Original Meaning

Chance Encounter in a Cave near En Gedi (24:1–7)

SAUL’S DESPERATE STATE of mind is illustrated by his willingness to deploy a significant military contingent (three thousand infantrymen) to pursue David, even while the Philistine threat still looms in the shadows. En Gedi is located on the western shore of the Dead Sea, approximately thirty-five miles southeast of Jerusalem. It was one of several spring-fed oases between the lower slope of the cliffs of the desert in Judah and the Dead Sea’s coastline.2

Saul’s purpose for entering the cave is clear from the Hebrew’s euphemistic phrase “to cover his feet,” which is used in other contexts for “to defecate” (NIV “to relieve himself”).3 Seeking privacy and thinking he is alone, he has no idea David and his men are “far back” in the same cave (24:3 [MT 24:4]).4 The assumption on the part of David’s men that Yahweh has miraculously provided this opportunity to kill Saul is only natural. They refer to a previous prophecy in which Saul would be delivered up to David (24:4). Though we have no such specific promise recorded in the Bible, they may have been offering their own interpretation of the episode of David’s anointing (16:13), of Jonathan’s abdication of his right to rule (18:1–4), or of Jonathan’s assertion that David will certainly become king (23:15–18).5

At any rate, this seems to David’s men like a divine moment; God has delivered Saul into David’s “hands.” The idiom “to give over/deliver into the hands” is common in the Old Testament in military settings to connote abandonment of a person into the power of another.6 In fact, the expression “the gods delivered (someone or something) into my hand” is used by kings of the ancient Near East to signify divine approval, especially of a military victory.7 It is also possible that this text is intentionally linked with the previous chapter by a frequent recurrence of “hand” as a Leitwort or theme word, which occurs eleven times in this chapter and nine times in chapter 23.8 Its recurring emphasis in chapter 23 seems to highlight the proper use of power, while here it draws attention to the restraint of power rather than to its use.9

David’s cutting a corner of Saul’s robe is probably more than a means of proving his goodwill toward Saul.10 True enough, he will shortly hold high the piece of robe in order to prove that he has refused to kill Saul when he could easily have done so. But one’s robe in the ancient Near East often bore symbolic significance (Heb. meʿil).11 Placing a garment before a newly anointed king could signify one’s submission to him (2 Kings 9:13), and the tearing of a garment could symbolize a torn kingdom (1 Sam. 15:27–28; 1 Kings 11:30–31).12 In 1 Samuel 18:4, Jonathan removed his robe and gave it to David, apparently as a symbol that he was giving up his right to royal succession and bestowing it on David.

It seems likely here that David’s cutting of the hem of Saul’s garment has enormous symbolic significance, denoting perhaps not only that Saul’s hold on the kingdom is over but that David’s has now begun.13 So David takes a portion of Saul’s garment rather than his life. Though it looks merciful at first sight, we learn immediately that David is conscience-stricken by his deed. “The fact that he immediately regrets this violation of Saul’s robe strongly suggests that his initial motivation was not so high-minded, and differed only in degree from the more primitive stirrings in his men.”14

As we have seen in 1 Samuel, the anointed of Yahweh is endowed with Yahweh’s Spirit and is therefore considered sacrosanct (10:6, 10; 16:13). The act of anointing itself imparts something of the sanctity of Yahweh to the anointed one, and the idea of striking such a one is repulsive to David. Even in the case of Saul, from whom the Spirit of Yahweh has departed, David’s act symbolizing the transfer of power (even if only in theory at this point) is in a sense lifting the hand against Yahweh’s anointed. For this reason David does not permit his men to go any further with the plans to harm Saul. It is not enough to glean from this text that David has a magnanimous spirit toward Saul. “It is more important that he complies with the will of God where it is unmistakably clear. What appears to the others as the will of God seems to him to be a temptation from which God will ‘preserve’ him.”15

Saul Acknowledges David’s Right to Rule (24:8–22)

Bridging Contexts

DAVID HAS EVERYTHING Saul wants. Saul wants an opportunity to kill David; here David receives just such an opportunity to kill Saul. Saul is king, yet he strives for legitimacy; David is not yet king, but he is the legitimate anointed one.

Revering God. The central theme of the text revolves around David’s temptation to take advantage of the situation in the cave. His men advance the idea of executing Saul and bringing their misery (and David’s) to a swift conclusion. At first it appears that David agrees. He moves stealthily upon Saul without being detected (“David crept up unnoticed”), and the reader can only assume he is about to kill Saul. But then the narrative takes an odd twist when the sentence concludes, “and cut off a corner of Saul’s robe” (24:4). David’s speech to his men reveals his motives, as elsewhere in speeches in Old Testament narratives. He reveres Yahweh and Yahweh’s anointed too much to strike Saul. David is repulsed by the prospects of killing the anointed one, however advantageous it may appear to him personally.

Some have speculated that David is aware of setting a negative precedent. If he raises his hand to slay Saul, perhaps someone in the future will raise his hand against other anointed ones, even against David himself. That is, he is protecting himself against future coup attempts, guarding against the possibility of his own murder later.19 But the text knows nothing of this. David is singularly and simply motivated by his reverence for Yahweh and his devotion to Yahweh’s anointed. He will eventually have the throne of Israel, but as a gift of God rather than as a result of his grasping and maneuvering.20

Two psalms are connected by their superscriptions to this event (Ps. 57 and 142). Though the tradition of these superscriptions may not be dependable,21 both psalms contain emotional expressions appropriate to David in this episode. Psalm 57 particularly illustrates his reverence for God and his reliance on him to fulfill David’s purposes for his life.

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me,

For in you my soul takes refuge.

I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings

until the disaster has passed. (Ps. 57:1)

While taking refuge in a cave from his ravenous enemies (Ps. 57:4), David knows his true refuge is God. Irrespective of this psalm’s connection to 1 Samuel 24, it illustrates the spirit of David while in the cave. He refuses to trust in the wisdom of his men and in his own ability to kill his adversary. Rather, he trusts in God to accomplish his purposes for his life.

I cry out to God Most High,

to God, who fulfills his purpose for me. (Ps. 57:2)

David is willing to trust patiently in God, who will eventually deliver him from Saul. His salvation will be complete because it will include repudiation of Saul.

He sends from heaven and saves me,

rebuking those who hotly pursue me;

God sends his love and his faithfulness. (Ps. 57:3)

Thus, this text is about revering God and his anointed one. David’s words in 1 Samuel 24:6, “The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing,” capture the spirit of his respect and illustrate the nature of reverence and obedience in the Bible. This text stands in a long line of Old Testament passages about reverence for God and dependence on him during a crisis or temptation. Whether it is Joseph declaring that adultery with Potiphar’s wife is tantamount to “sin against God” (Gen. 39:9), or Joshua lying prostrate before the commander of the Lord’s army (Josh. 5:14), or the proverbial instruction on “the fear of the LORD” (Prov. 1:7), the message is the same. Reverence for God and all things godly is a chief characteristic of Old Testament saints.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REVERENCE AND TRUST IN GOD. The application of this text is simpler than many others because the timeless message of reverence and trust in God is needed today and always. While few Christians today are faced with hiding in caves because of the wrath of an insane monarch hell-bent on destroying them, it is nonetheless true that many believers around the globe continue to suffer for their faith. The solution for them is, as it was for David while Saul pursued him, reverence for the Lord and for his anointed one.

Even for believers living in cultures not openly hostile to Christian faith, the text’s message of reverence and trust speaks volumes. The danger is that we might not apply the message of this text in broad enough strokes. Reverence for God is more than respect for the pastor and the church. If we want to mimic the attitude of David in this passage, it has to be more than focusing on the way we speak about God or avoiding certain explicatives with “God” in them. David in this text exemplifies a radical reverence for God that controlled his thoughts and actions. He refused to succumb to a bloody resolution to his problems, even while his trusted allies around him assured him it was “God’s will” that he kill Saul. This is vital reverence resulting in obedience, even when it is unclear which action is the obedient action to take.

David revered all that God stood for and all that rightly stood for God. Saul was God’s anointed one, period! Even though Saul had forfeited his right to reign, for David it was a closed issue. He could not bring himself to show hostility or ill will of any kind to the anointed one of God. Somewhere along life’s journey, David had been taught never to challenge God’s plan or God’s timing. He was willing to wait on God’s timing to become king, even though it meant taking the risk and prolonging the time during which Saul could attempt to end David’s life. This is radical reverence coming to fruition in obedience to God during a crisis of uncertainty and danger. It is the type of reverence taught elsewhere in Israel’s wisdom literature (Prov. 1:7) and law (esp. in the combination of “love” and “fear” in Deuteronomy, as in Deut. 10:12).

Addressing postmodernism. For Christians living in North America, the emphasis on reverential obedience is especially needed. The emerging postmodern worldview of our society marks a pervasive paradigm shift that has affected every aspect of our lives. Since the primary assumption of the new worldview is that truth is relative (being neither rational nor objective), everyone’s view is equally valid.22 Tolerance is the only accepted doctrine. With this development, which took place gradually during the closing decades of the twentieth century, the influences of the Judeo-Christian heritage in the United States have begun to wane.

In this new context, the central truths of Christianity are being challenged. The culture redefines Jesus as a good and moral teacher who points us to God, a sort of “God-light,” one among many others who direct us to God. Jesus, as is assumed in this new paradigm, built an earthly kingdom (the church) based on his understanding of God as forgiving Father (or doting grandfather?) and on the brotherhood of all humankind united in love. So Christianity is defined as believing in God, respecting Jesus, and living by the Golden Rule.23

But orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is more than a “God-light.” He is in reality God himself, the Anointed One. The concepts of sin, incarnation, and redemption are ridiculed as vestiges of an older and outmoded European cultural system, which was marred by ethnocentrism and an instinctive drive for political dominance. Orthodox Christianity itself, with its truth-based self-claims, is automatically ruled out as “intolerant” and therefore bigoted. Reverential obedience to God and his Word seems irrelevant or misguided, not because it is wrong (what difference would this make?) but because it seems unnecessary. Since there are other, more tolerant avenues to God, the Christian God has been placed aside by the communally defined truth of humankind.

In an essay written in 1948 on the task of evangelizing modern unbelievers, C. S. Lewis spoke with his characteristic brilliance about the place God holds in the minds of modern people compared to ancient times:

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock [or “defendant’s seat”]. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.24

Lewis’s words, true enough in his own day, seem almost prophetically written for our times. The truth of God has been displaced in postmodernism by a communally contrived understanding of religion, or better, spirituality. Truth has become a concept difficult to define; it becomes whatever you believe it is, as long as you believe it sincerely. In this context, the idea of taking on oneself personal risk and discomfort for the sake of faithfulness to an idea one holds as “true” will become more and more of a rarity.

But we are left with this portrait of David. He allows Saul to walk away unharmed from the cave at En Gedi because he believes in the sacredness of Saul’s anointing and in the holiness of Saul’s God. Such ideals and values are likely to become more rare in our culture as postmodernism continues to evolve, making our example of David useful for all who look to Christ as the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

Original Meaning

Saul Acknowledges David’s Right to Rule (24:8–22)

THE REST OF this text consists of speeches by David and Saul. A typical feature of Old Testament narrative is its use of “contrastive dialogue” to differentiate characters. As we have seen, the contrast between Saul and David grows in intensity as we move through the final section of 1 Samuel (chs. 21–31). Both are anointed ones. But Saul has become an Ichabod figure (cf. 4:19–22; 16:14), meaning the Spirit of Yahweh has been withdrawn from him, while David grows in the strength and Spirit of Yahweh in each narrative. David’s long eloquent speech in 24:9–15 is juxtaposed with Saul’s “choked cry” in 24:16–21.16 Saul’s speech culminates in an admission that David is in the right and will in fact be king. Nothing legitimizes David’s reign more than a confession on the lips of Saul himself that David is the legitimate anointed one (24:20).

David is respectful of Saul’s position, both in terminology (“my lord the king!” 24:8) and body language (bowing humbly before him).17 He persuasively details his case. He is innocent regardless of the false rumors Saul has been receiving (24:9). He is loyal to King Saul, which is proven by the piece of robe in his hand. He pleads for divine intervention, asking that God may vindicate him before Saul (24:14–15).

In response, Saul can only evoke the awkward question reminiscent of their earlier close relationship: “Is that your voice, David my son?” (24:16). After acknowledging that David is in the right, Saul makes the profound confession: “I know that you will surely be king and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hands” (24:20).18 Here there is no recrimination as we have come to expect from Saul (cf. 15:10–31). He seems genuinely to understand that he will be placed aside in favor of David, but his admission is too late.

Having nothing else to say, Saul seeks to ensure that David will not exterminate his family once he replaces Saul as king of Israel (24:21). His confession and request for protection for his descendants is similar to that of Jonathan (20:14–15; 23:17). In fact, as the narrative progresses, there is a growing consensus that David will be king. First, Samuel (ch. 16), then Jonathan, and now Saul come to realize that David will become king and that a Saulide dynasty is impossible. The reader, too, gradually comes to accept the inevitability of David’s reign and becomes convinced of his innocence and legitimacy.

The relationship between David and Saul’s descendants is an important theme throughout the extended narrative on David’s rise to power. Jonathan made this part of his covenant relationship with David (20:14–15, 42), which is understandable since usurpers routinely wiped out any family of the previous king who might make future claims on the throne. Here Saul expresses the same concern, leading David to take an oath that he will not exterminate Saul’s family when he becomes king (24:21–22).

Most of Saul’s sons are eventually killed by the Philistines (31:2) and the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1–14). The historians responsible for the final books of Samuel want the reader to understand that David does keep his promises to Jonathan and Saul. He shows kindness to Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan (2 Sam. 9:7), which is part of the historian’s justification of David. It may have been convenient that all of Saul’s children except for one crippled son are killed. But David himself has nothing to do with this; he is innocent of any wrongdoing. Unlike most ancient monarchs, David shows a God-pleasing, compassionate magnanimity toward his enemies; in this sense, he is truly a man after God’s own heart.

Bridging Contexts

Bridging Contexts

DAVID HAS EVERYTHING Saul wants. Saul wants an opportunity to kill David; here David receives just such an opportunity to kill Saul. Saul is king, yet he strives for legitimacy; David is not yet king, but he is the legitimate anointed one.

Revering God. The central theme of the text revolves around David’s temptation to take advantage of the situation in the cave. His men advance the idea of executing Saul and bringing their misery (and David’s) to a swift conclusion. At first it appears that David agrees. He moves stealthily upon Saul without being detected (“David crept up unnoticed”), and the reader can only assume he is about to kill Saul. But then the narrative takes an odd twist when the sentence concludes, “and cut off a corner of Saul’s robe” (24:4). David’s speech to his men reveals his motives, as elsewhere in speeches in Old Testament narratives. He reveres Yahweh and Yahweh’s anointed too much to strike Saul. David is repulsed by the prospects of killing the anointed one, however advantageous it may appear to him personally.

Some have speculated that David is aware of setting a negative precedent. If he raises his hand to slay Saul, perhaps someone in the future will raise his hand against other anointed ones, even against David himself. That is, he is protecting himself against future coup attempts, guarding against the possibility of his own murder later.19 But the text knows nothing of this. David is singularly and simply motivated by his reverence for Yahweh and his devotion to Yahweh’s anointed. He will eventually have the throne of Israel, but as a gift of God rather than as a result of his grasping and maneuvering.20

Two psalms are connected by their superscriptions to this event (Ps. 57 and 142). Though the tradition of these superscriptions may not be dependable,21 both psalms contain emotional expressions appropriate to David in this episode. Psalm 57 particularly illustrates his reverence for God and his reliance on him to fulfill David’s purposes for his life.

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me,

For in you my soul takes refuge.

I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings

until the disaster has passed. (Ps. 57:1)

While taking refuge in a cave from his ravenous enemies (Ps. 57:4), David knows his true refuge is God. Irrespective of this psalm’s connection to 1 Samuel 24, it illustrates the spirit of David while in the cave. He refuses to trust in the wisdom of his men and in his own ability to kill his adversary. Rather, he trusts in God to accomplish his purposes for his life.

I cry out to God Most High,

to God, who fulfills his purpose for me. (Ps. 57:2)

David is willing to trust patiently in God, who will eventually deliver him from Saul. His salvation will be complete because it will include repudiation of Saul.

He sends from heaven and saves me,

rebuking those who hotly pursue me;

God sends his love and his faithfulness. (Ps. 57:3)

Thus, this text is about revering God and his anointed one. David’s words in 1 Samuel 24:6, “The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing,” capture the spirit of his respect and illustrate the nature of reverence and obedience in the Bible. This text stands in a long line of Old Testament passages about reverence for God and dependence on him during a crisis or temptation. Whether it is Joseph declaring that adultery with Potiphar’s wife is tantamount to “sin against God” (Gen. 39:9), or Joshua lying prostrate before the commander of the Lord’s army (Josh. 5:14), or the proverbial instruction on “the fear of the LORD” (Prov. 1:7), the message is the same. Reverence for God and all things godly is a chief characteristic of Old Testament saints.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REVERENCE AND TRUST IN GOD. The application of this text is simpler than many others because the timeless message of reverence and trust in God is needed today and always. While few Christians today are faced with hiding in caves because of the wrath of an insane monarch hell-bent on destroying them, it is nonetheless true that many believers around the globe continue to suffer for their faith. The solution for them is, as it was for David while Saul pursued him, reverence for the Lord and for his anointed one.

Even for believers living in cultures not openly hostile to Christian faith, the text’s message of reverence and trust speaks volumes. The danger is that we might not apply the message of this text in broad enough strokes. Reverence for God is more than respect for the pastor and the church. If we want to mimic the attitude of David in this passage, it has to be more than focusing on the way we speak about God or avoiding certain explicatives with “God” in them. David in this text exemplifies a radical reverence for God that controlled his thoughts and actions. He refused to succumb to a bloody resolution to his problems, even while his trusted allies around him assured him it was “God’s will” that he kill Saul. This is vital reverence resulting in obedience, even when it is unclear which action is the obedient action to take.

David revered all that God stood for and all that rightly stood for God. Saul was God’s anointed one, period! Even though Saul had forfeited his right to reign, for David it was a closed issue. He could not bring himself to show hostility or ill will of any kind to the anointed one of God. Somewhere along life’s journey, David had been taught never to challenge God’s plan or God’s timing. He was willing to wait on God’s timing to become king, even though it meant taking the risk and prolonging the time during which Saul could attempt to end David’s life. This is radical reverence coming to fruition in obedience to God during a crisis of uncertainty and danger. It is the type of reverence taught elsewhere in Israel’s wisdom literature (Prov. 1:7) and law (esp. in the combination of “love” and “fear” in Deuteronomy, as in Deut. 10:12).

Addressing postmodernism. For Christians living in North America, the emphasis on reverential obedience is especially needed. The emerging postmodern worldview of our society marks a pervasive paradigm shift that has affected every aspect of our lives. Since the primary assumption of the new worldview is that truth is relative (being neither rational nor objective), everyone’s view is equally valid.22 Tolerance is the only accepted doctrine. With this development, which took place gradually during the closing decades of the twentieth century, the influences of the Judeo-Christian heritage in the United States have begun to wane.

In this new context, the central truths of Christianity are being challenged. The culture redefines Jesus as a good and moral teacher who points us to God, a sort of “God-light,” one among many others who direct us to God. Jesus, as is assumed in this new paradigm, built an earthly kingdom (the church) based on his understanding of God as forgiving Father (or doting grandfather?) and on the brotherhood of all humankind united in love. So Christianity is defined as believing in God, respecting Jesus, and living by the Golden Rule.23

But orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is more than a “God-light.” He is in reality God himself, the Anointed One. The concepts of sin, incarnation, and redemption are ridiculed as vestiges of an older and outmoded European cultural system, which was marred by ethnocentrism and an instinctive drive for political dominance. Orthodox Christianity itself, with its truth-based self-claims, is automatically ruled out as “intolerant” and therefore bigoted. Reverential obedience to God and his Word seems irrelevant or misguided, not because it is wrong (what difference would this make?) but because it seems unnecessary. Since there are other, more tolerant avenues to God, the Christian God has been placed aside by the communally defined truth of humankind.

In an essay written in 1948 on the task of evangelizing modern unbelievers, C. S. Lewis spoke with his characteristic brilliance about the place God holds in the minds of modern people compared to ancient times:

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock [or “defendant’s seat”]. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.24

Lewis’s words, true enough in his own day, seem almost prophetically written for our times. The truth of God has been displaced in postmodernism by a communally contrived understanding of religion, or better, spirituality. Truth has become a concept difficult to define; it becomes whatever you believe it is, as long as you believe it sincerely. In this context, the idea of taking on oneself personal risk and discomfort for the sake of faithfulness to an idea one holds as “true” will become more and more of a rarity.

But we are left with this portrait of David. He allows Saul to walk away unharmed from the cave at En Gedi because he believes in the sacredness of Saul’s anointing and in the holiness of Saul’s God. Such ideals and values are likely to become more rare in our culture as postmodernism continues to evolve, making our example of David useful for all who look to Christ as the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).