After the rejection of Saul, the Lord commanded Samuel the prophet to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse's sons as king; and when he went to carry out this commission, He pointed out David, the youngest of eight sons, as the chosen one, whereupon the prophet anointed him (vers. 1-13). Through the overruling providence of God, it came to pass after this, that David was brought to the court of Saul, to play upon the harp, and so cheer up the king, who was troubled with an evil spirit (vers. 14-23).
Vers. 1-13. Anointing of David. — Ver. 1. The words in which God summoned Samuel to proceed to the anointing of another king, u How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, whom I have rejected, that he may not be king over Israel?" show that the prophet had not yet been able to reconcile himself to the hidden ways of the Lord; that he was still afraid that thfe people and kingdom of God would suffer from the rejection of Saul; and that he continued to mourn for Saul, not merely from his own personal attachment to the fallen king, but also, or perhaps still more, from anxiety for the welfare of Israel. He was now to put an end to this mourning, and to fill his horn with oil and go to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for the Lord had chosen a king from among his sons. — Ver. 2. But Samuel replied, " How shall I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me" This fear on the part of the prophet, who did not generally show himself either hesitating or timid, can only be explained, as we may see from ver. 14, on the supposition that Saul was already given up to the power of the evil spirit, so that the very worst might be dreaded from his madness, if he discovered that Samuel had anointed another king. That there was some foundation for Samuel's anxiety, we may infer from the fact that the Lord did not blame him for his fear, but pointed out the way by which he might anoint David without attracting attention (vers. 2, 3). u Take a young heifer with thee, and say (sc. if any one ask the reason for your going to Bethlehem), / am come to sacrifice to the hordV There was no untruth in this, for Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival^ and was to invite Jesse's family to it, and then anoint the one whom Jehovah should point out to him as the chosen one. It was simply a concealment of the principal object of his mission from any who might make inquiry about it, because they themselves had not been invited. u There was no dissimulation or falsehood in this, since God really wished His prophet to find safety under the pretext of the sacrifice. A sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was protected thereby, so that he was not exposed to any danger until the time of full revelation arrived" (Calvin). — Ver. 4. When Samuel arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the city came to meet him in a state of the greatest anxiety, and asked him whether his coming was peace, or promised good. The singular "IDfcfr may be explained on the ground that one of the elders spoke for the rest. The anxious inquiry of the elders presupposes that even in the time of Saul the prophet Samuel was frequently in the habit of coming unexpectedly to one place and another, for the purpose of reproving and punishing wrong-doing and sin. — Yer. 5. Samuel quieted them with the reply that he was come to offer sacrifice to the Lord, and called upon them to sanctify themselves and take part in the sacrifice. It is evident from this that the prophet was accustomed to turn his visits to account by offering sacrifice, and so building up the people in fellowship with the Lord. The reason why sacrifices were offered at different places was, that since the removal of the ark from the tabernacle, this sanctuary had ceased to be the only place of the nation's worship. ^r!i?ri'?> to sanctify one's self by washings and legal purifications, which probably preceded every sacrificial festival (vid. Ex. xix. 10, 22). The expression, " Come with me to the sacrifice" is constructlo praegnans for " Come and take part in the sacrifice." " Call to the sacrifice" (ver. 3) is to be understood in the same way. I"QT is the slain-offering, which was connected with every sacrificial meal. It is evident from the following words, " and he sanctified Jesse and his sons" that Samuel addressed the general summons to sanctify themselves more especially to Jesse and his sons. For it was with them that he was about to celebrate the sacrificial meal. — Vers. 6 sqq. When they came, sr. to the sacrificial meal, which was no doubt held in Jesse's house, after the sacrifice hud been presented upon an altar, and when Samuel saw the eldest son Eliab, who was tall and handsome according to ver. 7, " he thought (lit. he said, sc. in his heart), Surely His anointed is before Jehovah" i.e. surely the man is now standing before Jehovah whom He hath chosen to be His anointed. But Jehovah said to him in the spirit, " Look not at his form and the height of his stature, for I have rejected him: for not as man seeth (sc. do I see); for man look'eth at the eyes, and Jehovah looheth at the heart." The eyes, as contrasted with the heart, are figuratively employed to denote the outward form. — Vers. 8 sqq. When Jesse thereupon brought up his other sons, one after another, before Samuel, the prophet said in the case of each, " This also Jehovah hath not chosen." As Samuel must be the subject to the verb ^®W] in vers. 8-10, we may assume that he had communicated the object of his coming to Jesse. — Ver. 11. After the seventh had been presented, and the Lord had not pointed any one of them out as the chosen one, " Samuel said to Jesse, Are these all the hoys V When Jesse replied that there was still the smallest, i.e. the youngest, left, and he was keeping the sheep, he directed him to fetch him; u for," said he, " we will not sit down till he has come hither." 22D? to surround, sc. the table, upon which the meal was arranged. This is implied in the context. — Vers. 12, 13. When David arrived, — and he was ruddy, also of beautiful eyes and good looks ("V^Ens, used to denote the reddish colour of the hair, which was regarded as a mark of beauty in southern lands, where the hair is generally black. SV is an adverb here = therewith), and therefore, so far as his looks and figure were concerned, well fitted, notwithstanding his youth, for the office to which the Lord had chosen him, since corporeal beauty was one of the outward distinctions of a king, — the Lord pointed him out to the prophet as the chosen one; whereupon he anointed him in the midst of his brethren. Along with the anointing the Spirit of Jehovah came upon David from that day forward. But Samuel returned to Raman when the sacrificial meal was over. There is nothing recorded concerning any words of Samuel to David at the time of the anointing and in explanation of its meaning, as in the case of Saul (ch. x. 1). In all probability Samuel said nothing at the time, since, according to ver. 2, he had good reason for keeping the matter secret, not only on his own account, but still more for David's sake; so that even the brethren of David who were present knew nothing about the meaning and object of the anointing, but may have imagined that Samuel merely intended to consecrate David as a pupil of the prophets. At the same time, we can hardly suppose that Samuel left Jesse, and even David, in uncertainty as to the object of his mission, and of the anointing which he had performed. He may have communicated all this to both of them, without letting the other sons know. It by no means follows, that because David remained with his father and kept the sheep as before, therefore his calling to be king must have been unknown to him; but only that in the anointing which he had received he did not discern either the necessity or obligation to appear openly as the anointed of the Lord, and that after receiving the Spirit of the Lord in consequence of the anointing, he left the further development of the matter to the Lord in childlike submission, assured that He would prepare and show him the way to the throne in His own good time.
Vers. 14-23. David's Introduction to the Court of Saul. — Ver. 14. With the rejection of Saul on the part of God, the Spirit of Jehovah had departed from him, and an evil spirit from Jehovah had come upon him, who filled him with fear and anguish. The " evil spirit from Jehovah " which came into Saul in the place of the Spirit of Jehovah, was not merely an inward feeling of depression at the rejection announced to him, which grew into melancholy, and occasionally broke out in passing fits of insanity, but a higher evil power, which took possession of him, and not only deprived him of his peace of mind, but stirred up the feelings, ideas, imagination, and thoughts of his soul to such an extent that at times it drove him even into madness. This demon is called " an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah" because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment, or "an evil spirit of God" {Elohim: ver. 15), or briefly u a spirit of God" (Elohim), or u the evil spirit" (ver. 23, compare ch. xviii. 10), as being a supernatural, spiritual, evil power; but never u the Spirit of Jehovah," because this is the Spirit proceeding from the holy God, which works upon men as the spirit of strength, wisdom, and knowledge, and generates and fosters the spiritual or divine life. The expression ny-} njrv nn (ch. xix. 9) is an abbreviated form for njn! ^D nyn rm, and is to be interpreted accordingly. — Ver.
15. When Saul's attendants, i.e. his officers at court, perceived the mental ailment of the king, they advised him to let the evil spirit which troubled him be charmed away by instrumental music. u Let our lord speak (command); thy servants are before thee {i.e. ready to serve thee): they will seek a man skilled in playing upon the harp; so will it be well with thee when an evil spirit of God comes upon thee, and he (the man referred to) plays with his hand." The powerful influence exerted by music upon the state of the mind was well known even in the earliest times; so that the wise men of ancient Greece recommended music to soothe the passions, to heal mental diseases, and even to check tumults among the people. From the many examples collected by Grotius, Clericus, and more especially Bochart in the Hieroz. P. i. 1. 2, c. 44, we will merely cite the words of Censorinus (de die natali, c. 12): u Pythagoras ut animum sua semper divinitate imbueret, priusquam se somno daret et cum esset expergitus, cithara ut ferunt cantare consueverat, et Asclepiades medicus phreneticorum mentes morbo turbatas swpe per symphoniam suce natural reddidit? — Vers. 17, 18. When Saul commanded them to seek out a good player upon a stringed instrument in accordance with this advice, one of the youths (D"ny^ a lower class of court servants) said, " / have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, skilled in playing, and a brave man, and a man of war, eloquent, and a handsome man, and Jehovah is with him? The description of David as " a mighty man " and ua man of war" does not presuppose that David had already fought bravely in war, but may be perfectly explained from what David himself afterwards affirmed respecting his conflicts with lions and bears (ch. xvii. 34, 35). The courage and strength which he had then displayed furnished sufficient proofs of heroism for any one to discern in him the future warrior.— Vers. 19, 20. Saul thereupon sent to ask Jesse for his son David; and Jesse sent him with a present of an ass's burden of bread, a bottle of wine, and a buck-kid. Instead of the singular expression Drp *iton, an ass with bread, i.e. laden with bread, the LXX. read Dn? Iph^ and rendered it <y6fiop dprcov; but this is certainly wrong, as they were not accustomed to measure bread in bushels. These presents show how simple were the customs of Israel and in the court of Saul at that time. — Ver. 21. When David came to Saul and stood before him, i.e. served him by playing upon his harp, Saul took a great liking to him, and nominated him his armour-bearer, i.e. his adjutant, as a proof of his satisfaction with him, and sent to Jesse to say, " Let David stand before me" i.e. remain in my service, " for he has found favour in my sight." The historian then adds (ver. 23): " When the (evil) spirit of God came to Saul (?K, as in ch. xix. 9, is really equivalent to?V), and David took the harp and played, there came refreshing to Saul, and he became well, and the evil spirit departed from him." Thus David came to Saul's court, and that as his benefactor, without Saul having any suspicion of David's divine election to be king of Israel. This guidance on the part of God was a school of preparation to David for his future calling. In the first place, he was thereby lifted out of his quiet and homely calling in the country into the higher sphere of court-life; and thus an opportunity was afforded him not only for intercourse with men of high rank, and to become acquainted with the affairs of the kingdom, but also to display those superior gifts of his intellect and heart with which God had endowed him, and thereby to gain the love and confidence of the people. But at the same time he was also brought into a severe school of affliction, in which his inner man was to be trained by conflicts from without and within, so that he might become a man after God's heart, who should be well fitted to found the true monarchy in Israel.
A war between the Philistines and the Israelites furnished David with the opportunity of displaying before Saul and all Israel, and greatly to the terror of the enemies of his people, that heroic power which was firmly based upon his bold and pious trust in the omnipotence of the faithful covenant God (vers. 1-3). A powerful giant, named Goliath, came forward from the ranks of the Philistines, and scornfully challenged the Israelites to produce a man who would decide the war by a single combat with him (vers. 4-11). David, who had returned home for a time from the court of Saul, and had just been sent into the camp by his father with provisions for his elder brothers who were serving in the army, as soon as he heard the challenge and the scornful words of the Philistine, offered to fight with him (vers. 15-37), and killed the giant with a stone from a sling; whereupon the Philistines took to flight, and were pursued by the Israelites to Gath and Ekron (vers. 38-54).
Vers. 1-11. Some time after David first came to Saul for the purpose of playing, and when he had gone back to his father to Bethlehem, probably because Saul's condition had improved, the Philistines made a fresh attempt to subjugate the Israelites. They collected their army together (machaneJi, as in Ex. xiv. 24, Judg. iv. 16) to war at Shochoh, the present Shuweikeh, in the Wady Sumt, three hours and a half to the south-west of Jerusalem, in the hilly region between the mountains of Judah and the plain of Philistia (see at Josh. xv. 35), and encamped betwTeen Shochoh and Azekah, at Ephes-dammim, which has been preserved in the ruins of Damu?n, about an hour and a half east by north of Shuweikeh; so that Azekah, which has not yet been certainly traced, must be sought for to the east or north-east of Damum (see at Josh. x. 10). — Vers. 2, 3. Saul and the Israelites encamped opposite to them in the terebinth valley (Emek ha-Elah), i.e. a plain by the Wady Musuvy and stood in battle array opposite to the Philistines, in such order that the latter stood on that side against the mountain (on the slope of the mountain), and the Israelites on this side against the mountain; and the valley (N^n? the deeper cutting made by the brook in the plain) was between them. — Vers. 4 sqq. And the (well-known) champion came out of the camps of the Philistines (&^?n B^K, the middle-man, who decides a war between two armies by a single combat; Luther, " the giant," according to the avrjp Bvvaros of the LXX., although in ver. 23 the Septuagint translators have rendered the word correctly avrjp 6 afieaaaios, which is probably only another form of o neaaloi)) named Goliath of Gath, one of the chief cities of the Philistines, where there were Anakim still left, according to Josh. xi. 22. His height was six cubits and a span (6£ cubits), i.e., according to the calculation made by Thenius, about nine feet two inches Parisian measure, — a great height no doubt, though not altogether unparalleled, and hardly greater than that of the great uncle of Iren, who came to Berlin in the year 1857 (see Pentateuch, vol. iii. p. 303, note).1 The armour
1 According to Pliny (Ji. n. vii. 16), the giant Pusio and the giantess Secundilla, who lived in the time of Augustus, were ten feet three inches of Goliath corresponded to his gigantic stature: " a helmet of brass upon his head, and clothed in scale armour, the weight of which was Jive thousand shekels of brass." The meaning scales is sustained by the words n^'Pr'i? in Lev. xi. 9, 10, and Deut. xiv. 9, 10, and nippfc'j? in Ezek! xxix. 4. D^i^p |**1B>, therefore, is not 6u)pa% aXvo-i&coros (LXX.), a coat of mail made of rings worked together like chains, such as were used in the army of the SeleucidaB (1 Mace. vi. 35), but according to Aquila's (f>oXc- Scotov (scaled), a coat made of plates of brass lying one upon another like scales, such as we find upon the old Assyrian sculptures, where the warriors fighting in chariots, and in attendance upon the king, wear coats of scale armour, descending either to the knees or ankles, and consisting of scales of iron or brass, which were probably fastened to a shirt of felt or coarse linen (see Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 335). The account of the weight, 5000 shekels, i.e. according to Thenius, 148 Dresden pounds, is hardly founded upon the actual weighing of the coat of mail, but probably rested upon a general estimate, which may have been somewhat too high, although we must bear in mind that the coat of mail not only covered the chest and back, but, as in the case of the Assyrian wrarriors, the lower part of the body also, and therefore must have been very large and very heavy.1 — Ver. 6. And u greaves of brass upon his feet, and a brazen lance (hung) between his shoulders" i.e. upon his back. tfTO signifies a lance, or small spear. The LXX. and Vulgate, however, adopt the rendering aairU ^aXfcrj, clypeus ceneus; and Luther has followed them, and translates
(Roman) in height; and a Jew is mentioned by Josephus(J./^. xviii. 4, 5), who was seven cubits in height, i.e. ten Parisian feet, or if the cubits are Roman, nine and a half.
1 According to Thenius, the cuirass of Augustus the Strong, which has been preserved in the historical museum at Dresden, weighed fifty-five pounds; and from that he infers, that the weight given as that of Goliath's coat of mail is by no means too great. Ewald, on the other haud, seems to have no idea of the nature of the Hebrew weights, or of the bodily strength of a man, since he gives 5000 lbs. of brass as the weight of Goliath's coat of mail (Gesch. iii. p. 90), and merely observes that the pounds were of course much smaller than ours. But the shekel did not even weigh so much as our full ounce. With such statements as these you may easily turn the historical character of the scriptural narrative into incredible myths; but they cannot, lay any claim to the name of science.
it a brazen shield. Thenius therefore proposes to alter JiT3 into |30, because the expression " between his shoulders " does not appear applicable to a spear or javelin, which Goliath must have suspended by a strap, but only to a small shield slung over his back, whilst his armour-bearer carried the larger H3¥ in front of him. But the difficulty founded upon the expression " between his shoulders'''' has been fully met by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 2, c. 8), in the examples which he cites from Homer, Virgil, etc., to prove that the ancients carried their own swords slung over their shoulders (a^l S' oo/jlolctlv: II. ii. 45, etc.). And Josephus understood the expression in this way (Ant. vi. 9,- 1). Goliath had no need of any shield to cover his back, as this was sufficiently protected by the coat of mail. Moreover, the allusion to the ff7*2 in ver. 45 points to an offensive weapon, and not to a shield. — Ver. 7. u And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver s beam, and the point of it six hundred shekels of iron'' (about seventeen pounds). For yn, according to the Keri and the parallel passages, 2 Sam. xxi. 19, 1 Chron. xx. 5, we should read YV, wood, i.e. sl shaft. Before him went the bearer of the zinnah, i.e. the great shield. — Ver. 8. This giant stood and cried to the ranks of the Israelites, " Why come ye out to place yourselves in battle array? Am I not the Philistine, and ye the servants of Said? Choose ye out a man who may come down to me" (into the valley where Goliath was standing). The meaning is: " Why would you engage in battle with us? I am the man who represents the strength of the Philistines, and ye are only servants of Saul. If ye have heroes, choose one out, that we may decide the matter in a single combat." — Ver. 9. " If he can fight with me, and kill me, we will be your servants; if I overcome him, and slay him, ye shall be our servants, and serve us." He then said still further (ver. 10), " 1 have mocked the ranks of Israel this day (the mockery consisted in his designating the Israelites as servants of Saul, and generally in the triumphant tone in which he issued the challenge to single combat); give me a man, that we may fight together /" — Ver. 11. At these words Saul and all Israel were dismayed and greatly afraid, because not one of them dared to accept the challenge to fight with such a giant.
Vers. 12-31. DavioVs arrival in the camp, and wish to fight with Goliath. — David had been dismissed by Saul at that time,
Till] FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL
and having returned home, he was feeding his father's sheep once more (vers. 12-15). Now, when the Israelites were standing opposite to the Philistines, and Goliath was repeating his challenge every day, David was sent by his father into the camp to bring provisions to his three eldest brothers, who were serving in Saul's army, and to inquire as to their welfare (vers. 16-19). He arrived when the Israelites had placed themselves in battle array; and running to his brethren in the ranks, he saw Goliath come out from the ranks of the Philistines, and heard his words, and also learned from the mouth of an Israelite what reward Saul would give to any one who would defeat this Philistine (vers. 20-25). He then inquired more minutely into the matter; and having thereby betrayed his own intention of trying to fight with him (vers. 26, 27), he was sharply reproved by his eldest brother in consequence (vers. 28, 29). He did not allow this to deter him, however, but turned to another with the same question, and received a similar reply (ver. 30); whereupon his words were told to the king, who ordered David to come before him (ver. 31). This is, in a condensed form, the substance of the section, which introduces the conquest of Goliath by David in the character of an episode. This first heroic deed was of the greatest importance to David and all Israel, for it was David's first step on the way to the throne, to which Jehovah had resolved to raise him. This explains the fulness and circumstantiality of the narrative, in which the intention is very apparent to set forth most distinctly the marvellous overruling of all the circumstances by God himself. And this circumstantiality of the account is closely connected with the form of the narrative, which abounds in repetitions, that appear to us tautological in many instances, but which belong to the characteristic peculiarities of the early Hebrew style of historical composition.1
1 On account of these repetitions and certain apparent differences, the LXX. (Cod. Vat.) have omitted the section from ver. 12 to ver. 31, and also that from ver. 55 to ch. xviii. 5; and on the ground of this omission, Houbigant, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Dathe, Bertheau, and manyothers, have pronounced both these sections later interpolations; whereas the more recent critics, such as De Wette, Thenius, Evvald, Bleek, Stiihelin, and others, reject the hypothesis that they are interpolations, and infer from the supposed discrepancies that ch. xvii. and xviii. were written by some one who was ignorant of the facts mentioned in ch. xvi., and was
Vers. 12-15 are closely connected with the preceding words, u All Israel was alarmed at the challenge of the Philistine; but David the son of that Ephratite {Ephratite, as in Ruth i. 1, 2) of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse" etc. The verb and predicate do not follow till ver. 15; so that the words occur here in the form of an anacolouthon. The traditional introduction of the verb fvn between TYTj and K*N"|3 (David was the son of that Ephratite) is both erroneous and misleading. If the words were to be understood in this way, rpn could no more be omitted here than HJVn in 2 Chron. xxii. 3, 11. The true explanation is rather, that vers. 12—15 form one period expanded by parentheses, and that the historian lost sight of altogether a different person from the author of this chapter. According to ch. xvi. 21 sqq., they say, David was Saul's armour-bearer already, and his family connections were well known to the king, whereas, according to ch. xvii. 15, David was absent just at the time when he ought as armourbearer to have been in attendance upon Saul; whilst in ch. xvii. 33 he is represented as a shepherd boy who was unaccustomed to handle weapons, and as being an unauthorized spectator of the war, and, what is still more striking, even his lineage is represented in vers. 55 sqq. as unknown both to Abner and the king. Moreover, in ver. 12 the writer introduces a notice concerning David with which the reader must be already well acquainted from ch. xvi. 5 sqq., and which is therefore, to say the least, superfluous; and in ver. 54 Jerusalem is mentioned in a manner which does not quite harmonize with the history, whilst the account of the manner in which he disposed of Goliath's armour is apparently at variance with ch. xxi. 9. But the notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one. Again, the assertion that these sections cannot well be reconciled with ch. xvi., and emanated from an author who was unacquainted with the history in ch. xvi., is overthrown by the unquestionable reference to ch. xvi. which we find in ver. 12, " David the son of that Ephratite," — where Jerome has correctly paraphrased n-TH, de quo supra dictum est, — and also by the remark in ver. 15, that David went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem. Neither of these can be pronounced interpolations of the compiler, unless the fact can be established that the supposed discrepancies are really well founded. But it by no means follows, that because Saul loved David on account of the beneficial effect which his playing upon the harp produced upon his mind, and appointed him his armour-bearer, therefore David had really to carry the king's armour in time of war. The appointment of armour-bearer was nothing more than conferring upon him the title of aide-de-camp, from which it cannot be the construction with which he commenced in the intermediate clauses; so that he started afresh with the subject 1H1 in ver. 15, and proceeded with what he had to say concerning David, doing this at the same time in such a form that what lie writes is attached, so far as the sense is concerned, to the parenthetical remarks concerning Jesse's eldest sons. To bring out distinctly the remarkable chain of circumstances by which David was led to undertake the conflict with Goliath, he links on to the reference to his father certain further notices respecting David's family and his position at that time. Jesse had eight sons and was an old man in the time of Saul. Es^'jN3 N3, " come among the weak" B^JK generally means, no doubt, inferred that David had already become well known to the king through the performance of warlike deeds. If Joab, the commander-in-chief, had ten armour-bearers (2 Sam. xviii. 15, compare ch. xxiii. 37), king Saul would certainly have other armour-bearers besides David, and such as were well used to war. Moreover, it is not stated anywhere in ch. xvi. that Saul took David at the very outset into his regular and permanent service, but, according to ver. 22, he merely asked his father Jesse that David might stand before him, i.e. might serve him; and there is no contradiction in the supposition, that when his melancholy left him for a time, he sent David back to his father to Bethlehem, so that on the breaking out of the war with the Philistines he was living at home and keeping sheep, whilst his three eldest brothers had gone to the war. The circumstance, however, that when David went to fight with Goliath, Saul asked Abner his captain, "Whose son is this youth?'1 and Abner could give no explanation to the king, so that after the defeat of Goliath, Saul himself asked David, " Whose son art thou?" (vers. 55-58), can hardly be comprehended, if all that Saul wanted to ascertain was the name of David's father. For even if Abner had not troubled himself about the lineage of Saul's harpist, Saul himself could not well have forgotten that David was a son of the Bethlehemite Jesse. But there was much more implied in Saul's question. It was not the name of David's father alone that he wanted to discover, but what kind of man the father of a youth who possessed the courage to accomplish so marvellous a heroic deed really was; and the question was put not merely in order that he might grant him an exemption of his house from taxes as the reward promised for the conquest of Goliath (ver. 25), but also in all probability that he might attach such a man to his court, since he inferred from the courage and bravery of the son the existence of similar qualities in the father. It is true that David merely replied, u The son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem;" but it is very evident from the expression in ch. xviii. 1, " when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul," that Saul conversed with him still further about his family affairs, since the very words imply a lengthened conversation. The other difficulties are very trivial, and will be answered in connection with the exposition of the passages in question.
people or men. But this meaning does not give any appropriate sense here; and the supposition that the word has crept in through a slip of the pen for D"W?, is opposed not only by the authority of the early translators, all of whom read W'jN, but also by the circumstance that the expression O^BQ *03 does not occur in the whole of the Old Testament, and that tfBJ? Ki3 alone is used with this signification. — Ver. 13. " The three great (i.e. eldest) sons of Jesse had gone behind Saul into the war." ttpn, which appears superfluous after the foregoing wjlj has been defended by Bottcher, as necessary to express the pluperfect, which the thought requires, since the imperfect consec. rf*l, when attached to a substantive and participial clause, merely expresses the force of the aorist. Properly, therefore, it reads thus: " A nd then (in Jesse's old age) the three eldest sons followed, had followed, Saul;" a very ponderous construction indeed, but quite correct, and even necessary, with the great deficiency of forms, to express the pluperfect. The names of these three sons agree with ch. xvi. 6-9, whilst the third, Shammah, is called Shimeah (p^OW) in 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, \Mpfc> in 2 Sam. xxi. 21, and K$D0 in 1 Chron. ii. 13, xx. 7.— Ver. 15. " But David was going and returning away from, Saul;" i.e. he went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem; so that he was not in the permanent service of Saul, but at that very time was with his father. The latter is to be supplied from the context. — Ver. 16. The Philistine drew near (to the Israelitish ranks) morning and evening, and stationed himself for forty days (in front of them). This remark continues the description of Goliath's appearance, and introduces the account which follows. Whilst the Philistine was coming out every day for forty days long with his challenge to single combat, Jesse sent his son David into the camp. " Take now for thy brethren this ephah of parched grains (see Lev. xxiii. 14), and these ten loaves, and bring them quickly into the camp to thy brethren." — Ver. 18. u And these ten slices of soft cheese (so the ancient versions render it) bring to the chief captain over thousand, and visit thy brethren to inquire after their welfare, and bring with you a pledge from them" — a pledge that they are alive and well. This seems the simplest explanation of the word BflsnV, of which very different renderings were given by the early translators. — Ver. 19. " But Saul and they
(the brothers), and the whole of the men of Israel, are in the terebinth valley" etc. This statement forms part of Jesse's words. — Vers. 20, 21. In pursuance of this commission, David went in the morning to the waggon-rampart, when the army, which was going out (of the camp) into battle array, raised the war-cry, and Israel and the Philistines placed themselves battle-array against battle-array. 'U1 7J\%X\ is a circumstantial clause, and the predicate is introduced with WVTj, as 'W >)nrn is placed at the head absolutely: " and as for the army which, etc., it raised a shout" norpEQ yin Ut. to make a noise in war, i.e. to raise a war-cry. — Ver. 22. David left the vessels with the provisions in the charge of the keeper of the vessels, and ran into the ranks to inquire as to the health of his brethren. — Ver. 23. Whilst he was talking with them, the champion (middte-man) Goliath drew near, and spoke according to those words (the words contained in vers. 8 sqq.), and David heard it. '?Q ^"•V^P is probably an error for '5>a Hfcn$BD (Keri, LXX., Vulgi; cf. ver. 26). If the Chethibh were the proper reading, it would suggest an Arabic word signifying a crowd of men (Dietrich on Ges. Lex.). — Vers. 24, 25. All the Israelites fled from Goliath, and were sore afraid. They said (^b^ t^N is a collective noun), " Have ye seen this man who is coming? (DriWH, with Dagesh dirim. as in ch. x. 24.) Surely to defy Israel is he coming; and whoever shall slay him, the king will enrich him with great wealth, and give him his daughter, and make his father s house (i.e. his family) free in Israel," viz. from taxes and public burdens. There is nothing said afterwards about the fulfilment of these promises. But it by no means follows from this, that the statement is to be regarded as nothing more than an exaggeration, that had grown up among the people, of what Saul had really said. There is all the less probability in this, from the fact that, according to ver. 27, the people assured him again of the same thing. In all probability Saul had actually made some such promises as these, but did not feel himself bound to fulfil them afterwards, because he had not made them expressly to David himself. — Ver. 26. When David heard these words, he made more minute inquiries from the bystanders about the whole matter, and dropped some words which gave rise to the supposition that he wanted to go and fight with this Philistine himself. This is implied in the words, u For who is the Philistine, this uncircumcised one (i.e. standing as he does outside the covenant with Jehovah), that he insults the ranks of the living God!''' whom he has defied in His army. " He must know," says the Berleburger Bible, u that he has not to do with men, but with God. With a living God he will have to do, and not with an idol." — Yer. 28. David's eldest brother was greatly enraged at his talking thus with the men, and reproved David: " Why hast thou come down (from Bethlehem, which stood upon high ground, to the scene of the war), and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the desert? " " Those few sheep" the loss of only one of which would be a very great loss to our family. " 1 know thy presumption, and the wickedness of thy heart; for thou hast come down to look at the war;" i.e. thou art not contented with thy lowly calling, but aspirest to lofty things; it gives thee pleasure to look upon bloodshed. Eliab sought for the splinter in his brother's eye, and was not aware of the beam in his own. The very things with which he charged his brother — presumption and wickedness of heart — were most apparent in his scornful reproof. — Vers. 29, 30. David answered very modestly, and so as to put the scorn of his reprover to shame: " What have I done, then? It was only a word" — a very allowable inquiry certainly. He then turned from him (Eliab) to another who was standing by; and having repeated his previous words, he received the same answer from the people. — Ver. 31. David's words were told to Saul, who had him sent for immediately.
Vers. 32-40. David! s resolution to fight with Goliath; and his equipment for the conflict — Ver. 32. When in the presence of Saul, David said, "Let no man's heart (i.e. courage) fail on his account (on account of the Philistine, about whom they had been speaking): thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine."— Vers. 33 sqq. To Saul's objection that he, a mere youth, could not fight with this Philistine, a man of war from his youth up, David replied, that as a shepherd he had taken a sheep out of the jaws of a lion and a bear, and had also slain them both. The article before *1K and 3fa points out these animals as the well-known beasts of prey. By the expression inrnnsi the bear is subordinated to the lion, or rather placed afterwards, as something which came in addition to it; so that AN is to be taken as a nota accus. (vid. Ewald, § 277, a), though it is not to be understood as implying that the lion and the bear went together in search of prey. The subordination or addition is merely a logical one: not only the lion, but also the bear, which seized the sheep, did David slay. nt, which we find in most of the editions since the time of Jac. Chayim, 1525, is an error in writing, or more correctly in hearing, for fib, a sheep. " And I went out after it; and when it rose up against me, I seized it by its beard, and smote it, and killed it." |i?T, beard and chin, signifies the bearded chin. Thenius proposes, though without any necessity, to alter iJjJT3 into titTUS, for the simple but weak reason, that neither lions nor bears have any actual beard. We have only to think, for example, of the \l<; rjvyevetos in Homer (II. xv. 275, xvii. 109), or the barbam vellere mortuo leoni of Martial (x. 9). Even in modern times we read of lions having been killed by Arabs with a stick (see Iiosenmliller, Bill. Althk. iv. 2, pp. 132-3). The constant use of the singular suffix is sufficient to show, that when David speaks of the lion and the bear, he connects together two different events, which took place at different times, and then proceeds to state how he smote both the one and the other of the two beasts of prey. — Ver. 36. " Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear; and the Philistine, this uncircumcised one, shall become like one of them (i.e. the same thing shall happen to him as to the lion and the bear), because he has defied the ranks of the living God." " And," he continued (ver. 37), " the Lord who delivered me out of the hand (the power) of the lion and the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine." David's courage rested, therefore, upon his confident belief that the living God would not let His people be defied by the heathen with impunity. Saul then desired for him the help of the Lord in carrying out his resolution, and bade him put on his own armour-clothes, and gird on his armour. VTO (his clothes) signifies probably a peculiar kind of clothes which were worn under the armour, a kind of armour-coat to which the sword was fastened. — Vers. 39, 40. When he was thus equipped with brazen helmet, coat of mail, and sword, David began to walk, but soon found that he could do nothing with these. He therefore said to Saul, " I cannot go in these things, for I have not tried them;" and having taken them off, he took his shepherd's staff in his hand, sought out five smooth stones from the brook-valley, and put them in the shepherd's thing that he had, namely his shepherd's bag. He then took the sling in his hand, and went up to the Philistine. In the exercise of his shepherd's calling he may have become so skilled in the use of the sling, that, like the Benjaminites mentioned in Judg. xx. 16, he could sling at a hair's-breadth, and not miss.
Vers. 41-54. David and Goliath: fall of Goliath, and flight of the Philistines. — Ver. 41. The Philistine came closer and closer to David. — Vers. 42 sqq. When he saw David, u he looked at him, and despised him" i.e. he looked at him contemptuously, because he was a youth (as in ch. xvi. 12); " and then said to him. Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with sticks? " (the plural rivpD is used in contemptuous exaggeration of the armour of David, which appeared so thoroughly unfit for the occasion); " and cursed David by his God (i.e. making use of the name of Jehovah in his cursing, and thus defying not David only, but the God of Israel also), and finished with the challenge. Come to me, and I will give thy flesh to the birds of heaven and the beasts of the field" (to eat). It was with such threats as these that Homer's heroes used to defy one another (vid. Hector's threat, for example, in II. xiii. 831-2). — Vers. 45 sqq. David answered this defiance with bold, believing courage: " Thou comest to me with sword, and javelin, and lance; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of Sabaoth, the God of the ranks of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will Jehovah deliver thee into my hand; and I shall smite thee, and cut off thine head, and give the corpse of the army of the Philistines to the birds this day.... And all the world shall learn that Israel hath a God; and this whole assembly shall discover that Jehovah bringeth deliverance (victory) not by sword and spear: for war belongeth to Jehovah, and He will give you into our hand." Whilst Goliath boasted of his strength, David founded his own assurance of victory upon the Almighty God of Israel, whom the Philistine had defied. *UB is to be taken collectively. ^*jW E^rfrj* B* does not mean " God is for Israel," but " Israel hath a God," so that Elohim is of course used here in a pregnant sense. This God is Jehovah; war is his, i.e. He is the Lord of war, who has both war and its results in His power. — Vers. 48, 49. When the Philistine rose up, drawing near towards David (D|J and ^ simply serve to set forth the occurrence in a more pictorial manner), David hastened and ran to the battle array to meet him, took a stone out of his pocket, hurled it, and hit the Philistine on his temples, so that the stone entered them, and Goliath fell upon his face to the ground. — Ver. 50 contains a remark by the historian with reference to the result of the conflict: u Thus was David stronger than the Philistine, with sling and stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him without a sword in his hand." And then in ver. 51 the details are given, namely, that David cut off the head of the fallen giant with his own sword. Upon the downfall of their hero the Philistines were terrified and fled; whereupon the Israelites rose up with a cry to pursue the flying foe, and pursued them uto a valley, and to the gates of Ekron." The first place mentioned is a very striking one. The " valley " cannot mean the one which divided the two armies, according to ver. 3, not only because the article is wanting, but still more from the facts themselves. For it is neither stated, nor really probable, that the Philistines had crossed that valley, so as to make it possible to pursue them into it again. But if the word refers to some other valley, it seems very strange that nothing further should be said about it. Both these circumstances render the reading itself, fcOJ, suspicious, and give great probability to the conjecture that fcW is only a copyist's error for Gath, which is the rendering given by the LXX., especially when taken in connection with the following clause, u to Gath and to Ekron " (ver. 52). — Ver. 52. " And wounded of the Philistines fell on the way to Shaaraim, and to Gath and to Ekron" Shaaraim is the town of Saarayim, in the lowland of Judah, and has probably been preserved in the Tell Kefr Zakariya (see at Josh. xv. 36). On Gath and Ekron, see at Josh. xiii. 3. — Ver. 53. After returning from the pursuit of the flying foe, the Israelites plundered the camp of the Philistines. ^ns p?iy to pursue hotly, as in Gen. xxxi. 36.^- Ver. 54. But David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem, and put his armour in his tent. AiN is an antiquated term for a dwelling-place, as in ch. iv. 10, xiii. 2, etc. The reference is to David's house at Bethlehem, to which he returned with the booty after the defeat of Goliath, and that by the road which ran past Jerusalem, where he left the head of Goliath. There is no anachronism in these statements; for the assertion made by some, that Jerusalem was not yet in the possession of the Israelites, rests upon a confusion between the citadel of Jebus upon Zion, which was still in the hands of the Jebusites, and the city of Jerusalem, in which Israelites had dwelt for a long time (see at Josh. xv. 63, and Judg. i. 8). Nor is there any contradiction between this statement and ch. xxi. 9, where Goliath's sword is said to have been preserved in the tabernacle at Nob: for it is not affirmed that David kept Goliath's armour in his own home, but only that he took it thither; and the supposition that Goliath's sword was afterwards deposited by him in the sanctuary in honour of the Lord, is easily reconcilable with this. Again, the statement in ch. xviii. 2, to the effect that, after David's victory over Goliath, Saul did not allow him to return to his father's house any more, is by no means at variance with this explanation of the verse before us. For the statement in question must be understood in accordance with ch. xvii. 15, viz. as signifying that from that time forward Saul did not allow David to return to his father's house to keep the sheep as he had done before, and by no means precludes his paying brief visits to Bethlehem.
David's victory over Goliath was a turning-point in his life, which opened the way to the throne. But whilst this heroic deed brought him out of his rural shepherd life to the scene of Israel's conflict with its foes, and in these conflicts Jehovah crowned all his undertakings with such evident success, that the Israelites could not fail to discern more and more clearly in him the man whom God had chosen as their future king; it brought him, on the other hand, into such a relation to the royal house, which had been rejected by God, though it still continued to reign, as produced lasting and beneficial results in connection with his future calling. In the king himself, from whom the Spirit of God had departed, there was soon stirred up such jealousy of David as his rival to whom the kingdom would one day come, that he attempted at first to get rid of him by stratagem; and when this failed, and David's renown steadily increased, he proceeded to open hostility and persecution. On the other hand, the heart of Jonathan clung more and more firmly to David with self-denying love and sacrifice. This friendship on the part of the brave and noble son of the king, not only helped David to bear the more easily all the enmity and persecution of the king when plagued by his evil spirit, but awakened and strengthened in his soul that pure feeling of unswerving fidelity towards the king himself, which amounted even to love of his enemy, and, according to th6 marvellous counsel of the Lord, contributed greatly to the training of David for his calling to be a king after God's own heart. In the account of the results which followed David's victory over Goliath, not only for himself but also for all Israel, the friendship of Jonathan is mentioned first (ver. 55-ch. xviii. 5); and this is followed by an account of the growing jealousy of Saul in its earliest stages (vers. 6-30).
Ch. xvii. 55-xviii. 5. Jonathans friendship. — Vers. 55-58. The account of the relation into which David was brought to Saul through the defeat of Goliath is introduced by a supplementary remark, in vers. 55, 56, as to a conversation which took place between Saul and his commander-in-chief Abner concerning David, whilst he was fighting with the giant. So far, therefore, as the actual meaning is concerned, the verbs in vers. 55 and 56 should be rendered as pluperfects. When -Saul saw the youth walk boldly up to meet the Philistine, he asked Abner whose son he was; whereupon Abner assured him with an oath that he did not know. In our remarks concerning the integrity of this section (p. 177) we have already observed, with regard to the meaning of the question put by Saul, that it does not presuppose an actual want of acquaintance with the person of David and the name of his father, but only ignorance of the social condition of David's family, with which both Abner and Saul may hitherto have failed to make themselves more fully acquainted.1 — Vers. 57, 58, When David returned u from the slaughter of the Philistine" i.e. after the defeat of Goliath, and when Abner, who probably went as commander to meet the brave hero and congratulate him upon his victory, had brought him to Saul, the king addressed the same question to David, who immediately gave him the information he desired. For it is evident that David said more than is
1 The common solutions of this apparent discrepancy, such as that Saul pretended not to know David, or that his question is to be explained on the supposition that his disease affected his memory, have but little probability in them, although Karkar still adheres to them.
here communicated, viz. "the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite," as we have already observed, from the words of ch. xviii. 1, which presuppose a protracted conversation between Saul and David. The only reason, in all probability, why this conversation has not been recorded, is that it was not followed by any lasting results either for Jesse or David.
Ch. xviii. 1-5. The bond of friendship which Jonathan formed with David was so evidently the main point, that in ver. 1 the writer commences with the love of Jonathan to David, and then after that proceeds in ver. 2 to observe that Saul took David to himself from that day forward; whereas it is very evident that Saul told David, either at the time of his conversation with him or immediately afterwards, that he was henceforth to remain with him, i.e. in his service. " Ttie soul of Jonathan bound itself (lit. chained itself; cf. Gen. xliv. 30) to DavioVs soul, and Jonathan loved him as his soul." The Chethibh ton&w with the suffix i attached to the imperfect is very rare, and hence the Keri ^3n$W (yid. Ewald, § 249, b, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 469). ^B9? to return to his house, viz. to engage in his former occupation as shepherd. — Ver. 3. Jonathan made a covenant (i.e. a covenant of friendship) and (i.e. with) David, because he loved him as his soul. — Ver. 4. As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armour. Meil, the upper coat or cloak. Maddim is probably the armour coat (vid. ch. xvii. 39). This is implied in the word ^V), which is repeated three times, and by which the different arms were attached more closely to VTO. For the act itself, compare the exchange of armour made by Glaucus and Diomedes (Horn. II. vi. 230). This seems to have been a common custom in very ancient times, as we meet with it also among the early Celts (see Macpherson's Ossian). — Ver. 5. And David went out, sc. to battle; whithersoever Saul sent him, he acted wisely and prosperously (^3^!, as in Josh. i. 8: see at Deut. xxix. 8). Saul placed him above the men of war in consequence, made him one of their commanders; and he pleased all the people, and the servants of Saul also, i.e. the courtiers of the king, who are envious as a general rule.
Vers. 6-16. SauFs jealousy towards David.1 — Saul had no
1 The section vers. 6-14 is supposed by Thenius and others to have been taken by the compiler from a different source from the previous one, and sooner attached the conqueror of Goliath to his court, than he began to be jealous of him. The occasion for his jealousy was the celebration of victory at the close of the war with the Philistines. — Vers. 6, 7. " When they came," i.e. when the warriors returned with Saul from the war, " when (as is added to explain what follows) David returned from the slaughter" i.e. from the war in which he had slain Goliath, the women came out of all the towns of Israel, " to singing and dancing" i.e. to celebrate the victory with singing and choral dancing (see the remarks on Ex. xv. 20), u to meet king Saul with tambourines, with joy, and with triangles." nnvw is used here to signify expressions of joy, a fete, as in Judg. xvi. 23, etc. The striking position in which the word stands, viz. between two musical instruments, shows that, the word is to be understood here as referring specially to songs of rejoicing, since according to ver. 7 their playing was accompanied with singing. The women who " sported" (rripnb>B)? i.e. performed mimic dances, sang in alternate choruses (" answered" as in Ex. xv. 21), " Saul hath slain not to have been written by the same author: (1) because the same thing is mentioned in vers. 13, 14, as in ver. 5, though in a somewhat altered form, and vers. 10, 11 occur again in ch. xix. 9, 10, with a few different words, and in a more appropriate connection; (2) because the contents of ver. 9, and the word mrOD in ver. 10, are most directly opposed to vers.
2 and 5. On these grounds, no doubt, the LXX. have not only omitted the beginning of ver. 6 from their version, but also vers. 9-11. But the supposed discrepancy between vers. 9 and 10 and vers. 2 and 5, — viz. that Saul could not have kept David by his side from attachment to him, or have placed him over his men of war after several prosperous expeditions, as is stated in vers. 2 and 5, if he had looked upon him with jealous eyes from the very first day, or if his jealousy had broken out on the second day in the way described in vers. 10, 11, — is founded upon two erroneous assumptions; viz. (1) that the facts contained in vers. 1-5 were contemporaneous with those in vers. 6-14; and (2) that everything contained in these two sections is to be regarded as strictly chronological. But the fact recorded in ver. 2, namely, that Saul took David to himself, and did not allow him to go back to his father's house any more, occurred unquestionably some time earlier than those mentioned in vers. 6 sqq. with their consequences. Saul took David to himself immediately after the defeat of GolLath, and before the war had been brought to an end. But the celebration of the victory, in which the paean of the women excited jealousy in Saul's mind, did not take place till the return of the people and of the king at the close of the war. How long the war lasted we do not know; but from the fact that the Israelites pursued the flying Philistines to Gath his thousands, and David his ten thousands." — Ver. 8. Saul was enraged at this. The words displeased him, so that he said, u They have given David ten thousands, and to me thousands, and there is only the kingdom more for him'''' {i.e. left for him to obtain). " In this foreboding utterance of Saul there was involved not only a conjecture which the result confirmed, but a deep inward truth: if the king of Israel stood powerless before the subjugators of his kingdom at so decisive a period as this, and a shepherd boy came and decided the victory, this was an additional mark of his rejection" (O. v. Gerlach). — Ver. 9. From that day forward Saul was looking askance at David, })V, a denom. verb, from \)V, an eye, looking askance, is used for \f}V (Keri). — Vers. 10, 11. The next day the evil spirit fell up6n Saul (" the evil spirit of God" see at ch. xvi. 14), so that he raved in his house, and threw his javelin at David, who played before him u as day by day," but did not hit him, because David turned away before him twice. N^? does not and Ekron, and then plundered the camp of the Philistines after that (ch. j xvii. 52, 53), it certainly follows that some days, if not weeks, must have elapsed between David's victory over Goliath and the celebration of the triumph, after the expulsion of the Philistines from the land. Thus far the events described in the two sections are arranged in their chronological order; but for all the rest the facts are arranged antithetically, according to their peculiar character, whilst the consequences, which reached further than the facts that gave rise to them, and were to some extent contemporaneous, are appended immediately to the facts themselves. Thus David's going out whithersoever Saul sent him (ver. 5) may indeed have commenced during the pursuit of the flying Philistines; but it reached far beyond this war, and continued even while Saul was looking upon him with jealous eyes. Ver. 5 contains a general remark, with which the historian brings to a close one side of the relation between David and Saul, which grew out of David's victory. He then proceeds in ver. 6 to give the other side, and rounds off this paragraph also (vers. 14—16) with a general remark, the substance of which resembles, in the main, the substance of ver. 5. At the same time it implies some progress, inasmuch as the delight of the people at the acts performed by David (ver. 5) grew into love to David itself. This same progress is also apparent in ver. 13 (" Saul made him captain over a thousand"), as compared with ver. 5 (" Saul set him over the men of war "). Whether the elevation of David into a captain over a thousand was a higher promotion than his appointment over the men of war, or the latter expression is to be taken as simply a more general or indefinite term, denoting his promotion to the rank of commander-inchief, is a point which can hardly be determined with certainty.
mean to prophesy in this instance, but u to raver This use of the word is founded upon the ecstatic utterances, in which the supernatural influence of the Spirit of God manifested itself in the prophets (see at ch. x. 5).?t?J5, from ^D, he hurled the javelin, and said (to himself), " / will pierce David and the vjall." With such force did he hurl his spear; but David turned away from him, i.e. eluded it, twice. His doing so a second time presupposes that Saul hurled the javelin twice; that is to say, he probably swung it twice without letting it go out of his hand, — a supposition which is raised into certainty by the fact that it is not stated here that the javelin entered the wall, as in ch. xix. 10. But even with this view?& is not to be changed into?t9*, as Thenius proposes, since the verb /BJ cannot be proved to have ever the meaning to swing. Saul seems to have held the javelin in his hand as a sceptre, according to ancient custom. — Vers. 12, 13. u And Saul was afraid of David, because the Spirit of Jehovah was with him, and had departed from Saul;" he u removed him therefore from him" i.e. from his immediate presence, by appointing him chief captain over thousand. In this fear of David on the part of Saul, the true reason for his hostile behaviour is pointed out with deep psychological truth. The fear arose from the consciousness that the Lord had departed from him, — a consciousness;vhich forced itself involuntarily upon him, and drove him to make the attempt, in a fit of madness, to put David to death. The fact that David did not leave Saul immediately after this attempt upon his life, may be explained not merely on the supposition that he looked upon this attack as being simply an outburst of momentary madness, which would pass away, but still more from his firm believing confidence, which kept him from forsaking the post in which the Lord had placed him without any act of his own, until he saw that Saul was plotting to take his life, not merely in these fits of insanity, but also at other times, in calm deliberation (yid. ch. xix. 1 sqq.). — Vers. 14 sqq. As chief commander over thousand, he went out and in before the people, i.e. he carried out military enterprises, and that so wisely and prosperously, that the blessing of the Lord rested upon all he did. But these successes on David's part increased Saul's fear of him, whereas all Israel and Judah came to love him as their leader. David's success in all that he took in hand compelled Saul to promote him; and his standing with the people increased with his promotion. But as the Spirit of God had departed from Saul, this only filled him more and more with dread of David as his rival. As the hand of the Lord was visibly displayed in David's success, so, on the other hand, Saul's rejection by God was manifested in his increasing fear of David.
Vers. 17-30. Craftiness of Saul in the betrothal of his daughters to David. — Vers. 17 sqq. As Saul had promised to give his daughter for a wife to the conqueror of Goliath (ch. xvii. 25), he felt obliged, by the growing love and attachment of the people to David, to fulfil this promise, and told him that he was ready to do so, with the hope of finding in this some means of destroying David. He therefore offered him his elder daughter Merab with words that sounded friendly and kind: " Only be a brave man to me, and wage the wars of the Lord." He called the wars with the Philistines a wars of Jehovah," i.e. wars for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God, to conceal his own cunning design, and make David feel all the more sure that the king's heart was only set upon the welfare of the kingdom of God. Whoever waged the wars of the Lord might also hope for the help of the Lord. But Saul had intentions of a very different kind. He thought (" said," sc. to himself), " My hand shall not be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him;" i.e, I will not put him to death; the Philistines may do that. When Saul's reason had returned, he shrank from laying hands upon David again, as he had done before in a fit of madness. He therefore hoped to destroy him through the medium of the Philistines. — Ver. 18. But David replied with true humility, without suspecting the craftiness of Saul: " Who am I, and what is my condition in life, my father's family in Israel, that I should become son-in-law to the king V ^n *D is a difficult expression, and has been translated in different ways, as the meaning which suggests itself first (viz. " what is my life") is neither reconcilable with the *0 (the interrogative personal pronoun), nor suitable to the context. Gesenius (Thes. p. 471) and Bottcher give the meaning " people" for D^n, and Ewald {Gramm. § 179, b) the meaning " family." But neither of these meanings can be established. D^n seems evidently to signify the condition in life, the relation in which a person stands to others, and *o is to be explained on the ground that David referred to the persons who formed the class to which he belonged. " My father s family" includes all his relations. David's meaning was, that neither on personal grounds, nor on account of his social standing, nor because of his lineage, could he make the slightest pretension to the honour of becoming the son-in-law of the king. — Ver. 19. But Saul did not keep his promise. When the time arrived for its fulfilment, he gave his daughter to Adriel the Meholathite, a man of whom nothing further is known.1 — Vers. 20-24. Michal is married to David. — The pretext under which Saul broke his promise is not given, but it appears to have been, at any rate in part, that Merab had no love to David. This may be inferred from vers. 17, 18, compared with ver. 20. Michal, the younger daughter of Saul, loved David. When Saul was told this, the thing was quite right in his eyes. He said, " J will give her to him, that she may become a snare to him, and the hand of the Philistines may come upon him " (sc. if he tries to get the price which I shall require as dowry; cf. ver. 25). He therefore said to David, " In a second way (D^ri^3, as in Job xxxiii. 14) shalt thou become my son-in-law." Saul said this casually to David; but he made no reply, because he had found out the fickleness of Saul, and therefore put no further trust in his words. — Ver. 22. Saul therefore employed his courtiers to persuade David to accept his offer. In this way we may reconcile in a very simple manner the apparent discrepancy, that Saul is said to have offered his daughter to David himself, and yet he commissioned his servants to talk to David privately of the king's willingness to give him his daughter. The omission of ver. 216 in the Septuagint is to be explained partly from the fact that D'nc^ points back to vers. 17-19, which are wanting in this version, and partly also in all probability from the idea entertained by the translators that the statement itself is at variance with vers. 22 sqq. The courtiers were to talk to David tt?3, " in [H'ivate,'' i.e. as though they were doing it behind the king's back. — Ver. 23. David replied to the courtiers, u Does it seem to you a little thing to become son-in-law to the king, seeing that J
1 Vers. 17-10 arc omitted from the Septuagint version; but they are so, no doubt, only because Saul's first promise -was without result so far as David was concerned.
am a poor and humble man? " " Poor" i.e. utterly unable to offer anything like a suitable dowry to the king. This reply was given by David in perfect sincerity, since he could not possibly suppose that the king would give him his daughter this answer was reported to the king, he sent word through his courtiers what the price was for which he would give him his daughter. He required no dowry (see at Gen. xxxiv. 12), but only a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, i.e. the slaughter of a hundred Philistines, and the proof that this had been done, to avenge himself upon the enemies of the king; whereas, as the writer observes, Saul supposed that he should thus cause David to fall, i.e. bring about his death by the hand of the Philistines.
Even before the days were full, i.e. before the time appointed for the delivery of the dowry and for the marriage had arrived, he rose up with his men, smote two hundred Philistines, and brought their foreskins, which were placed in their full number
Michal his daughter to wife. The words " and the days were not full" (ver. 26) form a circumstantial clause, which is to be connected with the following sentence, lt David arose" etc.
David had carried out all his enterprises with success had already filled the melancholy king with fear. But when the failure of this new plan for devoting David to certain death had forced the conviction upon him that Jehovah was with
David, and that he was miraculously protected by Him; and when, in addition to this, there was the love of his daughter
Thus his evil spirit urged him ever forward to greater and greater hardness of heart. — Ver. 30. The occasion for the practical manifestation of this enmity was the success of David in all his engagements with the Philistines. As often as the princes of the Philistines went out (se. to war with Israel),
David acted more wisely and prosperously than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was held in great honour. With this general remark the way is prepared for the further history of Saul's conduct towards David.
JONATHAN S INTERCESSION FOR DAVID. SAUL S RENEWED ATTEMPTS TO MURDER HIM. DAVID'S FLIGHT TO SAMUEL. — CHAP. XIX.
Vers. 1-7. Jonathan warded off the first outbreak of deadly enmity on the part of Saul towards David. When Saul spoke to his son Jonathan and all his servants about his intention to kill David ("ivy71? ^P^i *•«• not tliat tliey should kill David, but " that he intended to kill him"), Jonathan reported this to David, because he was greatly attached to him, and gave him this advice: " Take heed to thyself in the morning; keep thyself in a secret place, and hide thyself I will go out and stand beside my father in the field ichere thou art, and I will talk to my father about thee (3 "3% as in Deut. vi. 7, Ps. lxxxvii. 3, etc., to talk of or about a person), and see what (sc. he will say), and show it to thee" David was to conceal himself in the field near to where Jonathan would converse with his father about him; not that he might hear the conversation in his hiding-place, but that Jonathan might immediately report to him the result of his conversation, without there being any necessity for going far away from his father, so as to excite suspicion that he was in league with David. — Vers. 4, 5. Jonathan then endeavoured with all the modesty of a son to point out most earnestly to his father the grievous wickedness involved in his conduct towards David. " Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; for he hath not sinned against thee, and his works arc very good (i.e. very useful) to thee. lie hath risked his life (see at Judg. xii.?>), and smitten the Philistines, and Jehovah hath wrought a great salvation of all Israel. Thou hast seen it, and rejoid and wherefore wilt then sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?" — Vers. 0, 7. These words made an impression upon Saul. lie swore, " As Jehovah livcth, he (David) shall not be put to death;" whereupon Jonathan reported these words to David, and brought him to Saul, so that, he was with him again as before. But this reconciliation, unfortunately, did not last
Vers. 8 17. Another great defeat which David had inflicted upon the Philistines excited Saul to such an extent, that in a fit of insanity he endeavoured to pierce David with his javelin as he was playing before him. The words Ruach Jehovah describe the attack of madness in which Saul threw the javelin at David according to its higher cause, and that, as implied in the words Ruach Jehovah in contrast with Ruach Elohim (ch. xviii. 10, xvi. 15), as inflicted upon him by Jehovah. The thought expressed is, that the growth of Saul's melancholy was a sign of the hardness of heart to which Jehovah had given him up on account of his impenitence. David happily escaped this javelin also. lie slipped away from Saul, so that he hurled the javelin into the wall; whereupon David fled and escaped the same night, i.e. the night after this occurrence. This remark somewhat anticipates the course of the events, as the author, according to the custom of Hebrew historians, gives the result at once, and then proceeds to describe in detail the more exact order of the events. — Ver. 11. " Saul sent messengers to David's house" to which David had first fled, " to watch him (that he might not get away again), and to put him to death in the (next) morning." Michal made him acquainted with this danger, and then let him down through the window, so that he escaped. The danger in which David was at that time is described by him in Ps. lix., from which we may see how Saul was surrounded by a number of cowardly courtiers, who stirred up his hatred against David, and were busily engaged in getting the dreaded rival out of the way. — Vers. 13, 14. Michal then took the teraphim, — i.e. in all probability an image of the household gods of the size of life, and, judging from what follows, in human form, — laid it in the bed, and put a piece of woven goats' hair at his head, i.e. either round or over the head of the image, and covered it with the garment (beged, the upper garment, which was generally only a square piece of cloth for wrapping round), and told the messengers whom Saul had sent to fetch him that he was ill. Michal probably kept teraphim in secret, like Rachel, because of her barrenness (see at Gen. xxxi. 19). The meaning of Dvtyn "V03 \s doubtful. The earlier translators took it to mean goat-skin, with the exception of the Seventy, who confounded "^3 with ^32, liver, upon which Josephus founds his account of Michal having placed a still moving goat's liver in the bed, to make the messengers believe that there was a breathing invalid beneath. TO3, from 133, signifies something woven, and D*W goats' hair, as in Ex. xxv. 4. But it is impossible to decide with certainty what purpose the cloth of goats' hair was to serve; whether it was merely to cover the head of the teraphim with hair, and so make it like a human head, or to cover the head and face as if of a person sleeping. The definite article not only before ^"jn and T33, but also with EWn 1*33, suggests the idea that all these things belonged to Michal's house furniture, and that CTO "1*33 was probably a counterpane made of goats' hair, with which persons in the East are in the habit of covering the head and face when sleeping. — Vers. 15 sqq. But when Saul sent the messengers again to see David, and that with the command, u Bring him up to me in the bed" and when they only found the teraphim in the bed, and Saul charged Michal with this act of deceit, she replied, u He (David) said to me, Let me go; ichy should I kill thee?" — "Behold, teraphim were (laid) in the bed" The verb can be naturally supplied from ver. 13. In the words " Why should I kill thee?" Michal intimates that she did not mean to let David escape, but was obliged to yield to his threat that he would kill her if she continued to refuse. This prevarication she seems to have considered perfectly justifiable.
Vers. 18-24. 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. JVU (to be read rn: according to the Chethibh, for which the Masoretes have substituted the form fifa, vers. 19, 23, and xx. 1), from ITU or nu, 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 rru points to the fact, that this coenobium consisted of a considerable number of dwellingplaces or houses, connected together by a hedge or wall. — Vers. 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 N"W is certainly very striking here; but it is hardly to be regarded as merely a copyist's error for the plural ^5, 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 cltt. \ey. npnp signifies, according to the ancient versions, an assembly, equivalent to njn^ from which it arose according to Kimchi and other Rabbins by simple inversion. — Ver. 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. — Vers. 22 sqq. Saul then set out to Ramah himself, and inquired, as soon as he had arrived at the great pit at SecJiu (a place near Raman 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, 3, off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel, and lay there naked all that day, and the whole night as well. ^~W, yvfjuvos, does not always signify complete nudity, but is also applied to a person with his upper garment off (cf. Isa. xx. 2; Micah i. 8; John xxi. 7). From the repeated expression " he a/so," in vers. 23, 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 Cny <>£*} 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 selfconsciousness returned earlier than with Saul. This difference 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 (ch. x. 6 sqq.). 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 ch. x. 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 liamah, under the superintendence of Samuel, whose members lived in a common building (JVO), and that Samuel had his own house at Raman (ch. vii. 17), though he sometimes lived in the Naioth (cf. vers. 18 sqq.). The origin and history of these schools are involved in obscurity. If we bear in mind, that, according to ch. iii. 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 ch. x. 5, 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 ch. x. 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 (1 Kings xx. 35), living in considerable numbers at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (vid. 2 Kings iv. 38, ii. 3, 5, 7, 15, iv. 1, vi. 1, ix. 1). According to ch. iv. 38, 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. ch. ii. 7 with vers. 16, 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 ch. vi. 1 sqq. 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 T^-J? from ver. 1, after DP riD^ " 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 (2 Kings iv. 1 sqq.). 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, u 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 1 Kings xviii. 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 xviii. is, that the large number of prophets mentioned there (vers. 4 and 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 (ch. xvii.) took place about three yean before the events described in 1 Kings xviii., 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 (1 Kings xix. 16 sqq.), 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 j 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 DWOfn bn or DWaan T\\>rh did to Samuel as their president? (1 Sam. xix. 20.) DWaan *J3 does not mean Jilii prophetce, i.e. sons who are prophets, as some maintain, though without being able to show that ^2 is ever used in this sense, but Jilii 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. 2 Kings ix. 1). On the other hand, the expressions?an and n^np simply point to combinations for common working under the presidency of Samuel, although the words On*?fi 2X3 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.1 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 u sons of the prophets," or with ch. xix. 20, where Samuel is said to have stood at the head of the prophesying prophets as B^yV 2SH, 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 monastieism, 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."
1 Compare Jerome (Epixt. 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.
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.1 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 vol. iv. pp. 9, 10 (translation). The cultivation of sacred music and poetry may be inferred partly from the fact that, according to ch. x. 5, musicians walked in front of the logians 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.
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 to God, and so preparing it for the reception of divine revelations (see at 2 Kings iii. 15). And lastly, we must include among the spiritual exercises prophesying in companies, as at Gibeah (ch. x. 5) and Kara ah (ch. xix. 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 (ch. x. 10, xix. 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 anions 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 priests 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.
Vers. 1-11. After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled thence and met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart.1 Though he had been delivered for the moment from the death which threatened him, through the marvellous influence of the divine inspiration of the prophets upon Saul and his messengers, he could not find in this any lasting protection from the plots of his mortal enemy. lie therefore sought for his friend Jonathan, and complained to him, " What have I done? what is my crime, my sin before thy father, that he seeks my life? " — Ver. 2. Jonathan endeavoured to pacify him: " Far be it! thou shalt not die: behold, my father does nothing great or small (i.e. not the smallest thing; cf. ch. xxv. 36 and Num. xxii. 18) that he does not reveal to me; why should my father hide this thing from Die? It is not so." The))> after H3n stands for Nv: the Chethibh n^y is probably to be preferred to the Keri '"CT!!, and to be understood in this sense: u My father has (hitherto) done nothing at all, which he has not told to me." This answer of Jonathan does not presuppose that he knew nothing of the occurrences described in ch. xix. 9-24, although it is possible enough that he might not have been with his father just at that time; but it is easily explained from the fact that Saul had made the fresh attack upon David's life in a state of madness, in which he was no longer master of himself; so that it could not be inferred with certainty from this that he would
1 According to Ewald and Thenius, this chapter was not written by the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earlier source, and ver. 1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the two together. But the principal reason for this conjecture — namely, that David could never have thought of sitting at the royal table again after what hail taken place, and that Saul would still less have expected him to come — is overthrown by the simple suggestion, that all that Saul had hitherto attempted against David, according to ch. xix. 8 sqq., had been done in fits of insanity (ef. eh. xix. 0 sqq.), which had passed away again; so that it formed no criterion by which to judge of Saul's actual feelings towards David when he was in a state of mental sanity.
still plot against David's life in a state of clear consciousness. Hitherto Saul had no doubt talked over all his plans and undertakings with Jonathan, but he had not uttered a single word to him about his deadly hatred, or his intention of killing David; so that Jonathan might really have regarded his previous attacks upon David's life as nothing more than symptoms of temporary aberration of mind. — Ver. 3. Bat David had looked deeper into Saul's heart. He replied with an oath ("he sware again," i.e. a second time), " Thy father knoweth that I have found favour in thine eyes (i.e. that thou art attached to me); and thinketh Jonathan shall not know this, lest he be grieved. But truly, as surely as Jehovah liveth, and thy soid liveth, there is hardly a step (lit. about a step) between me and death." *3 introduces the substance of the oath, as in ch. xiv. 44, etc. — Yer. 4. When Jonathan answered, " What thy soul saith, will I do to thee" i.e. fulfil every wish, David made this request, " Behold, to-morrow is new moon, and I ought to sit and eat with the king: let me go, that I may conceal myself in the field (i.e. in the open air) till the third evening." This request implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore that the new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law in Num. x. 10, xxviii. 11-15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and in the latter character for two days; as we may infer both from the fact that David reckoned to the third evening, i.e. the evening of the third day from the day then present, and therefore proposed to hide himself on the new moon's day and the day following, and also still more clearly from vers. 12, 27, and 34, where Saul is said to have expected David at table on the day after the new moon. We cannot, indeed, conclude from this that there was a religious festival of two days' duration; nor does it follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself on the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness (ver. 26), therefore the royal feast was a sacrificial meal. It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take part in a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law. — Yer. 6. " If thy father should miss me, then say, David hath asked permission of me to hasten to Bethlehem, his native town; for there is a yearly sacrifice for the whole family there." This ground of excuse shows that families and households were accustomed to keep united sacrificial feasts once a year. According to the law in Deut. xii. 5 sqq., they ought to have been kept at the tabernacle; but at this time, when the central sanctuary had fallen into disuse, they were held in different places, wherever there were altars of Jehovah — as, for example, at Bethlehem (cf. ch. xvi. 2 sqq.). We see from these words that David did not look upon prevarication as a sin. — Ver. 7. a If thy father says, It is iv ell, titer e is peace to thy servant (i.e. he cherishes no murderous thoughts against me); but if he be very wroth, know that evil is determined by him." H73? to be completed; hence to be firmly and unalterably determined (cf. ch. xxv. 17; Esther vii. 7). Seb. Schmidt infers from the closing words that the fact was certain enough to David, but not to Jonathan. Thenius, on the other hand, observes much more correctly, that "it is perfectly obvious from this that David was not quite clear as to Saul's intentions/' though he upsets his own previous assertion, that after what David had gone through, he could never think of sitting again at the king's table as he had done before. — Ver. 8. David made sure that Jonathan would grant this request on account of his friendship, as he had brought him into a covenant of Jehovah with himself David calls the covenant of friendship with Jonathan (ch. xviii. 3) a covenant of Jehovah, because he had made it with a solemn invocation of Jehovah. But in order to make quite sure of the fulfilment of his request on the part of Jonathan, David added, " But if there is a fault in me, do thou kill me (pnx used to strengthen the suffix); for ivhy wilt thou bring me to thy father? " sc. that he may put me to death. — Ver. 9. Jonathan replied, " This be far from thee!" sc. that I should kill thee, or deliver thee up to my father. ™*?(] points back to what precedes, as in ver. 2. " But (s3 after a previous negative assertion) if I certainly discover that evil is determined by my father to come upon thee, and I do not tell it thee," sc. " may God do so to me," etc. The words are to be understood as an asseveration on oath, in which the formula of an oath is to be supplied in thought. This view is apparently a more correct one, on account of the cop. 1 before iib, than to take the last clause as a question, " Shall I not tell it thee? " — Ver. 10. To this friendly assurance David replied, " Who will tell me?" sc. how thy father expresses himself concerning me; " or what will thy father answer thee roughly?" sc. if thou shouldst