I SAMUEL 21-22 Lesson # 22
UNDER PRESSURE BUT UNDER CARE
I. Introduction:
Note: The next two chapters begin David’s formal time of “on the lamb”. After the events of chapter 21, there is no doubt that his life is in danger from King Saul. In the next two chapters we will watch David run, under pressure, but we will also watch Saul, under pressure. David first runs to a likely source, the high priest. We do not know why David went there, except that it is really close by Gibeah, where David and Jonathan had just talked.
II. David Seeks Provisions At Nob. I Samuel 21:1-9.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 21:1-7.
Q Is Ahimelech suspicious about why David is there all alone?
An = Notice, he came trembling out to meet David. He wants to know why David is here all alone. Seemingly, David had been there before to seek guidance and blessing before going to battle (I Samuel 22:15).
Q Did David tell Ahimelech the truth? And what do you think about that?
An = David does not speak the truth. 1) We can understand that David is young and under pressure and he needs food and weapons. 2) We can also surmise that he feared telling Ahimelech the truth about his fugitive status, so that if Ahimelech aided him he could not be held liable. Davis (p. 74) postulates that David’s not telling Ahimelech the truth was meant to protect Ahimelech. 3) We can also see that the text does not comment on David’s action. It just reports it.
Q David was seeking bread and all that was available was the “shew-bread” or the “bread of the “presence”. What is this?
An = This bread was set out afresh periodically and when it was replaced the old bread was for the priest’s family (Leviticus 24:9). This bread symbolized that Yahweh would supply their needs as it was used to supply David’s needs.
Q Does David have the religious scruples that Saul does when he accepts the “shew bread”?
An = David loves God and tries to trust Him, but he is not bound by an overly meticulous approach to religious protocol. David understands that matters of the heart are more important to God.
Q What does Ahimelech mean by asking if the men have kept themselves from women?
An = In Israelite society the men took oaths to refrain from sexual intercourse when they were to be involved in battle (See II Samuel 11:11,13). It was a form of discipline that no doubt helped them understand the sacredness of their mission when fighting on behalf of the Lord. David assures Ahimelech that he was always clean (or holy) when on a mission.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 21:8-9.
Q What does David ask for now?
An = David now seeks weapons and winds up with the sword of Goliath. Notice the sword was in a sacred place and that David took sacred bread; all with the high priest’s blessing. The author is going out of his way to say something about David’s understanding of the sacred. It is very similar to the understanding of religion versus faith in I Samuel 4-6.
III. David Seeks Safety With the Enemy. I Samuel 21:10-15.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 21:10-15.
Q What does this story and the last one have in common as far as David’s actions are concerned?
An = David uses deception in both (Gordon, p. 169). David has tried twice to protect himself now that he has been wrongfully accused. He is fighting fire with fire (evil with evil), and it does not work. He barely escapes with his life, and that, after he makes a complete fool of himself. He is a bold fellow. He shows up in the city of Goliath with Goliath’s sword, seeking refuge. Achish’s military commanders wanted nothing to do with David. Had David not acted like a mad man he would no doubt have remained in custody (see 21:13 while he was in their hands, Davis, p. 77) and faced death.
Q Has David gone over to the enemy? Did he go with the intent of enlisting?
An = Perhaps. We are not told, but see I Samuel 27. What ever David’s intent, God had prevented him from doing so by his reputation of fighting the Lord’s battles.
Q Are we not tempted to leave the church when some leader misuses power and seek refuge in the wrong place?
An = God is gracious to David and in some senses David’s previous actions of faith and stepping up to defend the Lord (and God’s consequent blessing in battle) kept David from ending his career with Israel and from permanently joining the enemy.
Q Are we to seek refuge in the world no matter how corrupt some of God’s leaders are?
An = Israel is our true home, even though we are wrongfully a refugee from its borders.
IV. David Re-groups. I Samuel 22:1-5.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 22:1-5.
Note: Saul, in a way, forced David into becoming a true military threat. David was a loyal servant fighting his battles and now he has 400 hundred men and is clearly no longer on good terms with Saul.
Q What kind of men does David have with him?
An = They have three characteristics (see 22:2): those who were in distress, or in debt, or discontented. >> Turn to Mark 1:32-34 and have someone read these verses. Notice, that Jesus too had attracted the “less than desirable” element of his society. Sometimes our hard luck, in David’s case with Saul, allows us to identify with those who also feel disenfranchised. It allows us to gather them and then we can be their captain (22:2) and lead them to better places. God can use anything that happens to us to accomplish His good will.
Note: David takes his family and places them in Moab. No doubt this king would be open to helping an enemy of Saul (see I Samuel 14:47 and Gordon, p. 173) but also David’s ancestor Ruth was a Moabite.
Q What is the significance of 22:5?
An = The author may want to show that the Lord, who no longer speaks with Saul, is now speaking with David and that David obeys. David has access to the Word of God.
V. The Massacre At Nob. I Samuel 22:6-23.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 22:6-10.
Note: It seems Saul’s power was in giving patronage in the form of power (military position) and money (land/vineyards).
Q Does Saul tell the truth about Jonathan and David?
An = Jonathan never conspired against Saul but was only for David. David and Jonathan never were involved with an “ambush” against Saul. What is interesting is that David will prove twice that he lies not in wait for Saul, for when David actually has a chance to kill Saul he passes it up (chapters 24 and 26). Also, Jonathan does not seek to harm his father’s life for he will die loyally by his side in battle in chapter 31.
Note: No one in these chapters, not even Saul, mentions David’s name except Ahimelech and the narrator. He is always referred to as the “son of Jesse”.
Q What do you think of Doeg’s personality type? Have you met a “Doeg” in your experience?
An = Doeg’s are the “pleasers”, those who wish to be “on the inside”. He is quite eager to speak to Saul when the rest of the men can see that being accused of conspiracy by Saul points to something being wrong with Saul. Doeg wants to “kiss-up”. He seems to fuel Saul’s negative views
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 22:11-16.
Q Is Saul seeking to learn the truth in his questioning?
An = Saul is not inquiring, he is dictating. He accuses but never listens. In verse 13 he tells Ahimelech what he has done and accuses him of conspiracy.
Q Does Ahimelech give a good defense? Why?
An = Saul accuses Ahimelech of being able to know more about David than Saul himself knew about his own family. Ahimelech’s answer shows Saul’s irrationality. Ahimelech has successfully refuted the charges of Saul on two counts: David was known to be in good graces with the King (he gives four examples) and that Ahimelech regularly had consulted the Lord on behalf of David before battle. So why should he not do so this time as well. Ahimelech pleads innocence as to what is going on with David and Saul’s relationship.
Q Does Saul listen?
An = No, Saul is not giving the priest a fair trial and thus proves his irrationality.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 22:17-19.
Q Would Saul’s men, his fellow Benjamites, kill the priests?
An = No. Brueggemann (p. 160) points out that they were not convinced by the trial that Ahimelech was guilty and so could not act in obedience. So the foreigner Doeg does the deed. However, he not only kills Ahimelech, but kills all the priests and all their families and all their livestock. What is ironic is that Saul, who refused to execute the Amalakites who were indeed guilty, now kills his own people who are innocent and who are priests (Brueggemann, p. 160).
Note: Davis calls this work the work of “an antichrist” a foreshadowing of that ultimate person who will appear at the end of time. He points to many people in biblical history and church history that have done such deeds to God’s people (Davis, pp. 87-88). The Bible is not a book of sweet possibilities but a book of stark realities. It is a mirror of life, real life. Not to mention such things would be to not tell the actual story of human behavior.
Q Does it seem that God is not in control? Where is God in all of this?
An = Even when evil seems to be running a-muck such behavior is not beyond the rule and control of God. Even such evil behavior is often used by God to fulfil His Word.
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 2:31-36. This slaughter of the “house of Eli” was a fulfillment of the judgment brought on the corruption of that priesthood. It was predicted in three stages: the death of Eli’s two sons in one day (2:34), this incident at Nob (31,33) and finally in I Kings 2:27,35 the line of Eli is replaced all together (Brueggemann, p. 161).
>>>> Have someone read I Samuel 22:20-23.
Q What do we learn about David in 22:22?
An = David is willing to face his own errors. He has been wrongfully treated but he is willing to face his own guilt and take responsibility for his own action.
Q Do you think the man is weak who is willing to admit his own errors?
An = I think it is a sign of strength. In addition, it is honest and in the long run it is a blessing. If David had not confessed his role in the massacre, Abiathar would have found out and David’s integrity with Abiathar would have been destroyed. It takes courage to openly admit your errors, but it is the mark of a true leader.
Note: There is a great contrast between how David handles Abiathar and Saul handled Ahimelech: Saul accuses Ahimelech, whereas David listens and gathers information. Saul refuses to acknowledge Ahimelech’s defense, whereas David confesses his guilt in the matter. Saul destroys Ahimelech, whereas David protects Abiathar (Davis, p. 89).
Hopefully, there will be great contrast in the way we deal with people and the way that corrupt leaders act.