Original Meaning

David Flees to Ahimelech the Priest (21:1–9)

WE KNOW FROM other references that Ahimelech the priest was the son of Ahitub (22:9, 11, 20), who was in turn the son of Phinehas, son of Eli (14:3). These many years after the death of Eli and his sons (4:17–18), the priestly responsibilities were continued by Eli’s great-grandson and eighty-five surviving members of the priestly family (22:18) in the city of Nob, in the vicinity north of what would become Jerusalem.4 David is uncertain he can confide openly in the priest, so he uses subterfuge to avoid revealing the entire situation.5 He receives aid from Ahimelech, though the real purpose for his presence in Nob may have been to “inquire” of Yahweh, which is only revealed later (22:10, 15). The sad consequences of Ahimelech’s involvement with David will only be revealed in the next chapter.

You can learn a lot about a person by seeing where they turn in times of trouble. When David first found it necessary to run from Saul, he went to Samuel at Ramah (19:18–24). The prophets at Ramah were unable to guarantee his safety for any extended time, so he went back to Gibeah to seek Jonathan’s intercession (20:1–42). Now officially on the run, David is in immediate need of food, arms, and shelter. In desperation he goes to Ahimelech, the priest at Nob, where he receives “the bread of the Presence” of Yahweh and the sword of Goliath, reminding him of his reliance on Yahweh at other times of conflict and crisis. He enthusiastically accepts Goliath’s sword, which is unique in its ability to prompt images of strength and victory in Yahweh’s cause: “There is none like it; give it to me.”6

Earlier he received the aid of the old prophet Samuel; now he gets the assistance of a priest of Yahweh in the old traditions of the tabernacle at Shiloh. The reminder of the military victories of his youth in the name of Yahweh (referred to twice here, 21:9, 11), together with his contacts with prophet and priest, helps David turn to the faith of his childhood. In his greatest hour of need, David is reminded that Yahweh has been his help in time of trouble (Ps. 34; 52; 56 are tied to this period in David’s life by the Jewish tradition contained in their superscriptions).

Bridging Contexts

THE PRIMARY POINT OF THIS PASSAGE may not be immediately apparent or necessarily easy to relate to our contemporary context. Our work is complicated since there are supplementary themes that we could also develop. The primary concept that we should develop first is the historian’s concern for prophecy and fulfillment, which is supplemented by issues related to human power structures and their dismal role in human history.

Prophecy and fulfillment. The main narration of the text is the encounter between David and Ahimelech in 21:1–9 and the slaughter of Ahimelech and his fellow priests in 22:6–2314 The first prepares for the other, and together they represent the author’s main focus, which is to relate the death of the priests of Eli’s line as fulfillment of the prophecy in 2:31–36. The narration also characterizes Saul as someone hopelessly committed to evil intentions, while it characterizes David as someone surrounded with his childhood faith in the midst of crisis.

When we read this text in light of several others earlier in 1 Samuel, we realize our historian has carefully recorded a double fulfillment of prophecy. In 2:27–36, an anonymous “man of God” appeared to Eli and announced the entire Elide house would suffer the consequences of his family’s wickedness.15 Eli himself would be the last elderly priest of the line (2:22); all others would die young. The initial fulfillment of the prophecy occurred when Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died on the same day, which also resulted in the pitiable end of Eli’s life (4:11–18). Now many years later, we learn of the violent deaths of eighty-five priests in the family line of Eli, which means the curse has been fulfilled again. But even here, one escapes (Abiathar) and joins David in his flight from Saul. The ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy awaits Solomon’s early reign, when he replaces Abiathar with Zadok (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35).

The biblical historian’s concern for tying together prophecy with its fulfillment is clear in the reference to the original prophecy (1 Kings 2:27): “So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.” In this way the Old Testament historians emphasize the sovereign rule of God over Israel. He is indeed king of Israel, and he is faithful to what he prophesies. Even during the dark days of Saul’s worst crimes, God is fulfilling his word to Israel and accomplishing his purposes for David.

Interpreters approach biblical prophecy in one of at least three ways. (1) Some take a strictly historical approach to prophecy, meaning they assume the oracles relate only to the past and that whatever fulfillment can be expected has already occurred. (2) Others take a dispensational approach, which assumes that each prophecy has one and only one fulfillment. In this way, a specific prophecy can be said to await future fulfillment if it can be shown that it has not taken place in history. (3) Others assume a progressive fulfillment approach, in which it is assumed that prophecies may have meaning in two or more events.16 This is not to say a prophecy has multiple meanings but that it has both near future and distant future applications.

The prophecy in 2:27–36 has a near future application in the deaths of Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas. It has subsequent applications in the deaths of Ahimelech and his fellow priests at Nob and in the displacement of Abiathar. This text and its relationship to others on Eli’s family give us a perspective on biblical prophecy that helps us see it as finding fulfillment in partial and incomplete ways at various points in history before an ultimate fulfillment in the distant future.

The faithfulness of God. The fact that God is faithful to fulfill his prophetic word concerning Eli also has implicit significance for these narratives on Saul and David. As we have said, emphasizing the fulfillment of an ancient prophetic word is one way of highlighting the faithfulness of God. He is still at work to accomplish his purposes, even in these gruesome and hopeless circumstances. And there are prophetic words hovering over the actions of Saul and David. Saul has been rejected as king (15:28), while David has been designated to replace him (16:1–13). In both cases, the prophecy has been announced by the ideal prophet, Samuel himself. By implication we are being taught that just as certainly as God fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family, so his words concerning David and Saul will be fulfilled.

Saul, in his desperate grasping after power and his dependence on Realpolitik, or human power structures, is a pathetic and doomed figure. His paranoia and suspicion have isolated his own officers, and his insidious obsession with David has now cost the lives of Ahimelech and the innocent priests of Nob. By contrast, David has turned to the familiar faith of his childhood in his time of crisis and has sought help from priests, prophets, and strangers alike. The two—Saul and David—are traveling in opposite directions. The reader gets the impression in both cases that God will fulfill his word to them, as God has now fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family in these awful events at Nob.

Contemporary Significance

FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHETIC WORD. This text illustrates that in the worst of times and under the most calamitous circumstances, people go in opposite directions seeking extreme solutions. But God is still at work behind the scenes accomplishing his purposes. The most obvious way in which God is at work in this text is by bringing his prophetic word to fruition. While David finds protection and provisions in exile, Saul gives the ludicrous command to execute the priests at Nob. Though this looks like the desperate act of a godless king, we know from our book-level reading that in fact, this is fulfillment of God’s Word. God had foretold the execution of the Elide priesthood many years before.

The effective ministry of God’s Word in the world is a recurring theme in the books of Samuel.17 Just as this text narrates how God brought the prophecy concerning the Elide priesthood to fulfillment, other texts emphasize the saving power of God’s Word. The prophetic call of Samuel in 1 Samuel 3 emphasized three facets of that Word (see comments there). (1) The Word of God is certain and true, whether for good or ill. God sets the standard, and his Word announces the verdict. His Word finds fruition in the lives of those for whom his voice is intended. (2) His Word is evocative, calling the hearer (reader?) to service and submission. It is intended to arouse us from our lethargy, as it aroused the young Samuel from his early morning sleep. (3) God’s Word is transformative, changing all who respond to his call. Thus, it has a ministry of both information and transformation, which can be illustrated in many biblical texts.

This text serves to illumine all three facets of God’s Word. The overarching theme of the text is that God’s Word is certain and true, as illustrated in the death of the Elide priests at Nob. Certainly our world needs to hear precisely this message. In previous decades many attacked the validity of the Bible and challenged the trustworthiness of God’s Word. In today’s emerging postmodernism, we are faced with a different challenge. The postrationalistic nature of our emerging generation rejects the idea that truth is absolute and purely rational.18 Many today dethrone human intellect altogether and turn instead to other paths of truth besides reason, such as the emotions and intuition. Though there are positive aspects of such a shift, it is still necessary to communicate this simple truth of the gospel: God will be faithful to his Word. This message comes as comfort to the believer and cause for alarm for the unbeliever.

This last phrase raises another challenge for our generation, namely, the lack of concern for the Bible’s message of condemnation. Our culture has so tainted the Bible’s portrait of God that we hear little talk of the consequences of rebellion. Yet this text clearly shows that God was faithful to his oracle of judgment against the Elide priests and that he will therefore be faithful to his oracles against Saul. We can infer from this that God will be faithful to his oracles of eternal judgment for those who continually rebuff his grace.

The second and third facets of God’s Word were that it is evocative and transformative. Misery is the natural and inevitable consequence for those who choose not to be rightly related to God and his Word. It is only logical to conclude that we cannot believe in God without also believing in a destiny for those who do not want God.19 C. S. Lewis emphasized that no one goes to heaven deservingly, and no one ever goes to hell unwillingly:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever will it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.20

David and Saul illustrate the two types of people identified in the quote by Lewis. David illustrates the person who responds to God’s call and begins the lifelong process of transformation. Saul is the contrastive figure, who shows the natural and inevitable consequences of refusing God’s call. In this text, the two are going in opposite directions. The narrator has driven a wedge between Saul and David, and the distance is greater with each passing chapter.

The contrast between these two cannot be more acute than in their reactions to the priests of Nob. David regretfully accepts blame for the massacre, while ironically Saul seems resolute in his condemnation of the priests. Saul is ultimately responsible for their deaths, though David humbly accepts the blame. Saul is slowly and gradually self-destructing, while David is successively growing in strength and self-assurance. This process will continue until Saul is dead and David is king. This much we know because God’s Word has proclaimed it so.

Original Meaning

David Flees to Ahimelech the Priest (21:1–9)

WE KNOW FROM other references that Ahimelech the priest was the son of Ahitub (22:9, 11, 20), who was in turn the son of Phinehas, son of Eli (14:3). These many years after the death of Eli and his sons (4:17–18), the priestly responsibilities were continued by Eli’s great-grandson and eighty-five surviving members of the priestly family (22:18) in the city of Nob, in the vicinity north of what would become Jerusalem.4 David is uncertain he can confide openly in the priest, so he uses subterfuge to avoid revealing the entire situation.5 He receives aid from Ahimelech, though the real purpose for his presence in Nob may have been to “inquire” of Yahweh, which is only revealed later (22:10, 15). The sad consequences of Ahimelech’s involvement with David will only be revealed in the next chapter.

You can learn a lot about a person by seeing where they turn in times of trouble. When David first found it necessary to run from Saul, he went to Samuel at Ramah (19:18–24). The prophets at Ramah were unable to guarantee his safety for any extended time, so he went back to Gibeah to seek Jonathan’s intercession (20:1–42). Now officially on the run, David is in immediate need of food, arms, and shelter. In desperation he goes to Ahimelech, the priest at Nob, where he receives “the bread of the Presence” of Yahweh and the sword of Goliath, reminding him of his reliance on Yahweh at other times of conflict and crisis. He enthusiastically accepts Goliath’s sword, which is unique in its ability to prompt images of strength and victory in Yahweh’s cause: “There is none like it; give it to me.”6

Earlier he received the aid of the old prophet Samuel; now he gets the assistance of a priest of Yahweh in the old traditions of the tabernacle at Shiloh. The reminder of the military victories of his youth in the name of Yahweh (referred to twice here, 21:9, 11), together with his contacts with prophet and priest, helps David turn to the faith of his childhood. In his greatest hour of need, David is reminded that Yahweh has been his help in time of trouble (Ps. 34; 52; 56 are tied to this period in David’s life by the Jewish tradition contained in their superscriptions).

Bridging Contexts

THE PRIMARY POINT OF THIS PASSAGE may not be immediately apparent or necessarily easy to relate to our contemporary context. Our work is complicated since there are supplementary themes that we could also develop. The primary concept that we should develop first is the historian’s concern for prophecy and fulfillment, which is supplemented by issues related to human power structures and their dismal role in human history.

Prophecy and fulfillment. The main narration of the text is the encounter between David and Ahimelech in 21:1–9 and the slaughter of Ahimelech and his fellow priests in 22:6–2314 The first prepares for the other, and together they represent the author’s main focus, which is to relate the death of the priests of Eli’s line as fulfillment of the prophecy in 2:31–36. The narration also characterizes Saul as someone hopelessly committed to evil intentions, while it characterizes David as someone surrounded with his childhood faith in the midst of crisis.

When we read this text in light of several others earlier in 1 Samuel, we realize our historian has carefully recorded a double fulfillment of prophecy. In 2:27–36, an anonymous “man of God” appeared to Eli and announced the entire Elide house would suffer the consequences of his family’s wickedness.15 Eli himself would be the last elderly priest of the line (2:22); all others would die young. The initial fulfillment of the prophecy occurred when Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died on the same day, which also resulted in the pitiable end of Eli’s life (4:11–18). Now many years later, we learn of the violent deaths of eighty-five priests in the family line of Eli, which means the curse has been fulfilled again. But even here, one escapes (Abiathar) and joins David in his flight from Saul. The ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy awaits Solomon’s early reign, when he replaces Abiathar with Zadok (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35).

The biblical historian’s concern for tying together prophecy with its fulfillment is clear in the reference to the original prophecy (1 Kings 2:27): “So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.” In this way the Old Testament historians emphasize the sovereign rule of God over Israel. He is indeed king of Israel, and he is faithful to what he prophesies. Even during the dark days of Saul’s worst crimes, God is fulfilling his word to Israel and accomplishing his purposes for David.

Interpreters approach biblical prophecy in one of at least three ways. (1) Some take a strictly historical approach to prophecy, meaning they assume the oracles relate only to the past and that whatever fulfillment can be expected has already occurred. (2) Others take a dispensational approach, which assumes that each prophecy has one and only one fulfillment. In this way, a specific prophecy can be said to await future fulfillment if it can be shown that it has not taken place in history. (3) Others assume a progressive fulfillment approach, in which it is assumed that prophecies may have meaning in two or more events.16 This is not to say a prophecy has multiple meanings but that it has both near future and distant future applications.

The prophecy in 2:27–36 has a near future application in the deaths of Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas. It has subsequent applications in the deaths of Ahimelech and his fellow priests at Nob and in the displacement of Abiathar. This text and its relationship to others on Eli’s family give us a perspective on biblical prophecy that helps us see it as finding fulfillment in partial and incomplete ways at various points in history before an ultimate fulfillment in the distant future.

The faithfulness of God. The fact that God is faithful to fulfill his prophetic word concerning Eli also has implicit significance for these narratives on Saul and David. As we have said, emphasizing the fulfillment of an ancient prophetic word is one way of highlighting the faithfulness of God. He is still at work to accomplish his purposes, even in these gruesome and hopeless circumstances. And there are prophetic words hovering over the actions of Saul and David. Saul has been rejected as king (15:28), while David has been designated to replace him (16:1–13). In both cases, the prophecy has been announced by the ideal prophet, Samuel himself. By implication we are being taught that just as certainly as God fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family, so his words concerning David and Saul will be fulfilled.

Saul, in his desperate grasping after power and his dependence on Realpolitik, or human power structures, is a pathetic and doomed figure. His paranoia and suspicion have isolated his own officers, and his insidious obsession with David has now cost the lives of Ahimelech and the innocent priests of Nob. By contrast, David has turned to the familiar faith of his childhood in his time of crisis and has sought help from priests, prophets, and strangers alike. The two—Saul and David—are traveling in opposite directions. The reader gets the impression in both cases that God will fulfill his word to them, as God has now fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family in these awful events at Nob.

Contemporary Significance

FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHETIC WORD. This text illustrates that in the worst of times and under the most calamitous circumstances, people go in opposite directions seeking extreme solutions. But God is still at work behind the scenes accomplishing his purposes. The most obvious way in which God is at work in this text is by bringing his prophetic word to fruition. While David finds protection and provisions in exile, Saul gives the ludicrous command to execute the priests at Nob. Though this looks like the desperate act of a godless king, we know from our book-level reading that in fact, this is fulfillment of God’s Word. God had foretold the execution of the Elide priesthood many years before.

The effective ministry of God’s Word in the world is a recurring theme in the books of Samuel.17 Just as this text narrates how God brought the prophecy concerning the Elide priesthood to fulfillment, other texts emphasize the saving power of God’s Word. The prophetic call of Samuel in 1 Samuel 3 emphasized three facets of that Word (see comments there). (1) The Word of God is certain and true, whether for good or ill. God sets the standard, and his Word announces the verdict. His Word finds fruition in the lives of those for whom his voice is intended. (2) His Word is evocative, calling the hearer (reader?) to service and submission. It is intended to arouse us from our lethargy, as it aroused the young Samuel from his early morning sleep. (3) God’s Word is transformative, changing all who respond to his call. Thus, it has a ministry of both information and transformation, which can be illustrated in many biblical texts.

This text serves to illumine all three facets of God’s Word. The overarching theme of the text is that God’s Word is certain and true, as illustrated in the death of the Elide priests at Nob. Certainly our world needs to hear precisely this message. In previous decades many attacked the validity of the Bible and challenged the trustworthiness of God’s Word. In today’s emerging postmodernism, we are faced with a different challenge. The postrationalistic nature of our emerging generation rejects the idea that truth is absolute and purely rational.18 Many today dethrone human intellect altogether and turn instead to other paths of truth besides reason, such as the emotions and intuition. Though there are positive aspects of such a shift, it is still necessary to communicate this simple truth of the gospel: God will be faithful to his Word. This message comes as comfort to the believer and cause for alarm for the unbeliever.

This last phrase raises another challenge for our generation, namely, the lack of concern for the Bible’s message of condemnation. Our culture has so tainted the Bible’s portrait of God that we hear little talk of the consequences of rebellion. Yet this text clearly shows that God was faithful to his oracle of judgment against the Elide priests and that he will therefore be faithful to his oracles against Saul. We can infer from this that God will be faithful to his oracles of eternal judgment for those who continually rebuff his grace.

The second and third facets of God’s Word were that it is evocative and transformative. Misery is the natural and inevitable consequence for those who choose not to be rightly related to God and his Word. It is only logical to conclude that we cannot believe in God without also believing in a destiny for those who do not want God.19 C. S. Lewis emphasized that no one goes to heaven deservingly, and no one ever goes to hell unwillingly:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever will it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.20

David and Saul illustrate the two types of people identified in the quote by Lewis. David illustrates the person who responds to God’s call and begins the lifelong process of transformation. Saul is the contrastive figure, who shows the natural and inevitable consequences of refusing God’s call. In this text, the two are going in opposite directions. The narrator has driven a wedge between Saul and David, and the distance is greater with each passing chapter.

The contrast between these two cannot be more acute than in their reactions to the priests of Nob. David regretfully accepts blame for the massacre, while ironically Saul seems resolute in his condemnation of the priests. Saul is ultimately responsible for their deaths, though David humbly accepts the blame. Saul is slowly and gradually self-destructing, while David is successively growing in strength and self-assurance. This process will continue until Saul is dead and David is king. This much we know because God’s Word has proclaimed it so.

Original Meaning

David Flees to King Achish of Gath (21:10–15)

HAVING BENEFITED ALL he could and not wishing to endanger further the gracious priests at Nob, David needs to continue to distance himself from Saul. This paragraph narrates his failed attempt to join himself to the Philistines, though it foreshadows the important coalition to be formed later with Achish (chs. 27–29).

Interestingly, the servants of Achish identify David as “king of the land,” which probably means they think of him as a local chieftain or ruler, while they still recognize Saul as king of the Hebrews.7 At any rate, they must not have realized his real status as a refugee on the run from Saul. Their acknowledgement of David as “king” of any kind is ironic, in that such an identification on the lips of Israel’s inveterate enemies underlines “the fact that the divine plan is inviolably bound up with David.”8

The paragraph is also a humorous indictment of the Philistines, who can be so easily duped by the quick-thinking David. Not only was Achish gullible, but by his own admission, the city of Gath is so full of crazy men they have no use for any more!9

Bridging Contexts

THE PRIMARY POINT OF THIS PASSAGE may not be immediately apparent or necessarily easy to relate to our contemporary context. Our work is complicated since there are supplementary themes that we could also develop. The primary concept that we should develop first is the historian’s concern for prophecy and fulfillment, which is supplemented by issues related to human power structures and their dismal role in human history.

Prophecy and fulfillment. The main narration of the text is the encounter between David and Ahimelech in 21:1–9 and the slaughter of Ahimelech and his fellow priests in 22:6–2314 The first prepares for the other, and together they represent the author’s main focus, which is to relate the death of the priests of Eli’s line as fulfillment of the prophecy in 2:31–36. The narration also characterizes Saul as someone hopelessly committed to evil intentions, while it characterizes David as someone surrounded with his childhood faith in the midst of crisis.

When we read this text in light of several others earlier in 1 Samuel, we realize our historian has carefully recorded a double fulfillment of prophecy. In 2:27–36, an anonymous “man of God” appeared to Eli and announced the entire Elide house would suffer the consequences of his family’s wickedness.15 Eli himself would be the last elderly priest of the line (2:22); all others would die young. The initial fulfillment of the prophecy occurred when Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died on the same day, which also resulted in the pitiable end of Eli’s life (4:11–18). Now many years later, we learn of the violent deaths of eighty-five priests in the family line of Eli, which means the curse has been fulfilled again. But even here, one escapes (Abiathar) and joins David in his flight from Saul. The ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy awaits Solomon’s early reign, when he replaces Abiathar with Zadok (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35).

The biblical historian’s concern for tying together prophecy with its fulfillment is clear in the reference to the original prophecy (1 Kings 2:27): “So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.” In this way the Old Testament historians emphasize the sovereign rule of God over Israel. He is indeed king of Israel, and he is faithful to what he prophesies. Even during the dark days of Saul’s worst crimes, God is fulfilling his word to Israel and accomplishing his purposes for David.

Interpreters approach biblical prophecy in one of at least three ways. (1) Some take a strictly historical approach to prophecy, meaning they assume the oracles relate only to the past and that whatever fulfillment can be expected has already occurred. (2) Others take a dispensational approach, which assumes that each prophecy has one and only one fulfillment. In this way, a specific prophecy can be said to await future fulfillment if it can be shown that it has not taken place in history. (3) Others assume a progressive fulfillment approach, in which it is assumed that prophecies may have meaning in two or more events.16 This is not to say a prophecy has multiple meanings but that it has both near future and distant future applications.

The prophecy in 2:27–36 has a near future application in the deaths of Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas. It has subsequent applications in the deaths of Ahimelech and his fellow priests at Nob and in the displacement of Abiathar. This text and its relationship to others on Eli’s family give us a perspective on biblical prophecy that helps us see it as finding fulfillment in partial and incomplete ways at various points in history before an ultimate fulfillment in the distant future.

The faithfulness of God. The fact that God is faithful to fulfill his prophetic word concerning Eli also has implicit significance for these narratives on Saul and David. As we have said, emphasizing the fulfillment of an ancient prophetic word is one way of highlighting the faithfulness of God. He is still at work to accomplish his purposes, even in these gruesome and hopeless circumstances. And there are prophetic words hovering over the actions of Saul and David. Saul has been rejected as king (15:28), while David has been designated to replace him (16:1–13). In both cases, the prophecy has been announced by the ideal prophet, Samuel himself. By implication we are being taught that just as certainly as God fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family, so his words concerning David and Saul will be fulfilled.

Saul, in his desperate grasping after power and his dependence on Realpolitik, or human power structures, is a pathetic and doomed figure. His paranoia and suspicion have isolated his own officers, and his insidious obsession with David has now cost the lives of Ahimelech and the innocent priests of Nob. By contrast, David has turned to the familiar faith of his childhood in his time of crisis and has sought help from priests, prophets, and strangers alike. The two—Saul and David—are traveling in opposite directions. The reader gets the impression in both cases that God will fulfill his word to them, as God has now fulfilled his word concerning Eli’s family in these awful events at Nob.

Contemporary Significance

FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHETIC WORD. This text illustrates that in the worst of times and under the most calamitous circumstances, people go in opposite directions seeking extreme solutions. But God is still at work behind the scenes accomplishing his purposes. The most obvious way in which God is at work in this text is by bringing his prophetic word to fruition. While David finds protection and provisions in exile, Saul gives the ludicrous command to execute the priests at Nob. Though this looks like the desperate act of a godless king, we know from our book-level reading that in fact, this is fulfillment of God’s Word. God had foretold the execution of the Elide priesthood many years before.

The effective ministry of God’s Word in the world is a recurring theme in the books of Samuel.17 Just as this text narrates how God brought the prophecy concerning the Elide priesthood to fulfillment, other texts emphasize the saving power of God’s Word. The prophetic call of Samuel in 1 Samuel 3 emphasized three facets of that Word (see comments there). (1) The Word of God is certain and true, whether for good or ill. God sets the standard, and his Word announces the verdict. His Word finds fruition in the lives of those for whom his voice is intended. (2) His Word is evocative, calling the hearer (reader?) to service and submission. It is intended to arouse us from our lethargy, as it aroused the young Samuel from his early morning sleep. (3) God’s Word is transformative, changing all who respond to his call. Thus, it has a ministry of both information and transformation, which can be illustrated in many biblical texts.

This text serves to illumine all three facets of God’s Word. The overarching theme of the text is that God’s Word is certain and true, as illustrated in the death of the Elide priests at Nob. Certainly our world needs to hear precisely this message. In previous decades many attacked the validity of the Bible and challenged the trustworthiness of God’s Word. In today’s emerging postmodernism, we are faced with a different challenge. The postrationalistic nature of our emerging generation rejects the idea that truth is absolute and purely rational.18 Many today dethrone human intellect altogether and turn instead to other paths of truth besides reason, such as the emotions and intuition. Though there are positive aspects of such a shift, it is still necessary to communicate this simple truth of the gospel: God will be faithful to his Word. This message comes as comfort to the believer and cause for alarm for the unbeliever.

This last phrase raises another challenge for our generation, namely, the lack of concern for the Bible’s message of condemnation. Our culture has so tainted the Bible’s portrait of God that we hear little talk of the consequences of rebellion. Yet this text clearly shows that God was faithful to his oracle of judgment against the Elide priests and that he will therefore be faithful to his oracles against Saul. We can infer from this that God will be faithful to his oracles of eternal judgment for those who continually rebuff his grace.

The second and third facets of God’s Word were that it is evocative and transformative. Misery is the natural and inevitable consequence for those who choose not to be rightly related to God and his Word. It is only logical to conclude that we cannot believe in God without also believing in a destiny for those who do not want God.19 C. S. Lewis emphasized that no one goes to heaven deservingly, and no one ever goes to hell unwillingly:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever will it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.20

David and Saul illustrate the two types of people identified in the quote by Lewis. David illustrates the person who responds to God’s call and begins the lifelong process of transformation. Saul is the contrastive figure, who shows the natural and inevitable consequences of refusing God’s call. In this text, the two are going in opposite directions. The narrator has driven a wedge between Saul and David, and the distance is greater with each passing chapter.

The contrast between these two cannot be more acute than in their reactions to the priests of Nob. David regretfully accepts blame for the massacre, while ironically Saul seems resolute in his condemnation of the priests. Saul is ultimately responsible for their deaths, though David humbly accepts the blame. Saul is slowly and gradually self-destructing, while David is successively growing in strength and self-assurance. This process will continue until Saul is dead and David is king. This much we know because God’s Word has proclaimed it so.