1 Samuel 14:47ff might make it sound like Saul was a great warrior. And he did have a measure of success, obviously. But his ongoing wars have to be understood as a mixed blessing to Israel. V. 52 tells us he fought the Philistines “all his days.” The problem is that the never actually won. He didn’t finish off the Philistines when he had the chance, and it came back to haunt him in the form of unending warfare. The Philistines were as much a problem at the end of his reign as they had been at the beginning. This contrasts with David, who will actually win the war and give rest to the land.
There are all kinds of ways to contrast David and Saul. For example, when we first meet Saul, he has lost his father’s donkeys. By contrast, when we first meet David, he is taking care of his father’s sheep. The contrast here is not only between one who does his job poorly vs. one who does it well, but between donkeys and sheep. Kings are shepherds, not donkey-watchers.
In chapter 16, David and Saul are side by side in the royal court – the rejected king and the replacement king.
Psalm 78 makes much of God calling David from tending his father’s sheep to overseeing the Lord’s the sheep. When David became king, he did not get a new job description – he was still a shepherd – but he went from shepherding sheep to shepherding people.
There is also a Moses connection, since Moses worked as a shepherd for many years before becoming a shepherd of the nation of Israel. David will be a new and greater Moses. Moses was a shepherd, then a deliverer. The same can be said of David.
There may also be a Joseph connection since he was shepherd who ended up getting exalted above his brothers (and the whole nation).
——
It’s interesting that in chapter 16, Jesse compeltely overlooks David and thinks very little of him, while Saul’s servant describes David in the most glowing and exalter terms. To his own father, David appears to be a nobody.” To Saul’s servant he is an omnicompetent young man, an ideal masculine specimen.
The list in 16:18 is astoundingly comprehensive. He is a skillful musician, full of physical strength and courage, exemplary in military skill, wise in his speech (this may refer to his rhetorical abilities or even his lyric writing abilities), and either “handsome” or “man of good presence.” The last item in the list is interesting. Some translations take it as a reference to his comely appearance — sort of the bow on top of the package. But the ESV translation, “a man of good presence” suggests something like charisma and gravitas. (There is an excellent discussion of manly gravitas in the book It’s Good to Be Man by Foster and Tennant.)
——-
Envy will become a major theme in David’s story arc. His brothers will become envious that their little brother was made king (cf. 17:28). Saul will be envious when David’s star outshines his own; indeed, Saul’s envy will throw him into a murderous rage.
The one person who had the most reason to be envious of David was Jonathan – and yet Jonathan was never envious of David but instead mentored and befriended him. Jonathan was loyal to David to the very end.
(Note: I call Jonathan a mentor to David because he was considerably older. Jonathan was at least 20 years old in chapter 14 since 20 was the age of military service. It’s possible Jonathan was “drafted” into the military at an earlier age since his father king and Israel was short of troops. Perhaps that’s a reason why Jonathan kept what he was doing secret from Saul – he knew he would be told he was too young for such a risky mission. But even if he was, say, 15, when he carried out his famous attack on the Philistines, he was still a good bit older than David. IIRC, Josephus tells us David was 10 years old when he was anointed. Even if he was a little older, he could not have been much older. We know he is still under 20 in chapter 17 when his brothers go off to fight. Jonathan becomes a true older brother to David.)
One thing we see is that envy is dynamic, not static. At first, Saul loves David and they seem to have a mutually benefical relationship. But as soon as David gets glory Saul wanted for himself, Saul comes to view him as a rival. Saul is not an obstacle to David’s calling to be king at this point, but he will become such soon.
David became an armor-bearer. Armor-bearers play a huge role in this book (e.g., Jonathan and his armor bearer in chapter 14). Of course, Saul had many armor-bearers, which may be Saul does not recognize David in 17:55. (Other suggest that chapter 16 actaully comes after chapter 17 chronologically, but I don’t buy that.)
Of course, to better understand envy, the best scholar to read is Rene Girard.
———-
Just as David has parallels to Jacob, Moses, and Saul (among others), he has parallels with Jonathan. David is adopted by Saul in a certain sense. He becomes Saul’s son-in-law. Jonathan was disinherited because of his father’s sin; Saul will not get to have a dynasty through Jonathan. In a sense, David takes Jonathan’s place.
Jonathan fought Philistines successfully in chapter 14; David will fight the ultimate Philistine in chapter 17. Both Jonathan and David are key to leading Israel in to victory over the Philistines, which becomes an issue for Saul in both cases since he is insecure and envious. Both Jonathan and David are models of trusting the Lord in battle – Jonathan trusts in the Lord rather than numerical strength, David trusts in the Lord rather than mighty weapons. Both Jonathan (chapter 14, 20) and David (chapters 18, 19) are attacked twice by Saul.
There may also be a faint connection between Jospeh and David. Pharaoh was told there was a young man who could help him in the midst of a crisis – a man who could interpret dreams. Likewise, Saul was told there was a young man who could help him in the midst of his crisis.
———-
In chapters 13-15, I showed Saul’s threefold fall and links to the three falls of Gensis 3-6. Saul sins in three areas, garden, land, and world. David will prove himself faithful in these areas – the king’s house, the outer lying wilderness, and the “world” region of Philistia, as he deals with enemies (and allies) in each of these zones.
I have alluded to links between David and Jacob (and Esau, though those seem limited to David as being “ruddy” and his prowess as man of war). At the very least, the early part of David’s life seems to track pretty closely with Jacob’s life. Both were younger sons, chosen by God, opposed by a hostile father (or father-in-law in David’s case), both had to flee for their lives. What’s interesting is that the parallels would seem to put Jonathan (David’s brother-in-law) in the place of Esau, but Jonathan, so far from showing Esau-like hatred, is the best friend a man could have.
There will be other links with David’s family and Jacob’s family, which we will see later on.
———
I made note of how David’s life will be full of challenges between his anointing and his crowning. He must suffer before entering glory. This is a pattern for us as well, between our baptisms and our resurrection. Life is hard by design. Life’s trials are an obstacle course designed to strengthen and mature you.
Charles Spurgeon on raising sons without coddling them: “If you want to ruin your son, never let him know a hardship. When he is a child carry him in your arms, when he becomes a youth still dandle him, and when he becomes a man still dry-nurse him, and you will succeed in producing an arrant fool. If you want to prevent his being made useful in the world, guard him from every kind of toil. Do not suffer him to struggle. Wipe the sweat from his dainty brow and say, “Dear child, thou shalt never have another task so arduous.” Pity him when he ought to be punished; supply all his wishes, avert all disappointments, prevent all troubles, and you will surely tutor him to be a reprobate and to break your heart. But put him where he must work, expose him to difficulties, purposely throw him into peril, and in this way you shall make him a man, and when he comes to do man’s work and to bear man’s trial, he shall be fit for either.”
Teddy Roosevelt on hardships: “ I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life; I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”
———
In 1 Samuel 16, Samuel is still grieving how Saul’s kingship has turned out. In the Bible, we find legitimate places for grief – but we also find that grief is bounded. For example, the book of Lamentations is an acrostic, with each section starting with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. But that’s just the point: grief is not numerical (infinite), it is alphabetic (finite). There is a time to grieve; and there is a time to stop grieving and get on with life. That’s what Samuel had to learn. He had to put away grief and get back to work.
———
When Israel demanded a king, God gave them one – good and hard (cf. Hosea 13:11). Their desire for a king was a carnal desire so God gave them a carnal king. Samuel had them ratify Saul’s anointing. This is not only a reflection of the Bible’s “consent of the governed” pattern; it also means they would have no one to blame but themselves when the monarchy went awry, as Samuel predicted. Of course, we do something similar: We elect a bunch of mostly worthless, foolish people to rule over us every four years or so. At some point, it might be good to stop and ask, “Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?”
———
Tim Chester’s commentary makes a couple interesting observations. First, the song of Hannah is once again the framework. Hannah was provoked by her rival. She fought back with song. Of course, God brought about a reversal in Hannah’s situation, and Hannah’s song is a song of reversals. Likewise, David’s calling is a kind of reversal. The smallest, the youngest, the most overlooked son is the one anointed king.
Chester says, “The word ‘proudly’ [in Hannah’s song] is the word for height. Do not keep talking so highly of yourself, we might say. The same word is used in 9:2 to introduce Saul; describing Saul as a ‘tall’ man is a bad sign to those who listened carefully to Hannah’s song. In 1 Samuel 4-7, the issue was weight, echoing the symbolic sense of weight in 1 Samuel 2. In 1 Samuel 8-17, the issue is height, echoing the symbolic sense of height in 1 Samuel 2.”
Saul is a giant who fell — a preview of things to come with Goliath. God brings down the proud and exalts the lowly.
Further, Chester points out that the word for God’s choosing in 1 Samuel 16:1 can also mean “to see” or “to look.” The word appears seven times in this chapter – 16:1, 6, 7 (3x), 17, 18. God says, “I have seen one of Jesse’s sons,” for God’s “sees the heart.” In chapter 8, the people wanted a king “for us” and Samuel refers to Saul as “your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves.” But in chapter 16, God says, “I have chosen a king for myself.”
In 1 Samuel 16, The Lord says he has chosen “a king for me.” Roughly, this means, “my kind of king.” David is God’s kind of king. He has the heart of a king, if not (yet) the stature. Saul was the king Israel chose, but David is the king they need. They asked (“sauled”) for Saul, but David is the one they should have waited on.
———-
Taking the whole picture we have of David, he not only fulfills the most common and widely recognized masculine stereotypes (great warrior, leader), he also breaks those stereotypes (e.g., the humility and emotional tenderness we see in the Psalms). This important. Stereotypes are often a form of proverbial wisdom, based on generalizations and observed patterns of behavior. But not all stereotypes are wise or right. Some stereotypes are rigid and stifling.
David was very handsome. There are many people who get to positions of leadership and influence because of superficial outward qualities. People look on the outside, and they judge according to very superficial metrics. God looks at the heart. We cannot see the heart, but we CAN see certain things that reveal the heart, such as words and actions. We cannot know the heart, but we can judge a heart (semi-accurately, at least) but its fruit. This is a point Jesus makes: you will know a tree by its fruit. David was not just another handsome face; he had a supremely handsome heart as well. He was a good tree bearing good fruit. God could see things about David men could not yet see, but would come to see in time as he grew.
David turns out to be a good man who is good at being a man. He has character and competence. He is man of wise action and a man of deep emotion. He has savior-faire, a French expression that means something like “knowing what to do in any given situation” (think James Bond, but without the immorality).
Consider this: David is both Israel’s greatest warrior AND its poet laureate. How many men in history have been this well-rounded and had such wide ranging competencies? Not many, if any. We are amazed by athletes like Bo Jackson who can excel at a high level at more than one sport. But there is quite a bit of overlap in the skills required for different sports. To have a man like David, who is both highly athletic, fit for warfare, but also extremely intelligent, as seen in his poetic and musical skill, is truly remarkable.
Think of David in light of 1 John 2:14: the young men John addresses are strong because the Word of God abides in them and they have overcome the evil one. David was strong in both physical and spiritual senses. As Proverbs says, the glory of young men is their physical strength, but physical strength without spiritual strength is ultimately useless. Further, David’s strength ultimately comes because the Word of the Lord abides in him (as he says all over the Psalms – Psalm 1 speaks of meditating on God’s law, Psalm 19 speaks of hiding God’s Word in the heart, etc.). And David overcomes the evil one, seen in his defeat of the evil spirit tormenting Saul and the serpent-like giant in chapter 17.
———
In 1 Samuel 16:1f, God tells Samuel to go anoint one of Jesse’s sons as the next king. The Lord says he has “provided a king for me” from the house of Jesse. This will be a king after God’s own heart rather than a king like the nations.
Samuel obviously knew that traveling with a horn full of oil could arouse suspicion. Anointing a new king while Saul was still on the throne could be viewed as an act of treason. It’s likely that Samuel’s travel route from his hometown of Ramah to Jesse’s hometown of Bethlehem would take him through Saul’s hometown of Gibeah, so this was a live issue for him.
God instructs Samuel to use deception. Samuel will tell a partial truth to cover the deeper purpose for his trip. He will take a heifer and will tell any who ask that he is going to offer sacrifice. The real purpose of his mission – to anoint the new king – will be hidden.
This is righteous deception, and one of many we find in 1-2 Samuel. But there is an interesting twist here. Back in chapter 15, Saul’s excuse for not destroying the Amalakeite animals is that he was going to offer them as sacrifice. He tried to deceive Samuel into thinking he was actually being obedient. Samuel’s deception of Saul in chapter 15 also hinges on the claim that sacrifice will be made. In other words, Samuel’s deception of Saul matches Saul’s attempted deception of Samuel – though Samuel was righteous to do what he did while Saul was obviously not. Because Saul lies in chapter 15, he will be lied to many times in the rest of this book. Saul will be like other tyrants in Scripture (e.g., Pharaoh) who are deluded by the righteous.
———-
It’s interesting to note that in chapter 18, Saul is clearly aware of the fact that the Lord has left him and is now with David. Saul no doubt carried a lot of guilt, guilt which he continued to pile up by increasing in wickedness. The evil spirit that tormented Saul was going “with the grain” of how Saul chose to live his life. The evil spirit probably caused Saul to be wracked with irrational fears, anxiety, and madness. God did not inflict a righteous man with an evil spirit; Saul chose evil and so God gave him evil. We see the same thing happening in our culture: God is giving us over to what we have chosen. He is releasing his restraining hand on us.
———-
When Samuel gets to Jesse’s house, Jesse’s sons pass by him one by one and each time the Lord tells Samuel, “This is not the one.” Samuel asks Jesse, “Do you have any other sons?” David is brought in from the sheep field and is anointed king.
16:10 says 7 sons passed in front of Samuel and were rejected prior to David. This seems to suggest David is the 8th son, which would be fitting because 8 is the number of new beginnings and new creations. The next chapter also seems to suggest he is youngest and the 8th son of Jesse as well (17:12). But 1 Chronicles 2 gives a genealogy that says David was the seventh son of Jesse. How do we reconcile these? Was David the seventh or eighth son?
There are a few possibilities. Technically, Samuel does not say David was the 8th son. The word used for David in 1 Samuel 16:11 could mean he was the youngest, or it could mean he was the smallest. What if David was later in the birth order but a late bloomer so that his younger brother(s) had passed him in height at that age? In that case he could still be the seventh born of eight sons. Or, more likely, Jesse had 8 sons but one died (or apostatized) and so was cut out of the genealogy in Chronicles. Or, one of Jesse’s eight sons was adopted and only the biological sons are included in Chronicles. There are plenty of possibilities that would allow us to reconcile 1 Samuel 16-17 and 1 Chronicles 2.
For the purposes of our study in 1 Samuel, we will assume David was the eighth son – the beginning of a new phase in the kingdom after Saul’s fall. 1 Samuel 16 emphasizes how surprising and counter-intuitive God’s choice of David was. God chose the lowliest the son, the smallest son, the overlooked son, to be his king – kind of like God’s Son coming as a baby in manger. We do not expect future kings to be overlooked by their own families, to work lowly jobs, or to be born in lowly places. But God delights in underdog stories.
———
Another way to get at what I had in kind with my hermeneutical lesson at the beginning of the 7/14/24 sermon is this: We have to look at a figure like David both vertically (as a type of Jesus) and horizontally (as an example of discipleship/leadership).
———
It’s really interesting to consider how David was an accomplished musician at an early age. Music was a like David’s native language. Some Christian parents today underestimate the importance of musical education for their kids – even as they may also underestimate the extent to which the music of pop culture is shaping their kids. Ideally, musical education will treated as foundational as learning to read – it won’t just be for kids who show interest or aptitude, but for all. We cannot raise up Davids without a heavy dose of training in music, centered on the psalms.
————
An evil spirit comes to torment Saul. Why? He chose Satan’s side in chapters 13-15, so in chapter 16, he gets Satan. He did evil so he was hounded an evil spirit.
————
When Saul seeks to keep David in his royal court for an extended period of time, it’s a quite interesting development. We already know Saul had a habit of claiming the best young men in Israel for himself. It raises the question: Who does David belong to? Saul says “provide for me a man.” God has said, “I have provided for myself a king.” The very man Saul sought to add to his retinue was the man God had chosen for himself. It sets up a showdown: who will have true ownership of David, Saul or the Lord? David is a prized asset — but whose is he?
Further, David going to the royal court reminds us of Moses (who was educated in Egypt’s royal court) and Daniel (who was taken to Babylon’s royal court).
Also, consider this irony: While Jesse does not call David by name, Saul does. While Jesse overlooks David at the royal anointing feast, Saul gives David a place of high honor in his court and household. David comes to Saul in obedience to Saul’s summons – and immediately David proves to be “better” than Saul, just as Samuel had predicted in 15:28.
David is presented to us a kind of gentleman barbarian – or a cultured barbarian. He is a young man who can strum a harp while singing soothing songs but also a man who can kill beasts and giants with rudimentary weapons.
———-
Much of what I said in the 7/21/24 sermon about music and worship as warfare, I learned from Jim Jordan and Peter Leithart. Jordan also has a paper on the three falls of Saul that is very helpful on that section of the book.
J. I. Packer on music and theology: “The older I get, the more I want to sing my faith and get others singing it with me. Theology is for doxology: the first thing to do with it is to turn it into praise and thus honor the God who is its subject, the God in whose presence and by whose help it was worked out. Theologies that cannot be sung are certainly wrong at a deep level.”
TPC Pastor's Page 