Saul visits the medium in 1 Sam 28

-->

The story of Saul visiting the woman with the familiar spirit in 1 Sam 28 is a tragic one, but I recently had some insight into it that revealed to me a deeper message of hope that we can get from it.  I hope you will stick with me as we go through this story.

3 ¶Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

4 And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem: and Saul gathered all Israel together, and they pitched in Gilboa.

5 And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled. (1 Sam. 28:3-5)

The text wants us to have clear in our minds that the prophet Samuel has been dead and that Saul had already put away mediums and wizards out of the land.   I think we are also to remember that the Lord had commanded the people not to ever use those methods.

So the Philistines gather together against Israel and Saul gathers Israel’s armies and he is absolutely terrified.  He has no idea what to do.   Somehow he has no problem chasing after innocent people and slaughtering innocent priests and conducting manhunts, but real enemies make him shake in his boots.  (This shows us that the result of following wickedness and injustice is that a person loses the ability to face the real threats and carry out real responsibilities bravely.)

And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. (v6)

This is not a new condition; Saul got the divine silence back in 1 Sam. 14:37 and it doesn’t seem like he inquires since. 

So what does Saul do?  He decides he will try to force revelation by getting someone who has familiar spirits to call up Samuel the prophet.  Everyone should know that trying to force revelation is always a bad thing because it opens an individual up to evil influences who are only too glad to have an excuse to communicate and cause misery.

Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at En-dor. (v7)

Saul has already put away mediums and wizards as part of enforcing the Law of Moses, but now he hopes to consult them.  Very ironic.  (I hope we never get ourselves into a similar situation of wishing that we hadn’t kept the commandments in the past because it hinders us from sinning in the present.)  This is setting yet another very bad precedent and example for his servants.  It sends the message that there is one kind of official public morality and an opposite private morality when one is in a pinch.

Interesting that when he asks his servants to get him in touch with a medium, they already know exactly who to call and where to go.  How do they know?  Have they hidden this woman from him all these years?  Have they consulted her themselves?  Have they simply winked at her existence?  They register no protest against his request, which makes me wonder if they had lost their way spiritually as well.

8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.

9 And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

10 And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. (1 Sam. 28:8-10)

The woman also knows the rules against mediums and wizards and she fears entrapment.  It is another irony that this medium cites law to the person who enforced the law and who now wants to break the law.  She sounds really pious doing that, but as soon as she is promised that she won’t be punished for it, she does her thing.  I suppose this is how she has kept herself safe all this time, by citing the law, accusing of entrapment, and then extracting a promise of no punishment.

It is further ironic that Saul promises her safety with the oath “as the Lord liveth.”  I believe that is a classic instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain.

11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.

12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. (1 Samuel 28:11-14)

She’s asked to bring up Samuel the prophet, and presumably a spirit comes and it startles her.  Immediately when it comes, she blows Saul’s cover and reveals who he is.  I think this is meant to show that there is some spirit there that knows who Saul is and has told her.  This builds credibility with Saul, even as it scares the medium, who realizes she is now working for the very person who enforced those laws against spiritualism. 

It seems clear to me that this woman could commune with spirits, but they were evil spirits who hoped to deceive and destroy.  The institute manual has a very good point that it is contrary to the order of heaven for unrighteous people to have power to command righteous spirits to do their bidding, otherwise there would not be rest for the righteous after death, and they would be in a worse position than in life, in a sort of slavery to the wicked.

One of the things that confuses people about what this fake Samuel spirit says is that it sounds so close to the truth that it seems like it is truth.  But it’s not, in a number of very subtle ways.  The truth is twisted in so subtle a way that Saul in his tormented, fearful, guilt-ridden state would not have been able to discern it, and so for him it hits with all the force of truth.

The things the fake Samuel says are said in such a way as to discourage Saul from making any positive changes and to destroy hope, even with some very subtle flattery.

Let’s take these things apart, shall we?

15 ¶And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.

16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?

17 And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:

18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.

19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines. (1 Samuel 28:15-19)

“Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee” (v16) – It isn’t the Lord who departed from Saul.  Saul departed from the Lord.  By saying the Lord departed from Saul, the evil spirit discourages Saul from repenting by making it seem like nothing he can do can change the Lord’s stance.

“And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David” (v17) – The subtlety of this lie is missed because we often think of what comes after, since David eventually does gain the kingdom.  But at that time of Saul’s inquiry, the evil spirit interpreted the current status quo as a full fulfillment of Samuel’s prophecy.  We think it is just another reiteration of the prophecy, but the evil spirit said it was already fulfilled.  But at that time, David didn’t have the kingdom.  It took seven more years after Saul’s death for David to finally be given the whole kingdom.  So the evil spirit lied.

This statement flattered Saul into thinking that David would gain no more than he had already got, but it also discouraged Saul by making it seem like the state of Israel was degenerating instead of improving.  David was still a wanderer in a foreign land, holding a single town Ziklag by Philistine sufferance.  And was that to be the state of Israel’s kingdom under David?  How tragic if it were so!

“Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.” (v18) – At the time that Saul committed those sins nothing tormented him with the sense of what a mistake he had made, lest he should feel remorse and repent immediately.  Only now many years later his regret is inflamed about these sins in the distant past in a manner that will torment him rather than lead to repentance.   Also, there is no mention of the horrendous sins Saul committed afterwards—like killing the priests or seeking David’s life or consulting the medium or any other abuses of power he may have done that were not recorded—lest he begin to repent of those.  Evil spirits do not want us to be free from sin, and they will do what they can to distract us from repentance.

“Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: …the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.” (v19) – The fake Samuel says Israel will be delivered into the hands of the Philistines, but this contradicts the earlier statement that the kingdom has been given to David.  There is an attempt to cover this contradiction up and hide it with a statement that the Lord will also deliver the host (the army) of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.  Just the army that time. 

Does this really happen?  Many people think that it did.  However, a close reading of what happens in the battle following this chapter is that the Philistines fought Israel and Israel fled.  Many were slain, but Israel fled (see 1 Sam. 31:1), so the army was not captured as predicted.  They forsook the cities and the Philistines came and dwelt in them (see 1 Sam. 31:7), but that doesn’t mean Israel was fully beaten.  Also, David goes to Hebron in 1 Sam 2:1-3 and is king over Judah, so the area of Judah wasn’t in subjection to the Philistines.  Also, Abner makes Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king over Israel and they retain Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel (1 Sam. 2:8-9), so Saul’s family retains control over a significant portion of people and land, so things really didn’t happen as this evil spirit said.

“and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me” (v19) – We focus on the time frame of tomorrow, and the swiftness of Saul’s demise makes us think it was fulfilled, but there is no actual hint that it happened so soon.  I think instead we should focus on the other part, where Saul and his sons would be. 

Saul thinks it is Samuel speaking, so he gets the idea that he and his sons will be with Samuel when they die.  Saul would reason this way--Samuel was righteous, so if Samuel says we will be with him, then that makes it seem like I haven't been too bad after all.  BUT… then that contradicts the previous message that the Lord is angry at Saul’s disobedience and is punishing him.  This evil spirit is giving a contradictory message and if Saul grasped any of these principles, then he would be even more confused and in doubt.   (Also, don’t forget that not all of Saul’s sons die.  Ish-bosheth remains alive.)

In absolute terms, this was an evil spirit pronouncing judgment on a mortal, a task undoubtedly beyond his authority and capability.  Can anyone have confidence that when an evil spirit gives judgment the judgment will be just?  No.

So to sum up, what is this fake Samuel, this evil spirit doing?  He’s deliberately misdiagnosing Saul’s position with the Lord, neglecting his worst sins while dwelling on the mistakes of the distant past, misinterpreting prophecy, and confusing him with contradictory statements about the fate of Israel and the fate of Saul’s soul. 

Saul’s whole intent was to find out what to do, but the effect of everything told him by the evil spirit is to destroy all hope that anything can be done about it.  Saul is told he is powerless to stop any of it.

But was he really hopeless and powerless? 

If we believe that Saul was powerless to change anything about his admittedly terrible state, then we too fall for the persuasions of this evil spirit.

In order to resist, we must believe the opposite—that there was something Saul could have done, that his situation, terrible as it seemed, was still not hopeless and there still remained to him the possibility of redemption through Christ. 

WE MUST BELIEVE THAT.

And if there was hope for Saul, then there is still hope for everyone else. 

That, I sense, is the ultimate uplifting message of this terrible chapter.  This is why we need this chapter in the scriptures.  Knowing how God works, we can discern the devil even when he comes as an angel of light or masquerades as one with authority.  We can detect him and reject his message that there is no hope, and we can lay hold on redemption with our faith in Christ and hope that all is not lost.

 

Doeg's hostility to the priests

When David is on the run from Saul there is an incident that happens where he goes to the priest for food and the priest gives him the shewbread.  Unfortunately, at the same time, one of Saul’s servants named Doeg was there to see this.  Later, when Saul has a bit of a tantrum among his serants and accuses them of conspiring against him because they can’t help him stop David, Doeg tells Saul that a priest aided David.  Saul calls all the priests, accused them of conspiring against him in aiding David and sentences them all to death.  None of his servants will carry out the sentence except Doeg who tattled on the priest.  What is going on here?

Why is Doeg so ready to betray the priests and kill them? 

Here’s all we know about Doeg at the beginning:

Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.

Doeg is an Edomite, not an Israelite.  Yet he was at the temple, so it seems that some point he had converted to the worship of Jehovah.  And yet the way he has no scruples about betraying the high priest to Saul and carrying out executions of all the priests implies that this is more than just willingness to handle the dirty jobs, but that there is personal animosity between him and the whole priestly caste. 

He’s also the top herdman in charge of Saul’s flocks. 

We get an extra clue when it says Doeg was “detained before the Lord” at Nob where David had asked aid of the priest.  Does this mean Doeg was detained there by the Lord on purpose to see and betray the priests?  I don’t think so.  I think “detained before the Lord” means that he was detained there by one of the priests for discipline.  Police detain people for questioning or to arrest them.  Students are detained after school for bad behavior, but it is called “detention.”   

All of a sudden we begin to see why Doeg would have been willing to tell Saul the priest was aiding David.  If he were resentful about being disciplined, he would be inclined to use what he knew to get revenge somehow.

But if he wanted revenge on Ahimelech the priest, Saul took it much further, requiring all the priests at Nob to come, not just Ahimelech.  Saul sentenced all the priests to death, and when none of his other servants would execute them, Doeg did.

Doeg’s act would be the equivalent of a person sitting outside the bishop’s office for a disciplinary meeting, watching the bishop give a falsely accused fugitive sacrament bread for a sack lunch and then deciding to get revenge for the discipline give him by getting the bishop in trouble.  Then imagine that not only the bishop is summoned, but also the high priests, the elders, the priests, the teachers, and deacons, and all of them are sentenced unjustly to be executed and are shot by the person who had been disciplined by the bishop.  That’s pretty shocking.

It essentially puts Saul and Doeg beyond the pale.

One of the things we can learn from this is how anger and revenge get out of hand really fast.  Doeg may have only had beef against Ahimelech, but his revenge affected all the priests in the city.  It also led him to commit atrocities against innocent men.   It is a textbook illustration of the principle that the worst enemies of the righteous are the disaffected dissenters, those who have had the same instruction and who have fallen away.

Another thing we can see from this is how Saul’s hatred and pursuit of David affects his judgment.  If he thinks nothing of trying to get rid of a man who has done nothing against him and who has actually helped, no one is safe.  Goodness is no defense against Saul, and holy people can’t expect justice either.  Hence, he easily condemns Ahimelech and all the priests to death.   The long term effect of this is that eventually each person is going to have to choose whether to countenance Saul’s tyranny or live a fugitive life with David.   I think this is why people begin to join David. 

About the only happy thing from this story was that Saul’s servants were commanded to kill the priests and they refused.  (Yaay!) That was certainly good, but if only they could have gone further and defended the priests from Doeg.   This suggests that it isn’t enough to refrain from attacking the church leaders ourselves at others’ instigation; we have to defend them too.

Jonathan tests Saul at David’s request

When David goes to Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20, he has one major question, which is, “What have I done?...and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?”   Jonathan has to be convinced with an oath that this really is a problem, and David requests that Jonathan do a test to determine Saul’s disposition toward David.

It is actually a very clever test.

5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.

6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Beth-lehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.

7 If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him. (1 Sam. 20:5-7)

In essence, the test is to see if Saul will react well or badly to David’s absence with Jonathan’s leave.  If Saul reacts badly out of all proportion to the “offense” of David’s absence, then that is a clear sign that he is determined to harm David any way he can.

It so happens that this test can also be seen as a red flag for any abusive person – do they react with rage out of all proportion to the “offense” committed against them, even when the “offense” is innocuous or even permitted by another authority figure?

The occasion from which David absents himself is that of the feast of the new moon.  Saul seems to have continued to observe the religious holidays, even though his disobedience and impenitence prevented him from deriving spiritual benefit from it.  It is rather ironic that Saul didn’t question David’s absence the first day on the grounds it was possible David was ritually unclean, but then he goes into a rage when he learns David was given permission to celebrate it with his family elsewhere.  (What?  Being gone for uncleanness is okay, but being gone by permission is not?)  Saul may be ritually clean enough to participate in the feast, but you can see his murderous heart is spiritually unclean.

Saul’s angry words to Jonathan are curious –

30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. (1 Sam. 20:30-31)

Just about any way you look at Saul’s works, they are a shocking insult to his wife, as he alleges that Jonathan’s mother must have been unfaithful for Jonathan to turn out so contrary to Saul.

Saul’s pronouncement that Jonathan’s kingdom would not be established as long as David remained alive could be taken two different ways.

It might be an appeal to Jonathan’s self-interest to try to show him that David wasn’t just a threat to Saul’s kingdom, but a threat to Jonathan’s as well.  Happily, in the same chapter, there is recorded that Jonathan and David renewed their covenant of friendship that David would not cut off Jonathan’s house, so Saul’s argument would not be convincing at all.  Jonathan’s covenant kept him safe from the fear that Saul tried to inspire in him.  I like that—covenants can keep us safe from fear.

Or, Saul’s pronouncement also might have been a command that unless Jonathan helped kill David, Saul would not confirm the kingdom upon him, in effect making Jonathan’s inheritance of the crown conditional upon the death of David.  This meant that if Jonathan were to keep his covenant with David, he had be willing to give up his kingdom. 

Happily, Jonathan did not fear the threats or insinuations of his father.  Instead, he asks a simple question about David.  “Wherefore shall he be slain?  What hath he done?” (1 Sam. 20:32)   This is the big question that David wanted to know too, and Jonathan serves both David and himself by asking if there is any justice behind Saul’s anger.

But Saul doesn’t answer.  He can’t answer since he has no just grounds.  And his frustration with having nothing to say against David finds vent in throwing a spear at Jonathan. 

I think David and Jonathan take a healthy approach to the problem.  David essentially asks, “What did I do?” and Jonathan asks “What did David do?”   Sometimes as we go through life we find we have made enemies and the best thing to do is to ask, “What did I do?”   If we have really offended, then we’ll find out what it is and be able to make peace.   And if we haven’t, then..  obviously we’ll have to forgive and we’ll know how David (and Christ) felt, being hated without a cause.

The big lesson from all the attempts on David’s life in 1 Samuel 18

1 Samuel 18 has so much happening in it that it is really compacted.  A cursory reading makes it seem like the chapter only records two of Saul's attempts on David's life, but there are actually at least five.

Attempt #1

We know Saul tried to spearDavid while David played his harp for Saul.

Attempt #2

After Saul's failed spearing attempt, v13-16 records:

13 Therefore Saul removed him from him, and made him his captain over a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people.

14 And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him.

15 Wherefore when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he was afraid of him.

16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.

What this tells us is Saul put David over a thousand men in the army and David went out on military missions set by Saul.  Can we imagine Saul giving David easy stuff to do?  No.  He would give David the dirtiest, most dangerous missions in hopes of getting him killed.

Do you think David was blind to what was being done to him?  I doubt it.  I think he had a feeling he was being treated like cannon fodder.  He could have complained, but it doesn’t seem like he did, and instead he just did his best.  That uncomplaining obedience may be what the text means when it says he behaved himself wisely.

The result was that Saul’s attempt failed.  God kept David safe, and David kept his mouth shut, and he ended up more loved by the people than before, which was the opposite of what Saul wanted.  Perhaps Saul hoped David would turn out to be an ineffective leader and was trying to “promote to discredit.”  Instead, God used it to increase David’s talents and made good come of it.

Attempt #3

In Saul’s next attempt, he tries to praise and incentive-ize David into doing something exceptionally foolish to get him killed.

And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord’s battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. (v17)

Notice Saul gives this incentive—marriage to his eldest daughter—and his instructions are “only be thou valiant for me; and fight the Lord’s battles.”  That’s like saying, “Your only job is to be brave and fight.”

But… war takes more than just bravery and fighting, and in asking David to do that, Saul was attempting to discourage David from being smart about how he fought, hoping he would take stupid risks and get himself killed.  (As an aside, I’ve recently been reading a sci fi space opera series that has as a major plot point a space fleet’s tendency to suffer terrible losses because bravery was higher priority than discipline and strategy.  It gave this verse much greater significance than it would have had otherwise.)

How does David respond?  He refuses to take the bait and says that he and his family are nobodies and the last people to become connected by marriage to the king.  He’s okay with not being famous or connected to the king’s family.  His humility saves him.

Attempts #4 & 5

This is a two-parter. 

20 And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.

21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain….

25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. (v20-21, 25)

Saul intends Michal to be a snare to David and of course he also requires David to pay a dowry of 100 Philistine foreskins to marry her, and we know he hoped David would get killed trying to fulfill that requirement.

But how did Saul intend Michal to be a snare?  I had to think about this one and read more about Michal to figure this out.  I have a feeling that Saul meant it in the same sense that the Lord told the Israelites the Canaanites would be a snare to them and the same way the Moabite women were a snare in Numbers 25.  Michal may have been idolatrous.  I Samuel 19:13,16 tells that she put an image in David’s bed as a decoy so that David could escape Saul’s servants.  But what was an image doing in their house when there is that commandment in the Law of Moses to not have any graven images?  This was a full-sized statue and it was moveable.  David was a man after God’s heart, so it had to be Michal’s.  So Michal was idolatrous.

It seems Saul hoped that Michal’s idolatry would begin to pull David down once he was married to her.  Saul hoped to destroy David’s righteousness and favor with God in a manner strikingly similar to what Balaam taught the Moabites to do to the Israelites.

No, David!  Don’t marry her!  It’s a trap! 

Yet David does obtain the 100 Philistine foreskins with God’s protection.  (Note: v27 says he brought back 200 foreskins, but 2 Samuel 3:14 says it was 100.)  And he does marry Michal.   (At this point we should holding our heads and yelling “Oh noooooooo!”)

But… instead of Michal becoming a snare to David, the Lord uses Michal as a means of delivering David.  Remember when Saul sent his men to kill David, Michal warned him of his danger and helped him escape.  Then, she took the image she worshipped and put it in service as a decoy.    The very things that Saul meant to destroy David became the means by which the Lord saved him.  How’s that for showing the Lord’s great power to bring good out of evil?

It’s really a sad thing reading about all the ways Saul planned to try to get rid of David.  Yet, we get a great lesson from David.  As we see all the ways that the Lord brought good out of evil for him, we can gain greater faith that the Lord does the same thing for us today.   If we try to be as faithful to the Lord as David was (at this time in his life), the Lord can similarly take the bad things and turn them to our good.   To use an airplane analogy, if we keep our wings tilted up, the winds of opposition will lift us higher. 

King’s Saul’s first attempt to kill David

-->

9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.

10 ¶And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit which was not of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.

11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.

12 ¶And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul. (1 Sam. 18:9-12, JST emphasized)

This is the beginning of Saul’s attempts to kill David.  This is kind of a disturbing story, but you’ll bear with me, we’ll see if we can learn some good things from it besides the obvious “don’t murder people.”

It is easy to think that Saul wasn’t really responsible for his actions here if he was under the influence of an evil spirit, but Saul knew what he was doing.  He was using his past history of disordered thinking as a cover for his attempt on David’s life, both to get David to come within range of his spear and for exoneration once the deed was done.  If any of us ever have troubles with mental illness, I hope we never try to use it as an excuse or cover to hurt someone deliberately. 

If a spirit which was not of God was upon Saul, what are we to think when it says he prophesied in the midst of the house?  What kind of prophesying is the evil spirit going to induce?  Probably not the good kind.  This reminds me of some verses from the D&C:

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God….

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. (D&C 50:17-18, 23)

I’ll bet if we could have heard what Saul said, we would be able to tell that he didn’t have the right spirit with him.

David was in a precarious position. Unless he was one of those amazing musicians who could play without looking at his instrument, he would be paying attention to getting his fingers in the right place, which would give him only the briefest of moments to look up and notice Saul aiming a spear at him.

It also says David avoided out of Saul’s presence twice.  It is hard to tell whether this means two separate incidents in which David got spears thrown at him or if there was just one incident and David preferred to avoid Saul at least one other time.  However, you have to give David credit for bravery (staying around) and restraint (not immediately avenging himself).  He had to rely on God. (After all, what human authority could he go to about what happened?  His trouble was with the king himself!)

I have to point out here another way Saul made a big mistake.  In the past, music helped Saul get free of the evil spirit tormenting him.  But this time, in choosing to try to kill David played, Saul resisted the calming influence in the music.  Do you think music is going to help Saul after this?  Probably not because he gave power to the evil spirit instead.  He’d have to repent and then make careful efforts to follow good impulses and resist bad ones.

From that we learn we can’t resist the Spirit of the Lord in any of the number of ways he tries to reach us without consequences.  We can’t resist good without putting ourselves in the power of the devil.  On the positive end, we can’t resist the devil without putting ourselves more in the Lord’s power, which is where we want to be anyway..  The influence we list to obey will have power over us.

I think it is interesting that after this incident the one who is afraid isn’t David.  It’s Saul.  Acting on his suspicions didn’t make Saul feel any more secure, but actually less.

Okay, so let’s tally up what we’ve learned from this:

·      Don’t use mental illness as a cover for deliberately hurting people.

·      Evil spirits don’t bring good prophesying.

·      When in danger from a direct superior, you have to rely on God.

·      There are consequences for resisting the Holy Ghost when it is manifest in good influences.

Saul promotes, then hates David

5 ¶And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.

6 And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.

7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

8 And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?

9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.

(1 Samuel 18:5-9)

These verses tell how King Saul promoted David and then nearly as soon after began to hate him and throw javelins at him.

You’ve probably already talked about this story in Sunday school, but I want to bring up a few more points.

The impetus for this was the women of Israel singing that fateful line—“Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”  Saul is offended that more is ascribed to David than to him when David has only fought one battle and Saul had a whole career of fighting behind him. 

Strictly speaking, Saul does have a point.  He has done more over his life than David.  But then public acclaim is a fitful thing and doesn’t distribute itself fairly, so it can’t be depended upon, and it seems Saul had come to depend upon it. 

But then looking at it another way, often acclaim has to do with expectations and whether someone has exceeded expectations or not.  Saul, having been king for quite some time and having a spotty record of exhibiting bravery and courage, will have a hard time meeting expectations.  But David—a nobody at this stage—went FAR above expectations, so there is going to be a lot more excitement over his achievement.  (Question: Do people only deserve praise when they exceed expectations?)

Now, looking at it from yet another angle, we often assume that the women singing this line were singing out of simple joy for what David had done.  But what if the song was meant to wound Saul, like a political cartoon?  What if it was an indirect expression of discontent with Saul’s leadership record? 

Whatever it was, it hurt.  We have to understand what Saul felt in order to really grasp what kind of choices Saul had.  It would be like discovering someone had made a music video making fun of you and saying someone else is better than you and then video goes viral on the internet. It is one thing to feel one has been eclipsed by another, but it is another thing entirely to feel that everyone else might be thinking the same thing and thinking less of you because of it.  The question is, what do you do when something like that happens?    Who do you turn to?  

You have to turn to the Lord and rely on Him.  But Saul had rejected the Lord a long time ago, so he was bereft of any support. 

Saul also remembered the huge acclaim that came after his own first battle success and he saw this as the same sort of thing coming to David and he begins to think of David as a rival for the throne.  (To give him credit, he was right that David would replace him on the throne, but he was wrong about David being a direct threat to him.)  This must have been when Samuel’s words came back to him about how the Lord would rend the kingdom from him and give it to a neighbor who was better than him.  Saul had been collecting valiant men for his army for a while, but this is the first time he begins to connect that prophetic pronouncement with anyone he has gathered and promoted.

Saul says David has the praise of the people “and what can he have more but the kingdom?”  Somehow you get the idea that he thinks the kingdom is easily transferred or easily acquired.  Perhaps that’s because for him it was.  But it never seems as easily transferred between dynasties again.  You also get the sense that Saul things the praise and credit is the best and most important part of being king.  And I imagine it isn’t necessarily that way.

Another problem was that the praise to David was exaggerated.  Sure David had killed Goliath, but it isn’t known how many others he killed in the same battle.  Would it be smart for David to believe his own press (if we can call it that)? No.  Opinion can change quickly. 

This makes me think about basis on which I admire or praise people.  Is it because they follow good principles?  Is it because they are effective?  Do I only praise people when they exceed my expectations, or do they merit appreciation for meeting them?  Am I noticing the best things or am I caught up by less important factors?  It also makes me think about the praise I receive.  Is it merited or is it exaggerated?  Can I depend on it?  Not really.  I have to depend on the Lord.

Think what it was like for David, to be promoted so quickly and then suddenly have his own king throwing javelins at him.  I think David is a good example of acting consistently no matter what people thought of him.  He endured the hazards of both good and bad pubic opinion.  He endured through both public acclaim and being the subject of a national manhunt led by the king himself.

Also compare Saul’s reaction about the rise of David to the prophet Samuel’s reaction about the rise of Saul.  In a way, both Samuel and Saul were in similar positions.  They both were rejected, though Samuel was rejected by the people as judge in their desire for a king, and Saul was rejected by God.  Saul was jealous of David, but we do not detect any jealousy from Samuel.  Samuel’s only concern was that Saul keep the commandments of God. 

From here on, we begin to see that Samuel’s prophesy to Saul that the Lord would rend the kingdom from him was perfectly true (1 Sam 15:26-28).  If you recall, Samuel told Saul the Lord had rejected him from being king and as Samuel turned to leave, Saul grabbed Samuel’s robe and held on so hard it tore, which became the impetus for Samuel saying the Lord would rend the kingdom away from Saul.

Samuel perceived that if Saul was going to be so grasping and desperate over Samuel simply leaving, that would surely manifest itself again when it became clear the Lord was taking the kingdom away.  Saul would grasp at anything and try anything to keep the kingdom, and it would tear the kingdom apart just as Saul had torn Samuel’s robe.  (You have to marvel at the depth of Samuel’s discernment and how he was able to perceive the final fruits of relatively simple acts sown.)

So because Saul suddenly suspects David will take the kingdom away from him, he begins to hold the kingdom tighter and tighter, employing desperate measures to try to eliminate the imagined threat, even though David never actually challenges him for power.  Instead, Saul alienates more and more people and may have even been the means of bringing his own demise. 

How can Saul’s story help us today? 

Because of the internet and the longevity of things that are posted, any of us at one time or another might find ourselves in Saul’s position, faced with a recitation of our inadequacies in comparison to someone else’s excellence seemingly announced everywhere under heaven.    We have a choice.  We can become angry, suspicious, and jealous people, or we can turn to God for support and strength.

Further, Christ has said that wo is unto us when all men speak well of us, because they spoke similarly well of the false prophets, so we must expect to endure being bad-mouthed. 

We also learn about how exaggeration causes problems and how indulging in jealousy ruins our peace.

Do you get anything more from this story?