David & Amalek

In between Saul’s visit to the witch at Endor and the record of his death, we can find the story of David and his defeat of the Amalekites.  It is quite interesting that the author of the first book of Samuel saw fit to arrange the material in this way, whether or not the arrangement represents a precise chronological progression of events within Israel’s history (though the beginning of the second book of Samuel indicates that such is the case).  At Endor, Saul has Samuel tell him about his pending death and the re-subjugation of Israel, connecting both with his not carrying out the Lord’s “fierce anger against the Amalekites” (1 Samuel 28:18b).  From there, the story of the book progresses to the story of David being rejected and sent away by the Philistine leaders, which makes for a curious juxtaposition against Samuel’s declaration that Saul will be brought down by those same Philistines. 

After David had been sent away from the Philistines, as they were about to go to war with Israel, “David and his men came to Ziklag” (30:1a).  There, we find that “the Amalekites,” who had not been completely annihilated by Saul, “had raided the Negev and Ziklag.  They attacked Ziklag and burned it.  They took captive the women who were in it, from the youngest to the oldest, but they did not kill anyone.  They simply carried them off and went on their way” (30:1b-2).  Obviously, this only came about because Saul had failed in his duties.  The Amalekites had been left alive to complete (albeit on a smaller scale) that which they had attempted when they had encountered Israel on their way out of Egypt.  Here, David and his men, representative of Israel, were exodus-ing what could be referred to as their Philistine exile, when Amalek attacked.  This is somewhat congruent to Amalek’s attack of Israel while they were exodus-ing Egypt.  While we can see, in the raiding and the burning and the taking captive, something akin to the curses of Deuteronomy, it is clear that these are not being conducted at the hand of God against His wayward people.  What we should see is God providing David, as a deliverer within Israel, with a pretext for the continued efforts against a people that were destined for complete destruction. 

Moving on, we read that “When David and his men came to the city, they found it burned…  Then David and the men who were with him wept loudly until they could weep no more… each man grieved bitterly over his sons and daughters” (30:3-4,6c).  Even though David was suffering right along with his men, having had his two wives taken, “the men were thinking of stoning him” (30:6b), in a vivid reminder of the murmuring and complaining against Moses, by Israel, in the wilderness following the exodus.  Just as Israel wanted to return to their Egyptian exile and their subjugation, so David’s men wanted to subjugate him to death.  However, “David,” like Moses, when faced with this adversity, “drew strength from the Lord his God” (30:6d).  “David inquired of the Lord, saying, ‘Should I pursue this raiding band?  Will I overtake them?’” (30:8a)  The response that came to David was “Pursue, for you will certainly overtake them and carry out a rescue” (30:8b). 

When David did indeed catch up with this group of Amalekites, “They were eating and drinking and enjoying themselves because of all the loot they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah” (30:16b).  Though this could easily have been viewed in accordance with the Deuteronomic curses that stressed Israel’s loss of “loot,” David clearly saw it as an opportunity to enter into the blessings commensurate with faithfulness to God’s covenantal commands, so he attacked.  “David struck them down from twilight until the following evening” (30:17a).  It is said that “None of them escaped, with the exception of four hundred young men who got away on camels” (30:17b).  Not only does this remind us of the promised blessing that Israel’s enemies would flee before them (Deuteronomy 28:7), but it also speaks to the woeful inadequacy of Saul’s striking down of Amalek, especially if there were so many Amalekites that even after experiencing being struck down for an extended period of time, there were still so many men to escape, and so many camels on which to escape, even as it is said that “None of them escaped.”  This speaks to there being a significantly large number of Amalekites with which David had to deal, as he attempted to complete Saul’s mission.  

Among other things, this should bring to mind Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the ongoing (yet never completely successful) attempts to rid the land of the people by which it was inhabited, and which God had commanded His people to drive out.  Just as Amalek became this ongoing source of problems for Israel, so too would the people of the land be an ongoing source of frustration---not just by their presence, but through the deleterious effects that they would have upon God’s people and upon what had been ordained as their proper worship. 

Reveling in the blessings of the Lord’s deliverance, David provided rescue.  It is reported that “David retrieved everything the Amalekites had taken” (30:18a).  In a sense, this is the point at which David becomes king, as the Amalekites, figuratively, had taken the kingship from Saul.  Where Saul had failed, David had truly begun to succeed.  When a division arose concerning the sharing of the plunder, David takes up the language of exodus, speaking of the Lord and saying “He has protected us and delivered into our hands the raiding party that came against us” (30:23b).  He had rescued women and children from foreign subjugation, and now, following Saul’s death which immediately follows within this historical record, David is going to be installed as king, and used by God to continue the redemption and rescue of His people.    

Saul's Final Exile (part 2 of 2)

Samuel continues with his condemning report to Saul, going on to tell him that “The Lord will hand you over to the Philistines!” (1 Samuel 28:19a)  For good measure, this is reiterated and expanded upon just a few words later, with Samuel declaring, “The Lord will hand the army of Israel over to the Philistines!” (28:19c)  The intermediate interjection is “Tomorrow both you and your sons will be with me” (28:19b).  Samuel makes it clear that Saul understands that the full measure of God’s curse is going to come upon him, in that he will be handed over to foreign subjugation, and that this will be without rescue, as Saul is going to die along with his sons.  Secondly, Samuel reminds us of the nature of Israel’s kingship, in that the king of Israel represents the people as a whole, and informs Saul that this subjugation will extend beyond him and his sons, affecting the whole of the people. 

With all of these words from the mouth of Samuel, nothing new is being introduced.  Samuel is simply pointing to the covenant faithfulness of Israel’s God, to perform according to His promises, and to bring the justice of His righteousness (God’s justice fulfilling His covenant faithfulness).  Owing to Saul’s failure to carry out what he had been instructed to do against Amalek, and with the culmination of that event on display here at the residence of the witch of Endor, Samuel is informing Saul that “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies” (Deuteronomy 28:25a).  These words take on an even greater significance when it comes to the death of Saul, in that he was not actually struck down by the Philistines. 

In the midst of the battle with the Philistines, “the archers spotted him and wounded him severely” (31:3b).  Following this wounding, “Saul said to his armor bearer, ‘Draw your sword and stab me with it!  Otherwise these uncircumcised people will come, stab me, and torture me’.” (31:4a)  Here, we take note of Saul’s mention of “uncircumcised people,” in that in his death, prophesied by Samuel, and done so in accordance with covenant violations, Saul makes mention of that which represented God’s original covenant with Abraham, which was circumcision.  It appears that Saul realizes that his death, proximately at the hands of those that were not in covenant, was very much a movement of Israel’s faithful God, and stood in accordance with the Deuteronomic curses.  Saul’s death, however, was not brought about by his armor bearers, nor by the Philistines, but rather, “Saul took his sword and fell on it” (31:4c).  Indeed, Saul was struck down before his enemies, and this by his own hand. 

Returning to Deuteronomy, and continuing with the previously referenced verse, we read, “you will attack them from one direction but flee from them in seven directions” (28:25b).  We find this well represented before the record of Saul’s suicidal death, as we read “Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel.  The men of Israel fled from the Philistines and many of them fell dead upon Mount Gilboa.  The Philistines stayed right on the heels of Saul and his sons.  They struck down Saul’s sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malki-shua” (31:1-2).  While noticing the commensurate usage of “struck down in both Deuteronomy and Samuel, we insist that this would not have been unexpected, because this was Samuel’s prophecy---with the prophecy delivered as Samuel, even after his death, was the representative spokesperson of Israel’s covenant God. 

The final part of the verse from Deuteronomy speaks to what occurred following the death of Saul and his sons.  Following the assertion of Israel fleeing from their enemies in every possible direction, we read that Israel “will become an object of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (28:25c).  How is this reflected in Saul’s death narrative?  We read that “The next day, when the Philistines came to strip loot from the corpses, they discovered Saul and his three sons lying dead on Mount Gilboa” (31:8).  What comes next is key in making the connection: “They cut off Saul’s head and stripped him of his armor.  They sent messengers to announce the news in the temple of their idols and among their people throughout the surrounding land of the Philistines” (31:9).  It sounds as if the Philistines were using Saul’s head and armor to send a warning to their other enemies, hoping that what had become of him would terrify the kingdoms surrounding them. 

Beyond that, Deuteronomy speaks of the Lord forcing Israel and its king “to go away to a people whom your ancestors have not known, and… serve other gods of wood and stone there” (28:36).  Most certainly, in the ignominious treatment that he was receiving at the hands of his Philistine enemies, though he and his sons were now dead, the Philistine announcement of victory in the “temple of their idols” (31:9), and the placement of “Saul’s armor in the temple of the Ashtoreth’s” (31:10a), seems to have Saul, in a manner of speaking, serving other gods of wood and stone.  Finally, as Saul’s defeat and death relates to the whole of the people over whom he had been appointed to serve as king and deliverer, what do we find happening to them?  Predictably, we learn that “When the men of Israel who were in the valley across the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned the cities and fled.  The Philistines came and occupied them” (31:7).  What happened was an exile, wrought by the faithlessness of their king. 

Israel was again subjugated to a foreign power, ultimately because of the idolatry (self-idolatry and Samuel-idolatry) of their king, which was, in the end, merely a reflection of the people’s rejection of their God and their own self-exaltation manifested in their desire to have a king.  Such was the end of the ill-conceived desire to have a ruler in their own image, rather than being the people ruled by the One in Whose image they had been made.        

Saul's Final Exile (part 1 of 2)

Near the close of the first book of Samuel, we learn about the not-so-surprising way in which Saul’s life was brought to an end.  Saul’s death is tightly connected with his visit to the witch at Endor, and it serves as yet another example of God’s covenant faithfulness, as it relates to the issues of the subjugation and redemption (exile and exodus) of His chosen people.  The story of Saul’s visit begins with a reminder that Samuel had died, which provides a basis for Saul’s fear at the assembly of the Philistines against him and Israel. 

God’s anointing, along with the kingdom, as we know, has already been removed from Saul and he has been vexed with a troubling spirit from the time that such was pronounced against him.  Most assuredly, he had taken his eyes off of Israel’s God, no longer trusting in His faithfulness towards His people, and instead, had put his trust in another man, that being Samuel.  It was probably the case that, since it was Samuel that had given voice to the stripping of the anointing and kingdom from Saul, that Samuel was the one with whom Saul had hoped to restore a relationship of trust, rather than the God for whom Samuel spoke.  The new challenge being offered by the Philistines caused Saul to be “absolutely terrified” (1 Samuel 28:5), and even though we read that “Saul inquired of the Lord” (28:6a), this inquiry, as we would expect, was met with silence on God’s behalf, so he quickly turned to the idea of inquiring of “a medium” (28:7). 

We need not recount the full story of Saul’s visit, but rather, jump straight to the reported interaction between Samuel and Saul that has apparently been facilitated by this medium.  “Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’  Saul replied, ‘I am terribly troubled!  The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me.  He does not answer me---not by the prophets nor by dreams.  So I have called on you to tell me what to do’.” (28:15)  Samuel’s response is a representative report of the epitome of God’s promised cursing for disobedience in relation to the covenants related to His commandments.  He says, “Why are you asking me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and has become your enemy?” (28:16)  This should remind us of the blessing and cursing passages from Deuteronomy, which are instrumental in interpreting and understanding Israel’s history, as well as the Bible’s meta-narrative, which is the story of exile and exodus (from cover to cover).

Samuel’s words to Saul are a startling re-phrasing of Deuteronomy 28:15, which reads, “But if you ignore the Lord your god and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes…” (28:15a), which would cause Saul to reflect on the events that had brought him to the point of this interaction---especially the Amalekite situation, “then all these curses will come upon you in full force” (28:15b).  By his own words, Saul has expressed to Samuel that he is confused by the Lord’s response---or lack thereof---in the face of the current conflict that has come upon him and Israel.  This falls right in line with additional words from Deuteronomy, which state that “The Lord will send on you a curse, confusing you and opposing you in everything you undertake until you are destroyed and quickly perish because of the evil of your deeds, in that you have forsaken Me” (28:20).  Could there be a more stark example that Saul had forsaken the Lord, in that here he was, consulting a medium, and rousing the spirit of a dead prophet of Israel? 

Samuel tells Saul, “The Lord has done exactly what I prophesied!  The Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David!” (28:17)  Just in case Saul had not made the connection, or had somehow forgotten the basis for this turn of events for him, Samuel reminds him that it was because “you did not obey the Lord and did not carry out His fierce anger against the Amalekites,” that “the Lord has done this thing to you today” (28:18).  Briefly recounting the history of Amalek and Israel, we recall that it was Amalek that first met Israel during their exodus from Egyptian exile (subjugation).  Amalek had fought against Israel, attempting to subjugate them in the midst of their exodus.  This was the reason why, when Israel would later encounter Amalek, that God demanded the total annihilation of Amalek and everything related to Amalek.  Saul did not carry this out in full.  Because of this failure, Amalek would attempt to re-subjugate Israel many years later, in the person of Haman, the son of Hammadetha the Agagite (Agag was the king of Amalek that Saul initially spared, but Samuel later executed).  This would serve to indicate that even though Agag was not spared from the sword, many in Amalek were, meaning that the failure to carry out God’s clear commandments had far-reaching repercussions.  In light of the fall of man, and in the ironically bright glare of the darkness by which we are surrounded on a daily basis in this world, it is not difficult to understand the nature of the reach of those repercussions.