This week we
will continue the study of the entire Book of I Samuel in the Old Testament.
(1) Why did David wish to save the people of Keilah which was among the villages of the western hills of Judah (see Jos. 15:44)?
(2) V. 6 remarks that as the son of the high priest fled to join David, he brought him the ephod. What might be the significance of this to David, especially when he wished to save the people of Keilah?
(3) Why did David feel the need to enquire of the Lord?
(4) Why did he enquire of the Lord again, when his people were afraid to fight the Philistines?
(5) What was the result of this campaign, and what should it mean to the following people?
a. David
b. His followers
c. The people of Keilah
(6) Now Saul and all Israel must have heard of David’s victory over the Philistines in Keilah:
a. What impact should it have on Israel as a whole?
b. What impact should it have on Saul?
c. What impact should it have on the people of Keilah? Do you think they would betray David?
(7) What does it tell you about Saul in that he seemed to pursue David at this time in the name of God?
(8) It is understandable that David would enquire of the Lord. It seems to be his attitude of not making major decisions without enquiring the Lord:
a. But why did he ask if the people of Keilah would surrender him to Saul?
b. Unfortunately, the Lord’s answer was affirmative: Why would the people of Keilah betray the one who had just saved them?
(9) Why did David decide to run, instead of confronting the people of Keilah and/or fighting against Saul?
(10) How many men did he have now, as he hid in the tract of desert that was between Judah and the Dead Sea (the town of Ziph is about 1¾ hours to the south-east of Hebron)?
(11) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar, the priest, ‘Bring the ephod'.” (1 Sam. 23:9)
When David was fleeing to the Philistines, he made a stop at Nob which apparently cost the life of almost the entire family of the high priest (22:18-19). However, it was inevitable, because if David was to be made the king of Israel, the priest had no choice, but to change his allegiance from Saul to David. If even Samuel had to fear for his life in anointing another king (16:2), the danger faced by the high priest is understandable.
As it turned out, God protected Abiathar, one of the sons of the high priest, Ahimelech, and he was able to escape and fled to join David (22:20). This meant a lot to David, because with the death of Ahimelech, Abiathar automatically became the high priest. With Abiathar’s presence and his ephod (23:9), David was able to officially enquire of the Lord, which he did before making every military move.
David enquired if he should attack the Philistines to save the people of Keilah (23:2, 4); he enquired if the rumor of Saul’s attack was real (23:11); and he enquired if the citizens of Keilah would betray him (23:12). This not only shows David’s total reliance on the Lord in his battle, it also shows his total obedience to the will of the Lord.
One can imagine what his men would say, knowing that the citizens of Keilah would betray them, “Have we not said we should not attack the Philistines to save the people of Keilah? [23:3] ... Look, now that they are willing to surrender you to Saul, we should not have saved them [23:12]!”
But since, the delivering of the people of Keilah was the result of enquiring of the Lord not once, but twice, David’s men could not make such a remark, and David had the assurance that he acted exactly according to God’s will. David understood that results are never the measuring stick of right or wrong, only obedience is!
(1) While David was running for his life, why did Jonathan show up to see him?
(2) Read carefully the words spoken by Jonathan to David:
a. In what way(s) did his words help David find strength “in God”?
b. In what way(s) are you touched by the words of Jonathan?
(3) Based on the geographical location of Ziph, its people ought to belong to the tribe of Judah, David’s own tribe. Why would even they seek to hand him over to Saul?
(4) How would David feel about it?
(5) How did Saul react to the Ziphites’ offer to help him? How does it speak to you concerning a person who knew the Lord had left and rejected him?
(6) How did God intervene this time to save David?
(7) Who was, in fact, the most important enemy of Saul and Israel?
(8) Did he really have to pursue David? What other options did he have?
(9) Instead of focusing on fighting against the real enemy of the people of God, Saul chose to waste his time fighting against David, creating internal division and turmoil:
a. Is the church today any different from Saul and his supporters?
b. What have you learned from David, especially when you are caught in the middle of a church’s conflict?
(10) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“And Saul’s son Jonathan went to David in Horesh and helped him find strength in God.” (1 Sam. 23:16)
Jonathan not only demonstrated to us what true friendship is in Christ, but he also exemplified to us what true humility is.
As his father, Saul, continued to seek
after David’s life, the Bible highlights his concern for David by pointing out
that he came to David as “Saul’s son” (23:16). Indeed, as the son of Saul and his capable assistant, Jonathan was sure
to succeed Saul and that was openly affirmed by Saul (20:31). Yet, he totally
disregarded who he was and his future, and was concerned only for the safety of
David and the will of God. This was
fully demonstrated in the following words of encouragement to David in 23:17.
- “My father will not lay a hand on you”: This does not mean that he believed his father will stop pursuing David, but that he would not be able to succeed. Why? Because David “will be king over Israel”. His confidence was not in David’s ability to escape, but in the faithfulness of God’s promise. Jonathan knew that it was God’s will that David would be king, and so no one, including Saul could thwart the will of God.
- “I will be second to you”: No, Jonathan was not trying to secure his future role in David’s kingdom (unlike the sons of Zebedee in Matt. 20:20ff). As the heir-apparent to Saul, this shows his great humility. He was willing to be second to David as his servant.
- “Even my father knows this”: There is no doubt that Saul knew of his rejection by God and the anointing of David in his place. I believe Jonathan was telling David that his commitment to David and his deference to David as his king was known to his father. That means Jonathan was totally on David’s side, even risking his relationship with his father and his own safety. This reminds us of what the Apostle says of the humility of Christ (Phil. 2:6-7), and in a small way Jonathan resembled Christ in that he, being in every essence a king, did not consider equality with his father, Saul, something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very role of a servant. This is true humility!
No wonder, Jonathan told David, “Don’t be afraid” and that he had come to help him “find strength in God” (23:16). No, Jonathan had not brought with him thousands of troops to help David, but he had become the messenger of God to reassure David of God’s unswerving promise, and with his true humility, he had brought David encouragement that was far better than a thousand fighting men.
(1) How many men did Saul choose to resume his pursuit of David? He is now in En Gedi which is in the middle of the west coast of the Dead Sea (See Jos. 15:62).
(2) When Saul went into the cave where David and his men were hiding to relieve himself, David’s men saw this as a “God-given” opportunity. Would you agree? Why or why not?
(3) Did David see it as a “God-given” opportunity? What did he do with it?
(4) Why was David conscience-stricken afterwards? Would you be? Why or why not?
(5) Would you not have taken this chance to kill Saul?
(6) What then was the difference between you and David?
(7) If you were one of his men, how would you feel about the following?
a. David’s action
b. David’s conscience
c. David’s rebuke of you
(8) What is the main message to you today and how can you apply it to your life?
“Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe.” (1 Sam. 24:5)
Whether David should waste such a golden opportunity (as far as his men were concerned, it was more than a golden opportunity, but a God-given opportunity) to get rid of Saul is in itself a big question, but for him to feel “conscience-stricken” for simply cutting off a corner of Saul’s robe is indeed unthinkable. But it shows what a soft heart David had — a heart that is so tender and pure that it can feel the guilt of the slightest sin of life! What a rarity, not only in his time, but for all times!
On the contrary, Saul’s heart was growing harder and harder by the day, incapable of genuine contrition even in the face of severe rebuke by Samuel and the obvious rejection by the Lord as king. As we read the rest of 1 Samuel, we see that his relentless pursuit of David did not stop after repeated mercies shown by David in sparing his life (see chapters 24 and 26 of 1 Samuel). What a contrast of conscience!
Perhaps, we should pause and examine our conscience, asking, “Is it more like David’s or Saul’s?”.
- Are we bothered by questionable things that we do, say, see or think?
- Instead of being conscience-stricken, do we attempt to rationalize them?
- Are we so busy that we do not have time even to examine our hearts? Remember busyness hardens one’s heart.
- Have our hearts hardened so that we have not felt conscience-stricken for a long, long time?
No wonder David is called “a man after God’s own heart”! (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22)
(1) When David showed his face to Saul:
a. How did he address Saul (v. 8 and v. 11)?
b. What was his posture?
c. What does this say about David?
(2) David’s speech to Saul was both heart-felt and honest:
a. Whom did he put the blame on? (v. 9) Why?
b. Did he recognize that it was God who delivered Saul into his hands? (v. 10)
c. What reasons did he give Saul for choosing not to kill him? (v. 10)
d. How did he declare his innocence? (v. 11)
e. Whom did he call on to be the judge between them (v. 12)
f. How did he deprecate himself before Saul? (v. 14) Why?
g. To whom was his appeal ultimately directed to? (v. 15)
(3) Without reading further, what might you speculate as Saul’s response?
(4) Seriously, what options were now opened to Saul?
(5) Consider Saul’s response carefully:
a. How did Saul address David in return? (v. 16)
b. Why did Saul weep?
c. How did he express his repentance, obviously before everyone there? (v. 17)
d. What did David do that had left him ashamed? (v. 18-19)
e. What did he confess about his knowledge of his own fate? (v. 20)
f. What was his plea to David? (v. 21)
(6) Do you think Saul’s actual response was genuine? Why or why not?
(7) “Now Samuel died” (25:1). Let’s use the remainder of our time to reflect on the life of this great man of God:
a. Can you recall how his birth came about? How special was it? (1 Sam. 1)
b. Under what conditions was he brought up as a child? (1 Sam. 2 – 3)
c. What significant and momentous changes were brought by Samuel in terms of (i) the resumption of God’s speaking to Israel (3:19-21), (ii) the resumption of theocracy, (iii) and yet also the beginning of monarchy?
d. If you were Samuel, looking back at what happened in your life, what would you say to the Lord?
e. If you were to write the epitaph of Samuel, what would you put on his tombstone?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Now Samuel died, and all Israel assembled and mourned for him, and they buried him at his home in Ramah.” (1 Sam. 25:1)
The death of Samuel happened at a time of great internal uncertainties in Israel, with Saul, the king rejected by God, continuing to pursue the God-anointed king, David. One wonders who was there to intercede for the nation? Who was there to give aid to David? However, I believe Samuel had served his generation well and had left behind a legacy that would continue to steer Israel onto the right path. Allow me to share with you the thoughts of Jamieson, Fausset, Brown about the legacy of Samuel as follows:
“…after a long life of piety and public usefulness, having left behind him a reputation which ranks him amongst the greatest of Scripture worthies. He stamped his own character on that of his age and country, being the foremost man, the great influential leader in the political, ecclesiastical, literary and religious world. As a man, he was remarkable through life for his eminent holiness, his energy, and indefatigable activity, his dignified consistency, and his devotional habits which, commencing in his childhood, grew with his growth and strengthened with his strength. As a magistrate, he embodied in all his public acts the principles of the theocratic constitution; and called as he was to hold the reins of government at a time of newly-acquired liberty and independence from foreign domination, his uniform object was to realize amongst his countrymen the idea of the chosen generation, the holy nation, the royal priesthood, the peculiar people. In relation to the Church, his influence was no less beneficial than lasting; for, at a period of great and prevailing corruption, he effected a thorough reformation of religion, re-establishing the authority of the Mosaic law, by enforcing the regular observance of the ordinances of worship, especially by instituting the schools of the prophets, from which a supply of young teachers duly qualified for instructing the people in sacred knowledge and psalmody, was obtained, and in the formation of as well as subsequent continuance of which a great step was taken in the progressive development of the scheme of grace…In short, Samuel’s ministry was an epoch in Israel (Acts iii, 21; xiii, 20); and many of the lessons taught, or measures contemplated by the prophet, and which David learned while resident in Naioth, were afterwards introduced by that king, amongst other arrangements he made for improving the sacred music.”
(JFB, 199-200)
Now David moved down to the Desert of Maon (or Paran) which is the northern part of the desert of Arabia which stretches up to the mountains of Judah (Num. 10:12). There, he had an encounter with a man named Nabal of Carmel, which is not likely to be the Carmel in the north-western tip of Israel, but “Kurmul” on the mountains of Judah, “scarcely half an hour’s journey to the north-west of Maon” (K&D, 526).
(1) Given the unsettled time they lived in and given the biblical description of this man, Nabal, what would it take for him to grow into such wealth and to maintain his prosperity?
(2) From the conversations in this story and what we have been told in previous chapters, we know that David had already gained fame: It was public knowledge that Saul had pursued him and that even Saul confessed that David was chosen by God to be king (24:20). Therefore what should Nabal have done to David and his men during this festive time of sheep shearing, given that they were neighbors and that he had benefited greatly from David’s protection?
(3) What does it say about Nabal that David had to send his men to “remind” him of their needs?
(4) What Nabal did that so enraged David:
a. Was it his refusal to give provisions to him and his men?
b. Was it his intentional words of insult?
c. Was it what his words represented?
d. Was he not afraid of David at all? What was he counting on?
e. How did his own servant describe him? (25:17)
f. How would you describe him?
(5) Do you think David would be justified in killing Nabal? (25:21-22) Why or why not?
(6) As we know, the men of David were a bunch of malcontent “losers” (22:2), but from the description given by the servant to Abigail in vv. 14-17, what did these men turn out to be?
(7) What did Abigail do right away upon hearing what her servant said? What was she trying to achieve? Why did she not tell her husband?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“His name was Nabal and his wife’s name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but her husband, a Calebite, was surly and mean in his dealings.” (1 Sam. 25:3)
Many people misunderstand the Bible as a book that puts down women. Nothing can be further from the truth. While God has certainly established a certain social order based on gender (as the Apostle Paul points out in 1 Tim. 2:13), it does not mean that women are inferior in the eyes of God. In fact, time and again, the Bible shows us that women are often the first to come to faith in Christ (e.g. Acts 16:15; 17:12 etc.) and in the Old Testament, some wives are far more pious and discerning than their husbands. The mother of Samson is a case in point (Jdg. 13:23) and Abigail is another. While Samson’s mother alleviated the fear of her ignorant husband, Abagail saved the life of her foolish and wicked husband.
The Bible calls Abigail an intelligent woman (1 Sam. 25:3) and her intelligence was seen in these ways:
- Not telling her husband what she was about to do (25:19): I do not think it was a case of ignoring her husband, but a case of knowing that her husband was “such a wicked man that no one can talk to him” (25:17). If Nabal knew what she was going to do, he would have stopped her to his own demise.
- Pleading with David to let the blame be on her alone (25:24): She knew that David was a God-fearing man and that he would not kill the innocent. By diverting the focus to herself, she knew David would spare her and her family.
- In courageously pointing out the grave sin that David was about to commit: Even David had to admit afterwards that she had kept him from bloodshed, and “from avenging myself with my own hands” (25:33).
Abigail was indeed a caring, intelligent and courageous woman — a true blessing to her husband!
In trying to save her husband’s life, Abigail acted on her own and demonstrated why the Bible calls her “intelligent” (25:3).
(1) How did Abigail describe her husband? (v. 25) Should she have said that?
(2) What were the first words that Abigail said when she met David? Why did she add that she did not see the messengers whom David sent to talk to Nabal? (v. 25)
(3) What she said in vv. 26-31 was of great significance, because it revealed that her action was not aimed to save her husband’s life only, but also for David’s sake:
a. How did she affirm God’s choice of David as the king of Israel?
b. Why did she mention the “sling”? (v. 29)
c. What had she prevented David from doing?
d. Can you see her intelligence in her words and action?
(4) What did David appreciate most in Abigail? Why?
(5) When Nabal was sober and heard his wife’s story, why did his heart fail and become like a stone? What kind of a person does this reveal about him?
(6) The Bible says, “the Lord struck Nabal and he died” (v. 38): Why does the Bible clearly attribute the death of Nabal to the Lord? What might be the message, especially given what David said in v. 39?
(7) The death of Nabal followed by David’s request to take Abigail as his wife obviously shows David’s great admiration of both the intelligence and beauty of Abigail, however, the Biblical author chooses to tell us that David did have another wife named Ahinoam (though his former wife, Michal, had been taken away from him by Saul). What might this additional appendix do to this otherwise beautiful story?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel and they both were his wives.” (1 Sam. 25:43)
Undoubtedly, the character of Abigail was admirable, and the admiration of David for her intelligence and beauty was also understandable. The death of Nabal by an act of God allowed David the rightful opportunity to take Abigail as his wife. It was, indeed, a beautiful story, except that the Biblical author chooses to add at this very time the fact that “David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel and they both were his wives" (25:43). I believe this appendix to this otherwise wonderful story is not accidental. Allow me to share with you the thought Matthew Henry has about this appendix:
“Lastly, on this occasion we have some account of David’s wives.
1. One, that he had lost before he married Abigail, Michal, Saul’s daughter, his first, and the wife of his youth, to whom he would have been constant, if she would have been so to him, but Saul had given her to another (v. 44), in token of his displeasure against him and disclaiming the relation of a father-in-law to him.
2. Another that he married besides Abigail (v. 43), and, as should seem, before her, for she is named first, ch. 27:3. David was carried away by the corrupt custom of those times; but from the beginning it was not so, nor is it so now that Messias has come, and the times of reformation, Matt. 19:4.
3. Perhaps Saul’s defrauding David of his only rightful wife was the occasion of his running this irregularity; for when the knot of conjugal affection is once loosed, it is scarcely ever tied fast again. When David could not keep his first wife he thought that would excuse him if he did not keep to his second. But we deceive ourselves, if we think to make others’ faults cloak for our own.”
(Matthew Henry’s commentary, 428-9)
(1) The last time we read about Saul’s pursuit of David, it was in Desert of En Gedi with David sparing the life of Saul, and Saul openly recognizing his wrong (24:17-21). If Saul was sincere about his confession then, why didn’t his “repentance” last? How does it speak about the human heart? (See Jer. 17:9)
(2) How much might Saul be encouraged to pursue David with the repeated betrayal of David by the Ziphites (of Judah)? (23:19-20)
(3) Presumably, Ahimelech, the Hittite, and Abishai, son of Zeruiah (David’s sister — see 1 Chr. 2:16) were close confidants of David:
a. Why did David ask one of them to go with him to the camp of Saul?
b. What did he wish to achieve?
c. Was Abishai aware of David’s plan?
(4) They were able to get rather close to Saul, close enough that Abishai was confident of striking Saul with his spear:
a. We know why David would not harm Saul the first time (24:10); shouldn’t Saul’s breach of his promise change it all?
b. What additional explanation did David give about how he anticipated Saul’s demise and death in vv. 10-11?
c. What great lessons can we learn from David?
d. To what does the Bible attribute such a successfully stealth expedition? (v. 12)
(5) Why did David challenge Abner first, instead of Saul directly?
(6) In his plea to Saul, David (i) once again declared his innocence, (ii) reminded Saul that his action was not incited by God, (iii) lamented that he was forced to flee to a foreign land and to foreign gods, and (iv) likened himself to a flea and a partridge (26:18-20):
a. Can you tell what approach he was taking?
b. What did he ultimately wish to achieve?
c. What can we learn from his example?
(7) Compare Saul’s response here in v. 21 with his previous response in 24:16-21:
a. Can you tell what might be the main difference between them?
b. Do you think that this time Saul will keep his words? Why or why not?
(8) In response to Saul’s “confession”:
a. Did David “go back” as requested by Saul? Why?
b. Whom did he ask to deliver his life in the future? Why?
(9) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But the Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed...” (1 Sam. 26:11)
Twice, David had the opportunity to put away Saul for good which would have ended the danger to his life, put an end to his life as a fugitive, and likely enabled him to assume the throne as the anointed king of all Israel. He did not even create these opportunities; they were, as his people made clear, given to him from God.
On the one hand, if he chose to spare Saul’s life, he would be most foolish, because given Saul’s pride, wickedness and influence from the evil spirit, he would only continue to pursue his life till he killed him. Given the difference in number of their fighting men and the general tendency of the people to still obey Saul (the Ziphites were a prime example), the chance of David being killed by Saul was very great. What’s more, David was putting his own men at risk. No sane person, no responsible leader should spare the life of his enemy! But David understood very clearly he was responsible first and foremost to the Lord! He feared the Lord, and no one else!
Repeatedly, he made it very clear that Saul was the anointed of the Lord (24:10; 26:9): We know only kings, prophets and priests were anointed by God in the Old Testament. With such anointing, they were set apart for God and thus belonged solely to God and no one could touch them; even if they sinned against the Lord, they remained God’s property! Yes, David knew that the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, but to him, even this did not change the fact that Saul still belonged to God! As a result, he explained to Abishai how one should treat those who belonged to God: “the Lord Himself will strike him, either his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish” (26:10). In other words, he fully believed that God would deal with Saul in His own timing and in His own way. If he should lay his hand on the Lord’s anointed, he would be playing God (26:11).
I wonder, in our zeal to deal with the perceived wrongs of God’s servants in the church, what important lessons might we be able to learn from David? Food for thought!