As regular readers know, David has been
a frequent subject of my posts. He is just such a compelling character, and his
life offers so many illustrations, I can’t seem to get away from thinking about
him for long. Fortunately for me, I am not the only one. I received a question
this week about the life of David, and in particular, about his behavior in 1
Samuel 27.
David’s Bad Acts?
David’s Bad Acts?
I discussed this in part in “How
Could Jonathan Love David?,” and I’ll provide a bit more
detail here. David was a king of Ancient Israel 3,000 years ago, but he didn’t
start out that way. What I mean by that is, he was not born to the crown.
Instead, he was chosen by God to be the replacement for his predecessor, the
wicked King Saul, and Saul’s family. In spite of this, Saul’s son Jonathan
loved David. Saul himself, however, had the more predictable reaction of hating
David, and sought to kill him on numerous occasions.
1 Samuel 27 occurs in the context of
Saul’s threats against David. David had recently escaped Saul, and decided his
safest course of action was to seek refuge with Saul’s enemies, the Philistines.
Of course, for a long time they had also been David’s enemies, starting with
his defeat of their gigantic champion, Goliath. Most of the Philistines hated
David, but he took the calculated risk that they were less dangerous than Saul
and moved into territory they controlled. With him was what amounted to a
private army, their families, and all their possessions.
Providentially, David and his people
received a very warm welcome from King Achish of the Philistine city of Gath
(Goliath’s hometown). He gave David the town of Ziklag as his own, and under
Philistine protection. Then Achish encouraged David to attack the towns of
Judah in southern Israel, south and east of Gath. His plan, as verse 12 tells
us, was to see to it that David became abhorrent to the Israelites so he could
never return. In that way, Achish hoped to gain a faithful and capable servant.
The rest of 1 Samuel 12 shows us that
David had different plans, however. He and his men did go out on frequent
raids, but instead of attacking the Judeans, they attacked “the Geshurites, the
Girzites, and the Amalekites.” Each time they attacked a settlement, they wiped
it out completely so no one could report on what they had done. Then, when
Achish asked them about their activities, David would tell him about some town
or other in Judah that he claimed to have attacked.
Providing the Context
If you are hearing that story for the
first time or the thousandth, it does sound pretty terrible. Hence the question
I received. 1 Samuel 27 says nothing about these three groups being at war with
Israel, or about God commanding David to attack them. It reads as though he
just decided to abuse the largess of a friendly king, slaughter his peaceful
neighbors, and then cover it up. And all of this after 1
Samuel 26 in which David had gone to such great lengths to
stay free from blood guilt. Is it all as horrible as it seems?
Guilt
I would say “no,” and I will tell you
why as we go along, but I just want to make my perspective clear before moving
into the explanation. To start, I want to say something about David’s not
wanting to be guilty of bloodshed. We need to be clear about what he meant in 1
Samuel 26:9. David was not concerned to avoid spilling blood. He was a warrior,
and that was his stock-in-trade. In fact, he says in 1
Chronicles 28:3 it was for this reason that God would
not permit him to build a temple for the Lord. David spilled plenty of blood
from Goliath on down. What he refused to do was to shed Saul’s blood.
You see, in spite of Saul’s efforts to
destroy him, David recognized the king as the Lord’s chosen and the rightful
ruler of Israel. If David had raised his hand against Saul, he would in effect
have been guilty of denying God’s right to choose whomever He wanted to be
king. It was this offense in particular that David sought to avoid, not killing
altogether.
Commandments
Of course, the Old Testament makes it
clear that killing in warfare is different from murder. Allowance is made for
the former, but not the latter. If David was attacking peaceful neighbors, was
he not still guilty?
To answer this, we need cultural and
biblical context. We are, after all, removed by 3,000 years and 6,000 miles
from these events. “The Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites” are
mentioned without any of this in 1 Samuel 27, but that is because the ancient
Israelites to whom the book was written were very well aware of who these
people were and what the problem with them was.
To begin with, verse 8 does at least say
that “those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old.” Why does
that matter? Because it referred to the command of God in Deuteronomy
7:1–2 and His promise in Joshua
13:1–6. The people David attacked were people the
Israelites had been commanded to destroy long before, in punishment for their
wickedness and to give rest to Israel. David, in essence, was doing his part.
This has an added emphasis when it comes
to the Amalekites who, as Exodus
17:14–16 and Deuteronomy
25:17–19 make clear, had earned God’s especial scorn. In
fact, 1
Samuel 15 records that part of the reason Saul was
disqualified as king was because of his refusal to prosecute the war against
the Amalekites to the fullest.
For another thing, these nations were
never peaceful. Border warfare was a constant of life in ancient Palestine, and
these three were no exception when it came to taking part. They made frequent
forays into Judah, attacking its people and stealing their goods. This reality
was part of the reason why God told the Israelites to destroy them in the first
place. It is not as if they were entirely innocent.
Understood in the light of all of this,
David’s behavior becomes completely justified, even heroic. He attacked these
groups not out of a purely selfish desire to plunder and pillage, but out of a
responsibility to obey the laws of God. We may not want to see it that way, but
we should at least know that is precisely how the first audience of 1 Samuel 27
understood it. To them, David’s behavior here was praiseworthy because he was
protecting his people from their enemies and being faithful to the Lord.
Lies and Untruths
But wait—what about the lying? Isn’t
lying wrong? Yes, of course it is. However, our society has partially lost
sight of something the ancient Israelites understood. There is a difference
between a lie and an untruth.
That’s splitting hairs, I realize, but
there is a lot of that in life, after all. Let me just say, also, that this is
not a line I would recommend anyone try to straddle. Better to err on the side
of truthfulness. But the Bible does have a few examples like this where an
untruth is the best available option. Besides this one in 1 Samuel 27, there is
also the account of the midwives Shiphrah and Puah in Exodus
1
and of Rahab in Joshua
2.
In all these cases, someone said something untrue in order to save lives and
serve God. Lies, which the Bible condemns, are different. They are told in
order to avoid just punishment or to achieve selfish gains. They are never
justified because they do greater harm than good.
If the Bible makes this distinction, why
do we struggle with it? For one, because it can be hard to tell the difference
(which is why I say not to try to straddle the line). But for another, it is
because our culture views telling the truth as a moral imperative. I am not
sure if Immanuel Kant was the first person to prescribe the idea, but he is
certainly the person with whom it is most associated. His belief was
essentially that it is never, under any circumstances, morally acceptable to
tell any type of untruth, even if it would save someone else’s life. Now of
course, humans all lie, and we do it with a fair bit of frequency. But that
does not change the fact that Western culture accepts the grounds of the
imperative, and looks at breaches of it in the Bible as scandalous. As with the
people David attacked, however, this comes from our lack of context rather than
any inherent wrong.
I Could Go On…
From a biblical perspective, then, David
did not do anything wrong in 1 Samuel 27. He fought God’s enemies and protected
His people. This can easily raise other questions about how, why, and if God
would want this, but I have already gone too long for one of these posts. The
great thing is, though, this is not the end of the discussion. I don’t have the
last word. If anyone has more questions or comments, please share them (and I
recommend Facebook for that, because Blogger has been a bit unreliable). Put
the “forum” in Quest Forums. That’s what it’s for!
All I can really settle here is how this
reflects on David. There are quite a few passages that put him in a negative
light. 1 Samuel 27 was not meant as one of them. Hopefully I have shown how
that makes sense, even if it cannot wrap everything up neatly. But it does
demonstrate what I believe the author of 1 Samuel wanted to convey.
Thanks for checking out the Quest Forums
blog! If you enjoyed this post, please consider following me here, on Twitter
(@Quest_Forums), or on Facebook (“Quest Forums”). Links are in the sidebar. I
am always looking for new questions and comments, so submit yours on any of
these sites or by emailing questforums.ask@gmail.com.
And please, spread the word! The share buttons below are
a great way to do that. I want to connect with as many people as possible, so
if you know anyone with questions about the Bible, send them my way.
No comments:
Post a Comment