This week we
will finish the study of the Book of 1 Samuel and begin the Book of 2 Samuel in the Old Testament.
(1) Last time, we were asking whether David would respond to Saul’s offer to “come back” (26:21) and obviously David did not:
a. What reason did he give in v. 1?
b. Where did he decide to go?
c. Would it not go against the advice of the prophet in 22:5?
(2) Now he decided to go and stay with Achish, king of Gath for the second time:
a. What might be the difference between this time and the last time in 21:10-15?
b. Did Saul continue to pursue him? Why or why not? (27:4)
(3) Why did David ask not to live within the royal city with the king?
(4) The king granted him Ziklag, a Judean city that he occupied and presumably left empty after looting:
a. What did David choose to do in a city quite a bit away from the royal city, closer to the southern part of Judah? (27:8)
b. Why did David lie to the king of Gath about his raids of Geshurites, Girzites and Amalekites (who constantly raided the cities of Judah)?
c. By so doing, what was David able to convince the king of Gath of?
(5) And, how did the people of Judah look upon David even though he resided within the territory of the Philistines?
(6) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But David thought to himself, ‘one of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul'.” (1 Sam. 27:1)
The Apostle Paul prays for the church of Philippi that their “love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight” so that they may be able to discern what is best (Phil. 1:9).
In other words, Paul does not esteem “blind” love, but love that would increase more and more in knowledge and depth of insight. This, we clearly see in the life of David, especially in his dealings with Saul.
Out of his fear of the Lord in honoring God’s anointed, and his love for Saul — the kind of agape love that extends to his enemy, David spared the life of Saul at least twice. However, he was not oblivious to what kind of a person Saul was; he knew the pride of Saul would continue to drive him to pursue his life in order to maintain his own kingship. As a result, David would not “come back” to Saul as requested in 26:21. In fact, he decided to flee to a place where Saul would not continue to pursue him. I believe the intention was not just to try to save his own life, but to spare Saul from committing a sin too grave before the Lord.
However, the decision to go to hide among the Philistines had to be a controversial one:
- For one it was something that God, through the prophet Gad, had previously clearly warned him not to do (22:5); and
- His apparent switch of allegiance would cast doubt on his character in the eyes of his people, especially the people of Judah.
As we have seen so far, David always enquired of the Lord in every move he made. Although the Bible does not say so in this instant, I believe he would have enquired of the Lord before he went to the king of Gath.
Also, we can see his wisdom in asking to live away from the royal city, so that he would not be closely watched by the king and his men. This gave him the opportunity to protect the people of Judah from the constant attacks by their neighboring enemies who were the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites (27:8). This was part of the reason why whenever he “attacked an area, he did not leave a man or a woman alive” (27:9), so that news of his protection of his own people would not reach back to the Philistines.
Indeed, his heart was always with his people, his desire was always to please God, but such love was always grounded in knowledge and depth of insight — an example from which we should learn.
(1) What dilemma did David face when the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel? What do you think David must have done?
(2) As much as Saul had not been obedient to the Lord in exterminating the Amalekites (28:18), what did his expulsion of the mediums and spiritists from the land say about him? (See Lev. 19:31; 20:27 and Deut. 18:10-13)
(3) Why didn’t the Lord answer Saul’s enquiry?
(4) Did it then justify him consulting a medium? What was his purpose of consulting a medium? (28:15)
(5) Did Saul have any alternatives now that he was afraid and that the Lord was no longer with him?
(6) The Bible says, “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice” (28:12). Why was she so surprised?
a. What did she expect to see or happen normally?
b. Why was it so different this time?
(7) There are many interpretations about what actually happened with the appearance of Samuel. It is important that we do not interject any preconceived notion we might have and simply read the Scripture as it is written and presented to us:
a. While Saul perceived the spirit was Samuel's, for v. 14 says, “Then Saul knew it was Samuel”, who was the one speaking to Saul according to v. 15?
b. If the spirit was not Samuel's, what would the Biblical author have said or written?
(8) Saul was hoping that Samuel would tell him what to do (28:15). What was Samuel’s reply?
a. Who was God now to Saul? (v. 16)
b. Whom did the kingdom of Israel now belong to? (v. 17)
c. What was the reason for his demise? (v. 18)
d. What would be the outcome of the battle? (v. 19)
(9) How did Saul respond to the words of Samuel?
(10) What should Saul’s response be in your opinion?
(11) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’.” (1 Sam. 28:15)
Whether the spirit summoned by the medium was really that of Samuel has been a much debated topic over the last 2,000 years of Christendom. Allow me to share with you the insight of two conservative scholars of a former generation, respected for their scholarship as well as their orthodoxy as follows:
“Nevertheless the fathers, reformers, and earlier Christian theologians, with very few exceptions, assumed that there was not a real appearance of Samuel, but only an imaginary one…a diabolical spectre, a phantasm, or diabolical spectre in the form of Samuel…in which truth is mixed with falsehood. It was not till the seventeenth century that the opinion was expressed, that the apparition of Samuel was merely a delusion produced by the witch…There is no necessity to refute this opinion at the present day. Even Fr. Boettcher…who looks upon the thing as an imposter, admits that the first recorder of the occurrence, ‘believed that Samuel appeared and prophesied, contrary to the expectation of the witch;’ and that the author of the books of Samuel was convinced that the prophet was raised up and prophesied, so that after his death he was proved to be the true prophet of Jehovah, although through the intervention of ungodly arts (cf. Ezek. 14:7, 9). But the view held by the early church does not do justice to the scriptural narrative, and hence the more modern orthodox commentators are unanimous in the opinion that the departed prophet did really appear and announce the destruction of Saul, not however, in consequence of the magical arts of the witch, but through a miracle wrought by the omnipotence of God.
“This is most decidedly favored by the fact, that the prophetic historian speaks throughout the appearance, not of a ghost, but of Samuel himself…(and) his announcement contains so distinct a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons, that it is impossible to imagine that it can have proceeded from the mouth of an imposter, or have been an inspiration of Satan. …Shobel is therefore quite correct in saying, ‘It was not the call of the idolatrous king, nor at the command of the witch — neither of whom had the power to bring him up, or even to make him hear their voice in his rest in the grave — that Samuel came; nor was it merely by divine ‘permission’, which is much too little to say. No rather it was by the special command of God that he left his grave…’”
(Keil & Delitszch, 544-5)
(1) In those days, it was not uncommon
to have people from another ethnicity join the rank of soldiers and take part in
a battle like mercenaries. Why would the
Philistine rulers take exception with the Hebrews? Consider these aspects:
a. In terms of the nature of the battle
b. The history of David
c. His present status as a fugitive from Saul
(2) Do you think David really wanted to fight with the Philistines against Saul when he himself would not even lay his hand on him, the God’s anointed king?
(3) The rejection by the other Philistine rulers should be a golden opportunity for him to back out, but why did he appear to be insistent on joining? (29:8)
(4) If David had been praying about this present dilemma (and I believe he must have been), how did he feel about being sent back to Ziklag?
(5) As it turns out, their possessions in Ziklag along with their wives and children were seized by the Amalekites while they were following the army of the Philistines (chapter 30). What did this rejection by the rulers of the Philistines mean to David and his men?
(6) How does this incident help us understand what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 8:28?
(7) Can you recall an incident in your life that proves to you the faithfulness of God?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how can you apply it to your life?
“The Philistines gathered all their forces at Aphek and Israel camped by the spring in Jezreel.” (1 Sam. 29:1)
Allow me to share with you some historical and geographical information concerning the Philistines, so that we may have a better idea what kind of an enemy Israel had been facing since the time of the Judges. (Israel was ruled by the Judges roughly from 1,200-1025 B.C.; then the reigns of Saul and David followed.)
“But by the 12th century B.C.E…a shadow of death (referring to the Philistines) was stealing across the Mediterranean Basin, destroying everything in its path. Eventually, this wave reached Anatolia, obliterating the Hittite Empire (which not even Ramses II had been able to bring to heel) before turning its sights on Syria and Canaan…the main culprits of this upheaval were groups of marauding tribes that scholars group together as the Sea Peoples…
“By 1175 B.C.E., the Sea Peoples had conquered most of the coastal regions of modern Syria and Lebanon. They next turned their attention to the last great power of the region: the land of Egypt with its countless temples and treasures. As it happened, Egypt at the time was ruled by Ramses II, an able, kind and highly accomplished military commander…(as a result, the Philistines were repulsed from the Egyptian shores, and they) pointed their ships back east, probing for a safe place to land. They chose the southern coast of Canaan. Up to this point, the coastal cities here — Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, Gath and Gaza — had rebuffed any Israelite infiltration attempts. The Philistines, however, conquered the cities with ease and quickly consolidated their power. They turned the five cities into a confederacy that became known as Philistia (from which the Greeks later derived the word ‘Palestine’ to denote all of Canaan)…
“It was only a matter of time before these headstrong people would come into conflict with the equally headstrong and determined Israelite settlers and it is this conflict that takes up the latter part of the Book of Judges (all the way to the time of Saul and David).”
(Jean-Pierre Isbout, National Geographic, The Biblical World, 161-164)
Therefore, the enemy that Israel faced in the Philistines was very unlike the Amalekites and other Canaanite peoples, but a well-organized and well trained people, with a naval force that was much feared even by the Egyptians. This also highlights the fact that their victories over these Sea Peoples can only be attributed to the help of the Lord.
(1) Whose fault was it that David and his men had to suffer such a calamity in the hands of the Amalekites? (28:18; 15:20)?
(2) As much as their city was burnt, and their possessions, their wives and children were taken captive, how had God put a limit to the harm they suffered? (30:2)
(3) Why did the men of David wish to turn on him?
(4) What is meant by the statement “But David found strength in the Lord his God”? (30:6)
(5) Pursuing the Amalekites to rescue your wives and children should be the only option. Why then did David still have to enquire of the Lord first? (30:7-8)
(6) Why were two hundred of his men “too exhausted”, while the other four hundred continued the pursuit? Should the four hundred men look down on the two hundred who had their wives and children taken captive too (30:22)? Why or why not?
(7) What was the result of the rescue effort? How special was it? (30:17-20)
(8) When they returned, some of the 400 men did not consider the 200 men deserving of their loot, only the return of their wives and children:
a. Was it not a fair proposal? Why or why not?
b. Did they deserve to be labeled by the Bible as “evil men and troublemakers”? Why or why not?
(9) How did David address these “evil men” in v. 23?
(10) What reason did David give for the equal sharing of plunder?
(11) Do you agree with his reason? Why or why not?
(12) Why did David even share his plunder with basically all the cities and towns that he and his men had wandered through or stayed in the past?
(13) How would you describe the character of David because of this?
(14) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“The share of the man who stayed with the supplies is to be the same as that of him who went down to the battle. All will share alike.” (1 Sam. 30:24)
I am truly struck by the fairness demonstrated by David in the distribution of the plunder among all his men. However, as I reflect on the reason for this fairness, I can see that he was indeed a leader after God’s own heart.
The basis of his fairness was clearly grounded in these words, “No, my brothers, you must not do that with what the Lord had given us. He has protected us and handed over to us the forces that came against us.” (30:23) In other words, he truly and fully realized that it was not by their strength that they gained victory over their enemies; it was thoroughly the grace of God. Since these were the gracious gifts from God, how dare anyone lay claim to them as theirs! David truly attributed all his victories to the Lord and regarded everything he had as gifts from God!
I am sure he held no grudges against those who stayed behind at all. He knew that they had wives and children who were taken captive too (30:22). If they were strong enough, they would have gone with him. However, if they were not strong enough and forced themselves to go along, they would only turn out to be David’s liability! Indeed, everyone is differently gifted. Some are strong and some are weak physically, but each has his God-assigned role. We should not value anyone in God’s family based on outward appearance and visible contributions. David’s directive in this case shows us what a God-centered leader he was!
However, I am equally impressed with his generosity. He shared his plunder with many of the towns in Judah who likely had been raided by the Amalekites before. While some commentators saw this as a smart move by David to “buy votes” in the future for his kingship, I think David’s motive was more of expressing his gratitude to many of these towns who had been kind to him during his flight from Saul. Those were “his friends” in his time of need (30:26)! This leader after God’s own heart also had a heart of gratitude!
(2) The tragedy of this battle began with the killing of the three sons of Saul, including Jonathan. How do you feel about the death of Jonathan, being one who remained faithful to the one truly anointed by the Lord till the end? Should he have died for the sin of his father?
(3) Saul eventually had to face his destiny which was known to him and against which he fought till the very end. Let’s spend some time to reflect on his life:
a. He was introduced to us as a son who cared about his father (9:5) and yet turned into someone who had no regard for his people, forcing them to fight on in spite of their extreme fatigue (14:24). What had happened?
b. He also began as a humble person, feeling unworthy to be chosen as king by the Lord (9:21), and yet turned into someone who would do everything to maintain his power, even pursuing the life of David whom he knew was appointed by God to replace him (24:20). What had happened?
c. His pride grew from the offering of sacrifice on his own (13:9), to sparing the Amalekites against God’s clear instruction (15:9), to the annihilation of God’s high priest and his family (22:17-19). What had happened?
d. If you were to write the epitaph for Saul, what would you say?
(4) Compare the death of Saul as recorded in 31:6, 9, to the death of Eli as recorded in 4:17-18:
a. In what ways did the two men resemble each other?
b. Which one led a more pitiful life? Why?
c. What lessons might you learn from their deaths?
(5) Of all the people in Israel, why would the people of Jabesh Gilead risk their lives to retrieve the body of Saul, give him a proper burial and even fast for him for seven days? (See chapter 11)
(6) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“So Saul and his three sons and his armor bearer and all his men died together that same day.” (1 Sam. 31:6)
As we come to the end of 1 Samuel, we have also come to the end of Saul’s life which ended in the most tragic fashion — he and his three sons died together on the same day. But what makes his death ever more pitiful is the fact that his life ended in a fashion very similar to that of Eli, the unfaithful high priest who honored his sons more than God.
The death
of the two wicked sons of Eli was predicted by the man of God (2:34) and
they died in the battle against the Philistines; Eli also died on the
same day
breaking his neck in the process. In a
similar way, the death of Saul and his sons was also prophesied by the
man of
God (28:19), and Saul’s head was cut off by the Philistines. But
somehow, I feel that the death of Saul
was far more tragic. Consider the following:
a. He lived during a time when Israel was experiencing a spiritual transformation under Samuel: He benefited from the teaching of Samuel; he even participated in this process of reformation. His driving out of all mediums and spiritists was a case in point (28:3).
b. He experienced personally the coming upon him of the Spirit of God (10:10) and the empowering of God in gaining victory over their enemies.
c. Unlike Eli, Saul had at least a son, Jonathan, who was godly, honest and courageous enough to point out the erring way of his father (19:4-5); not to mention he had the company of the prophet, Samuel, who cared deeply about him and prayed for him (16:1).
Not that Eli had any excuse for his follies, but he was quite alone in his spiritual dark hole. On the contrary, Saul was surrounded by godly men and was given many opportunities for repentance.
Both Eli and Saul knew that they had not obeyed the Lord. When told of God’s punishment, Eli was simply resigned to accept what he thought was the inevitable result. Saul, however, continued to fight against the will of God till the very end. Both brought shame to the name of the Lord and His people! Both lived a life of great regret!