The Way through Suffering (1 Samuel 22)
1 Sam 22:1-23
In my previous post (The Way Out of Playing the Victim), we have seen Saul’s complaints, his finger pointing, while he laid the blame for his difficulties on others. In the process, he greatly deceived himself and misused his power for injustice and sin. The incidents around David (1 Sam 22:1-5, 20-23) at the beginning and end of the chapter create an envelope structure that invites comparison with Saul. David was genuinely a victim of persecution (Saul’s), yet the picture that emerges of him offers an alternative to Saul’s false victimhood. What can we learn from his attitude as he suffers persecution and injustice?
A deep relationship with God
The picture that emerges of David is of a leader entirely different from Saul. Instead of complaining, David seeks God’s will and obeys guidance given through the prophet Gad (1 Sam 22:3, 5). It turns out that he also inquired of the Lord through Ahimelech (and this is not Doeg’s lie because the priest implicitly confirms it; 1 Sam 22:10, 15). This, of course, is unlikely to mean that David never complained against the injustice he suffered – witness the psalms. However, such prayers lay the anger, resentment, and desire for revenge before God and leave it to Him to deal with evil in His time. It is David’s deep relationship with the Lord that enabled him to behave differently from Saul. David also takes responsibility in caring for his family, and later will acknowledge his part in the tragedy of the massacred priests (1 Sam 22:3, 22) though significantly, the survivor of the massacre, Abiathar, does not blame David but seeks him out (1 Sam 22:20). Others in distress also join David (1 Sam 22:2) suggesting that they recognise him as a leader with potential to resolve their grievances.
A refusal to retaliate
David is further characterised by Ahimelech’s speech (1 Sam 22:14-15), which can be understood in two ways. On one level, it reads simply as the priest’s plea for innocence: he thought that David was the king’s favoured servant and had no idea of their fraught relationship. However, the tone of the speech is a surprise. Given Ahimelech’s earlier fearful behaviour (1 Sam 21:1), we would expect a timid response, even some outrage that David duped him and landed him in this situation (e.g. ‘the scoundrel’s deceived me’). Instead, the priest’s words ridicule the king’s accusation and paint a glowing picture of David as a man of integrity and honour (1 Sam 22:14). Is Ahimelech simply describing what he thought David had been or what David really is still (i.e. a faithful servant)? When Ahimelech denies knowing anything about ‘this whole affair’ (1 Sam 22:15) does he mean that he had no idea about David plotting against the king (but now he is told, he knows), or is he suggesting that he knows nothing because there is nothing to know? In other words, does he accept David’s guilt or thinks him innocent?[1] Whether Ahimelech realised or intended this meaning, it brings to the forefront David’s character as one who refused to plot or retaliate against Saul, while it is Saul who plots and tries to kill him.
The remedy for us
In our context, what do we complain about? Do we blame our family background for developing emotional problems, our lack of educational opportunities or money for not getting ahead? We may point a finger for our bitterness at those who deliberately slander or disadvantage us. We may feel frustrated over others’ actions that affect us, whether a boss’s, church leader’s or family member’s. David’s attitude teaches us that even when we have good reason to complain and feel frustrated, there is an alternative to impotent fuming or wanting to get even with those who hurt us. At the centre of David’s life is a trusting relationship with God and a willingness to take responsibility for himself. Like him, there are situations we cannot alter (though there may be opportunities for confront others or suggest changes) and we look to God for answers without retaliating or grabbing through illegitimate means what was withheld from us. It is when we have this broader perspective of God and His purposes, like David did, that we can look beyond our own suffering and care for the needs of others. In fact, when we imitate David, we really follow in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus whom he foreshadows.
[1] We do not know Ahimelech’s intention here, nor whether he suspected or knew David’s real situation in 1 Samuel 21. There is a similar ambiguity going on in the story of David’s sin with Bathsheba where one of the questions left open is whether Uriah knows about David’s adultery when he is recalled to the court. His refusal to go home to his wife because he cannot possibly take his ease while his fellow soldiers are camping rough (2 Sam 11:11) can be read in two ways. If he does not know what David had done, then he is simply virtuous. If he knows, then his attitude is a silent accusation of David, who instead of being on the battlefield is taking his ease and committing adultery into the bargain! Either way, as readers, we hear this second meaning as well, which invites a comparison between the two men and condemns the king.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.