THIRD SECTION

Open Deadly Persecution of David by Saul, and David’s Flight from Saul
CHAPTERS 19–27
I. Jonathan proves his friendship for David in Saul’s open attempts on David’s life. David’s
first flight from Saul’s murderous attempts, and his escape by Michal’s help
CHAPTER 19:1–24
1
AND Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants that they should 2kill [about
killing] David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David. And Jonathan told David,
saying, Saul, my father, seeketh to kill thee; now, therefore, I pray thee [and now] take
heed to thyself [ins. I pray thee] until the morning [to-morrow morning, om. until the], and
abide in a secret place, and hide 3thyself. And I will go out and stand beside my father in
the field where thou art, and I will commune [speak] with [to] my father of thee; and what
I see [I 4will see what he says] that [and] I [om. I] will tell thee. And Jonathan spake good of
David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant,
against David; because [for] he hath not sinned against thee, and 5because [om. because]
his works have been to thee-ward very good. For [And] he did put his life in his hand, and
slew the Philistine, and the Lord [Jehovah] wrought a great salvation for all Israel; thou
sawest it and didst rejoice; wherefore, then, wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay
David without a cause? 6And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan, and Saul sware,
As the Lord 7[Jehovah] liveth, he shall not be slain. And Jonathan called David, and
Jonathan showed him all these things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in
his presence as in times past.
8
And there was war again, and David went out and fought with the Philistines, 9and
slew them with a great slaughter, and they fled from him. And the [an] evil spirit from the
Lord [Jehovah] was upon Saul; as he sat [and he was sitting] in his house, with [and] his
javelin [ins. was] in his hand, and David played [was 10playing] with his hand. And Saul
sought to smite David even [om. even] to the wall with the javelin, but he slipped away
[got away] out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall. And David fled,
and escaped that night. 11Saul also [And Saul] sent messengers unto David’s house to
watch him, and to slay him in the morning; and Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, If
thou save 12not thy life to-night, to-morrow thou shalt be slain. So [And] Michal let David
13
down through a [the] window, and he went and fled and escaped. And Michal took an
image [the teraphim], and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow [the quilt] of goats’ hair for
his bolster [at its head],11 and covered it with a cloth [the coverlet]. 14And when Saul sent
messengers to take David, she said, He is sick. 15And Saul sent the messengers again [om.
again] to see David, saying, Bring him 16up to me in the bed, that I may slay him. And when
the messengers were come in [And the messengers came in and] behold, there was an
image in the bed, with a pillow of goats’ hair for his bolster [behold the teraphim in the
bed and the quilt 17of goats’ hair at its head]. And Saul said unto Michal, Why hast thou
deceived me so, and sent away mine enemy, that he is escaped? And Michal answered
[said to] Saul, He said unto me, Let me go,15 why should I kill thee?
18
And David fled and escaped and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul
had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth. 19, 20And it was told Saul,
saying, Behold David is at Naioth in Ramah. And Saul sent messengers to take David; and
when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as
appointed [as leader] over them, the Spirit of God was [came] upon the messengers of
Saul, and they also prophesied. 21And when [om. when] it was told Saul, [ins. and] he sent
other messengers, and they [ins. also] prophesied likewise [om. likewise]. And Saul sent
messengers 22again the third time, and they prophesied also [also prophesied]. Then [And]
went he also [he also went] to Ramah, and came to a [the] great well [cistern] that is in
Sechu.19 And he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And 23one said, Behold,
they be [are] at Naioth in Ramah. And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit
of God was [came] upon him also, and he went 24on and prophesied until he came to
Naioth in Ramah. And he [ins. too] stripped off his clothes also [om. also] and [ins. he too]
prophesied before Samuel in like manner [om. in like manner], and lay down naked all
that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Vers. 1–7. Warding off through Jonathan’s mediation of the first open outbreak of
Saul’s deadly enmity to David.
Ver. 1. Saul advances so far in his deadly hate towards David that he speaks openly to
his courtiers of his purpose to kill him. The “killing” [Eng. A. V. is wrong, see Text. and
Gram.—TR.] refers not to Jonathan and Saul’s servants, but to Saul himself.—Ver. 2.
Jonathan shows his friendship for David 1) in informing him of Saul’s designs on his life,
and counselling him to conceal himself, and 2) in interceding for him with Saul, and trying
to turn away his anger (ver. 3), in which he succeeds.—In thus attempting to restore
friendly relations between his father and David, Jonathan’s aim was to keep David at court
for the welfare of his father and the people, because he saw in David a specially chosen
instrument of the Lord for the welfare of Israel, as he expressly declares in ver. 4. ( ‫ִּד ֵּבר‬
with ‫ ְּב‬as in Ps. 87:3; Deut. 6:7: “to speak concerning one.” Ew., § 217, 2.)—David is to
hide in the field, as we infer from Jonathan’s saying that he will speak with his father in the
field where David is. The place designated by Jonathan was perhaps one to which Saul
used often to go, or where he was accustomed to hold confidential and private
conversations. To “what” [see Text. and Gram.—TR.] we must supply “he says” or “I hear”
(Vulg.: et quodcunque videro tibi nuntiabo [so Eng. A. V.]). Against De Wette’s translation:
“what it is,” Thenius properly urges that Jonathan already knew what Saul then had in
mind. Against Thenius’ view that David was to hide near Saul in order to hear what he said
is the fact that Jonathan himself says to David: “I will tell thee.” Rather we must suppose
with Keil that Jonathan made this arrangement in order that he might tell David the result
of the conversation immediately, without having to go far from his father, and thus
awaken suspicion of an understanding with David.—Vers. 4, 5. Jonathan’s statement to
Saul is three-fold: 1) he spoke good of David, that is, he spoke favorably of him, pointing
out his excellent qualities and his services to Saul and the nation; 2) on the ground of this
he implored Saul not to sin against his servant. This designation of David as his servant
accords with the foregoing reference to the good which David, as Saul’s faithful servant,
had done; 3) to this he adds two reasons, a negative: “he hath not sinned against thee,”
that is, he has done nothing to call forth thy vengeance; and a positive: “his works are very
useful to thee,” that is, far from doing thee harm, he hath done thee only great service by
his deeds.—The relation of ver. 5 to the latter part of ver. 4 is this, that Jonathan,
continuing his mediation, here reminds his father of the deed which is specially to be
taken into consideration, the slaying of the Philistine, and how he had therein ventured his
life: “he put his life in his hand” (28:21; Judg. 12:2), risked his life (perhaps alluding to
David’s hand, which swung the sling against the giant, on the firmness and certainty of
which his life depended).—Jonathan then proceeds to point out how serviceable to Saul
this deed of David was: and the Lord wrought a great salvation for all Israel; thou sawest
it and didst rejoice. This reminder of Saul’s joy at David’s exploit (seen with his own eyes)
and its grand results, this vivid presentation of the situation at that time is the
psychological stepping-stone to the ethical change which is brought about in Saul’s
attitude towards David by Jonathan’s pressing and yet modest supplication: Why wilt thou
sin against innocent blood, to slay David without cause?—Saul was changeable and
uncertain in his unstable inner life, because there was yet in him a noble germ whence
good fruit might yet come.—Ver. 6. Saul swore, a characteristic indication of his to go to
one extreme or another. David’s life was now saved. [Some think that Saul swore
insincerely, to put Jonathan off his guard; but this is not so probable as that he was here
sincere, but fell again under the power of jealousy (ver. 10).—TR.].—Ver. 7. Jonathan,
having performed this friendly service for David, informs him of the result according to
promise (ver. 3), and David resumes his place at court. David was in Saul’s presence “as
yesterday and the day before,” that is, as in times past.
Vers. 8–17. David’s first flight in consequence of another murderous attempt on Saul’s
part, the result of envy and jealousy.
Ver. 8. The background of this narrative is formed by the military life which was
connected with the continued wars with the Philistines. The “went out” is not to be
changed into some other word (with Then. after Sept. κατίσχυσε), but to be retained (as in
18:5, 16) as expressing David’s marching forth to battle.—Ver. 9. The ethical ground of
Saul’s new outburst of rage after David’s success is his envy and jealousy of David’s honor
and glory, as is intimated by the preceding mention of the latter’s victory over the
Philistines.—“We have two similar accounts of Saul’s outbreaks (18:10 sq. and 19:9 sq.)
simply because such outbreaks were really frequent (comp. especially 18:18) and like one
another” (Nägelsbach in Herz. XIII. 403). An evil Spirit of Jehovah came upon Saul.—While
this evil spirit is in 16:15 and 18:10 referred to Elohim, the Deity in general, Jehovah is
here affirmed to be its sender, because Saul’s condition, which was there only ascribed in
general to a higher divine causality in respect to his person, is here regarded as a judgment
of the covenant-God of Israel on the reprobate king, who hardens his heart against God.—
Along with his military calling, David here again takes his old place as harpist. He did not
abandon the post assigned him by the Lord, so long as the Lord did not through events
command him to leave it, as was afterwards the case, cf. ch. 20.—The Sept. took offence
at the “evil spirit of Jehovah” and left out “Jehovah.” But the Genitive means nothing
more than what is said in 16:14, that the God of Israel sent an evil spirit on Saul, or gave
him over to the power of the evil spirit.—Ver. 10. David escapes Saul’s spear, which
penetrates the wall. He flees the same night. (The Art. of the Pron. is lacking from
similarity of sound, Ew. § 392 a, and § 70 c). The Sept. reads: “and it came to pass that
night that Saul sent” (inserting ‫ ִוְיִהי‬and connecting with the following), looking to ver. 12,
where the flight by night is first mentioned. Against this it is not necessary to insist that
the narrator here in Hebrew fashion gives the result first by anticipation, and then details
the immediate incidents; for Saul’s attempt may have occurred in the evening, or, if it
happened in the day-time, David may first have hidden in Saul’s house, and then at night
have fled to his own house. That David fled to his own dwelling and remained there till
night, appears from ver. 11, according to which Saul sends messengers to his house to
watch him and to kill him in the morning (that is, when he went out again). With this
agrees exactly the fact that Michal, who acquainted him with the danger threatening him
in his house, presses him to flee that night, because in the morning he would be slain. In
the night of the same day on which the attempt on his life occurred, David fled from Saul’s
house to his own, and the same night by Michal’s means he fled from his own house.
[Kitto: “We may guess that only the fear of alarming the town, and of rousing the
populace to rescue their favorite hero, prevented him from directing them to break into
the house and slay David there.” Others suggest the fear of alarming or injuring Michal.
She could easily get notice of Saul’s design from Jonathan or others.—TR.]
Ver. 12. Through the window, because the door was watched (ver. 11) by Saul’s men.
For similar escapes through windows see Josh. 2:15; Acts 9:25; 2 Cor. 11:33.—With this
flight of David began his weary fleeing before Saul, and the great sufferings and dangers
which he encountered in this unsettled life.—Ver. 13. By a trick with the Teraphim Michal
deceives Saul’s catchpolls.—The teraphim were the images of domestic or private gods
(Penates) which the Israelites retained as the remnant of the idolatry brought from the
Aramæan or Chaldean home (Gen. 31:19, 34) in spite of their removal after the entry of
Jacob’s family into Canaan (Gen. 35:2 sq.) and of the absolute prohibition of idolatry in the
Law, which reappear especially in the period of the Judges (Judg. 17:5; 18:14 sq.) and
particularly meet us in the houses of Saul and David in spite of Samuel’s prophetic zeal
against such idolatry (1 Sam. 15:23; comp. Hos. 3:4; Zech. 10:2). The Plu. here represents a
single image, which it seems (ver. 16) must have had the human form at least as to head
and face, though the size may have varied, since (Gen. 31:30 sq.) it was so small that
Rachel could conceal it under the camel-saddle, while Michal here uses it to make Saul’s
men believe that David was in the bed. The teraphim which Laban calls his “Elohim” were
probably originally tutelar deities, dispensers of domestic and family good fortune. On the
derivation and meaning of the name see Rödiger in Ges. Thes. III. 1520, Hävernick on Ezek.
p. 347 sq., and Delitzsch Gen. II. p. 220 [and Art. “Teraphim” in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—TR.]. On
the meaning see particularly the Arts. in Winer and Herzog. Whether it was a wooden
image is uncertain, as also, whether Michal had such domestic gods on account of her
barrenness (Michaelis, Thenius, Keil). ‫( ְּכִביר‬which the Sept. read ‫“ ָּכֵבד‬liver,” whence
Joseph says that Michal put a palpitating goat-liver into the bed to represent a breathing
sick man) is from ‫“[ ָּכַבר‬to braid”] and means woven-work or net [rendered quilt or
mattress, Eng. A. V. pillow.—TR.]. The plural of “goat” (‫ )ֵעז‬here = goats’ hair. The Def. Art.
points to something which belonged to the furnishing of a couch or bed. She put it at his
head, which may mean either that she put a woven cover under his head, or a hairy cover
on or around his head. In any case Michal’s purpose was to make the head of the
teraphim look as much as possible like a human head. The ‫“[ ַּבָּֽבֶגד‬with the coverlet”]
must, on account of the article, be understood of some piece of household stuff, therefore
of the bed-cover. The word (‫ )ֶּבֶגד‬means the upper garment of the Oriental, which is a
wide cloth thrown around the person, and served also for bed-clothing.—Ver. 14. When
Saul’s messengers come the first time, Michal says to them that David is sick. [On this
untruth see “Histor. and Theolog.” to this chap. at end.—TR.].—Ver. 15. Saul, determined
to carry out his purpose orders David to be brought up to him on the bed, that is, to his
house, which, therefore, was higher than David’s. “Saul must therefore have resided in
Gibeah on the height” (Then.).—Ver. 16. The messengers come and discover the deceit.
The express mention of the “goat-hair cover at his head” shows that this had materially
contributed to the success of the deception. It appears from ver. 13 that to the words [of
the Heb.]: “behold teraphim in the bed,” we must supply “laid” or “placed.”—Ver. 17. Saul
demands an explanation of Michal. Why hast thou sent away my enemy?—In these
words appears all Saul’s bitterness and blindness. It is a sort of “persecuting mania” that
shows itself in David’s persecutor.—Michal’s defence does not agree with the statement
in vers. 11, 12, that she herself urged David to flight. From fear of her father she tells a “lie
of necessity,” saying: “He said to me, send me away, why should I kill thee?” She pretends
that she wished to prevent his flight, but he threatened to kill her if she stood in his way.
[To this deliverance is referred Ps. 59 by its title and Ps. 7 by some critics.—TR.]
Vers. 18–24. David’s flight to Ramah to Samuel.
Ver. 18. David told Samuel all that Saul had done to him.—That David takes refuge in
Samuel’s quiet seat of the prophets is explained by the intimate connection which David
already had with Samuel and the prophetic school presided over by him, and especially by
the official-theocratic connection which David’s anointing had brought about between the
two men. Samuel now becomes God’s instrument for saving and preserving David as the
Lord’s Anointed from the attempts of Saul. David dwelt “at Naioth” with Samuel, who
went thither with him. Naioth is to be distinguished from Ramah, Samuel’s dwelling-place,
and to be regarded as a place where Samuel stayed as long as David, who had at first
reported to him at Ramah, was with him (comp. vers. 22, 23). The Kethib has everywhere
Nevaioth, Vulg. (with Qeri) Naioth. The appellative, signifying “dwellings,” became the
proper name of the place where dwelt the prophets who gathered about Samuel as their
head (comp. ver. 20). The plu. form indicates a colony consisting of several dwellings, a
prophetic cenobium.—Vers. 19, 20. Saul, having been informed of David’s stay in this
cenobium, sent messengers to fetch him. The prophets‡, here appear 1) in an assembly, 2)
therein engaged in prophesying, and 3) under the lead of Samuel. It is to be noted that we
have here prophets, who in inspired discourse give forth their inner life filled with the Holy
Ghost, not sons of the prophets, as in 2 Kings 4:38; 6:1, who as scholars and learners sit at
the feet of their master and teacher. The prophetic community here, therefore, under
Samuel as head is not yet a prophetic school, to educate young men for the prophetic
calling, but is a prophetic seminary, in which, under Samuel’s guidance in an externally
strictly ordered yet internally free association, the prophetic powers are practiced and
strengthened, mutually incite, nourish, and further one another, and the prophetic
charisma finds ever new nourishment and new growth by this common holy discipline.
And the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul; Spirit of God, not Spirit of
Jehovah, because we here have not to do with the Spirit of the covenant-God, but with
the supernatural principle of inspiration. And they too prophesied. Clericus: “They sang
divine praises, being seized on by a sudden afflatus which they could not resist (as Saul,
10:10), so that they no longer had control over themselves.” The condition of Saul’s
messengers is that of ecstatic ravishment, into which they were brought by the
overpowering might of the inspired song or word of the prophets.—Ver. 21. Saul’s second
and third companies of messengers fall into a similar ravishment. [The repeated
occurrence of this supernatural seizure adds greatly to the force and effectiveness of the
narrative. The purpose of this in the divine providence, we may suppose, was to bring Saul
himself.—TR.]—Ver. 22. Then went he also to Ramah and came (on the way thither) to
the great cistern (well known, as the Art. shows) that was in Sechu,—a now unknown
region or locality near Ramah. The Sept. has “cistern of the threshing-floor” ( ‫)ֹגֶר ן‬, instead
of “great” cistern, and “on the hill” (‫)ְׁשִפי‬, instead of “Sechu.” But, though it is true that
threshing-floors were usually on hills, there is no need here of a change of text. Saul,
learning that David and Samuel were at Naioth in Ramah, went thither.—Ver. 23. While he
was still in the way there happened to him what happened to his messengers. The Spirit
of God came upon him also, and he went on and prophesied till he came to Naioth in
Ramah. The difference between Saul and his messengers was simply that the inspiration
came on him as he was approaching the residence of the prophet, and that it attained a
higher grade and lasted longer, completely suppressing his self-consciousness.—Ver. 24,
namely, relates: And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before
Samuel. The throwing off of the clothing was the effect of the heat of body produced by
internal excitement. Abarbanel: “because of inward warmth, and to spread the garments
out.” We may suppose that the messengers also cast away their garments (though it is not
expressly so said), as the prophets in their times of excitement and heat may well have
done. The “he also” is not found in the following sentence: he lay naked all day and all
night. This does not necessarily mean complete nakedness (2 ,‫ ָעֹרם‬Sam. 6:20), because
there was worn under the kethoneth or tunic a fine woven shirt of linen or cotton ( ‫ָמִד ין‬,
Judg. 14:12 sq.; Isa. 3:23), and over it a long sleeveless outer garment ( –14:5 ;18:4 ,‫ְמִעיל‬
12). Comp. Keil, Bibl, Arch., II., 39.—Saul lay in his under-garment (a sort of shirt which
was next to the body, but did not completely cover it) unconscious; so completely was he
overcome by the ecstacy. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? See ch.
10:11, 12, where the origin of this saying is related. Here we have not the origin, but the
application of the already existing proverb.

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

 1. The picture of a true, faithful friend, already presented to us in Jonathan, is here
completed in the account of his conduct towards Saul and David in individual significant
traits and clear colors; but at the same time along with this picture of noble friendship we
find one of an humble, reverent, childlike spirit towards the sinful purpose of his father. As
soon as Jonathan has learned from his father the danger that threatened David’s life, he
shows his faithful love for his friend by imparting to him the evil designs of his father, by
enjoining on him to hide himself, by promising to soften if possible his father’s wrath, and
by informing him how he (David) should soon learn the result of his effort at mediation
and rescue. But Jonathan’s noble character appears in yet clearer light in his conduct
towards his father. For his friend’s sake he dares, at the risk of his life, to oppose the rage
and the sinister designs of his own father. Openly and frankly he represents to his father
the great crime he would commit by slaying David. His heart is free from envy and
jealousy while he sets before his father David’s great services to the royal house and the
whole nation. His words and bearing show manly firmness and decision, and yet childlike
piety, reverence, and obedience; no word not in keeping with the Fourth Commandment
from his lips. And in addition to all this is his magnanimous self-denial, since he doubtless
suspected that his friend would ascend the throne after his father. Though he himself
possessed all the qualities which should adorn God’s Anointed on the throne, heroic
courage, undisputed, universally acknowledged military renown, firm trust in the living
God, and a noble disposition, he shows not the slightest trace of envy and unkindness
towards David. “Notwithstanding all this he was not only nobly ready, if the Lord should so
command, to give up his birthright, but strove wisely and vigorously to defeat all that was
conceived and undertaken against God’s decree, even at the risk of falling by his own
father’s hand, a sacrifice to his piety and friendship” (F. W. Krummacher). Jonathan is a
character that rises on the platform of Old Testament-life in peculiarly noble, harmonious,
ethical-sympathetic form, whether we regard him as the heroic warrior and leader, or as
faithful, self-denying friend, or as humble, modest prince-royal, or as the frank,
unshrinking denouncer of wrong and sin.
2. In David’s ethical-historical character, as presented to us in this section, we have to
note in the first place his humble and obedient behaviour in the calling appointed him by
the divine providence at the royal court, in spite of the quickly changing and fiercely
outbreaking passionate moods of Saul, and in spite of the dangers which he saw
threatened him. Every moment he put himself at the king’s disposition, and was at his side
to help him whenever it was necessary. He went quietly on the way which the Lord had
appointed him. And therefore he was under God’s protection, and experienced the
preserving help of his God.—Yet this flight, in which his wife’s faithful love was the Lord’s
means of saving him, began the unbroken series of severe sufferings and trials by which
David was to be confirmed in his faith and trained in a hard school for his royal calling. In
this long life of suffering he had uninterrupted experience as a confirmed servant of God
of the help, the consolation, the strengthening from above to which his Psalms bear
testimony. ROOS: “Lay David’s good and bad fortune in the balances. A courtier and officer,
who falls under the king’s displeasure, whom the king with implacable rage seeks to kill,
whom the courtiers and many others, to please the king, despise and persecute, a man
who is compelled to flee, who in need and affliction must always conceal himself, who can
often find no place on earth where to lay his head, such a man may well talk of
misfortune, and is in this view a miserable person. But if we remember that God in his
deepest needs vouchsafes gracious visitations to the soul of this man, lifts it, as it were,
above all mists and clouds, grants it clearest insight into truth, refreshes it by undeceptive
addresses and friendly consolations, and through it points all men to happiness, we must
admit that this man’s good fortune is greater than his bad fortune, that his honor is
greater than his reproach, and that the good that he has super-abundantly makes up for
all his outward want.”
2. The title of the 59th Psalm refers its origin to David’s dangerous situation in Gibeah,
“when Saul sent and they watched the house to kill him.” And in fact the recurring verses
7 and 15 [6 and 14] of this very artistically arranged Psalm point to ambushments which
begin in the evening. But it is repeated ambuscades that are there spoken of. Since now in
our history only one night is mentioned, it seems more appropriate not to refer this Psalm
to those dangerous days in Gibeah (Delitzsch, Moll), but with Hengstenberg to find its
occasion in David’s remembrance of the deliverance wrought that night through Michal,
which was the beginning of the weary flight, wherein he encountered such unspeakable
dangers and sufferings. “Such being the importance of the fact, we should expect David to
perpetuate its recollection by a Psalm” (Hengst.). The Psalm was sung when he looked
back on the long line of enemies’ snares and divine deliverances, of which the events of
that evening and night were the beginning and type. We must not, however, confine
ourselves to that event alone, but must include all David’s similar experiences of Saul’s
traps. “From the Psalm it appears only that it was called forth by an attempt on the
singer’s life; in other respects the circumstances are those which belong in general to the
Saul-period” (Hengst.).
4. The teraphim-image, which Michal employs, shows that these Aramæan idols, these
forms of “strange gods” which Rachel took secretly from her father’s house (Gen. 31:19,
34)—in spite of their burial by Jacob (Gen. 35:2 sq.), and their ordered removal by Joshua
(Josh. 24:22) and Samuel’s zealous opposition to them (1 Sam. 15:23)—hid in the privacy
of domestic life, whence in the time of the Judges they came openly forth (Judg. 17
compared with 18:14 sq.), still maintained themselves. As the teraphim were oracular
deities in their old homes (so in Ezek. 21:21 Nebuchadnezzar inquires through them
whether he shall march against Jerusalem or against Ammon), so also in Israel (Judg.
17:18; 1 Sam. 15:23; Hos. 3:4; Ezek. 21:26; Zech. 10:2) they were superstitiously used as
oracles, counsel being asked through them concerning the future. Hävernick (on Ezek.
21:26): “The use of the teraphim as oracles came no doubt through their connection with
the Ephod (comp. Hos. 3:4; Zech. 10:2), the ancient general notion of their magical power
passing over into the more special one of prediction”. Under Josiah (2 Kings 23:24) their
removal was decreed in connection with other idolatrous abominations, but they kept
their place till the Exile.
5. In respect to the history and theocratic significance of the so-called Schools of the
prophets, we must distinguish the two periods in which, in point of fact, the only mention
of them occurs. In the first place we meet with prophetic unions or prophetic communities
in the age of Samuel, which are more exactly defined during his relations with Saul: first
that band of prophets (10:5, 10), which in Gibeah descends from the sacrificial hill and
meets Saul, prophesying with music and song. Perhaps this community resided in Gibeah,
in support of which we may perhaps with Keil adduce the name “Gibeah of God.” In ch. 19
the prophetic community stands in a near relation to Samuel as the “president.” The
members are called Nebiim (prophets]; they prophesy under Samuel’s lead; their
inspiration (as in ch. 10) is so mighty that persons that do not belong to them, as Saul’s
servants and Saul himself, are seized and overpowered by it, and fall into a like ecstacy.
David is closely connected with them, as is shown by his flight to them and stay with them.
He found there only temporary safety indeed from Saul’s persecutions, but abiding
consolation and strength in the inspired prophetic word, in the blessings of the fraternal
community, and in the consoling and elevating power of the holy poetic art, whereby he
doubtless stood in peculiarly intimate connection with the community. The members of
the body formed a Cenobium; their outward life of union symbolized their inward union
under the mighty impulse of one and the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit, a union which they
saw accomplished through this prophetic Spirit which informed them all. In point of fact
we find certainly at this time such an organized prophetic community only in Ramah;
whether Samuel, who was its president there in the latter part of his life, was also the
establisher of the form of associated life, is doubtful; but in any case it may be confidently
maintained that through the powerful influence which he exerted on his contemporaries
by the prophetic Spirit which dwelt and worked in him, awakening and fashioning a new
life, this Spirit, which in its essential nature tended to produce association, showed itself in
such unions of prophetic men. The original power and vigor of this Spirit expresses itself in
these extraordinary phenomena and overwhelming effects, just as in the Apostolic church
they appear as the fruit of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 14). The
theocratic significance of this association consisted in the fact that, along with Samuel’s
lofty prophetical form, they were the centre and source of the reviving religious-moral life
of the nation, after it had lost its theocratic centre in the national sanctuary, which was
despoiled of the ark of the covenant. The prophetic men of this community, which is by no
means to be regarded as an association of pupils, represent the manifold theocratic-
prophetic influence on the people, which was first completely brought to bear by Samuel’s
labors; they form, when Samuel’s life is approaching its end, the aftergrowth (nurtured by
him) of the combined divinely-appointed theocratic office of prophet and judge (alongside
of the royal office), as bearers of which we find the prophets in David’s time. In their midst
originated and was cultivated the theocratic-prophetic writing of history, as
representatives of which a Gad (comp. 22:5) and a Nathan are mentioned along with
Samuel (1 Chr. 29:29). Comp. Thenius on 1 Sam. 19:19 and 22:5—On the prophetic
schools under Samuel see Oehler in Herz. R.-E., s. v. Prophetenthum des A. T., XII. 214–
217.
The history is silent concerning the prophetic communities during the whole period
from Samuel to the age of Elijah and Elisha. Not till the epoch in the development of the
prophetic Order in Israel marked by the grand prophetic characters of Elijah and his
successor Elisha do we again meet with these communities, and then only in the kingdom
of the Ten Tribes at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho, in which places there was a numerous
membership (2 Kings 4:38; 2:3, 5, 7, 15, 16; 4:1, 43; 6:1; 9:1); here, however, they are not
called “prophets” as under Samuel’s lead, but sons of the prophets (1 Kings 20:35), a name
which indicates that they stood to the leaders and presidents of the communities in a
dependent relation as scholars and disciples. They have their places of assembly and
abode, designed for a large number, where they sit at the feet of their prophetic masters
(comp. 2 Kings 6:1 sq.), and receive prophetic instruction and cultivation. Only such can
we properly call prophetic schools, whose prophetic presidents and leaders (as Elisha’s
case shows) had to legitimate themselves by the power of the prophetic spirit dwelling in
them. While under Samuel’s presidency the prophetic communities appear as freer
associations of prophetic men for the exertion of united influence on the people, these
later ones are distinct Unions, in which teachers and scholars, masters and disciples stand
in a relation of mutual co-ordination [control and subordination]. The subject-matter of
the instruction was the divine law and the history of the divine dealings with the covenant
people; the aim of the instruction was the nurture and furtherance of the prophetic spirit
by holy discipline in an organized God-serving life. The pupils were trained in
unconditional obedience to the divine law, in living appropriation of the holy will of God as
absolute norm for their own wills; from their Cenobia thus equipped they went forth
among the people to testify of the living God, of His word and His righteous and gracious
dealings, and with absolute obedience to perform the special tasks imposed on them by
the masters with divine authority (comp. 1 Kings 13:20 sq.). Besides this general theocratic
significance these Unions had the special duty to form the centre of the service of God for
the people in their separation from the sanctuary at Jerusalem (comp. 2 Kings 4:23, 42),
and in the prophetical work of their members to oppose a solid power to the heathenism
which pressed in on the people under an idolatrous government, and to maintain the
honor of the living God. Comp. Oehler ubi supra, p. 220 sq.—In respect to the historical
continuity of such prophetic associated life in the interval between the prophetic
communities of Samuel and these later schools of the prophets, nothing can be certainly
determined, although, as Oehler shows against Keil (as above, p. 215), the great number
of prophets, which, according to 1 Kings 18:13, must have existed when Elijah appeared,
seems to favor such continuity. Comp, on the other side Keil’s remarks in his commentary
on ch. 19. p. 147 sq. [Eng. Transl., pp. 199–205.]
[Michal’s deception in ver. 13) may be called a stratagem, her statement in ver. 14 is a
falsehood carrying out the stratagem, and her answer to her father in ver. 17 is, as
Erdmann terms it, a “lie of necessity;” that is, a lie held to be necessary, in order to save
one from suffering or perplexity. Clearly this last is unjustifiable; when Saul demanded an
explanation Michal ought to have answered that she thought it right to save her husband.
Her stratagem (ver. 13 may be defended on the ground that Saul, in assuming the position
towards David of an open enemy (without legal warrant), having previously tried to kill
him, had thus put himself out of ordinary relation with him, and was to be treated as a
public enemy or a madman. Whether the statement in ver. 14 is then properly a part of
the stratagem is not so easy to say. The decisive question is: Was it necessary to the
success of the stratagem? was it based on Saul’s abnormal, unnatural, criminal attitude
towards David?—TR.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

 Vers. 1–4. BERL. BIBLE: So far is Saul carried by self-love, which often transforms itself
into fury against the friends of God, and it is incredible how far it can go wrong. Jonathan
acted as a true friend to David, and presents therein a picture of a faithful and upright
friend, who not only warns David of danger and gives him good counsel, but also at his
own peril speaks to his father for him, declares his innocence and praises his noble
services, and thereby brings him again into his father’s favor.—SCHLIER: Even in grown
persons there is nothing more beautiful than reverence for parents, and doubly beautiful
is this ornament when one thing is understood, how to lead parents away from sin and yet
in so doing always show modesty and respect, when one thing is understood, how to fulfil
the Fourth Commandment in truth and love. [TAYLOR: Such a manifestation of prudence
and principle combined. Prudence did not go so far as to make him silent about the sin
which Saul was purposing to commit; principle was not so asserted as to arouse his
father’s indignation.—TR.].—Ver. 6 sqq. BERL. BIBLE: A kindly and hearty, an humble but
also righteous opposition is suited to turn away the evil that has been resolved on and
hinder it from coming to the birth.—SCHLIER: Open thy mouth for thy neighbor, and stand
up for him, excuse him where thou canst, speak to his advantage wherever it is possible,
let it be a joy to thee to bring to light his good side, be in earnest to promote peace
wherever it is practicable.
Ver. 8. BERL. BIBLE: O my God, how wonderfully dost Thou lead Thy servants! Scarcely
are they out of one trial when again Thou stirrest up for them another.—Ver. 9. SCHLIER:
God the Lord allows the evil spirit no power over us, if we have not first called down
punishment upon ourselves by our sins; he who is in the power of darkness and therefore
does the works of darkness, has before given himself up to darkness.—Ver. 10. BERLENB.
BIBLE: Temptation with men who are grudging and envious and cannot bear the
righteousness of the child of God, does not last long, because such men condemn their
unrighteousness.—Ver. 11. KRUMMACHER: The Lord in every way takes care that His servant
David, adorned with His laurels, shall not lift his head too high. In David, too, is richly
verified the apostolical saying: Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every
son whom he receiveth.—Vers. 13, 14. CRAMER: In cases of urgent need, where there is no
time for long reflection, a woman can often more quickly devise a plan, surpassing therein
the male sex (Eccl. 25:19; Gen. 31:35; Josh. 2:6). [HALL: Who can but wonder to see how …
Saul’s own children are the only means to cross him in the sin, and to preserve his guiltless
adversary.—TR.].—Ver. 17. SCHLIER: A “lie of necessity” is never permissible, wrong can
never become right; lying always remains wrong, and doubly wrong when the lie is spoken
to a father. Truth is well-pleasing to God the Lord, and truth, spoken with an eye to the
Lord, always finds the Lord’s protection.—CRAMER: There are three sorts of lies: lies of
necessity (Exod. 1:19; Gen. 20:2; 26:7; Josh. 2:6); lies of sport (Gen. 42:9; 27:15; Jud. 9:8);
shameful and hurtful lies. Guard against all three, and speak and love the truth from thy
heart.—[TAYLOR: Michal’s affection for David could not stand the strain of trial. It was not
like that of Jonathan, because it had not, like Jonathan’s its root in devotion to the Lord.
She could not and did not follow her husband through persecution, and exile, and danger,
because she was not one with him in God. (An idolater perhaps without the cognizance of
her husband). She could tell lies for David, but she had not the courage and the faith to go
with him into suffering, or to tell the truth for him.—TR.]
 Ver. 18. OSIANDER: Those who are in trouble should betake themselves to the assembly
where God’s word is taught, and there seek consolation.—CRAMER: God always raises up
for His people good friends and patrons, who must help them (1 Kings 18:13).—SCHLIER:
Instead of any further answer, Samuel led David to his Naioth, into his school of the
prophets; amid the songs of praise of his prophet-scholars, amid their common prayers
and studies of God’s word it was good to dwell; there was consolation and peace, there
was help to be found even for such a troubled heart as David had. Let not such an
example be presented you in vain. Are you troubled, then seek the word of the Lord and
prayer, seek it especially there where men are gathered to attend to God’s word and to
pray. [HALL: God intended to make David not a warrior and a king only, but a prophet too.
As the field fitted him for the first, and the court for the second, so Naioth shall fit him for
the third.—TR.].—Ver. 20 sqq. STARKE [from HALL]: It is good going up to Naioth, into the
holy assemblies; who knows how we may be changed, beside our intention? Many a one
hath come into God’s house to carp, or scoff, or sleep, or gaze, that hath returned a
convert (1 Cor. 14:24, 25).—As one coal kindles another, so it happens that where good is
taught and heard, hearts also do not remain unmoved (Acts 16:13, 14).—BERL. BIBLE: That
is the blessing which God Often grants to devout assemblies, that many a one goes in with
an evil, impure and hostile mind, and comes out again with quite another heart and mind.
—Vers. 23, 24. WUERT. SUMM.: Saul’s prophesying was more an irresistible work of divine
power, than an evidence of divine grace. We see also by his example, that not all who
prophesy, who exhibit extraordinary movements of spirit, are thereby shown to have the
Spirit of God, and to stand in favor with Him. Many of them, according to the saying of
Jesus (Matt. 7:22, 23), will on that day be found out and condemned as evil-doers.—
SCHLIER: In Saul we have an example how God follows a man till he either turns or hardens
himself. How deep was Saul already sunken; yet God the Lord did not yet leave him, but
again turned toward him. He felt the mighty hand of God, and yet he would not bow. Then
God’s hand, which could not make him bow, must harden him more and more.—When
the Lord’s hand comes upon us, we wish to bow, we wish to enter into ourselves, and to
humble ourselves. Well for him who lets himself be reproved and chastised, but woe to us
if we shut ourselves up against the Lord’s hand.—[TAYLOR: In reviewing this narrative,
observe how diversified are the resources which Jehovah has at command for the
protection of His people. Each time the means by which David was delivered are different.
At first he is defended by God’s blessing on his own valor against the Philistines; then he is
indebted for his safety to the mediation of Jonathan; then to the agency of Michal; and
finally to the miraculous work of God’s own Holy Spirit, In the subsequent portion of the
history we shall find that the same principle holds, and that in each new peril he is
preserved by some new instrumentality.—TR.]
Vers. 11, 12. F. W. KRUMMACHER: A new storm: 1) By what David is threatened; 2) How
he is delivered from the danger.—Ver. 18. David at Ramah: 1) He breathes the
atmosphere of the communion of the saints; 2) He sees a new plan to murder him
wonderfully frustrated.
[Vers. 4–7. An attempt at Peacemaking: 1) The means employed. Jonathan appeals,
with tact and delicacy, to justice, gratitude, piety, memories of the past, conscience. 2)
The apparent effect. Saul’s better feelings revived, his conscience aroused. In his
passionate way, he takes a solemn oath, no doubt with superficial sincerity. All seems
restored “as in times past,” 3) The final result. David’s merits, at the call of Providence,
shine forth with new lustre. Slumbering envy wakes, and the last enmity is worse than the
first. (Comp. 20:33, 34). Lessons: (1) It is at any rate a consolation to have tried, and to
have had even temporary success. (2) Peacemaking does not always fail. (3) We must fear
for the results wherever the wrong-doer does not repent of the sin involved; the only sure
peacemaking must begin in peace with God. (4) How deep-rooted and ruinous a sin is
envy; it may swallow up the noblest feelings, break the most solemn promises, lead to
madness and murder. And no wonder, for the envious man sins at once against himself,
his neighbor, and his God.—TR.]