Bible Commentaries
1 Samuel 19

Verses 1-17

XI

THE WAR BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE –

THE STORY OF A LOST SOUL

1 Samuel 18:1-19:17

This discussion commences at 1 Samuel 18:1, and here we are confronted, first of all, by another text difficulty. We saw in a former discussion that about 27 verses of 1 Samuel 17 did not appear in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but we know that those omissions must have been in the original Hebrew, for Josephus follows the text of 1 Samuel 17 strictly in his history of the Jews, but when we come to the omissions in 1 Samuel 18 from the Septuagint, Josephus does not give them. I repeat that our present Hebrew text was derived from late manuscripts of about the ninth or tenth century. I do not mean to say that there were no Hebrew texts before that, for Jerome, who translated the whole Bible into Latin, the edition called the Vulgate, in the fourth century, had Hebrew texts before him, and in a Roman Catholic English Bible we find Jerome’s Latin Bible translated into English and called the Douay Bible, which contains every word of our text. There are about fourteen verses of 1 Samuel 18 that do not appear in any manuscript of the Septuagint which we have except the Alexandrian manuscript, and it seems to be added there. It is not in the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint, but we may thoroughly rely upon everything set forth in 1 Samuel 17-18 as being a part of the Word of God.

Before commencing to expound this section I call attention to a word in 1 Samuel 18:27, "tale" – "a full tale." That is an old English word not much used now. I give an example of its old English use. Milton in one of his poems, "L’Allegro," uses this language: Every shepherd tells his tale, Under the hawthorne in the dale.

What is the meaning of the word, "tale"? Does it mean that every shepherd tells his story, or narrative? No; that is not the meaning of the old English word, "tale." "Every shepherd tells his number, his reckoning of the sheep." From that we get our English word, "tally." The shepherds number their flocks in the evening to see if they have the same number ! that they took out in the morning. "Every shepherd makes his tally, under the hawthorne in the dale." That is what’ Milton means. ;

There is another old English word in 1 Samuel 18:30, "set," I "much set by." What does "set" mean there? The meaning: of "set" in such a connection is "esteem." We say, "I set great , store by such a man," which means, "I esteem him very much."

Yet another English word in this section, where Jonathan’s , bow and arrows are called "artillery." Our meaning of the word "artillery" is confined to cannon, but the original word; meant any implement of war. These remarks on "tale," "set" and "artillery" are to show the changes that have taken place in the signification of words in the English language since the Bible was translated by the King James revisers. Paul says, "I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto)." Now "let" means "permitted;" then it meant "hindered" – "I was hindered hitherto."

Having disposed of the reference to the text, and those four instances of the changed meaning of old English words, we will take up the discussion proper. I commence with this observation, that in 1 Samuel 18-26, we have a section of the history that ought to be studied at one sitting. It is a pity to break it up into fragments. The parts are so intimately related that we need to have the whole of the story before us in order to get in their relations certain great lessons. These lessons are: l. These nine chapters (1 Samuel 18-26) show a protracted conflict between hate and love, and love’s final triumph; Saul’s hate against David; the love of Jonathan, Michal, the people, the prophets, and the priests for David, warring against Saul’s bate of David, and we see Satan inspiring the hate and Jehovah inspiring the love. That is the first lesson of these nine chapters.

2. These chapters show that there is a conflict between folly and wisdom, for hate is folly and love is wisdom; therefore the hating man is showing himself to be a fool at every step of the history, and the loving man is showing himself to be wise at every step of the history. Not only is hate criminal, but it is the most foolish passion in which you can indulge. The remarkable wisdom and forbearance of David defeat all the folly of Saul’s hate. That is one of the most evident things in the nine chapters. Under similar conditions not one man in a million would imitate David; not one in any number of millions under similar conditions would do as David did unless he were influenced by the Holy Spirit of God. History abounds in lessons to show that men, under long, continued provocations, not only strike back, which David didn’t do, but they become traitors to their own countries when the persecuting one is the ruler of the country. If they are not under the influence of God, they will end in becoming traitors.

We have a signal example in Benedict Arnold. There was not a more valiant soldier and capable general in the army of the Revolution than Benedict Arnold. He was the bravest of the brave, but Congress not only showed lack of appreciation of him, but put one indignity on him after another. Then he acted unlike David – he sold his country to the British and became a general in the British army.

In studying Roman history we see the same thing in Coriolanus. When the Romans mistreated this great general he went over to the enemy of Rome, the Volsci, and led a triumphant army to the very gates of Rome. The Romans in terror asked his mother to go and plead with him to spare Rome. She went out and appealed to his patriotism and to his love of family. He said, "Mother, you have saved Rome, but you have lost your son; for the Volsci will kill me unless I capture Rome," and they did kill him when he refused to capture Rome.

When a man is not under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit and injuries are put upon him, he will strike back and resort ultimately to any expedient to glut his vengeance.

3. The third great lesson is the historian’s graphic description of the progress of the passions, whether good or bad, ever developing until each one comes to a final crystallization. More than once I have told you that power of the historian in 1 Samuel in tracing developments.

4. The fourth lesson is that both hate and love recognize the will of Jehovah in the passing events. We see Saul’s hate discovering in David’s triumph that he is the rival whom God has appointed to succeed him, and we will see Jonathan’s love discovering the same thing.

5. The fifth lesson is the distinct stages of Saul’s remorse when under the influence of Jonathan’s counsel and David’s good will.

6. The sixth lesson is the progress in the attachment between David and Jonathan. There is nothing like it in the history of the world, though we find in the classics the remarkable love between Damon and Pythias. There are three distinct covenants between Jonathan and David.

7. The whole story shows that if God be for a man, neither man nor devil can be against him successfully, and that if God be against a man none can be successfully for him. As Paul puts it: "If God be for us, who can be against us?" Oftentimes we have to fight public opinion. Oftentimes we feel that we are isolated from our kind on account of the position that we are compelled to take as God’s representative, but let this comfort us, that if God be for us; if, indeed, we are on God’s side nothing ultimately will prevail against us.

8. The eighth lesson is that high above Saul, Jonathan, Michal) David, we see two worlds interested – Satan endeavoring to thwart the establishment of the kingdom of God and using Saul and others as his instruments, and Jehovah proceeding to establish his kingdom and using David, Jonathan, and others as his instruments.

If we don’t recognize the fact that the world above and the world beneath touch human lives and have much to do with events, then we never can understand the history of any one man, much less one nation.

That was the trouble in Job’s mind. If he could have seen what the historian tells us about, that coming together of the angels, good and bad, when God held his stated meeting of angels, and knew that an evil angel was seeking to do him harm, and that he could not do this except as God permitted it, then he could have understood why undeserved afflictions came upon him, and why God permitted them. Homer, while holding to the wrong kind of gods, not only follows the true poetical idea, but he follows the true idea in representing all the gods and goddesses as interested in the Trojan War. I have studied it so much that when a war commences, say between Japan and Russia, I look for the devil’s tracks and also look for the tracks of Jehovah, and I can better understand the issue of wars when I do that.

These are the great lessons that are set forth in the nine chapters. We will commence now and discover these great lessons one after another as we take up the story seriatim, and we note first the progress of Saul’s hate. What was the origin of Saul’s hate? When he committed his first sin God announced to him that he had selected a man after his own heart to whom he would give the kingdom, and when Saul committed his second sin God again refers to his purpose to substitute for Saul a better man. That rankles in Saul’s mind. Always he carries that thought with him: "Somebody is to be put up to succeed me," and hence he will be looking around, watching every arriving man – "Maybe he is the one." There we see the origin of it.

The first expression of it comes in this section, which says that after the great victory over the Philistines by David described in the last chapter, and the pursuit clear to the gates of the Philistine cities, that when the army returned home the women, according to a custom of that time and of this time, determined to celebrate the return of the victorious army, so they sang, antiphonally. It was like the responsive singing of Miriam and her choir in the paean of deliverance after the safe passage of the Red Sea. The record says that they sang antiphonally, and the first part of them would sing, "Saul hath slain his thousands" and the other part would respond, "But David hath slain his ten thousands."

When these women sang that way it excited Saul’s wrath, and he instantly thought of what God had announced, and he says, "What more is there for him but the kingdom? Here is a man who has gained a great victory and the people are with him, and even the women are putting him above me," hence the text says that from that day Saul eyed David. When a man looks at another sideways under lowered lids, that is what we call eyeing a man. He is under suspicion from that time on. That is the first expression of the hate of Saul, and you find it in 1 Samuel 18:8-9.

We now come to a truth of very great importance. In a previous part of the book we have seen that God, in David’s music, could exorcise the demon in Saul, and did do it, and for quite awhile Saul was not under the possession of the demon, but here comes a word from our Lord fitting the case exactly. It is found in Matthew 12:43-45: "The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth be and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first." That is pertinent to this case. A demon may be cast out once, then, as Jesus says to a man under similar conditions, "Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee." Should that demon come back he cannot again be exorcised. The text here is the proof. When that evil spirit, taking advantage of Saul’s hate, re-entered Saul, they sent for the usual remedy – David must come and play for him. But David plays and the spirit does not leave. On the contrary, he prompts Saul to thrust a javelin at the heart of David. That is the pivotal point in Saul’s case. There he passes the boundary line. There is a time, we know not when; A place, we know not where; That marks the destiny of men To glory or despair.

It is as if a man under the habit of drunkenness is cured at a sanitarium. Let him beware of ever falling into the habit again; the sanitarium won’t cure him the next time. In other words, a sinner that does not avail himself of the means of grace that are applied to him will ultimately get past feeling; like Pharaoh, his heart will be hardened until it never can be softened again. Like Ephraim, he will become wedded to his idols.

The most notable instance of this that ever came within my experience was at a meeting that I held in the old Providence Church in Burleson County. Ah! what a meeting! Seventy days and nights, until it seemed that every sinner in fifteen miles of the place was converted. One night when I made an appeal to see if we could find anybody that was unsaved, a white-haired old man got up and said, "I am the man. I have been watching your meetings. There was a time when such things moved my heart, but I kept trifling with the monitions of the Spirit of God that impelled me to turn to Christ and be saved, and in one meeting after another I resisted and said, ’No, No, No,’ and at last, as if God had said to me, ’Your no shall be forever,’ all feelings in that direction were taken away from me, and as I stand up here before you tonight telling you this experience, you see a man doomed, without hope of mercy, simply because the Spirit of God, who alone can lead a man to salvation, has departed from me forever." It made a solemn impression.

We notice now that the spirit can’t be reached by music, even when God is in the music, and hence there is an attempt to destroy David’s life. The next step is found in 1 Samuel 18:12. That tells us that Saul was afraid because God’s Spirit was on David, and had left him. This is one of the consequences that the Spirit of God has left – fear. He was afraid, and he was afraid of David, so he takes another step to destroy David. He removed him from office near his person and gave him a position in the firing line of the army, not to honor David by that promotion, but the text tells us he did it in the hope that David might perish by the hands of the Philistines, in some of the fights. We have an old saying coming from Virgil, "Beware of the Greeks bringing gifts." That was said when they left the Trojans that great wooden horse, which had 500 Greeks hidden in it. It was so large they could not bring it in through the gates, and had to break down the wall to get it in, and that night the Greeks came out of the horse and opened the gates and the city was taken. And that was Saul’s meaning when he promoted David to this high office in his service. He meant to destroy him by it.

The next step in the progress is in 1 Samuel 18:15. When Saul saw that David acted very wisely in the new position he was "more afraid." David didn’t get killed. God took care of him, and he acted so wisely in the administration of the new office that it increased Saul’s fear.

We come to 1 Samuel 18:17, and ask what next Saul will do? What of this hate of his? To what expedient will he now resort? He approaches David secretly through his officers, as though he were conferring another great honor on him, and offers his daughter in marriage. He should be the son-in-law of the king if he will give – not money for her dowry, for David did not have it – but "Kill me 100 Philistines and bring evidence that you have killed them and complete the tally" – that is, let the number be counted. Now what was his object? He didn’t want David in his family, but he would set a snare by the use of his own daughter, and the object of it would be to put David in a position of personal danger. Saul’s thought was that in fighting the 100 Philistines some one would kill him.

1 Samuel 18:20 shows progress again. "And when Saul saw it was Jehovah with David, and that all the people of Israel loved him, he was more afraid." Your text says that Michal loved him. The real text is, "When Saul saw that Jehovah was with him and that all the people loved him he was more afraid." Notice the progress, and that is this evil spirit in Saul increasing his madness, and they try the music remedy one more time. So David is sent for to play before Saul, and again the evil spirit prompts Saul, and he thrusts a javelin at him the second time. David saw that he could no longer fool with that kind of situation and he left and went to his own private house. There is a limit to the power of music. True, Shakespeare says, A man who has no music in his soul, Nor concord of sweet sound, Is fit for treason, stratagems and spoils.

The next step in the progress of that hate is in 1 Samuel 19. Saul called Jonathan to him and certain of his officers and gave them a peremptory command to execute David. Jonathan says, "Father, what hath he done? He doesn’t deserve death. He hath never done you any harm. Why should David be slain?" The pleading of the beloved Jonathan prevails. When Jonathan so humbly pleads, Saul’s heart melts and David comes back and heads the whole army and wins another glorious victory over the Philistines. And now Saul’s hate will not respect the pleading of Jonathan, so David went to his home saying that he could not stay near Saul without provoking death.

Then follows an incident that David commemorates in the Psalms. They surround his house. One of the most despicable acts of tyranny is what is called "domiciliary visitation." Man’s home is regarded as his castle, and when the privacy of his home is invaded by espionage or by an attempt to take life on his own hearthstone, there is no step beyond that a tyrant can go. Revolution comes when that is attempted. That is why the Huguenots left France; the dragoons were stationed ; in their homes, and the privacy of the home was violated. They could not even in private whisper to each other but the words were heard by some of these spies and reported. In the Declaration of Independence that is one of the accusations against the king – that he had stationed troops in private houses without the consent of the people. It made a marvelous impression on David’s mind that night when he looked out ; and saw the sentinels all around his house. David’s wife helps , him that time. She says, "If you don’t escape tonight, tomorrow you will be a dead man," and a woman when she is stirred up in a matter and puts her wits to work is not easy to thwart. So she puts a teraphim – a wooden image – in David’s bed and tied a wig or something over it and wrapped the image up to represent a man sleeping, and when the soldiers came in to arrest David she said, "You see he is sleeping," and they waited till morning and David got away.

QUESTIONS

1. What textual difficulty is in 1 Samuel 18, and what the discussion thereon?

2. What is the meaning of the old English word, "tale," and what other English word is derived from it?

3. What is the meaning of the old English word, "set," in the phrase, “much set by," in 1 Samuel 18:30?

4. What is the meaning of the word "artillery," as used in this connection?

5. What is the meaning of the word, "let," as used by Paul in Romans 1-13 and what the lessons of these uses of the words, "tale," "set," "artillery," and "let"?

6. What chapters of 1 Samuel should be studied as one section, and why?

7. What are the great lessons of these chapters?

8. In what two respects is David’s self-restraint under these persistent and murderous attacks of Saul without a parallel, and what two great men under less provocation became traitors to their native land?

9. What is the difficulty in Job’s mind, and what instance in the classics referred to in illustrating it?

10. What is the origin of Saul’s hate, and what the first expression of it?

11. What are the words which so graphically describe Saul’s hate, and the counter-progress of David’s wisdom?

12. What saying of our Lord shows the fearful state of a man who allows an exorcised demon to re-enter the soul?

13. Show by David’s music, Jonathan’s intercession, and the gift of prophesying that what expels the demon the first time will not avail the second time.

14. Quote the stanza given to illustrate the sin against the Holy Spirit.

15. Relate the incident given to illustrate this sin.

16. What are the steps of progress in Saul’s hate of David as revealed in his efforts to take his life?

17. What does Shakespeare say of a man who has no music in his soul?

18. In what Psalm does David commemorate the watching around his house at night?

19. How does David escape from that house, and what later and greater Saul escaped like David through a window?

20. What are the illustrations of this incident of watching around David’s house in later history?

Verses 18-23

XII

SAUL’S MURDEROUS PURSUIT OF DAVID

1 Samuel 19:18-22:23

Let us trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, "teraphim," which occurs in 1 Samuel 19:13: "And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the clothes," answering this fivefold question: (1) Is the word, "teraphim," ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or the second commandment? (4) What the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Protestants and Romanists, and what the danger of their use even as a help toward the worship of God.

We find the first use of it in Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:26; Genesis 31:31; Genesis 31:34. That chapter shows how Jacob and his wives and children and property left his father-in-law, Laban, on their return to the Holy Land, and that Rachel stole her father’s "teraphim;" and when Laban pursues, as we find in the same chapter, it is one of his accusations against Jacob that he had stolen his household gods. Jacob invites him to make a search and Rachel puts them under a camel saddle and sits down on the saddle and won’t get up, and so Laban can’t find them. Then, in Genesis 35:2 Jacob orders all of his family to put away those false gods.

The next use of the word comes in Judges 17-18. The history is this: Micah, in the days of the judges, makes to himself molten and graven images and teraphim and puts them in a separate room in his house, i.e., has a little temple, and consecrates his own son to be a priest, but eventually there comes along a Levite, who is a descendant of Moses through Gerghom, and Micah employs this Levite on a salary to be his priest and to conduct his worship through these images graven, molten and the teraphim, using an ephod. A little later the Danites on their migration capture all these household gods of Micah, and the priest as well. Micah pursues and complains that they robbed him of his gods. The Danites advise him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and in the meantime they capture Laish in the northern part of the Holy Land and set up these same images and use that same descendant of Moses with the ephod to seek Jehovah through those images. The next time we find the word is in this section, where Michal took a teraphim and put it in David’s bed and made it look like somebody asleep. The next usage of the word is found in 2 Kings 23:24, in the early part of the great reformation led by King Josiah, who, after the law of the Lord had been found, causes all Judah to put away the teraphim and everything that was contrary to the Mosaic law.

We find it next in order of time in Hosea 3:4, where a prediction is made that Israel for a long time shall be without king or ephod or teraphim, and the last use is in Ezekiel 21:22-23. Ezekiel in exile shows how the king of Babylon came to the forks of the road and used divinations, etc., by the use of teraphim.

The word is never used in a good sense. Jehovah appoints his own way of approach to him and of ascertaining the future) condemning the use of teraphim in approaching him. Even that passage in Hosea only shows that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews for a long time – the present time included – will have no king, no ephod, no teraphim. That is, they would in no sense be idolaters, and yet their worship of Jehovah for this long period – including the present time – will be empty and vain until just before the millennial times, when they in one day accept the long-rejected Messiah.

A teraphim is an image, but it is distinguished from graven or molten images in two particulars: (1) it is carved out of wood; (2) it always represented a human form, whereas the graven and molten images were always of metal and oftenest took the form of the lower animals, like the calf that Aaron made at Sinai, and the calves set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel. To make the distinction clearer by a passage in the New Testament, the image of the great goddess Diana at Ephesus (Acts 19), which was said to have fallen down from heaven, was a teraphim; that is, was a wooden image in human form and a very ugly one, but the little silver shrines of the temple of Diana made by Demetrius, the silversmith, and other silversmiths, were either graven or molten images. Another distinction is that the graven and the molten images were oftenest worshiped as gods, the teraphim oftenest used as a method of approach to their gods, and both of them were violations of the Second Commandment.

The teraphim in David’s house was Micah’s, not David’s, as the stolen teraphim of Laban’s was Rachel’s and not Jacob’s. There is no evidence that either Jacob or David ever resorted to teraphim or favored their use.

Coming now to the last part of the question, one of the chief issues between the Protestants and the Romanists in the Reformation was that the Romanists multiplied images in their worship – metallic or wooden images. For instance, an image of Jesus on the cross, an image of the virgin Mary, the cross itself, or the image of some saint when carved out of wood representing human form, were teraphim, but when they were made out of metal were graven or molten images. While the better and more learned class of the Romanists only use these images as objective aids to worship, the masses of the people become image worshipers, bowing down before the image of the virgin Mary and ascribing adoration to her and praying to her, and ascribing all the grace of salvation to her. Even the pope himself says, in one of his proclamations, that the fountain of all grace is in Mary. In this way they violate that fundamental declaration of our Lord that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The Greek word, eikon, an image, equals in sense the Hebrew word, "teraphim," and other images, so when the Protestants, in their fury against what they called idolatry, would break up these images wherever they found them they were called "iconoclasts," i.e., "breakers of images." Hence, when Charles I wrote that famous book, Eikon, Oliver Cromwell demanded of Milton that he write a reply to it, and he named his reply Iconoclast, a breaker of the image. The image question is a big one in history. There is a relation to that teraphim of Michal and her wifely relation to David. It showed that while indeed she loved David when he was a prosperous man, she had no sympathy with his religion, nor was she willing to share his exile and its sufferings. She could never say to him what Ruth said to Naomi: "Entreat me not to leave thee, nor cease from following after thee; for where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be buried." When David’s fortunes were eclipsed she readily enough consented to become the wife of another man, to whom her father gave her, and whom she loved more than she had ever loved David. When David, after he became king, sent for her to be returned to him, as we learn from 2 Samuel 3, she came unwillingly, and at a still later date when David brought the ark of the covenant from Kirjathjearim to put it in Jerusalem and participated in the religious exercises of the day, Michal looked out of the window and saw him and despised him, and when he came in she broke out on him in scornful speech, mocking him for the part he had taken in that day’s religious service. When a wife differs so radically from her husband in his religion as Michal did, the marital relation is much affected by it.

The reconciliation of the declaration in 2 Samuel 6:23 that Michal to the day of her death had no children, with the declaration in 2 Samuel 21:8 that there were five sons of Michal, is this: In the second passage the word Michal should be Merab, the older sister of Michal, who was married to Adriel, the Meholathite, and bare him five sons who were gibbeted to appease the wrath of the Gibeonites.

Fleeing from Saul, David rightly seeks refuge with Samuel at Ramah, and Samuel took him to Naioth of Ramah. Being banished from the king, quite naturally and appropriately he sought the prophet, and when he came to Samuel, the prophet took him from Ramah to Naioth; that means the Seminary, buildings where the school of the prophets was assembled, as if we had said, "He went from Waco to Fort Worth and to Naioth of Fort Worth," i.e., the Seminary of Fort Worth. That is a very important passage. It refers to the buildings in which the school of the prophets assembled for instruction. But Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifested itself in this place of refuge. Hearing that David was there, he sent messengers to take him, but when the messengers came within the orbit of influence of that school of the prophets the spirit of the prophets fell on the messengers and they prophesied. This happened three times in succession. Finally Saul came himself, and it fell on him so violently that he tore off his outer clothing and in an ecstasy of prophesying fell down in a trance before Samuel and remained in that helpless condition all night long.

The compliment to Naioth is this: A number of God’s people, together studying his word, filled with his Spirit, the spiritual atmosphere of the place becomes a bar against the approach of evil. The evil-minded who come to mock remain to pray. I have seen revival meetings get to such power that emissaries of the devil, children of Belial, who would come there to break up the meeting, would be overpowered by its force. That was notably illustrated in the early days of Methodism, and particularly in the rise of the Cumberland Presbyterians. My son has given a very vivid account of that time, and of how wicked men would be seized with jerks and finally fall helpless into a trance when they attended these revival meetings.

The main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection are as follows: Doubtless through Samuel’s advice, David, while Saul lay in that trance, left Naioth and went back to make another appeal to Jonathan. The reason that he did this was that Jonathan, in his first intercession in behalf of David, had succeeded in pacifying the wrath of his father toward him. Their meeting is graphically described in the text. There isn’t a more touching passage in any piece of history than Jonathan’s solemn promise that if his father meant evil that he would inform David, and the plan they arranged to test whether Jonathan’s second attempt would be successful.

With the Jews the new moon was a sabbath, no matter on what day of the week it came, and they had a festival, and there was one just ahead. On these new moon festivals all of the official household of Saul had to be present, so it was arranged that when Saul observed that David’s place was vacant at that festival and he made inquiry about it, Jonathan would say, "He asked me to give him permission to go to his brother’s house and partake in the new moon sacrifices at home with his family," then if Saul manifested no anger, that would be a sign that David could return. So on the second day of the new moon festival, Saul looked around, and seeing David’s seat empty on such an important occasion, directly asked Jonathan where he was, and Jonathan told him, according to the arrangement made with David, at which Saul became furious against Jonathan and denounced him in awful language, and when Jonathan makes his last appeal, Saul hurls a Javelin at him. Jonathan, insulted, outraged, gets up and leaves the table and goes out and shows David that it will never do to return to Saul, that he must seek refuge elsewhere, and they renew their covenant. Jonathan says, "I know you will be king, and I will be next to you, and when you are king be good to my family." We will have some sad history on that later, about whether David did fulfil his solemn pledge to Jonathan to be good to Jonathan’s family when David had the power.

David next seeks refuge at Nob, where the priests and the’ tabernacle were – not the ark – that was at Kirjathjearim – but the priests were assembled in the village of Nob with the high priest. David came, and did not relate to the priests the malice of Saul toward him, but came worn out, exhausted, famished with hunger, and the priest gives him to eat of the shew bread, unlawful for any but a priest to eat. The priest inquires through the Ephod what David wants to find out from Jehovah, and gives to him the sword of Goliath. You know I gave you a direction to trace that sword of Goliath’s; to ascertain what became of it. It had been carried to the tabernacle at Nob, and the priest gave it to David. David left there because he saw a rascal in the crowd, Dog, the Automat, one of Saul’s "lick-spittle" followers, and he said to the high priest, "That fellow will tell all of this to Saul when he gets back home."

The New Testament reference to that is when the Pharisees were springing questions on our Lord he showed them that the sabbath law, like other laws, always had exceptions in cases of judgment, mercy, and necessity. Though it be the sabbath day when a man found an ass crushed under his burden or an ox in the ditch, he must work to relieve that poor beast, so, while it was against the law for anybody but a priest to eat the shew bread, yet, in a case of necessity, David being famished, the priest did right to give him the shew bread and he did right to eat it.

What the result? We learn that when this Dog went back and told Saul, he sent for the whole family of the priests and they came, and he demanded why they had sheltered and fed his enemy and used the Ephod in his behalf. The high priest explained. Saul told him that everyone of them should die, but he could find no officer who would put them to death. It seemed to be sacrilegious, until Dog, this Automat, took great pleasure in killing all of them except one. Then Saul sent and destroyed, root and branch, women and children, the entire village and all the priests at Nob.

David’s next attempt to find a refuge failed, but he succeeded later. He went to Achish, the king of the Philistines at Gath, and they were not ready to greet him. They believed that he came upon an evil mission. They said he was the man that had brought all the ruin on the Philistines, concerning whom the women sang, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." To preserve himself from the danger of death that threatened him he feigned madness, and so deceived the king. A North American Indian would have done the same thing. They never shoot or strike the insane, believing them under the hand of a spirit.

David’s next effort at self-protection was at the cave of Adullam, and the record states that everyone that was in distress or in debt or discontented gathered unto him and he became a captain over them. Quite a number of mighty men, the greatest fighters then known to the world, came to him. A company came to him from Judah and Benjamin; his father’s household came, fearing that Saul would destroy them, so that he organized a fighting force of 400 men that has never been equalled by the same number of men. A little later we will see that it had grown to 600 men by other accessions. All of them were heroes and great fighters. Then there came to him Abiathar, the last one of the high priest’s family when Saul had destroyed the village of Nob, and there came to him some of the prophets, especially Gad, who remains with him all the time, and who wrote a part of the history we are discussing.

So that cave was the scene of the change in the fortunes of David. It makes little difference now whether he stays in Judah or goes anywhere else with that crowd back of him; nobody is able to harm him. It was at this time that he took his father and mother, who were old and couldn’t move swiftly with his fighting force, over to Moab, across the Jordan, doubtless relying upon the fact that Ruth, the Moabitess, was an ancestress of his, and the king of Moab sheltered the father and mother of David; but Gad, the prophet, admonishes David to leave Moab and go back to Judah. God would take care of him in his own land if he trusted him, and so he went back to Judah.

In view of Moab’s kindness to David’s family, the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day, to the history of which we will come later. They say that the king of Moab murdered David’s father and mother who had been left in his charge, and that David swept them with fire and sword for it when he got to them.

The great sermons in our day which have been preached on this part of David’s career are: (1) Melville’s sermon on David’s feigning madness at the court of Achish. A remarkable sermon. (2) Spurgeon’s great sermon on the Cave of Adullam from the text, "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain over them." Spurgeon used that to illustrate how a similar class of people gathered around Christ, and he became a captain over them. Everyone that was in debt, or distress, or sick, or poverty-stricken, whatever the ailment, or in despair about the affairs of life, came to Jesus and be became a captain over them. It is a great sermon.

QUESTIONS

1. Trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, "teraphim," which occurs in chapter 1 Samuel 19:13: "And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and puts a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the "clothes," answering the following questions: (1) Is the word, "teraphim," ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or second commandment? (4) What is the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Romanists and Protestants, and what the danger of their use, even as a help toward the worship of God.

2. What bearing has Michal’s teraphim on her wifely relation to David, and what the proofs in later times?

3. Fleeing from Saul, with whom does David rightly seek refuge, and what the distinction between Ramah and Naioth in 1 Samuel 19:18-19?

4. How does Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifest itself in this place of refuge, what the result, and what the compliment to Naioth?

5. Give the main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection, show why he resorted to it, and what the result.

6. With whom next does David seek refuge, what the main incidents, what the New Testament reference thereto, why did David leave that refuge, and what the results to the priests for sheltering him?

7. What was David’s next attempt to find a refuge, why did it fail this time but succeed later, what was David’s expedient to escape from the danger, and why did that expedient succeed?

8. What was David’s next effort at self-protection, what accessions came to him, and what was the result on his future fortunes?

9. In view of the Moab’s kindness to David’s family, how do the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day?

10. What great sermons in our day have been preached on this part of David’s career?

Verses 18-24

IV

THE SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS

The more important passages bearing on this subject are 1 Samuel 3:1-4; 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 10:9-12; 1 Samuel 18:13-24; 1 Kings 19:18; 1 Kings 19:20-21; 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3-5; 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:1; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22 and other chapters in that book I do not enumerate. The last one is Amos 7:14-15. The reader will understand that I give these instead of a prescribed section in the Harmony. These constitute the basis of this discussion.

Let us distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office, and give some examples. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, his seventy elders, Balaam, Joshua, and others before Samuel’s time had the gift, but not the office; perhaps we may except Moses as in a measure having the office. After Samuel’s time, David, many of his singers, and particularly Daniel, had the gift in a high degree, but not the office. Moreover, the high priests from Aaron to Caiphas in Christ’s time, were supposed to have officially the gift of prophecy – that is, to hear and report what the Oracle said – but Samuel is the first who held the office.

The distinction between a prophet and a son of a prophet is this: A son of a prophet was a candidate for the office, ministering to the prophet, a disciple instructed by him, consecrated to the work, and qualifying himself to perform the services of the office with the highest efficiency. A prophet is one who, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks or writes for God. In this inspiration he is God’s mouth or pen, speaking or writing not his own words, but God’s words. This inspiration guides and superintends his speech and his silence; what is recorded and what is omitted from the record. The gift of prophecy was not one of uniform quantity nor necessarily enduring. The gifts were various in kind, and might be for one occasion only. As to variety of kinds, the revelation might come in dreams or open visions, or it might consist of an ecstatic trance expressed in praise or song or prayer. If praise, song, or prayer, its form was apt to be poetic, particularly if accompanied by instrumental music.

As to the duration of the gift, it might be for one occasion only, or a few, or many. The scriptures show that the spirit of prophecy came upon King Saul twice only, and each time in the form of an ecstatic trance. In his early life it came as a sign that God had chosen him as king. In his later life the object of it was to bar his harmful approach to David. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 inclusive, explains the diversity of these gifts and their relative importance.

There are two periods of Hebrew history in which we find clearest notices of the schools of the prophets, the proofs of their persistence between the periods, and their influence on the nation. The notices are abundant in the time of Samuel, and in the time of Elijah and Elisha, but you have only to study the book of Chronicles to see that the prophetic order, as an office, continued through these periods and far beyond. Later you will learn that in the time of persecution fifty of these prophets were hidden in a cave and fed regularly. The object of the enemy was to destroy these theological seminaries, believing that they could never lead the nation astray while these schools of the prophets continued. Their object, therefore, was to destroy these seats of theological education. Elijah supposed that every one of them was killed except himself, but he was mistaken.

Samuel was the founder of the first school of the prophets, and the scripture which shows his headship is 1 Samuel 19:20, where Saul is sending messengers to take David, and finally goes himself and finds the school of the prophets, with Samuel as its appointed head. The reason for such a school in Samuel’s time is shown, first, by an extract from Kirkpatrick’s Commentary on 1 Samuel, page 33. He says:

Samuel was the founder of the prophetic order. Individuals in previous ages had been endowed with prophetic gifts, but with Samuel commenced the regular succession of prophets which lasted through all the period of the monarchy, and did not cease until after the captivity. The degeneracy into which the priesthood had fallen through the period of the judges demanded the establishment of a new order for the religious training of the nation.

For this purpose Samuel founded the institutions known as the schools of the prophets. The "company of prophets" at Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:10) and the scene at Ramah described in 1 Samuel 19:18 ff., imply a regular organization. These societies are only definitely mentioned again in connection with the history’ of Elijah and Elisha but doubtless continued to exist in the interval. By means of these the Order was maintained, students were educated, and common religious exercises nurtured and developed spiritual gifts.

Kirkpatrick’s is a fine commentary. The priests indeed were instructors of the people, but the tendency of the priesthood was to rest in external sacrifices, and to trust in a mere ritualistic form of sacrifice. That is the trouble always where you have a ritual. And after a while both priest and worshiper began to rely upon the external type, and on external conformity with the ritual. God needed better mouthpieces than those, hence while in the past there was a prophetic gift here and there, he now establishes the prophetic school, or society, in which training, bearing upon the prophetic office, should be continuous. The value of these schools of the prophets is also seen from Kirkpatrick, page 1 Samuel 34:

The value of the prophetic order to the Jewish nation was immense. The prophets were privy-counsellors of kings, the historians of the nation, the instructors of the people. It was their function to be preachers of righteousness to rich and poor alike: to condemn idolatry in the court, oppression among the nobles, injustice among the judges, formality among the priests. They were the interpreters of the law who drew out by degrees the spiritual significance which underlay ritual observance, and labored to prevent sacrifice and sabbath and festival from becoming dead and unmeaning forms. Strong in the unshaken consciousness that they were expressing the divine will, they spoke and acted with a fearless courage which no threats could daunt or silence.

Thus they proved a counterpoise to the despotism of monarchy and the formalism of priesthood. In a remarkable passage in his essay on "Representative Government," Mr. John Stuart Mill attributes to their influence the progress which distinguished the Jews from other Oriental nations. "The Jews," he writes, "had an absolute monarchy and hierarchy. These did for them what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions – subdued them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. . . . Their religion gave existence to an inestimably precious institution, the order of prophets. Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their sacred character, the prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for kings and priests, and kept up in that little corner of the earth the antagonism of influences which is the only real security for continued progress."

I was surprised the first time I ever saw the statement from Mill. He was a radical evolutionist and infidel, but a statesman, and in studying the development of statesmanship among the nations, he saw this singular thing in the history of the Jews, unlike anything he saw anywhere else, and saw what it was that led that nation, when it went into backsliding, to repentance; what power it was that brought about the reformation when their morals were corrupted; what power it was that was the real light of the nation and the salt of the earth, and saw that it was this order of prophets which was the conservator of national unity, purity, and perpetuity. I have the more pleasure in quoting that passage, as it comes from a witness in no way friendly to Christianity, just as when I was discussing missions I quoted the testimony of Charles Darwin to the tremendous influence for good wrought by the missionaries of South America.

Particularly in this case of the schools of the prophets we find their value, by noting very carefully the bearing on the case under Samuel. We have already noticed the corruption of the priesthood under Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas; how the ark was captured, the central place of worship desecrated; how Samuel, called to the office of prophet, needed assistance, and how he instituted this school of the prophets. He gathered around him the brightest young men of the nation and had the Spirit of God rest on them, and in order that their instruction might be regular he organized them into companies, or schools; he would go from one to another, and these young "theologs" were under the instruction of Samuel and for twenty years worked as evangelists in making sensitive the national conscience. It took twenty years to do it, and he could not have done it by himself, but with that tremendous power, the help he had, at the end of twenty years, he saw the nation repentant and once more worshiping God. I am for a theological seminary that will do that.

I give a modern example somewhat parallel: Mr. Spurgeon was called to the city of London, when about nineteen years old, to be the pastor of the old historic church of Dr. Gill, and in his evangelical preaching impressed a number of men to feel that they were also called to preach (if your preaching does not impress somebody else to preach, you may be sure that you are not called to preach), and it impressed the women and a multitude of laymen to do active Christian service. Therefore, Mr. Spurgeon organized what is called "The Pastoral College." He wouldn’t let a drone be in it; he did not want anybody in it that was not spiritually minded. In other words, he insisted that a preacher should be religiously inclined, and should be ready to do any kind of work. He supported this institution largely through his own contributions, although the men and women all over England, when they saw what it was doing, would send money for its support. I used to read the monthly reports of the contributions and the list of donors that accompanied them.

Mr. Spurgeon determined to work a revolution, just as Samuel did, and he used this school of the prophets for that purpose. Consequently, hundreds of young preachers belonging to that school of the prophets preached in the slums of the city, in the byways, in the highways, in the hedges, in the mines, on the wharves to the sailors, and in the hospitals. Hundreds of laymen said, "Put us to work," and he did; he had pushcarts made for them, and filled them with books and so sent out over the town literature that was not poisonous. He put the women to work, and established) or rather perpetuated in better form, a number of the almshouses for the venerable old women who were poor and helpless, following out the suggestion in 2 Timothy, and he erected a hospital. Then they got to going further afield. They went all over England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, crossed over into the Continent, crossed the seas to Australia, and the islands of the seas, and into heathen lands. I have always said that Spurgeon’s Pastoral College came nearer to the Bible idea of a seminary than any other in existence. There was not so much stress laid on mere scholarship as on spiritual efficiency.

It is important to note particularly what I am saying now, because it was burnt into my heart as one of the reasons for establishing a theological seminary. The nature of that society was that it was a school. They left their homes and came to stay at this school, with what we now call a mess hall in which all the theological students, by contributing so much, have their table in common. It was that way then; they had their meals in common. In preparing dinner one day for the sons of the prophets, somebody put a lot of wild gourds into the pot, and when they began to eat it, one of them cried out: "Ah, man of God, there’s death in the pot!" Once I preached a sermon on this theme: "Wild Gourds and Theological Seminaries," to show that to feed the students in theological seminaries on wild gourds of heresy is to put death in the pot; they will do more harm than good, as they will become instruments of evil.

In determining what were their duties, we must consult quite a number of passages. We gather from this passage that they were thoroughly instructed in the necessity of repentance, individually and nationally, and of turning from their sins and coming back to God with faithful obedience. That lesson was ground in them. They were taught the interpretation of the spiritual meaning of the law, all its sacrifices, its feasts, its types, and therefore when you are studying a prophet in the Old Testament you will notice how different his idea of types and ceremonies from that of the priests. They will tell you that to do without eating is fasting, but the prophet will show that literal fasting is not true fasting; that there must be fasting at heart; that there must be a rending of the soul and not the garment as an expression of repentance; that to obey God w better than a formal sacrifice.

Another thing they were taught, which I wish particularly to emphasize, was music, both vocal and instrumental. In that school of the prophets started the tremendous power of music in religion so wonderfully developed by David, who got many of his ideas from associating with the schools of the prophets. And from that time unto this, every evangelical work, and all powerful religious work, has been associated with music, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament; not merely vocal, but instrumental music. The heart of a religion is expressed in its songs, and if you want to get at the heart of your Old Testament you find it in the hymnbook of the Hebrew nation – the Psalter. It is indeed an interesting study to see what has been the influence of great hymns on the national life. There is an old proverb: "You may make the laws of the people, if you will let me write their ballads." Where is there a man capable of measuring the influence of "How Firm a Foundation," or "Come, Thou Fount," or "Did Christ O’er Sinners Weep?" There is a rich literature on the influence of hymns on the life.

In the awful times of the struggle in England, Charles I against the Parliament, one faction of the nation held to ritualism, while the other followed spirituality, even to the extreme of not allowing any form, not even allowing any instruments of music. One of the finest stories of this period is the account of a church that observed the happy medium, using instrumental as well as vocal music, and congregational singing as well as the use of the choir; every sabbath somebody’s soul was melted in the power of that mighty singing. I can’t sing myself, but I can carry the tunes in my mind, and I can be more influenced by singing than by preaching. It was singing that convicted me of sin. It was on a waving, soaring melody of song that my soul was converted. I once knew a rugged, one-eyed, homely, old pioneer Baptist preacher, who looked like a pirate until his religion manifested itself, and then he was beautiful. I heard him one day when a telegram was put into his hand stating that his only son had just been killed by being thrown from a horse. While weeping, his face became illumined; he got up and clapped his hands and walked through that audience, singing, "O, Jesus, My Saviour, to Thee I Submit."

John Bunyan wrote that song while in Bedford Jail. They had put him there to keep him from preaching, and looking out through the bars of the dungeon he saw his poor blind girl, Mary, begging bread, and he sat down and wrote that hymn. The effect of the old preacher’s singing John Bunyan’s song was a mighty revival.

The relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries is this: The purpose was the same. And so in New Testament times, Jesus recognized that if he wanted to revolutionize the world by evangelism he must do it with trained men. He did not insist that they be rich, great or mighty men. He did not insist that they be scholars. He called them from among the common people, and he kept them right with him for three years and a half, and diligently instructed them in the principles and spirit of his kingdom. He taught them in a variety of forms; in parables, in proverbs, in exposition, illustrating his teachings by miracles, and in hundreds of ways in order that they might be equipped to go out and lead the world to Christ. You cannot help being impressed with this fact: That the theological seminaries in Samuel’s time and in Christ’s time were intensely practical, the object being not to make learned professors, but to fill each one with electricity until you could call him a "live wire," so that it burnt whoever touched it.

This is why I called Samuel a great man, and why in a previous discussion, counting the men as the peaks in a mountain range, sighting back from Samuel to Abraham, only one other peak comes into line of vision, and that is Moses.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the more important passages bearing on the schools of the prophets?

2. Distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office and illustrate by examples.

3. Distinguish between a prophet and a son of a prophet.

4. What is the meaning of prophet?

5. In what two periods of Hebrew history do we find the clearest notices of the school of prophets, what are the proofs of their persistence between these periods, and what is their influence on the nation?

6. Who was the founder of the first school of the prophets?

7. What scripture shows his headship?

8. What was the reason for such school in Samuel’s time?

9. What was the value of these schools of the prophets, and particularly in this case, and what illustration from modern instances?

10. What was the nature of that society, and what was the instruction given?

11. What was the relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries?