One Cheer for King Saul! 

Or: A Discursus Actually In Praise of David, But Including Some Small Observations on Saul

Guest Post from Jonathan White

Summary: Taking a cue from David’s consistently reverent tone in talking about King Saul and his ruinous reign, the author attempts to highlight a redeeming moment in Saul’s career. 

Of all the many, many sermons that I’ve heard on David’s besting of Goliath in battle, one aspect that I’ve never heard emphasized is the positive role that Saul plays in the narrative. It is not a very great part that he plays, but once it has been correctly described, it does make it difficult to maintain the standard depiction of David’s behavior as exhibiting a sui generis boldness and conviction that has no root other than his own bravery and trust in God. While the Main Point of the passage clearly is a highlighting of those two characteristics in David, we always do damage to the text when we bulldoze the instrumentality God uses to accomplish his ends. 

In an effort to highlight some of those instrumentalities, I will undertake a close reading of 1 Samuel 17 before extrapolating to a generalized case for the necessity of prescriptive governance with a specific application for American Christians.

Close Reading of 1 Samuel 17

If we are honest with ourselves, we cannot really blame David’s older brothers for feeling a little bit salty at the runt of the litter running to the front after depositing their provisions with the quartermaster (v.22 and 28). David is exceeding the parameters of his father’s task for him (v.17-18) and is also very likely breaking protocol at the front of a highly precarious military engagement. Could David honestly have said in his heart as he hurried to the front lines what he later wrote in the 12th Psalm of Ascent?

O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;

David is being impertinent by involving himself at the front. He is almost certainly below the recruitment age of 20, as laid out in Numbers 1:45; otherwise, he would already have been at the front. One of the tropes of military experience is that those who have actually known the horrors of war are quick to dampen the enthusiasm of the idealistic youth who dream of guts and glory without realizing that the requisite guts and gore may be their own.^a It is very likely that David’s older brothers were already wizened, scarred veterans of Saul’s wars on the Philistines. This claim is defensible by 1 Samuel 14:52 where we are told, “There was hard fighting against the Philistines all the days of Saul.” Saul’s “forever wars” put Bush and Obama’s in the shade and all six of David’s older brothers probably had at least one campaign notched in their belt for every birthday they’d had since their twentieth. 

If you pay close attention to the passage, you will note that David’s brothers do not complain just because he has shown his face in their camp. It is instead his “meddling” in discussions that frankly do not concern him that rankles the older brothers’ sense of propriety. After dropping off the provisions with the quartermasters, David responds with the whole army to the war cry calling the troops to the battle line. As he talks with his brothers on the way to the front, their conversation is interrupted by Goliath’s daily repetition of his blasphemies against the God of Israel. Goliath does this in answer to the war cry of Israel. And it is at this moment that we see the benign effect of Saul’s kingship on young David. As fear of Goliath is inspiring an unordered strategic advance to the rear in the ranks of Israel, David overhears several troops discussing the bounty that Saul has laid out for any man who will ferret out this king snake from the nest of vipers:

“Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.” (1 Sam. 17:25)

David, who heard full well the first time what would be done for the man who kills Goliahth asks that the King’s ransom be itemized for him again. The soldiers gladly repeat the King’s promises (v.27). David’s eldest brother, Eliab, now interjects, affecting his best imitation of Father Jesse’s “stern voice”: 

“Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.” (1 Sam. 17:28)

Eliab uncharitably and unjustly attributes to David the evil of “presumption.” But I still hold that there are some slight grounds for Eliab’s gripe. Regardless, it is hard to imagine treatment like this at the hands of his brothers did not influence David’s protestations in Psalm 131 that he is not having thoughts “above his station,” and his plea in Psalm 19:13 that God will “Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression.” Though the Hebrew words used for these elevated, presumptuous sins are different in each of the three passages (1 Samuel and both Proverbs references), all three seem to speak to the same category of sin/evil that Eliab is accusing David of–that of arrogating himself to a station that is not rightly his.^b At the moment, however, David is not dissuaded and immediately turns to have Saul’s promises recounted to him a third time (v.30)! “Tell me about them rabbits again, George!”  

But now, let us turn more fully to investigate the role of Saul in all of this. When David asks to have the prize enumerated for him the second time, his additional comments show him to be in the process of valorizing his own courage– testing whether or not he might screw it to the sticking place:

“What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Sam. 17:26)

This is David estimating in his own mind the rightness and the goodness of the target that Saul has painted around the towering head of the hulking pagan. David seems to be processing out loud his shock at the fact that no one else has taken Saul up on this tantalizing offer. Let us anachronistically echo Paul in Galatians that killing the foreskined-foe was “the very thing I was eager to do.” Still, at no point prior to David’s summons before Saul is the topic explicitly broached. But his very public ejaculations about the triviality of Goliath’s giantism in the face of God’s Omnipotence is enough to have his words repeated before Saul.^c Whatever version of David’s words are repeated to Saul in verse 31, we can’t imagine that much more is made of his comments than, “King Saul, we’ve found a kid with moxy. He’s got the right attitude. We think he might be willing to go toe-to-toe with Goliath.” Something like that must have been the case, because up to this point David has only been inquiring with increasing boldness about the victor’s spoils. But even if David were to have publicly thrown his hat into the ring, he would have been doing nothing more than rising to the challenge set by Saul.That is not to denigrate the courage and trust in God that it took to rise to the level of that challenge, but David himself always speaks of Saul in the most respectful, reverential tones possible, so let us seek to say a good word for Saul as we pursue David’s heart as it pursues God’s. 

Despite Saul’s initial hesitancy over David’s candidacy for hero of Israel, we see him exhibiting actual judiciousness as a leader when he is persuaded to look a second time with the eyes of faith. Initially, Saul says to David: “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him for you are but a youth” (17:33). But after David recounts his historic pastoral deeds and reaffirms the certainty of his success because of the goodness of his cause before God, Saul relents, saying, “Go, and the LORD be with you” (17:37). Of course, at this point, David was already employed in Saul’s court. Coming to play the harp for the King in his most depraved hours of need, David surely knew Saul’s shortcomings intimately. However, David so valued the office of the Lord’s anointed (and Saul’s limited success in filling that office) that this benediction from the King surely heartened David beyond his existing reserves of bravery and resolve. God may have removed his Spirit from Saul (1 Sam. 16:14) but he was not yet so deadened and blind that he could not recognize the Lord’s work in the matter.^d A final reflection on the salutary effect of Saul’s imprimatur on David’s decision is elucidated by a counter-factual. What would have happened if Saul outright forbade David from fighting Goliath? Judging by David’s later deference to Saul, one gets the sense that  David would have relented and bowed the knee to Saul. So in putting his blessing on David’s crusade, Saul himself must some credit for the deliverance of Israel that day. 

Reflection on What it is that Saul Has Done

The book of Proverbs gives us many ways to describe what it is that Saul provides the nation in his selection of David for the task of killing Goliath. Proverbs 11 gives us two^e such examples: “When the righteous thrive, the city rejoices” (v.10a) and “For lack of guidance, a nation falls,” (v.14a). Despite failing in so many other ways, Saul has set up the necessary criteria for success and (grudgingly) allowed the righteous David to thrive in the bold decision to take up the King’s challenge. In a sense, we see that Saul is second only to Samuel in recognizing greatness in David and signals to the rest of the nation the adoration that eventually eclipses Saul. He is an unwilling John the Baptist to David’s Anointed One. Saul must decrease that David might increase. 

Now, Saul is clearly not doing a very good job of raising up men who believe sufficiently in the sovereignty of God or who trust in his protection, otherwise, one of the existing champions of Saul’s army would have taken up Goliath’s challenge. Very possibly, we are to surmise that Saul himself should be the one meeting Goliath in the field of battle. He was, after all, a head taller than any other man in Israel (1 Sam. 10:23). Seeing as Goliath’s enormous height is both psychologically unnerving and a tactical advantage in combat, Saul’s stature makes him the natural candidate to face the giant.^f But as a kingly leader advancing in age, his importance would no longer chiefly reside in his ability to win battles on Israel’s but would instead be recognized in his ability to select good men to whom he would delegate his responsibilities and in his ability to inspire the nation to good works of faith and obedience. 

And to some extent, that’s what we see Saul doing in selecting David to face Goliath. It was not wholly David’s idea. It is rather David obediently and boldly answering Saul’s call. Of course, David knows that it’s ultimately God’s call because Goliath has made himself unquestionably the enemy of God. A counter-example of this ability to distinguish between temporal calling and Divine Calling comes from the titular character himself. In 1 Samuel 3, young Samuel himself is shown to be unable to distinguish between Eli’s call and the Lord’s. In Chapter 17, we see that David is able to discern the call of the Lord through the edict of the King. In fact, if we had to characterize David’s relationship to Saul in 1 Samuel, we could do worse than saying he is Saul’s “first subject.” David truly is the most loyal, enthusiastic subject of Saul in all of Israel. Ahimelech the priest attributes this exact thing to David, “And who among all your servants is so faithful as David, who is the king’s son-in-law, and captain over your bodyguard, and honored in your house?” (1 Sam. 22:14). David consistently wins Saul’s battles and demonstrates a tight-lipped refusal to criticize the Lord’s anointed even when being pursued by him. In one of the most extreme examples of this, Saul uncovers his nakedness in a cave (like Noah in his tent) and instead of attacking him or even mocking him, David only cuts off a corner of his robe. He is no Ham, calling his brothers to further assail the naked one. While the most obvious significance of this act of David’s is proof of the opportunity he had to kill Saul, there is additional subtext. Like Ruth pulling Boaz’ robe over her at the boozy threshing floor sleepover or the woman with a flow of blood grabbing at Jesus’ garments, I see in David’s act a  longing to be restored to right standing beneath Saul’s mantle of authority.^g But even this brazen act proves too much for David’s conscience: “And afterward, David’s heart struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul’s robe” (1 Sam. 24:5). So David pursues him in love when he leaves the cave, bowing low and saying, “May the LORD judge between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand” (1 Sam. 24:15). For a brief moment, David’s mercy recalls Saul to his better self as he weeps and declares David more righteous than himself. 

Modern Application

It is hard to say whether we live in an age with especially inferior leaders, or if we just live in an age where we have better technology to surveil and disseminate evidence of their stupidity. Many faithful Christian pastors do well to call out the abuses of power, the cowardice, and the evil of our national and local leaders. However, I don’t think that I have seen any Christian leaders in America calling the faithful to exhibit the level of radically selfless well-wishing that David exhibits towards Saul. Every indication in the text points to the fact that if Saul had acted on his emotion after the cave incident in 1 Samuel 24 and called David to return to his post, David would have dutifully accepted the call. Saul was surely at least as bad a leader as President Joe Biden, and yet I think the number of Christians who would accept a call to Biden’s cabinet would be astronomically low.^h  I will grant that there are a number of complicating factors to this comparison. America has a radically different structure of governance than Israel and we are possibly further into general apostasy than Israel was in Saul’s day. Additionally, we have no Samuel in the land anointing Messiahs, a distinction which makes it abundantly clear that the LORD has marked out Saul. But all of those (very significant) differences aside, the point still stands that David is a readier servant for an eviler ruler than the average American Christian would be to our own President. 

A Generalized Defense of Prescriptive National Governance

The version of a “biblical” understanding of the State my father impressed upon me leaned heavily towards a libertarian ideal of extremely limited government. I was fed on a steady stream of biblical interpretation that held the office of King itself as an evil and the only proper role of government to be national defense and the punishment of violent offenders. Such an anemic form of government, however, better resembles the days of the Judges than anything else we see in the Bible. God certainly has some harsh things to say about Israel’s motivations for asking for a King in 1 Samuel 8, but it’s hard to escape the fact that the Messiah was always fated to be King and frankly to be quite invasive in the cramping of his citizens’ rights. His yoke fits perfectly and his burden is light, but we’re still his slaves. It was not until quite recently that I’ve realized my failure to reconcile the ideal future State governed by an all powerful Emperor Jesus and my yearning for an anemic, limited government now. 

Yoram Hazony’s recent book, Conservatism, has been the most influential single book to convince me that any purely libertarian incarnation of government will always devolve into a libertine society. Additionally, his claims that the civil magistrate has a needful role in establishing a shared vision of the common good are helpful re-evaluating Saul’s role in 1 Samuel 17: 

When the king, president, or prime minister shows, in his words and deeds, that he honors someone or esteems something, this person or thing will be more greatly honored and esteemed throughout the nation. […] Because government does, in fact, wield this great influence over what is honored by the respective parties under its rule […] it is obvious that government must aim to shape the society it governs in such a way as to encourage mutual loyalty and the mutual exchange of honors that leads to it. pg. 245

The libertarian ideal that I grew up clinging to leaves no room for such “prophetic” utterances from government–praising the good and punishing evil. Hazony makes a convincing argument that almost all Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, have come to believe the libertarian lie that society should bend to the needs of the individual and never the other way around. This is how he describes the resulting chaos in which we find ourselves:

[P]ostwar liberalism replaced traditional institutions and common sense with an insatiable egalitarianism of choices, in light of which all choices that the individual might make were to be regarded as equal–first by the state, which was declared to be neutral among the different ways of life that one could adopt; then by the public schools, since they were operated by the state; and finally, by private institutions of all kinds, as the equality of all choices seeped into every crevice. Within a generation or two, the declared neutrality of the government had been transformed into a neutrality of society itself, so that today one may choose to be a Christian, a Jew, or a pagan, and none of these choices will be honored above the others by the government, schools, or anyone else. Similarly, one may choose to be gainfully employed or to live on a stipend from the government, and again, neither alternative will be honored more than the other. In the same way, one may choose to serve in the military or to evade such service; to be married with children, divorced, or never married; to keep the sabbath, go to the beach, or continue working straight through as though nothing on this blessed earth is sacred–and none will utter a syllable of praise or disparagement in any direction. pg. 167-168

Despite all of Saul’s many, many failures, I bet you he could’ve defined what a woman is. Had the Lord deemed to leave him in his apostate slide much longer, though, he likely would have lost even that smidgen of common sense/grace.

However, if Hazony’s arguments leave you cold, we need look no further than Holy Scripture for a defense of a leader who takes a defense of the public good seriously:  

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. 1 Peter 2: 13-17

To call for a government that has no role in setting real goals for achieving the common good is not only unrealistic, but anti-biblical. Even a leader like Saul can play a part in setting the mind of a society on the proper ends and aims. So, while I can’t quite endorse a call to three cheers for Saul, let’s all raise a single, lonely cheer for King Saul, son of Kish. 

Call to Repentance and Renewal

In closing, I call all faithful American Christians to be more fastidious in giving thanks and praise to God for the good aspects of the government we do have. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while, and I think we can all agree that our current state of government is a step above, say, either side of the warring factions in Sudan at the moment. As a father, I know that when my children complain or are indifferent to the small goods I provide them, I am not very inclined to increase my gift-giving. Surely David is an example of being grateful for even poor leadership. Were it not Holy Scripture, we could almost mistake David’s gushing elegy for Saul in 2 Samuel 1:19-27 as a parody. Saul spent the better part of a decade pursuing David to take his life. He shirked needful duties to pursue this atrocity. He caused many, many men to be complicit in the dastardly hunt for David’s life. And yet David has not a single disparaging word to say about him before or after his death. Very likely, the reason David is so fondly portrayed and remembered in Scripture is that he lived in light of his future son’s teaching: “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Many of our churches are plagued with dysfunction because of absentee or errant elders, deacons, and pastors. If we as a church cannot even govern ourselves well, how can we spend so much time critiquing the failings of our civil leaders? So first- Repent! Second- praise God for the good aspects of our government that have stood the ravages of time! Third- ensure more of your words are used to build up! Don’t give up the imprecatory Psalms, but remember 2 Samuel 1! Fourth- look to the health of your own church before you spend another minute more fretting about capitol hill! I am almost tempted here to raise TWO whole shouts for Saul, but upon sober reflection, let us just raise another single, somber cheer for King Saul, defiler of Israel. 

Jonathan White is a graduate of the Theopolis Fellows Program. He attends CREC Annapolis with his family and spends his spare time reading and writing about the Bible. 

1.  For a masterful distillation of this truism, I can recommend nothing higher than JRR Tolkien’s masterful one-act play The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm’s Son, the moral of which explores many themes but could be partially summarized by the one epic thing Ahab ever said, “Let not him who straps on his armor boast himself as he who takes it off” (1 Kings 20:11).   (back)
2.  All three of these may also countenance the type of sin described in Numbers 15:30 as a “high-handed sin.” If Eliab is, in fact referring to high-handed sin, I think the implication would be that David is not merely being swept up in the drama and excitement of the day, but is actually plotting to get ahead. This shows the real evil to be on Eliab’s part, who witnessed the prophet of the Lord anointing David as the successor to the throne. David’s self-conscious “self-actualization” of the promise in this chapter is another theme that is regrettably both outside the scope of this article and also outside the penumbra of most sermons on the passage.  (back)
3.  David’s question, “who is this uncircumcised Philistine?” is not from actual ignorance, but a mocking diminution of Goliath’s fame and fear in the land.  (back)
4.  We must remember that even noble Samuel had to be chided by the Lord from his initial, erroneous identification of Eliab as the chosen of Jesse’s sons.  (back)
5.  Proverbs 28:19 would be another. But due to its overuse and abuse I am relegating it to a footnote. “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” Despite Charismatic church leaders using this to provide cover for impulsive behavior, I think that Saul is actually sharing in Samuel’s prophetic vision of David’s future glory in a very limited sense in this passage, as he unknowingly marks out David as the heir apparent to the throne of Israel.  (back)
6.  To be fair, based on his later poor performance with his weapon of choice, the spear, he may have had good reason to bow out of this one; in 1 Sam. 18:11, 19:10, and 20:33, he’s either 0-for-3 or 0-for-4 in the final assessment of his accuracy with the spear.  (back)
7.  And what a brutal reminder this must have been to Saul of the moment when God rejected him. In 1 Samuel 15 Saul similarly lunges for Samuel, tearing the corner off of his robe. Samuel informs him that this is to mark that the Lord is tearing the Kingdom from Saul; it is Saul’s own robe or mantle of authority that was truly torn, not Samuel’s. Additionally, while we see David tear his own clothing in humble repentance and morning several times, Saul only does it when overmastered by the Spirit of the Lord in 1 Samuel 19:24 in an embarrassing event that becomes a byword to all of Israel. The Lord will get humility out of you one way or the other. Better to give it willingly.  (back)
8.  And there are good reasons for this. A strong case can be made that forraying into American politics at this late stage of our decadent decline is itself a fool’s errand.  (back)