I SAMUEL 24: THREE PERSPECTIVES

 Here are three different ways of studying this chapter which complement one another in helping us to comprehend its meaning. First, we can use the similar words, phrases, and events in I Samuel 24 to roughly reconstruct the way the whole is organized. A graphic representation of the results is shown below:

                                                Figure 1: The Organization of I Samuel 24

        A. Saul enters David's stronghold (vv. 1-3)

                B. “I will give your enemy into your hand” (v. 4a)

                        C. David spares Saul (vv. 4b-5)

                                D. “He is the LORD's anointed” (vv. 6-7a)

        A'. Saul and David leave the stronghold (vv. 7b-8)

                B. “The LORD gave you into my hand” (vv, 9-10a)

                       C'. “I spared you” (v. 10b)

                                D'. “He is the LORD's anointed” (v. 10c)

--------------------------------------

        A''. Saul lifts up his voice and weeps (v. 16)

                B''. “The LORD put me in your hands” (vv. 17-18)

                        C.'' “You spared me” (v. 19)

                                D''. “You will be king” (vv. 20-22a)

A''. Saul goes home and David goes back to his stronghold (v. 22b)

The three parallel cycles above deal respectively with a conversation between David and his men; David's speech to Saul; and Saul's reply to David. And each one ends with a reference to who is the rightful king of Israel, the first two cycles stating that it is Saul while in the final cycle, Saul admits that David will be the next king – one more righteous than he is.

It is obvious from the absence of the remainder of David's speech to Saul in I Samuel 24:11-15 that it does not fit in with the neat structure above and could be seen as a sort of central section on its own (even though it is not located in the exact middle of the scheme) with a certain amount of extra importance attached to it. And in fact, it is here that David calls upon God several times using almost forensic terms. Here is an approximate structure for this appeal to the LORD:

                                            Figure 2: The Organization of David's Speech

                               E. “May the LORD judge between me and you” (vv. 11-12a)

                                        F. “May the LORD avenge me on you” (v. 12b)

                                                G. Proverb (v. 13)

                                                G'. Rhetorical Question (v. 14)

                            E'. “May the LORD be judge...between me and you” (v. 15a)

                                        F'. “May he plead my cause and vindicate me against you” (v. 15b)

A second way of approaching this chapter is the most common one – a verse-by-verse analysis. I will not attempt to be exhaustive in my treatment of this aspect of I Samuel 24. Instead, I would like to confine myself to quotes from S.L. McKenzie's notes (given in bold) found in The New Oxford Annotated Bible along with appropriate comments.

Verse 2: Three thousand, either an exaggerated number or “thousand” refers to a much smaller military unit.

The second of these explanations would seem to be the preferred one since it helps to explain a great number of other passages in the OT in which the numbers given appear to be excessive. Thus, Jenson says, “The nom. 'elep often refers to a thousand, understood either as a precise or round number. But it can also describe a social grouping that is smaller than the tribe but larger than the 'father's house'...A different solution...relates the numbers to Babylonian mathematics” 

Verse 3: To relieve himself, lit. “to cover his feet”

A similar euphemism for a bodily function in the OT is the use of “know” to refer to having a sexual relationship. But it is interesting that in other OT passages “men” are referred to (rather crudely to our modern ears) as “those who piss against the wall.”

Verses 4b-5: These verses may have originally belonged after v. 7a.

Do not be surprised when Bible critics attempt to “correct” the text that we possess and replace it with one which is more “original.” For example, The Jerusalem Bible places v. 14 in parentheses and comments that it is a “proverb inserted by a glossator” (i.e. editor), even though there is no evidence that it is a later comment. Getting back to McKenzie's suggestion, note that to re-order the text as he suggests would result in a total disruption of the literary pattern seen in Figure 1 above.

Verses 4b-5: David's cutting off Saul's hem is symbolic for emasculation or usurpation of Saul's kingdom, which is why David's conscience bothers him.

JB alternatively says that David's remorse is because “the garment is, as it were, the man himself and to touch it is to lay hands on the person.”

Verse 6: To attack the LORD's anointed (Saul) was to attack the LORD.

This is doubtless true and is why David is always so careful to observe the first great commandment while often ignoring the second one regarding how we treat our fellow man. It is only years later when Nathan confronts him with his several sins regarding Bathsheba and her husband than he realizes “It is against you only, LORD, that I have sinned.”

Verse 8: David bowed with his face to the ground and did obesience, David thus shows the proper respect toward Saul as the LORD's anointed.

Verse 11: My father is a respectful address from the younger David; it may also imply David's right to inherit Saul's kingdom.

It is doubtful that David is really reminding Saul that he will replace him as king when David is so humble toward Saul elsewhere.

Verse 14: A dead dog? A single flea? David could be disparaging himself as insignificant, or he could be saying that Saul is mistaken if he thinks David is insignificant.

As in verses 11 and 16, McKenzie appears to be needlessly attributing less than noble sentiments to David.

Verse 16: Saul's reference to David as my son recalls their once close relationship and hints that David will be Saul's successor.

Note that “my son” here is the reciprocal of “my father” in v. 11.

Verses 21-22: A new king commonly killed all the descendants of the previous king in order to be rid of potential rivals. David's oath not to wipe out Saul's descendants anticipates his treatment of Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9).

A reading of II Samuel 9 will confirm how diligent David was in protecting Saul's surviving descendant.

One last point needs some clarification. A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 indicates that the center of importance in this chapter may lie somewhere in verses 13-14 even though McKenzie, for one, dismisses verse 13 as a later addition to the text. So it behooves us to see what other scholars have to say regarding these verses because of their possible key to unlocking the point most stressed structurally by the author. Unfortunately, there is little consensus among commentators:

Regarding the proverb of v. 13, Baldwin notes that the form of the saying (“Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness.”) is reminiscent of Samson's riddle in Judges 14:14 (“Out of the eater came something to eat. Out of the strong came something sweet.”) That similarity might help to counter McKenzie's contention that it was a later proverb.

On the other hand, Tsumura quotes Held who “thinks that the proverb...is problematic and can 'hardly be viewed as a proverb in the strict sense,' for he thinks the MT [Hebrew text] seems to include only 'the moral of a proverb'; the proverb itself was 'accidentally omitted.” Thus, we have the gamut of opinions ranging from verse 13 being a later addition to the text to it having suffered a later loss of original words.

We get similar lack of agreement regarding the import of v. 14 where David calls himself a flea and a dead dog. McKenzie takes this as a sort of threat directed to Saul telling him that he is much more powerful an enemy than Saul had imagined. And in a somewhat similar vein, Baldwin says, “David's argument is that ultimately Saul has taken on the Lord, who will show David to be in the right.” But then Murphy feels that “David wants to show Saul that he has nothing to fear from him.” And McCarter agrees when he explains that the expression 'dead dog' is “used elsewhere as a term of self-abasement (II Sam 9:8...) or, when referring to someone other than oneself, of contempt (II Sam 16:9); the emphasis seems to be more on insignificance than anything else.”

Taking all these aspects into account and recognizing that this verse may be very important to understanding the thrust of the whole of the chapter, my own understanding is this: David is stressing to Saul his (David's) own personal insignificance and innocence in harboring any designs on Saul's person or his position. However, he is simultaneously warning Saul that he may be taking on more than he had realized in attacking David; he runs the risk of actually treating God Himself as his enemy.

As a conclusion, one last perspective is offered, an “artistic” one.

               I Samuel 24 (1992 collage on paper, 3 ½'' x 5'')