DAVID TWICE SPARES THE LIFE OF SAUL.
1Sa 24:1-22; 1Sa 26:1-25.
THE invasion of the Philistines had freed David from the fear of
Saul for a time, but only for a time. He knew full well that when
the king of Israel had once repelled that invasion he would return
to prosecute the object on which his heart was so much set. For a
while he took refuge among the rocks of Engedi, that beautiful spot
of which we have already spoken, and which has been embalmed in Holy
Writ, as suggesting a fair image of the Beloved One - "My beloved is
unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi" (Son
1:14). The mountains here and throughout the hill country of Judea
are mostly of limestone formation, abounding, like all such rocks,
in caverns of large size, in which lateral chambers run off at an
angle from the main cavity, admitting of course little or no light,
but such that a person inside, while himself unseen, may see what
goes on at the entrance to the cave. In the dark sides of such a
cave, David and his men lay concealed when Saul was observed by him
to enter and lie down, probably unattended, to enjoy the mid-day
sleep which the heat of the climate often demands. We cannot fail to
remark the singular providence that concealed from Saul at this time
the position of David. He had good information of his movements in
general; the treacherous spirit which was so prevalent, greatly
aided him in this; but on the present occasion, he was evidently in
ignorance of his situation. If only he had known, how easy it would
have been for him with his three thousand chosen men to blockade the
cave, and starve David and his followers into surrender!
The entrance of the king being noticed by David's men, they urged
their master to avail himself of the opportunity of getting rid of
him which was now so providentially and unexpectedly presented to
him. We can hardly think of a stronger temptation to do so than that
under which David now lay. In the first place, there was the
prospect of getting rid of the weary life he was leading, - more
like the life of a wild beast hunted by its enemies, than of a man
eager to do good to his fellows, with a keen relish for the
pleasures of home and an extraordinary delight in the services of
God's house. Then there was the prospect of wearing the crown and
wielding the sceptre of Israel, - the splendours of a royal palace,
and its golden opportunities of doing good. Further, there was the
voice of his followers urging him to the deed, putting on it a
sacred character by ascribing to it a Divine permission and
appointment. And still further, there was the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the opportunity. Nothing is more critical than a
sudden opportunity of indulging an ardent passion; with scarcely a
moment for deliberation, one is apt to be hurried blindly along, and
at once to commit the deed. With all his noble nature, Robert the
Bruce could not refrain from plunging his dagger into the heart of
the treacherous Comyn, even in the convent of the Minorite friars.
The discipline of David's spirit must at this time have been
admirable. Not only did he restrain himself, but he restrained his
followers too. He would neither strike his heartless enemy, nor
suffer another to strike him. On the first of the two occasions of
his sparing him - recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter - he might
naturally believe that his forbearance would turn Saul's heart and
end the unjust quarrel. On the second occasion of the same sort -
recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter - he could have had no hope of
the kind. It was a pure sense of duty that restrained him. He acted
in utter contempt of what was personal and selfish, and in deepest
reverence for what was holy and Divine. How different from the
common spirit of the world! Young people, who are so ready to keep
up a sense of wrong, and wait an opportunity of paying back your
schoolfellows, study this example of David. Ye grown men, who could
not get such-a-one to vote for you, or to support your claim in your
controversy, and who vowed that you would never rest till you had
driven him from the place, how does your spirit compare with that of
David? Ye statesmen, who have received an affront from some
barbarous people, utterly ignorant of your ways, and who forthwith
issue your orders for your ships of war to scatter destruction among
their miserable villages, terrifying, killing, mutilating, no matter
how many of the wretches that have no arms to meet you in fair fight
- think of the forbearance of David. And think too of many passages
in the New Testament that give the idea of another treatment and
another species of victory: - "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger,
feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt
heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but
overcome evil with good."
The special consideration that held back the arm of David from
killing Saul was that he was the Lord's anointed. He held the office
of king by Divine appointment, - not merely as other kings may be
regarded as holding it, but as God's lieutenant, called specially,
and selected for the office. For David to remove him would be to
interfere with the Divine prerogative. It would be so much the more
inexcusable as God had many other ways of removing him, any one of
which He might readily employ. "David said furthermore, As the Lord
liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or
he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I
should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed."
Let us briefly follow the narrative on each of the two occasions.
First, when David saw Saul asleep at the entrance of the cave near
Engedi, he crept towards him as he lay, and removed a loose piece of
his garment. When Saul rose up and proceeded on his way, David
boldly followed him, believing that after sparing the king's life he
was safe from attack either from him or his people. His respectful
salutation, drawing the king's attention, was followed by an act of
profound obeisance. David then addressed Saul somewhat elaborately,
his address being wholly directed to the point of disabusing the
king's mind of the idea that he had any plot whatever against his
life. His words were very respectful but at the same time bold.
Taking advantage of the act of forbearance which had just occurred,
he demanded of the king why he listened to men's words, saying,
Behold, David seeketh thy hurt. He protested that for himself
nothing would induce him to stretch forth his hand against the
Lord's anointed. That very day, he had had the chance, but he had
forborne. His people had urged him, but he would not comply. There
was the skirt of his garment which he had just cut off: it would
have been as easy for him, when he did that, to plunge his sword
into the heart of the king. Could there be a plainer proof that Saul
was mistaken in supposing David to be actuated by murderous or other
sinful feelings against him? And yet Saul hunted for his life to
take it. Rising still higher, David appealed to the great Judge of
all, and placed the quarrel in His hands. To vary the case, he
quoted a proverb to the effect that only where there was wickedness
in the heart could wickedness be found in the life. Then, with the
easy play of a versatile mind, he put the case in a comical light:
did it become the great king of Israel to bring his hosts after one
so insignificant - "after a dead dog, after a flea"? Was ocean to be
tossed into tempest "to waft a feather or to drown a straw"? Once
more, and to sum up the whole case, he appealed solemnly to God,
virtually invoking His blessing on whoever was innocent in this
quarrel, and calling down His wrath and destruction on the party
that was really guilty.
The effect on Saul was prompt and striking. He was touched in his
tenderest feelings by the singular generosity of his opponent. He
broke down thoroughly, welcomed the dear voice of David, "lifted up
his voice and wept." He confessed that he was wrong, that David had
rewarded him good and he had rewarded David evil. David had given
him that day a convincing proof of his integrity; though it seemed
that the Lord had delivered him into his hand, he killed him not. He
had reversed the principle on which men were accustomed to act when
they came upon an enemy, and had him in their power. And all these
acknowledgments of David's superior goodness Saul made, while
knowing well and frankly owning that David should be the king, and
that the kingdom should be established in his hand. One favour only
Saul would beg of David in reference to that coming time - that he
would not massacre his family, or destroy his name out of his
father's house - a request which it was easy for David to comply
with. Never would he dream of such a thing, however common it was in
these Eastern kingdoms. David sware to Saul, and the two parted in
peace.
How glad David must have been that he acted as he did! Already his
forbearance has had a full reward. It has drawn out the very best
elements of Saul's soul; it has placed Saul in a light in which we
can think of him with interest, and even admiration. How can this be
the man that so meanly plotted for David's life when he sent him
against the Philistines? that gave him his daughter to be his wife
in order that he might have more opportunities to entangle him? that
flung the murderous javelin at his head? that massacred the priests
and destroyed their city simply because they had shown him kindness?
Saul is indeed a riddle, all the more that this generous fit lasted
but a very short time; and soon after, when the treacherous Ziphites
undertook to betray David; Saul and his soldiers came again to the
wilderness to destroy him.
It has been thought by some, and with reason, that something more
than the varying humour of Saul is necessary to account for his
persistent efforts to kill David. And it is believed that a clue to
this is supplied by expressions of which David made much use, and by
certain references in the Psalms, which imply that to a great extent
he was the victim of calumny, and of calumny of a very malignant and
persistent kind. In the address on which we have commented David
began by asking why Saul listened to men’s words, saying, Behold,
David seeketh thy life? And in the address recorded in the
twenty-sixth chapter (1Sa 26:19) David says very bitterly, "If they
be the children of men that have stirred thee up against me, cursed
be they before the Lord; for they have driven me out this day from
abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go, serve other
gods." Turning to the seventh Psalm, we find in it a vehement and
passionate appeal to God in connection with the bitter and murderous
fury of an enemy, who is said in the superscription to have been
Gush the Benjamite. The fury of that man against David was
extraordinary. Deliver me, O Lord, "lest he tear my soul like a
lion, rending it in pieces when there is none to deliver." It is
plain that the form of calumny which this man indulged in was
accusing David of ''rewarding evil to him that was at peace with
him," an accusation not only not true, but outrageously contrary to
the truth, seeing he had "delivered him that without cause was his
enemy." It is not unlikely therefore that at Saul's court David had
an enemy who had the bitterest enmity to him, who never ceased to
poison Saul's mind regarding him, who put facts in the most
offensive light, and even after the first act of David's generosity
to Saul not only continued, but continued more ferociously than ever
to inflame Saul's mind, and urge him to get rid of this intolerable
nuisance. What could have inspired Gush, or indeed any one, with
such a hatred to David we cannot definitely say; much of it was due
to that instinctive hatred of holy character which worldly men of
strong will show in every age, and perhaps not a little to the
apprehension that if David did ever come to the throne, many a
wicked man, now fattening on the spoils of the kingdom through the
favour of Saul, would be stript of his wealth and consigned to
obscurity.
It would seem, then, that had Saul been left alone he would have
left David alone. It was the bitter and incessant plotting of
David's enemies that stirred him up. Jealousy was only too active a
feeling in his breast, and it was easy to work upon it, and fill him
with the idea that, after all, David was a rebel and a traitor.
These things David must have known; knowing them, he made allowance
for them, and did not suffer his heart to become altogether cold to
Saul. The kindly feelings which Saul expressed when he dismissed
from his view all the calumnies with which he had been poisoned, and
looked straight at David, made a deep impression on his rival, and
the fruit of them appeared in that beautiful elegy on Saul and
Jonathan, which must seem a piece of hypocrisy if the facts we have
stated be not kept in view: “Saul and Jonathan were pleasant and
lovely in their lives, and in their death they were not divided."
In the second incident, recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter, when
David again spared the life of Saul, not much more needs to be said.
Some critics would hold it to be the same incident recorded by
another hand in some earlier document consulted by the writer of 1
Samuel, containing certain variations such as might take place at
the hand of a different historian. But let us observe the
differences of the two chapters, (1) The scene is different; in the
one case it is near Engedi, in the other in the wilderness, near the
hill Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon. (2) The place where Saul
was asleep is different; in the one case a cave; in the other case a
camp, protected by a trench. (3) The trophy carried off by David was
different; in the one case the skirt of his garment, in the other a
spear and cruse of water. (4) The position of David when he made
himself known was different; in the one case he went out of the cave
and called after Saul; in the other he crossed a gully and spoke
from the top of a crag. (5) His way of attracting attention was
different; in the one case he spoke directly to Saul, in the other
he rallied Abner, captain of the host, for failing to protect the
person of the king. But we need not proceed further with this list
of differences. Those we have adverted to are enough to repel the
assertion that there were not two separate incidents of the same
kind. And surely if the author was a mere compiler, using different
documents, he might have known if the incidents were the same. If it
be said that we cannot believe that two events so similar could have
happened, that this is too improbable to be believed, we may answer
by referring to similar cases in the Gospels, or even in common
life. Suppose a historian of the American civil war to describe what
took place at Bull Run. First he gives an account of a battle there
between the northern and southern armies, some incidents of which he
describes. By-and-bye he again speaks of a battle there, but the
incidents he gives are quite different. Our modern critics would say
it was all one event, but that the historian, having consulted two
accounts, had clumsily written as if there had been two battles. We
know that this fancy of criticism is baseless. In the American civil
war there were two battles of Bull Run between the same contending
parties at different times. So we may safely believe that there were
two instances of David's forbearance to Saul, one in the
neighbourhood of Engedi, the other in the neighbourhood of Ziph.
And all that needs to be said further respecting the second act of
forbearance by David is that it shines forth all the brighter
because it was the second, and because it happened so soon after the
other. We may see that David did not put much trust in Saul's
profession the first time, for he did not disband his troop, but
remained in the wilderness as before. It is quite possible that this
displeased Saul. It is also possible that that inveterate false
accuser of David from whom he suffered so much would make a great
deal of this to Saul, and would represent to him strongly that if
David really was the innocent man he claimed to be, after receiving
the assurance he got from him he would have sent his followers to
their homes, and returned in peace to his own. That he did nothing
of the kind may have exasperated Saul, and induced him to change his
policy, and again take steps to secure David, as before.
Substantially, David's remonstrance with Saul on this second
occasion was the same as on the first. But at this tune he gave
proof of a power of sarcasm which he had not shown before. He rated
Abner on the looseness of the watch he kept of his royal master, and
adjudged him worthy of death for not making it impossible for anyone
to come unobserved so near the king, and have him so completely in
his power. The apology of Saul was substantially the same as before;
but how could it have been different? The acknowledgment of what was
to happen to David was hardly so ample as on the last occasion.
David doubtless parted from Saul with the old conviction that
kindness was not wanting in his personal feelings, but that the evil
influences that were around him, and the fits of disorder to which
his mind was subject, might change his spirit in a single hour from
that of generous benediction to that of implacable jealousy.
But now to draw to a close. We have adverted to that high reverence
for God which was the means of restraining David from lifting up his
hand against Saul, because he was the Lord's anointed. Let us now
notice more particularly what an admirable spirit of self-restraint
and patience David showed in being willing to bear all the risk and
pain of a most distressing position, until it should please God to
bring to him the hour of deliverance. The grace we specially commend
is that of waiting for God's time. Alas! into how many sins, and
even crimes, have men been betrayed through unwillingness to wait
for God's time! A young man embarks in the pursuits of commerce; but
the gains to be derived from ordinary business come in far too
slowly for him; he makes haste to be rich, engages in gigantic
speculation, plunges into frightful gambling, and in a few years
brings ruin on himself and all connected with him. How many sharp
and unhandsome transactions continually occur just because men are
impatient, and wish to hurry on some consummation which their hearts
are set on! Nay, have not murders often taken place just to hasten
the removal of some who occupied places that others were eager to
fill? And how often are evil things done by those who will not wait
for the sanction of honourable marriage?
But even where no act of crime has been committed, impatience of
God's time may give rise to many an evil feeling that does not go
beyond one's own breast. Many a son who will succeed to an
inheritance on the death of his father, or of some other relative,
is tempted to wish, more or less consciously, for an event the last
to be desired by a filial heart. You may say, it is human nature;
how could anyone help it? The example of David shows how one may
help it. The heart that is profoundly impressed with the excellence
of the Divine will, and the duty and privilege of loyally accepting
all His arrangements, can never desire to anticipate that will in
any matter, great or small. For how can any good come in the end
from forcing forward arrangements out of the Divine order? If, for
the moment, this brings any advantage in one direction, it is sure
to be followed by far greater evils in another. Do we all realize
the full import of our prayer when we say, "Thy will be done on
earth as it is in heaven"? Of one thing you may be very sure, there
is no impatience in heaven for a speedier fulfillment of desirable
events than the will of God has ordained. There is no desire to
force on the wheels of Providence if they do not seem to be moving
fast enough. So let it be with us. Let us fix it as a first
principle in our minds, as an immovable rule of our lives, that as
God knows best how to order His providence, so any interference with
Him is rash and perilous, and wicked too; and with reference both to
events which are not lawfully in our hands, and the time at which
they are to happen, let us realize it as alike our duty and our
interest to say to God, in the spirit of full and unreserved
trust-"Not our will, but Thine be done."
|