CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
1 Samuel 19:9. “The evil spirit from the Lord (Jehovah).” “While this evil spirit is in 1 Samuel 16:15 and 1 Samuel 18:10 referred to Elohim, the Deity in general Jehovah is here affirmed to be its sender, because Saul’s condition, which was there only ascribed in general to a higher Divine causality in respect to his person, is here regarded as a judgment of the Covenant-God of Israel on the reprobate king who hardens his heart against God.” (Erdmann.)
1 Samuel 19:11. “To slay him in the morning.” “We may guess that only the fear of alarming the town, and of rousing the populace to rescue their favourite hero, prevented Saul from directing them to break into the house and slay David there.” (Kitto.)
1 Samuel 19:13. “Image.” Literally, the teraphim as in Genesis 35:2, evidently household gods which were still in use to some extent among the Israelites. See Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14, etc. “The plural here represents a single image which it seems must have had the human form, at least as to head and face, though the size may have varied since Rachel concealed it under the camel-saddle.” (Erdmann.) “Pillow.” The word so rendered occurs only here, and is derived from the Hebrew verb Cabar, to plait or braid. Hence it means something bound together or woven, evidently a portion of the bed-furniture, which Michal so arranged as to make her deception more complete.
1 Samuel 19:17. Michal evidently here pretends that her own life would have been in danger from her husband if she had not allowed him to escape.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 1 Samuel 19:8-17
DAVID’S FIRST FLIGHT
I. Human transgressors axe surrounded by divinely raised barriers intended to prevent their departure from the right way. A soldier weary of the hardships of the camp forms a plan to desert his regiment, and thus to expose himself to dishonour and to punishment. But all around him are stationed sentinels who stand to prevent him from doing what would ruin all his prospects for life. It is well for him if the thought of the cold steel which encompasses him leads him to dismiss the idea from his mind—if the opposition which he knows he should meet with makes him pause and allow the purpose to die. But should he persist he will not succeed in making good his escape without encountering many a bayonet and bullet, each of which is a witness against him bearing testimony that he is a transgressor against martial law. In like manner God puts sentinels in the path of men which are intended to keep them from breaking through moral laws, and by the opposition which they offer to transgression to convince them of the self-destroying nature of sin. First and foremost stands the voice of conscience, and then, it may be, the pleadings of family affection, the arguments of reason and even the warnings of self-interest. Saul was surrounded by such divinely raised barriers, which he broke down one after another. His conscience and his reason echoing the remonstrance of Jonathan, had but lately stood across his path, and for a time had turned him from his purpose. But he had silenced them again, and now the opposition of his daughter, like another sentinel, rises up before him, and hinders him from staining his hands with innocent blood. Michal’s interposition surely reminded him that the man whose life he sought was not an obscure subject and a stranger but one whom his own act had made the husband of his daughter and a member of the royal household, and therefore one who, from family and political interests, had a claim upon him even if he was not open to influence from higher motives. Each admonition and hindrance which Saul encountered was a witness against him, and warned him that he was pursuing a path of self-destruction.
II. Those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake may serve God better by fleeing than by fighting. It costs a courageous man much more to flee than to fight, and yet there are times and circumstances when the voice of duty commands the former rather than the latter. The commander may feel a strong desire to encounter the enemy, and yet he may feel that a retreat for the present may ensure a victory with less loss of life in the future. Or he may long to attack a certain stronghold and yet he may feel assured that if he delay, it will shortly be surrendered without bloodshed. In both cases he will be acting wrongly if he allows his physical courage and martial ardour to get the better of his humanity. It will be better to expose himself to the charge of cowardice than to do that which will be least for the honour of his God and his country. Up to this period of his life David had never turned his back upon an enemy, or retreated when exposed to personal danger, excepting so far as to avoid the javelin of Saul. It must have been harder for him to flee with the help of a woman than it would have been to remain and face the messengers of the king. But he doubtless felt that the course which was least in accordance with his feelings was most in accordance with his duty. If he had come forward in open opposition to Saul he could scarcely have failed to rally many friends to his side, but a civil war might have been the result. He therefore chose the course which, though more apparently humiliating to himself, was most conducive to the welfare of his country, and therefore most pleasing to God. In all cases of a similar nature—whenever a servant of God finds himself the subject of unjust treatment—it becomes him to consider not his own personal feelings first, nor even his personal and present reputation merely, but the welfare of his country and the honour of his God.
III. Even good men are sometimes under obligations to unscrupulous and godless persons. Michal was destitute of the pure and lofty motives which governed David, yet at this time she was the instrument of his deliverance. In bringing about the end she desired she did not hesitate to endeavour to clear herself at the expense of her husband, and thus to deprive herself of all claim to our admiration and sympathy. Yet, as David was then situated, he was compelled to be indebted to her exertions, and to let her misrepresentation of his character go unchallenged. There is more than one way of testifying our regard for a friend in a position similar to that in which David war then placed. We may be bold enough openly to avow our affection for them, and take the consequences of so doing. Or we may prefer to show our love by sharing their misfortunes—by casting in our lot with theirs, and being willing to fare as they fare. Or we may only have so low a regard for them as to be willing to serve them only so far as we can do it without involving ourselves in trouble for their sakes. This last kind of regard was all apparently that Michal had for David. Jonathan did not scruple openly to seek to save his friend’s life, and to risk his father’s displeasure in so doing. Michal was willing to save his life if she could do it without exposing herself to Saul’s anger; she loved him enough to aid his escape, but not enough to take the blame upon herself. She did not even love him enough to share his exile, although she probably knew that he was the anointed king of Israel; she had some regard for his life, but none for his honour, or she would not have charged the absent hero with threatening to become her murderer (1 Samuel 19:17), and so have shielded herself under his blackened reputation. It mattered not to her that she was thus giving Saul some pretext for seeking his life—that she was thus wounding her husband in a more deadly manner than her father’s sword would have done. The meanness of the act shows us to what a contemptible instrument a noble man may sometimes be indebted for a service. Michal’s conduct, in contrast with that of her brother, gave David just ground to say in after days, “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
As the crystal vessel, though cast into its proper and permanent form, is unfit for use until it has been recommitted to the furnace, and, by the process of annealing, adapted for the rough process of ordinary usage, so the character of David, elevated and beautiful although it had already appeared, was as yet too soft for the strain and pressure of a royal position; years had to be spent in annealing it.… The great purpose of God, in David’s early trials, seems to have been to develop and mature those gifts and graces that were to fit him for a royal position.…
1. In this view, first of all it was most necessary that the spirit of trust in God, and all the graces depending on it and derived from it, should be exercised and nurtured to the highest measure of strength and endurance … and no discipline could have been better fitted than David’s for impressing this lesson …
2. Another important grace which David’s early trials seem designed to promote was the spirit of calm self-government under circumstances the most trying and agitating. The germ of this grace (as of the former) was exhibited in the combat with Goliath; but it too required to be strengthened into a steady, constant habit, ere he was qualified to hold the reins of government.…
3. The close and painful contact into which he was brought in these early trials with his predecessor, Saul, was obviously designed to serve a very important purpose. The same trials endured at the hand of another man would not have had the same effect.… If anything could have made him shudder at the thought of a ruler abandoned by God, and driving at nothing but the gratification of his own base passions, it was being himself the victim of those passions, receiving in his own person the blows aimed by Saul’s ungovernable fury.—Blaikie.
1 Samuel 19:16. The falsehood of Michal, by which she deceived her father Saul, was a retribution on him; it was the fruit of his own evil example, teaching her to practise deceit by his own acts: see 1 Samuel 18:17; 1 Samuel 18:19-21. His falsehood and treachery recoiled on himself, as Laban’s falsehood and treachery against Jacob recoiled on Laban himself by the conduct of his daughters to him (Genesis 31:14-20; Genesis 31:35). Saul had cheated David of his wife, as Laban had cheated Jacob of his wife. The daughters of Laban and Saul practised against their fathers the lessons of deceit which they had learned at their own homes.—Wordsworth.
1 Samuel 19:17. But how shall Michal answer this mockage unto her furious father? Hitherto she hath done like David’s wife; now she begins to be Saul’s daughter: “He said to me, Let me go, or else I will kill thee.” She, whose wit had delivered her husband from the sword of her father, now turns the edge of her father’s wrath from herself to her husband. His absence made her presume of his safety. If Michal had not been of Saul’s plot, he had never expostulated with her in those terms: “Why hast thou let mine enemy escape?” Neither had she framed that answer, “He said, Let me go”.… As she loved her husband better than her father, so she loved herself better than her husband: she saved her husband by a wile; and now she saves herself by a lie, and loses half the thank of her deliverance by an officious slander. Her act was good, but she wants courage to maintain it, and therefore seeks to the weak shelter of untruth. Those that do good offices, not out of conscience, but good nature or civility, if they meet an affront of danger, seldom come off cleanly, but are ready to catch at all excuses, though base, though injurious; because their grounds are not strong enough to bear them out in suffering for that which they have well done.—Bishop Hall.