3. The Fugitive David (chs. 21-27)

After leaving Jonathan (21:1; NIV 20:42), David was alone (except for Yahweh? cf. 20:13). The priest Ahimelech, to whom David had fled, was troubled by that, perhaps sensing that David had become a marked man, as any would be who helped him (McCarter, I Samuel, 349). But Ahimelech did not knowingly abet David, for the latter lied that he was on a secret royal mission. When David requested food, the priest could offer only consecrated bread. But David and his men were eligible for such in that they met the ritual standards (21:2-6). David honored priestly regulations in stressful situations, while Saul violated them (cf. chs. 13, 15).

David was also unarmed. So he requested and received a weapon: Goliath’s sword (vv.8-9; cf. 17:54, 57). Only later do we discover Ahimelech’s family connections, but we cannot miss the ominous notation that one of Saul’s servants happened to be nearby (v.7).

David had a close call when he sought refuge with Achish, king of Gath. The Philistines recognized that David was an Israelite famous for military exploits (against them; cf. 18:6-7). Sensing the danger, David feigned madness to effect his release. Ironically, the Philistines seemed to lose their minds in allowing a past and future enemy to escape so easily (21:10-15).

Having been alone (21:1), David was soon surrounded by family and a number of disaffected folk, whose Robin-Hood-like leader he became (22:1-2). Unlike Saul, who had tried to kill his own son (20:33), David cared for his family, seeing to it that his parents were protected by the Moabite king. Moreover, he was solicitous of God’s will, receiving and heeding a prophetic word (22:3-5).

Learning of David’s whereabouts, Saul accused his servants of conspiracy (22:12-16). As usual, he had spear in hand (cf. 19:9; 20:33); somehow he was always ready to spring into action against David, Jonathan, or servants; but Goliath had had nothing to fear! The charge was based on a half-truth, for Jonathan had made a pact with David. But his son had not suggested an ambush (22:6-8). Saul’s paranoia increased when Doeg reported that Ahimelech had fed and armed David, and also inquired (š'l: pun “Saul”) of God for him (vv.9-10). Then we discover that Ahimelech was Ahitub’s son (cf. 14:3) and therefore an Elide, but it is impossible to know yet whether he in fact inquired of God as Doeg contended (cf. 21:1-9). In any case, given David’s deception, Ahimelech was not truly an accomplice (21:2, 8).

When confronted, Ahimelech admitted what he had done but denied any conspiracy; moreover, he defended David as a loyal servant of the king. Unimpressed, Saul ordered the death of Yahweh’s priests, something sufficiently outrageous that his own officers balked. (Saul did not know that the Elides were condemned.) But the Edomite Doeg was unfazed—he annihilated the whole family, something Saul had not done even to the Amalekites (ch. 15). Only one—Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son—escaped and sought asylum with David. Though condemned, the priestly family which had served Saul, defected to David (22:11-23; cf. 1Ki 2:26-27).

Though David had acquired a priest, he inquired (š'l) of Yahweh on his own and received God’s sanction to defeat the Philistines (23:1-6). Saul, on the other hand, merely surmised that God had trapped his enemy (vv.7-8). But David sought the Lord again, this time with the priest’s help. And again God responded (vv.9-12). The Elides had been of little use to Saul but were instrumental in David’s escape. Contrary to what Saul had supposed, God was on David’s side (vv.13-14).

Jonathan found the fleeing David and encouraged him by saying that he would get away unharmed and eventually be king. According to Jonathan, Saul had even come to believe in this inevitability (23:15-18). But Jonathan was not completely right; he would not end up second to David.

At this juncture, the Ziphites tried to do what the Lord had not done: deliver David to Saul (23:19-20). Saul still believed the Lord would cooperate: “The Lord bless you” (v.21). Saul gave chase once more but was distracted by a Philistine raid (vv.22-29).

That chore aside, he resumed his obsession. Incredibly, en route Saul stopped to relieve himself in the very cave where David and his party were hiding. David’s compatriots saw the opportunity, but David restrained himself and unobtrusively cut off a corner of the King’s robe. (David had “cut” [krt] a covenant with Jonathan [cf. 18:3; 20:16; 22:8; 23:18], but “cut” [krt] Saul’s robe [24:1-4] as he had “cut” [krt] off Goliath’s head [cf. 17:51]).

Yet, given Saul’s status, David was troubled by even this minimal act. Thus, using deferential and familial language, David implored Saul to trust his good intentions in spite of the advice he, David, had received (24:5-15). Surprisingly, Saul responded in kind—he called David “my son” (cf. 20:27, 30-31; 22:7-9, 13)—and confessed his obstinacy. Saul even acknowledged that he knew David would be king and hoped only that he would not take vengeance on his family. David gave his word, and the two separated (24:16-22). Was Saul at last resigned to Providence?

Samuel at last died (25:1). And his death raises a question. Since God usually spoke through Samuel (3:1, 19-21; cf. 14:41-42 [=lots]; 23:2, 4, 11 [=David]), would the divine word become less accessible? Also, would Samuel’s efforts to check the kingship come to naught? Answers are not forthcoming. Rather, the narrative focuses on the first incident involving David that was not at least indirectly related to Saul (ch. 25).

The introduction of two opposites, a wealthy curmudgeon Nabal (“Mr. Fool”!) and his lovely, intelligent wife, Abigail, immediately suggests tension (25:2-3). Such emerged when David through his men requested a payment from Nabal for having protected his flocks, only to be rebuffed as a runaway slave (vv.4-11).

Reacting in kind (25:12-13), David and his men set out to avenge the slight. When Abigail was told, she prepared a lavish present (vv.14-19; cf. v.3). Then she intercepted David—whose reference to males as “any that pisseth against the wall” evidences his disdain (v.22, kjv)—and tried to dissuade him. Conceding her husband’s foolishness, Abigail argued that David had not yet sinned by seeking personal vengeance and that it would be better to leave his future in God’s hands (vv.20-31). David finally agreed, accepted the gift, and saw providence at work in Abigail’s actions (vv.32-35). Her reasoning and the wisdom of David’s concurrence were confirmed when Yahweh struck Nabal dead after he had collapsed (vv.36-38). Appropriately, David praised God (v.39).

In addition to being kept from sin, David benefited by acquiring Abigail and Ahinoam as wives. But there were also setbacks. David’s anointer and supporter had of course already died (25:1); moreover, his connection to Saul’s house was severed when Michal was taken from him and given to another (vv.39b-44; cf. 18:27).

Though Saul was previously penitent (24:17-21), a Ziphite intelligence report led him to hunt David again (26:1-2). However, the hunter soon became the hunted (vv.3-5). After Saul had secured a position, David and some volunteers sneaked to the spot where Saul was sleeping. This time Saul’s spear was in the ground nearby rather than in his hand (cf. 18:10; 19:9; 20:33). Seeing this rare opportunity, Abishai urged David to assassinate the king. But David refused. Since Saul was divinely anointed, only God could strike him. David merely wanted to grab the spear and water jug to prove he had been there (vv.6-11).

The inclination to praise David’s cunning and disparage Saul’s and his compatriots' competence subsides somewhat when one observes the Lord’s role (26:12). Though he repudiated Abner for his failure to guard Saul, David too was unaware of God’s involvement (vv.13-16).

As before (24:16-21), Saul—who again used the familiar “my son”—was touched by David’s restraint (26:17). David protested his innocence, lamented his being forced from God’s inheritance, and asked who had made Saul act so: God or men (vv.18-20). From our perspective, Saul was victimized by his own jealousy and paranoia as well as by the evil spirit from God. Yet he confessed once more that he had indeed been foolish (v.21; cf. 13:13). David showed his good faith by returning the implements and reminding Saul that he had not harmed the king though God had provided an opportunity. Saul, too, appeared to mellow when he “predicted” a triumphant future for David (vv.22-25).

But actually David was not convinced, thinking that it was only a matter of time before Saul got to him. He figured he had no choice but to seek refuge with the Philistines (27:1-2). David’s cynicism about Saul is highlighted not only by his defecting to a longstanding enemy (cf. ch. 17; 18:26-27, 30; 19:8; 23:1-5), but also by his siding with the very Philistine king with whom his first encounter had almost proved disastrous (21:10-15). Perhaps the difference this time was that David was no longer alone but was a captain of mercenaries who had families in tow, which provided the Philistines some leverage. In any case, after David switched allegiance, Saul quit looking for him (27:2-4).

Once with the Philistines, David, saying he did not deserve to live in the royal city, asked Achish for a town: Ziklag. That Ziklag remained in Judah’s possession demonstrated David’s ability to increase Israelite territory at an enemy’s expense even before he was king (27:5-6). Equally clever, David attacked Israelite enemies from his base in Ziklag, all the while lying that he had engaged Israelites. So Achish concluded that David no longer had any choice but to remain an ally (vv.7-12).