then; they had their meals in common. In preparing dinner one day for the sons of the prophets, somebody put a lot of wild gourds into the pot, and when they began to eat it, one of them cried out: “Ah, man of God, there’s death in the pot!” Once I preached a sermon on this theme: “Wild Gourds and Theological Seminaries,” to show that to feed the students in theological seminaries on wild gourds of heresy is to put death in the pot; they will do more harm than good, as they will become instruments of evil.
In determining what were their duties, we must consult quite a number of passages. We gather from this passage that they were thoroughly instructed in the necessity of repentance, individually and nationally, and of turning from their sins and coming back to God with faithful obedience. That lesson was ground in them. They were taught the interpretation of the spiritual meaning of the law, all its sacrifices, its feasts, its types, and therefore when you are studying a prophet in the Old Testament you will notice how different his idea of types and ceremonies from that of the priests. They will tell you that to do without eating is fasting, but the prophet will show that literal fasting is not true fasting; that there must be fasting at heart; that there must be a rending of the soul and not the garment as an expression of repentance; that to obey God w better than a formal sacrifice.
Another thing they were taught, which I wish particularly to emphasize, was music, both vocal and instrumental. In that school of the prophets started the tremendous power of music in religion so wonderfully developed by David, who got many of his ideas from associating with the schools of the prophets. And from that time unto this, every evangelical work, and all powerful religious work, has been associated with music, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament; not merely vocal, but instrumental music. The heart of a religion is expressed in its songs, and if you want to get at the heart of your Old Testament you find it in the hymnbook of the Hebrew nation the Psalter. It is indeed an interesting study to see what has been the influence of great hymns on the national life. There is an old proverb: “You may make the laws of the people, if you will let me write their ballads.” Where is there a man capable of measuring the influence of “How Firm a Foundation,” or “Come, Thou Fount,” or “Did Christ O’er Sinners Weep?” There is a rich literature on the influence of hymns on the life.
In the awful times of the struggle in England, Charles I against the Parliament, one faction of the nation held to ritualism, while the other followed spirituality, even to the extreme of not allowing any form, not even allowing any instruments of music. One of the finest stories of this period is the account of a church that observed the happy medium, using instrumental as well as vocal music, and congregational singing as well as the use of the choir; every sabbath somebody’s soul was melted in the power of that mighty singing. I can’t sing myself, but I can carry the tunes in my mind, and I can be more influenced by singing than by preaching. It was singing that convicted me of sin. It was on a waving, soaring melody of song that my soul was converted. I once knew a rugged, one-eyed, homely, old pioneer Baptist preacher, who looked like a pirate until his religion manifested itself, and then he was beautiful. I heard him one day when a telegram was put into his hand stating that his only son had just been killed by being thrown from a horse. While weeping, his face became illumined; he got up and clapped his hands and walked through that audience, singing, “O, Jesus, My Saviour, to Thee I Submit.”
John Bunyan wrote that song while in Bedford Jail. They had put him there to keep him from preaching, and looking out through the bars of the dungeon he saw his poor blind girl, Mary, begging bread, and he sat down and wrote that hymn. The effect of the old preacher’s singing John Bunyan’s song was a mighty revival.
The relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries is this: The purpose was the same. And so in New Testament times, Jesus recognized that if he wanted to revolutionize the world by evangelism he must do it with trained men. He did not insist that they be rich, great or mighty men. He did not insist that they be scholars. He called them from among the common people, and he kept them right with him for three years and a half, and diligently instructed them in the principles and spirit of his kingdom. He taught them in a variety of forms; in parables, in proverbs, in exposition, illustrating his teachings by miracles, and in hundreds of ways in order that they might be equipped to go out and lead the world to Christ. You cannot help being impressed with this fact: That the theological seminaries in Samuel’s time and in Christ’s time were intensely practical, the object being not to make learned professors, but to fill each one with electricity until you could call him a “live wire,” so that it burnt whoever touched it.
This is why I called Samuel a great man, and why in a previous discussion, counting the men as the peaks in a mountain range, sighting back from Samuel to Abraham, only one other peak comes into line of vision, and that is Moses.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the more important passages bearing on the schools of the prophets?
2. Distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office and illustrate by examples.
3. Distinguish between a prophet and a son of a prophet.
4. What is the meaning of prophet?
5. In what two periods of Hebrew history do we find the clearest notices of the school of prophets, what are the proofs of their persistence between these periods, and what is their influence on the nation?
6. Who was the founder of the first school of the prophets?
7. What scripture shows his headship?
8. What was the reason for such school in Samuel’s time?
9. What was the value of these schools of the prophets, and particularly in this case, and what illustration from modern instances?
10. What was the nature of that society, and what was the instruction given?
11. What was the relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XII
SAUL’S MURDEROUS PURSUIT OF DAVID
1Sa 19:18-22:23
Let us trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the clothes,” answering this fivefold question: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or the second commandment? (4) What the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Protestants and Romanists, and what the danger of their use even as a help toward the worship of God.
We find the first use of it in Gen 31:19 ; Gen 31:26 ; Gen 31:31 ; Gen 31:34 . That chapter shows how Jacob and his wives and children and property left his father-in-law, Laban, on their return to the Holy Land, and that Rachel stole her father’s “teraphim;” and when Laban pursues, as we find in the same chapter, it is one of his accusations against Jacob that he had stolen his household gods. Jacob invites him to make a search and Rachel puts them under a camel saddle and sits down on the saddle and won’t get up, and so Laban can’t find them. Then, in Gen 35:2 Jacob orders all of his family to put away those false gods.
The next use of the word comes in Judges 17-18. The history is this: Micah, in the days of the judges, makes to himself molten and graven images and teraphim and puts them in a separate room in his house, i.e., has a little temple, and consecrates his own son to be a priest, but eventually there comes along a Levite, who is a descendant of Moses through Gerghom, and Micah employs this Levite on a salary to be his priest and to conduct his worship through these images graven, molten and the teraphim, using an ephod. A little later the Danites on their migration capture all these household gods of Micah, and the priest as well. Micah pursues and complains that they robbed him of his gods. The Danites advise him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and in the meantime they capture Laish in the northern part of the Holy Land and set up these same images and use that same descendant of Moses with the ephod to seek Jehovah through those images. The next time we find the word is in this section, where Michal took a teraphim and put it in David’s bed and made it look like somebody asleep. The next usage of the word is found in 2Ki 23:24 , in the early part of the great reformation led by King Josiah, who, after the law of the Lord had been found, causes all Judah to put away the teraphim and everything that was contrary to the Mosaic law.
We find it next in order of time in Hos 3:4 , where a prediction is made that Israel for a long time shall be without king or ephod or teraphim, and the last use is in Eze 21:22-23 . Ezekiel in exile shows how the king of Babylon came to the forks of the road and used divinations, etc., by the use of teraphim.
The word is never used in a good sense. Jehovah appoints his own way of approach to him and of ascertaining the future) condemning the use of teraphim in approaching him. Even that passage in Hosea only shows that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews for a long time the present time included will have no king, no ephod, no teraphim. That is, they would in no sense be idolaters, and yet their worship of Jehovah for this long period including the present time will be empty and vain until just before the millennial times, when they in one day accept the long-rejected Messiah.
A teraphim is an image, but it is distinguished from graven or molten images in two particulars: (1) it is carved out of wood; (2) it always represented a human form, whereas the graven and molten images were always of metal and oftenest took the form of the lower animals, like the calf that Aaron made at Sinai, and the calves set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel. To make the distinction clearer by a passage in the New Testament, the image of the great goddess Diana at Ephesus (Act 19 ), which was said to have fallen down from heaven, was a teraphim; that is, was a wooden image in human form and a very ugly one, but the little silver shrines of the temple of Diana made by Demetrius, the silversmith, and other silversmiths, were either graven or molten images. Another distinction is that the graven and the molten images were oftenest worshiped as gods, the teraphim oftenest used as a method of approach to their gods, and both of them were violations of the Second Commandment.
The teraphim in David’s house was Micah’s, not David’s, as the stolen teraphim of Laban’s was Rachel’s and not Jacob’s. There is no evidence that either Jacob or David ever resorted to teraphim or favored their use.
Coming now to the last part of the question, one of the chief issues between the Protestants and the Romanists in the Reformation was that the Romanists multiplied images in their worship metallic or wooden images. For instance, an image of Jesus on the cross, an image of the virgin Mary, the cross itself, or the image of some saint when carved out of wood representing human form, were teraphim, but when they were made out of metal were graven or molten images. While the better and more learned class of the Romanists only use these images as objective aids to worship, the masses of the people become image worshipers, bowing down before the image of the virgin Mary and ascribing adoration to her and praying to her, and ascribing all the grace of salvation to her. Even the pope himself says, in one of his proclamations, that the fountain of all grace is in Mary. In this way they violate that fundamental declaration of our Lord that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The Greek word, eikon , an image, equals in sense the Hebrew word, ” teraphim, ” and other images, so when the Protestants, in their fury against what they called idolatry, would break up these images wherever they found them they were called “iconoclasts,” i.e., “breakers of images.” Hence, when Charles I wrote that famous book, Eikon , Oliver Cromwell demanded of Milton that he write a reply to it, and he named his reply Iconoclast, a breaker of the image. The image question is a big one in history. There is a relation to that teraphim of Michal and her wifely relation to David. It showed that while indeed she loved David when he was a prosperous man, she had no sympathy with his religion, nor was she willing to share his exile and its sufferings. She could never say to him what Ruth said to Naomi: “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor cease from following after thee; for where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be buried.” When David’s fortunes were eclipsed she readily enough consented to become the wife of another man, to whom her father gave her, and whom she loved more than she had ever loved David. When David, after he became king, sent for her to be returned to him, as we learn from 2Sa 3 , she came unwillingly, and at a still later date when David brought the ark of the covenant from Kirjathjearim to put it in Jerusalem and participated in the religious exercises of the day, Michal looked out of the window and saw him and despised him, and when he came in she broke out on him in scornful speech, mocking him for the part he had taken in that day’s religious service. When a wife differs so radically from her husband in his religion as Michal did, the marital relation is much affected by it.
The reconciliation of the declaration in 2Sa 6:23 that Michal to the day of her death had no children, with the declaration in 2Sa 21:8 that there were five sons of Michal, is this: In the second passage the word Michal should be Merab, the older sister of Michal, who was married to Adriel, the Meholathite, and bare him five sons who were gibbeted to appease the wrath of the Gibeonites.
Fleeing from Saul, David rightly seeks refuge with Samuel at Ramah, and Samuel took him to Naioth of Ramah. Being banished from the king, quite naturally and appropriately he sought the prophet, and when he came to Samuel, the prophet took him from Ramah to Naioth; that means the Seminary, buildings where the school of the prophets was assembled, as if we had said, “He went from Waco to Fort Worth and to Naioth of Fort Worth,” i.e., the Seminary of Fort Worth. That is a very important passage. It refers to the buildings in which the school of the prophets assembled for instruction. But Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifested itself in this place of refuge. Hearing that David was there, he sent messengers to take him, but when the messengers came within the orbit of influence of that school of the prophets the spirit of the prophets fell on the messengers and they prophesied. This happened three times in succession. Finally Saul came himself, and it fell on him so violently that he tore off his outer clothing and in an ecstasy of prophesying fell down in a trance before Samuel and remained in that helpless condition all night long.
The compliment to Naioth is this: A number of God’s people, together studying his word, filled with his Spirit, the spiritual atmosphere of the place becomes a bar against the approach of evil. The evil-minded who come to mock remain to pray. I have seen revival meetings get to such power that emissaries of the devil, children of Belial, who would come there to break up the meeting, would be overpowered by its force. That was notably illustrated in the early days of Methodism, and particularly in the rise of the Cumberland Presbyterians. My son has given a very vivid account of that time, and of how wicked men would be seized with jerks and finally fall helpless into a trance when they attended these revival meetings.
The main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection are as follows: Doubtless through Samuel’s advice, David, while Saul lay in that trance, left Naioth and went back to make another appeal to Jonathan. The reason that he did this was that Jonathan, in his first intercession in behalf of David, had succeeded in pacifying the wrath of his father toward him. Their meeting is graphically described in the text. There isn’t a more touching passage in any piece of history than Jonathan’s solemn promise that if his father meant evil that he would inform David, and the plan they arranged to test whether Jonathan’s second attempt would be successful.
With the Jews the new moon was a sabbath, no matter on what day of the week it came, and they had a festival, and there was one just ahead. On these new moon festivals all of the official household of Saul had to be present, so it was arranged that when Saul observed that David’s place was vacant at that festival and he made inquiry about it, Jonathan would say, “He asked me to give him permission to go to his brother’s house and partake in the new moon sacrifices at home with his family,” then if Saul manifested no anger, that would be a sign that David could return. So on the second day of the new moon festival, Saul looked around, and seeing David’s seat empty on such an important occasion, directly asked Jonathan where he was, and Jonathan told him, according to the arrangement made with David, at which Saul became furious against Jonathan and denounced him in awful language, and when Jonathan makes his last appeal, Saul hurls a Javelin at him. Jonathan, insulted, outraged, gets up and leaves the table and goes out and shows David that it will never do to return to Saul, that he must seek refuge elsewhere, and they renew their covenant. Jonathan says, “I know you will be king, and I will be next to you, and when you are king be good to my family.” We will have some sad history on that later, about whether David did fulfil his solemn pledge to Jonathan to be good to Jonathan’s family when David had the power.
David next seeks refuge at Nob, where the priests and the’ tabernacle were not the ark that was at Kirjathjearim but the priests were assembled in the village of Nob with the high priest. David came, and did not relate to the priests the malice of Saul toward him, but came worn out, exhausted, famished with hunger, and the priest gives him to eat of the shew bread, unlawful for any but a priest to eat. The priest inquires through the Ephod what David wants to find out from Jehovah, and gives to him the sword of Goliath. You know I gave you a direction to trace that sword of Goliath’s; to ascertain what became of it. It had been carried to the tabernacle at Nob, and the priest gave it to David. David left there because he saw a rascal in the crowd, Dog, the Automat, one of Saul’s “lick-spittle” followers, and he said to the high priest, “That fellow will tell all of this to Saul when he gets back home.”
The New Testament reference to that is when the Pharisees were springing questions on our Lord he showed them that the sabbath law, like other laws, always had exceptions in cases of judgment, mercy, and necessity. Though it be the sabbath day when a man found an ass crushed under his burden or an ox in the ditch, he must work to relieve that poor beast, so, while it was against the law for anybody but a priest to eat the shew bread, yet, in a case of necessity, David being famished, the priest did right to give him the shew bread and he did right to eat it.
What the result? We learn that when this Dog went back and told Saul, he sent for the whole family of the priests and they came, and he demanded why they had sheltered and fed his enemy and used the Ephod in his behalf. The high priest explained. Saul told him that everyone of them should die, but he could find no officer who would put them to death. It seemed to be sacrilegious, until Dog, this Automat, took great pleasure in killing all of them except one. Then Saul sent and destroyed, root and branch, women and children, the entire village and all the priests at Nob.
David’s next attempt to find a refuge failed, but he succeeded later. He went to Achish, the king of the Philistines at Gath, and they were not ready to greet him. They believed that he came upon an evil mission. They said he was the man that had brought all the ruin on the Philistines, concerning whom the women sang, “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” To preserve himself from the danger of death that threatened him he feigned madness, and so deceived the king. A North American Indian would have done the same thing. They never shoot or strike the insane, believing them under the hand of a spirit.
David’s next effort at self-protection was at the cave of Adullam, and the record states that everyone that was in distress or in debt or discontented gathered unto him and he became a captain over them. Quite a number of mighty men, the greatest fighters then known to the world, came to him. A company came to him from Judah and Benjamin; his father’s household came, fearing that Saul would destroy them, so that he organized a fighting force of 400 men that has never been equalled by the same number of men. A little later we will see that it had grown to 600 men by other accessions. All of them were heroes and great fighters. Then there came to him Abiathar, the last one of the high priest’s family when Saul had destroyed the village of Nob, and there came to him some of the prophets, especially Gad, who remains with him all the time, and who wrote a part of the history we are discussing.
So that cave was the scene of the change in the fortunes of David. It makes little difference now whether he stays in Judah or goes anywhere else with that crowd back of him; nobody is able to harm him. It was at this time that he took his father and mother, who were old and couldn’t move swiftly with his fighting force, over to Moab, across the Jordan, doubtless relying upon the fact that Ruth, the Moabitess, was an ancestress of his, and the king of Moab sheltered the father and mother of David; but Gad, the prophet, admonishes David to leave Moab and go back to Judah. God would take care of him in his own land if he trusted him, and so he went back to Judah.
In view of Moab’s kindness to David’s family, the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day, to the history of which we will come later. They say that the king of Moab murdered David’s father and mother who had been left in his charge, and that David swept them with fire and sword for it when he got to them.
The great sermons in our day which have been preached on this part of David’s career are: (1) Melville’s sermon on David’s feigning madness at the court of Achish. A remarkable sermon. (2) Spurgeon’s great sermon on the Cave of Adullam from the text, “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain over them.” Spurgeon used that to illustrate how a similar class of people gathered around Christ, and he became a captain over them. Everyone that was in debt, or distress, or sick, or poverty-stricken, whatever the ailment, or in despair about the affairs of life, came to Jesus and be became a captain over them. It is a great sermon.
QUESTIONS
1. Trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in chapter 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and puts a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the “clothes,” answering the following questions: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or second commandment? (4) What is the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Romanists and Protestants, and what the danger of their use, even as a help toward the worship of God.
2. What bearing has Michal’s teraphim on her wifely relation to David, and what the proofs in later times?
3. Fleeing from Saul, with whom does David rightly seek refuge, and what the distinction between Ramah and Naioth in 1Sa 19:18-19 ?
4. How does Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifest itself in this place of refuge, what the result, and what the compliment to Naioth?
5. Give the main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection, show why he resorted to it, and what the result.
6. With whom next does David seek refuge, what the main incidents, what the New Testament reference thereto, why did David leave that refuge, and what the results to the priests for sheltering him?
7. What was David’s next attempt to find a refuge, why did it fail this time but succeed later, what was David’s expedient to escape from the danger, and why did that expedient succeed?
8. What was David’s next effort at self-protection, what accessions came to him, and what was the result on his future fortunes?
9. In view of the Moab’s kindness to David’s family, how do the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day?
10. What great sermons in our day have been preached on this part of David’s career?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Sa 19:18 So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
Ver. 18. And came to Samuel to Ramah. ] For direction and comfort, which is to be had, if anywhere upon earth, in the communion of saints, in the company of good people. Here also, if anywhere in the land, he might hope to be safe under Samuel’s wing, and in a college of prophets, as in a sanctuary of safety. See 1Sa 10:5 , with the note.
And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
a Arist., De Mundo, cap. i.
b De Sophist. Elench., cap. i. partic. 6.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
to Samuel: 1Sa 7:17, 1Sa 15:34, 1Sa 28:3, Psa 116:11, Jam 5:16
Reciprocal: Psa 56:8 – tellest
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 19:18. David escaped and came to Samuel Both for comfort and direction in his distress, and for safety, supposing that Saul would be ashamed to execute his bloody designs in the presence of so venerable a person as Samuel. And told him all that Saul had done to him Which, while it afforded relief to the mind of David amidst his distress and trouble, could not but exceedingly grieve the mind of Samuel, to be informed how low Saul had fallen. He and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth Or, as the Chaldee renders it, The school of learning. This was that famous school or college of the prophets, which was dedicated to the study of the Jewish law, and was in all respects a religious seminary.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 19:18-24. David at Ramah (R).Of uncertain origin, probably late. Partly parallel to 1Sa 10:10 ff.
David takes refuge with Samuel at Naioth in Ramah. Naioth is apparently not a proper name, but if it is not, its meaning is quite unknown. It has been conjectured that it may have been the quarter of the town inhabited by the prophets. The contagious nature of this ecstatic prophecy is shown by the fact that, first Sauls messengers, and then Saul himself, are seized by it when they come to Naioth. [For 1Sa 19:24 b cf. 1Sa 10:11 f., another story as to the origin of the proverb.A. S. P.]
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
19:18 So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in {g} Naioth.
(g) Naioth was a school where the word of God was studied, near Ramah.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
B. David Driven out by Saul 19:18-20:42
The previous section of text (1Sa 16:1 to 1Sa 19:17) gave evidence that God was preparing David to become king. This one (1Sa 19:18 to 1Sa 20:42) narrates the events that resulted in the rift that separated Saul and David. There were two events that were especially significant: God’s overruling Saul’s hostility against David at Ramah (1Sa 19:18-24) and Jonathan’s failure to heal the breach between Saul and David (ch. 20).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. God’s deliverance in Ramah 19:18-24
How natural it was for David to seek refuge with the faithful prophet Samuel who resided less than an hour’s walk from Saul’s headquarters. Naioth was evidently a compound within Ramah where Samuel headed a school of prophets. The Hebrew word literally means "habitations." [Note: For extended notes on the schools of prophets, see Keil and Delitzsch, pp. 199-206, Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets, ch. V: "The Schools of the Prophets.," and Wood, The Prophets . . ., pp. 164-66.] God here rescued David, not by any human intermediary but directly by the overpowering influence of His Spirit. Prophesying involved praising the Lord (cf. 1Sa 10:10-13; 1Ch 25:1-3). Saul’s three groups of messengers, and even the king himself, ended up serving God rather than opposing Him. The Holy Spirit overrode the king’s authority. In 2Ki 1:9-16 King Ahaziah sent three groups of messengers to arrest Elisha, but the prophet called down fire from heaven and consumed the first two groups. The commander of the third group did not seek to oppose God’s anointed prophet and received mercy. Saul’s disrobing (1Sa 19:24) probably symbolized the loss of his regal dignity and status, as well as his personal dignity. [Note: Robert P. Gordon, "Saul’s Meningitis According to Targum 1 Samuel XIX 24," Vetus Testamentum 32:1 (January 1987):39.] Such a person was not fit to be king.
This reference to Saul’s prophesying (1Sa 19:23-24), which happened near the place where he prophesied shortly after his anointing (1Sa 10:12), became "an ironic comment on Saul’s life story." [Note: Baldwin, p. 134.] Saul had begun his reign with great potential plus God’s enabling Spirit, which resulted in his praising God (cf. 1Ch 25:1-3; 1Co 12:3). Yet now he was almost a raving madman. This passage does not support the theory that the prophets became ecstatic when they prophesied. Neither do 1Sa 18:10; 1Ki 18:29; 1Ki 22:10-12; 2Ki 9:1-12; Jer 29:26; Hos 9:7; or any other passages. [Note: See Wood, The Prophets . . ., pp. 40-56, 92-93.] Saul drove himself to the brink of insanity by refusing to submit to God, who still exercised sovereign control over him despite the king’s attempts to go his own way.
It is significant that this chapter closes with the repetition of the saying, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" This derogatory saying brackets the story of Saul’s contacts with Samuel and with the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Sa 10:11). It reminds the reader that Saul had the potential to be a great king because of Samuel and the Spirit’s resources that were available to him. The narrative that the two occurrences of this saying enclose explains Saul’s failure. He lost the opportunity to found a dynasty, he lost his own throne, and he lost his personal dignity because he refused to act like a prophet. That is, he refused to put the honor, glory, and will of God before his personal ambitions and pride.
". . . To question the genuineness of Saul’s prophetic behavior was to question his legitimacy as king of Israel . . ." [Note: Youngblood, p. 717.]
Saul lost the privilege of reigning, he became a vessel unto dishonor, he created problems for others, and he eventually destroyed himself. Another Saul, Saul of Tarsus, perhaps learning from the experiences of Saul of Gibeah, who may have been his namesake, feared the possibility that he might similarly disqualify himself (1Co 9:27). We must not confuse disqualification from service with loss of salvation. The former is possible for every believer, but the latter is not (cf. Rom 8:31-39).
The three instances of David’s deliverance in this chapter show how God preserved His anointed. He used both natural and supernatural means to do so. Since God has anointed Christians with His Spirit (1Jn 2:20), this record of how God preserves His anointed should be an encouragement to us.