Chapter 19

1 Jonathan discloseth his father’s purpose to kill David. 4 He persuadeth his father to reconciliation. 8 By reason of David’s good success in a new war, Saul’s malicious rage breaketh out against him. 12 Michal deceiveth her father with an image in David’s bed. 18 David cometh to Samuel in Naioth. 20 Saul’s messengers sent to take David, 22 and Saul himself, prophesy.

1. Kill David. Literally, “cause David to die.” Saul decided to make David the target of a political purge and discussed the matter with Jonathan and some of his government officials. No doubt he assured them immunity from punishment.

This was Saul’s fifth attempt to do away with David: (1) He threw his javelin at David (ch. 18:10, 11). (2) Then he tried to accomplish his evil design by placing David at the front in the hope that he would be killed (ch. 18:17). (3) Next, Saul deceived him by promising him Merab but giving her to another, perhaps hoping that David would act rashly as a result and might be punished (ch. 18:19). (4) After that, he gave David permission to earn the dowry for Michal by a dangerous mission (ch. 18:25). (5) Now, it being evident that the Lord was with David, Saul sought the help of others to kill him.

3. I will commune. Adversity proves the sincerity of true friendship. Jonathan well knew that David had no thought of usurping the throne, but was unable to convince Saul of that fact. Jonathan’s position was not easy, for he would be in the role of opposing the desires of a tyrant, and would be thought disloyal to his own father. However, as a true friend, Jonathan told David the truth about Saul, not to frighten, but to forewarn and assure him of a true friend’s allegiance. This was a real test for Jonathan. Jonathan had to decide between loyalty to his father and loyalty to David. It was impossible longer to be loyal to both. He demonstrated good judgment by conducting himself in such a way as to retain influence over his father and yet at the same time save David from certain death.

4. Let not the king sin. Bound to his friend by ties even closer than those of blood relationship, with a love “passing the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26), and knowing the innermost thoughts of David’s heart, Jonathan was ideally fitted to mediate between him and Saul. In Jonathan’s plea to his father, respect for authority and strict regard for principle were both manifested. As Saul’s son, he knew the arguments that would have the most weight with the king—David’s victory over Goliath and his continued, loyal service to the king personally on all occasions.

5. Without a cause. Jonathan tactfully proved to Saul that he had no reason for slaying David, by reminding him that he had every reason to appreciate David’s loyal service.

6. Saul hearkened. How effective are right words at the right moment (see Prov. 25:11; Isa. 50:4)! Jonathan knew his father was wrong, not only in this instance, but in many others as well. But he would have gained nothing had he berated his father for his mistakes.

8. A great slaughter. Providence provided Saul with further evidence of David’s loyalty and the value of his services.

9. The evil spirit. See on ch. 16:14, 15. The devil had known ever since the time of David’s anointing that he was being trained for kingship. Hence the evil one might be expected to attempt to thwart God’s plan. He could have conceived no more effective means of doing so than by convincing Saul that David sought to usurp the kingdom.

10. Escaped that night. In accordance with Hebrew narrative style the final results of David’s escape are given and then more details are added. David did not escape at once; he first went briefly to his home.

11. To night. The narrative does not state how Michal learned of Saul’s command to kill David. She may have seen the officers lying in wait for David, and, knowing the character of her father, perceived his purpose. Or, perhaps, David was impressed to confide in her. Perhaps David was thinking of this experience when he fervently sang, “A man’s goings are established of Jehovah” (Ps. 37:23, ASV). Imagine David out on the mountainside, homeless and hunted like a wild animal! But after a night of weeping David could say, “I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble” (Ps. 59:16. See title of this psalm).

12. Through a window. The word translated “window” comes from a verb meaning “to bore,” “to pierce.” Anciently, houses were usually built in such a way that all openings faced a walled-in courtyard, except for one main outside entrance. Often the roofs were flat and could be reached either from the inside of the house or from the courtyard. The record does not state whether the opening through which Michal let down David was onto the roof, or whether it overlooked the rear of the house. In any case it was at some point opposite the front entrance, where the emissaries from the king stood watch. The spies were let down from the walls of Jericho in a similar way (Joshua 2:15); Paul was let down over the wall at Damascus (Acts 9:25); the disciples opened the flat roof to let the paralytic down in the presence of Jesus (Luke 5:19). The wisdom of Michal’s prompt action became apparent when the officers commissioned to arrest David clamored for admission the next morning.

There are times when the cause of right can be advanced better by flight than by fighting. Some may think that inasmuch as God had anointed David, and Saul had so far departed from right as to attempt murder, it would have been better for David to stand his ground. Heretofore he had never turned his back to an enemy. Had he faced Saul in the same spirit that he met Goliath, he could not have failed to draw many of the people to his side; but such an action would have led to civil war, for Saul was also popular and many obeyed him implicitly. As events later proved, it was seven years after the death of Saul before David was accepted by all Israel. As with David, so with Christ. Fearless and unafraid, the Saviour could have summoned the armies of heaven to His aid. Instead, He permitted evil men to have their day.

13. An image. Heb. teraphim (see on Gen. 31:19; Lev. 19:31). An image of sufficient size to be mistaken for a man is most unusual.

A pillow. The word here translated “pillow” does not appear elsewhere in the OT, and its meaning is uncertain. The fact that the “pillows” of ancient times were usually solid, and made of wood, clay, stone, or metal (see on Gen. 28:11), suggests that the object here referred to was something other than a “pillow.” It may have been a sort of wig made of black goat’s hair attached to the head of the image, in imitation of human hair.

For his bolster. Or, “at its head” (RSV).

14. He is sick. Although David may literally have been “sick,” it seems more likely that Michal told a deliberate falsehood. If so, her action could hardly be condoned in spite of the fact that David was thereby given more time to make good his escape (see vs. 15, 16).

17. Why hast thou deceived me? Saul had been pleased to use Michal as a decoy to lure David on to his death; now he was highly incensed that his own daughter should be loyal to David rather than to him. Outwitted, he feared lest he lose face with his officers. Michal had evidently inherited some of her father’s traits; she did not hesitate to offer the excuse that her husband had threatened to kill her. This falsehood gave Saul an excuse to pursue with increased vigor his purpose to slay David, who, it appeared, had now threatened his daughter. If David would dare to kill his own wife, there could be no safety for any of the royal family till he was out of the way. Her falsehood, however, was the result of Saul’s training, and he had only himself to blame. Laban’s example of deceit similarly returned to plague him (Gen. 31:14–20, 35). Laban, Jacob, and Saul all proved the truth of Christ’s statement, “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:2).

18. Came to Samuel. David was doubtless greatly perplexed over the conduct of God’s appointed leader, Saul. Why did God permit Saul to continue as king? Was God particular? Had He deserted the nation? The tabernacle and its services at Shiloh had been discontinued; the ark was in a Levite’s home in Kirjath-jearim. Could it be that all these centuries of service and religion had been a hoax? Was there really a God in heaven? Did He have a plan for Israel? Why should he, David, give up his work with the sheep to assist in the development of the kingdom if the high standards he had always cherished were to be cast aside? What was there to gain in fighting the Philistines if the king was determined to murder the one who had obtained the victory? David dared not lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed (ch. 24:6, 10), yet what to do he could not say. See David’s Wanderings When Fleeing from Saul: a. and b.

Thoroughly frightened because of Saul’s attempt on his life, David naturally sought counsel from the one who had called him from the sheepfold to a place of responsibility in Israel, and had, possibly, taught him at Ramah. With Samuel he would feel as safe from Saul as if there had been a sanctuary to which he might flee (see 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–34).

Dwelt in Naioth. Perhaps, literally, “sat in the lodgings,” but the meaning of Naioth is uncertain. The verb yashab, “to dwell,” also means “to sit,” as a king on his throne or a judge before his court or a teacher before his class. These “lodgings” were in Ramah (vs. 19, 22, 23), perhaps a dormitory Samuel had erected for the young men in training at his school. David found Samuel in Ramah, instructing his students rather than away on his annual circuit (1 Sam. 7:16, 17).

20. Saul sent messengers. Three times Saul’s will was frustrated by the conduct of the men he sent to fetch David to Gibeah (see v. 21). Each group, in succession, was restrained by the Holy Spirit from arresting David, and joined in with the activities of the school of the prophets instead.

Appointed over them. Or, “head over them” (RSV), that is, head of the school.

23. Spirit of God. It was not more than 7 or 8 mi. from Gibeah to Ramah. Saul was so infuriated by the day’s proceedings that he determined finally to kill David with his own hand, regardless of consequences (see PP 653, 654). The power of the Spirit was so strong, however, that Saul was led to reveal to all the perfidy of his soul, and the wrath of man was made to praise God.

24. Prophesied before Samuel. Once before, at his anointing, Saul had joined with the prophets, and his sincerity of purpose brought about a transformation of heart (ch. 10:5–11). Now, his wrath was again restrained and he was given clear evidence that God was protecting David. Josephus says, “He was disordered in mind, and under the vehement agitation of a spirit; and, putting off his garments, he fell down, and lay on the ground all that day and night, in the presence of Samuel and David” (Antiquities vi. 11. 5).

Naked. The word thus translated may mean completely naked (Job 1:21), ragged or poorly clothed (Job 22:6; 24:7, 10; Isa. 58:7), or, possibly clad in a tunic, the mantle itself laid aside (cf. Isa. 20:2). Here, it is probably used in the latter sense; in other words, Saul laid aside his royal robe and was clothed only in his tunic, an inner garment commonly worn at home. On the street the outer robe, or cloak, was usually worn over it. By removing his royal robe Saul would probably be dressed more nearly like one of the students in the school.

Perhaps here the Holy Spirit pleaded with Saul personally for the last time. There may have come from his lips not only a confession of the justice of David’s cause but also condemnation of his own willful acts. In the final judgment day the great adversary of souls will admit the justice of God’s great plan of salvation and the error of his own ways (see Phil. 2:10, 11). But the old jealousies and enmities will return and break forth in one great final expression of hatred and fury (see GC 671, 672). Thus it was with Saul in his animosity toward David. Returning once more, the evil spirit that had controlled him so long found his heart empty of the grace of God and took an even more firm hold of him than before (see Matt. 12:44, 45).

Ellen G. White comments

1–24PP 652–654

2–10PP 652

11, 12, 18–22PP 653

23, 24  PP 654