God’s patient grace (1 Samuel 21)

How is it that when it comes to judging someone’s motivation whom we dislike, we see it in the worst possible light, but when it comes to our own, we attribute the best intentions to ourselves? Motivation can be hard to gauge and how we align the facts we observe can condemn or absolve a person. I am reminded of this issue as we continue David’s story because our current reading in particular leaves open a number of questions. Chapman, in his commentary, points out that the larger issue the narrative is addressing throughout these episodes is whether David is any better than Saul and a more appropriate choice as king.[1]

Reading David’s behaviour

There is no doubt that David’s behaviour is disconcerting. His lie to Ahimelech, the priest, and his pretence at madness to Achish leave us uneasy. Are such acts of deception right? Is David taking advantage of the old priest and exposing him to Saul’s terrible anger if news of his dealings with Ahimelech get back to Saul? On the other hand, David is under intense pressure, fleeing for his life. He has no sustenance or weapon and is vulnerable. What could he have done? Could he have guessed that Saul would massacre the priests in response? The fact that even Saul’s servants were later unwilling to obey his command (1 Sam 22:17) suggests that this was such a heinous crime that it was hard to imagine even Saul sinking so low. Although it is later revealed that David was aware of Doeg, Saul’s servant, lurking there (1 Sam 22:22), it is unclear how much the latter would have heard or seen. In any case, it may have been too late for David to back out of the situation by then. David’s lie (1 Sam 21:2), in fact, would have been a measure of protection for Ahimelech, who could claim ignorance if it came out that he had helped David. It is also possible that Ahimelech saw through the ruse and helped David nevertheless or would have done if he had known the real situation.

God’s implicit verdict

We will find out more about David’s qualities in the next chapter, but even the bare bones of the story suggest that there is a difference between Saul and David. Saul had specific commands from Samuel, which he disobeyed and when he was confronted, he piously justified himself (1 Sam 13:12-13; 15:20-23). David, on the other hand, was improvising in a desperate situation running for his life through no fault of his own. The provision he received has perhaps symbolic significance in that consecrated bread was the priest’s food.[2] In dire need he was sustained by bread reserved for God’s servants (1 Sam 21:4-6). Likewise, the sword of Goliath placed as it was in the sanctuary (1 Sam 21:9),[3] and then given to him was perhaps an indication of receiving it from God’s hand. It is true that David lied about his mission, but he asked for help and did not grasp what he wanted (unlike Saul). It is also noteworthy that David is not rebuked later, when the prophet Gad warns him to leave the stronghold (1 Sam 22:5). While David’s attempt to join Achish is a miscalculation, once again he is rescued from his folly (1 Sam 21:10-15).

God’s patience as we mature

While we do not have a full picture of how to read David’s motivation here, the way the narrative unfolds suggests that David’s mistakes were not a basic lack of trust and devotion to God as Saul’s had been. To be sure, the lie and deception are troubling and perhaps David has some maturing to do, yet God sees his heart and looks after him both in the extraordinary provision that he receives and through his rescue from Achish’s court. If this interpretation is along the right lines, it should give us encouragement. We are not perfect, and our maturing is an ongoing process. God does not cut us off when we make mistakes, and even when we sin there is a way back to Him through repentance and trust. May we seek the Lord and never cease to grow and mature as we walk with Him.

---

[1] Stephen B. Chapman, 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 177.

[2] The Bread of Presence was the name of the twelve loaves placed on a table in the main sanctuary every Sabbath. They symbolically reminded God of His people (twelve loaves for the twelve tribes), but also signified that God’s people lived in His presence. The loaves removed from the temple were given to the priests to eat as God’s provision for His servants (Lev 24:5-9). There is no law allowing laypeople to partake of this bread, but Ahimelech reasoned on the basis of necessity (cf. Mk 2:25-26) and merely required ritual purity, hence the euphemism about refraining from sex (1 Sam 21:4). In the Israelite system, sexual intercourse led to a temporary, minor impurity (washing and waiting for a day was required before purity was restored; Lev 15:18). Ritual impurity is not sin but often involves normal, everyday human functions. It meant to teach Israel that some of the activities of everyday life no matter how right and good they are (e.g. sex in marriage) need to be put aside when approaching a holy God (cf. 1 Cor 7:5). It seems from David’s words (1 Sam 22:5) that soldiers before battle or when on a holy mission voluntarily abstained from sex to concentrate on God’s purpose (though there is no law requiring this).

[3] It is not quite certain what an ephod was (1 Sam 21:9). It could denote a priestly linen garment (1 Sam 2:18), but here it most likely a device that involved casting lots to discern God’s will (used later in David’s story, e.g. 1 Sam 23:9-12).

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.