Here we are officially introduced to David – or as Saul’s
servants describe him, “a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man
of good presence; and the LORD is with him” (16:18). Why is the LORD with him?
While we’re told that he is handsome like Saul, “the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on
the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7)
Those of us who know “the rest of the story” pick up on
other clues. As the youngest son, he fits a well-worn biblical pattern of
younger sons supplanting their older brothers. He’s a shepherd like Moses. He’s
Ruth’s great-grandson and a member of the tribe of Judah. He’s from Bethlehem. (When
Jesus is born 1000 years later, Luke takes pains to tell us that he’s born in
the “city of David,” i.e. Bethlehem.)
Perhaps the clearest sign of David’s leadership potential
is found in his confrontation with Goliath. Even though Saul calls him a boy,
David exhibits great bravery and skill. Even his choice of weapon (a
slingshot) gives him the advantages of mobility and surprise. He articulates
his faith clearly and publicly. He tells Saul that “the LORD, who saved me from
the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of
this Philistine” (17:37). Likewise, he tells Goliath: “This very day the LORD
will deliver you into my hand…so that all the earth may know that there is a
God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not save
by sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD’s and he will give you into our
hand” (17:46-47). Repeatedly in this account, the key to victory is not
physical strength or military might but the presence and favor of the LORD.
I and II Samuel go to great lengths to demonstrate that
David is not a mere usurper of Saul’s throne. Samuel seeks him out and anoints
him as the LORD’s anointed. David refuses Saul’s armor in fighting Goliath. He
doesn’t ask to be Saul’s son-in-law (and thereby in the line of succession to
the throne); the very notion is Saul’s idea. Nor does David take advantage of
his closeness with Saul’s son Jonathan. Repeatedly we’re told that Jonathan
loves him “as his own soul” (18:1). He willingly gives David his robe and
armor, as well as his sword, bow and belt. He is the one who initiates a
covenant of loyalty between them (which comes into play in II Samuel) and is
even willing to lie to his father in order to protect his friend.
Everyone who meets David seems to love him, at least at
first. Upon first meeting him, “Saul loved him greatly” (16:21). The people
quickly fall in love with him: “But all Israel and Judah loved David; for it
was he who marched out and came in leading them” (18:16). Jonathan obviously
loves him, as does his sister (and Saul’s daughter) Michal. In fact, Michal is
the only woman in the entire Hebrew Bible explicitly reported to love a man. (To
see where that love leads her, keep reading.)
As for Saul, we’re told: “Now the spirit of the LORD
departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him” (16:14). How
exactly does that work? In the narrator’s eyes, all things come from God – or at
least are subject to God’s control – including evil spirits. Our 21st
century eyes look at Saul and see more what looks like mental illness. Yet his
fear of David is not entirely delusional. David poses a very real threat to his
power, and certainly to his son’s Jonathan’s chances of succeeding him. He’s
absolutely right in telling Jonathan: “For as long as the son of Jesse lives
upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established” (20:31).
While Saul might be passive in fighting the Philistines
in these chapters, he’s far from passive in pursuing David. When putting him in
the line of Philistine fire and requiring a bride price of 100 Philistine
foreskins (!) for Michal’s hand doesn’t work, Saul takes matters into his own
hands. He hurls spears at David, sends assassins to his house, and then chases
after him when David runs off to Samuel in Ramah. Here “the spirit of God came
upon (Saul);” but instead of inspiring him to greatness, it leaves him in a
naked frenzy – and gives David the time he needs to escape. (This episode
appears to contradict the claim in 15:35 that Samuel died not see Saul again
until the day of his death; it may be a place where the editorial seams stitching
together various David traditions show.)
What do you make of David’s behavior in these chapters?
He plays his cards pretty close to the vest. While we’re told exactly what Saul
is thinking, many of David’s actions are left open to interpretation. How about
the LORD – how does God come across? Click on “comments” and join the
conversation!
It is an important lesson that David arises from obscurity. God recognizes that he is a born aristocrat, not an expensively-educated trust-fund baby bred to power with a sense of entitlement. Not only a shepherd boy—but the youngest brother, who would therefore not inherit title or estates. God seems to favor younger brothers, at least sometimes.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Jesus, though born in Bethlehem and of ancient noble lineage, is born in something like a first-century homeless shelter. In the present day, perhaps he would be born to a migrant worker, who would crouch in a field to deliver him, and then get on with her work, needing to earn even on that day.
At least one of David’s older brothers was, like David, strikingly handsome. (1 Sam. 16:6-7) But do we not know people whose appearance commends them, until we look again and listen closely, so that we experience a mask-like hollowness, or a manipulativeness, or a thinly-hidden malevolence? And do we not know people who appear attractive, despite ordinary features and form, but who glow from within with keenness and good spirit? Here is the text suggestive, that David’s “beautiful eyes” are windows opening into his soul? (1 Sam. 16:12)
Ch. 17 tells us that David’s eldest brother failed to see the merit in David, which the Lord had seen. “His eldest brother Eliab heard him talking to the men; and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David. He said, ‘Why have you come down [neglecting your sheep]…. I know your presumption and the evil in your heart.” (I see there a hint of the opposition which Jesus will face.) David, having opposed lions and bears, invokes God and defeats “this uncircumcised Philistine.” [The text has David killing Goliath twice, first with the stone and second with Goliath’s sword.]
ReplyDeleteIn ch. 18, it appears at the beginning that Jonathan’s friendship added to David’s powers. Jonathaeen stripped himself of his robe and weapons. David then prevailed spectacularly in battle. Saul’s jealousy was kindled as the women sang David’s praises. Saul then feared loss of his kingdom, and he tried to kill David. David continued to amass successes, Saul saw that the Lord was with David, and feared him increasingly.
In ch.19, Jonathan warns David that Saul plans to kill him. Saul relents, but soon tries again. Saul sees David as his enemy. (19:17) Jonathan repeatedly saves David. David at this time, aware of the destiny that the Lord decided for him, is playing a cautious game of staying alive.
Ch.20 brings us the love between David and Jonathan, witnessed, Jonathan says, by God. (20:23) At Saul’s table, Jonathan covers for David’s absence, angering Saul. Saul believes that Jonathan has placed his loyalty with David, yielding his kingdom (as Saul’s heir) to David—and throws his spear at Jonathan.
In these chapters I believe that David is proceeding rationally and diplomatically. Saul has been rejected by God but remains king, while knowing that the Lord favors David. Saul, ever eager to substitute his judgment for God’s, acts as though he still has kingly powers, including the apparent ability to create a dynasty. God has cast David into the lion’s den of Saul’s homicidal jealousy.
Jonathan’s love for David is so strong and selfless that he protects David, while having surrendered his own claim to the kingship. May we guess that God has provided Jonathan to safeguard David against Saul, so that David will not only survive--but by surviving, create his dynasty? (Remember Jesus’ genealogy.)