by Angus Harley

It is fairly common to read commentaries and accounts of 1 Samuel 24:17 that argue that Saul- perhaps with arrogance- weighed himself over against David according to the scales of morality, and conceded that David had more righteousness than he. This reading is, I would argue, a profound misreading of the text and its context. I do not think Saul is measuring David according to some sliding-scale of righteousness. Both men are fully aware that the only true righteousness in context is that of the divine One, Yahweh, and his pattern for the true anointed one.

To get the setting for this issue, let us read 1 Sam.24:8-22 and 26:17-25, for they essentially replicate the same contrast between ‘anointeds’.

1 Sam 24

8 Now afterward David arose and went out of the cave and called after Saul, saying, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the ground and prostrated himself. 9 David said to Saul, “Why do you listen to the words of men, saying, ‘Behold, David seeks to harm you’? 10 Behold, this day your eyes have seen that the Lord had given you today into my hand in the cave, and some said to kill you, but my eye had pity on you; and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.’ 11 Now, my father, see! Indeed, see the edge of your robe in my hand! For in that I cut off the edge of your robe and did not kill you, know and perceive that there is no evil or rebellion in my hands, and I have not sinned against you, though you are lying in wait for my life to take it. 12 May the Lord judge between you and me, and may the Lord avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you. 13 As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness’; but my hand shall not be against you. 14 After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog, a single flea? 15 The Lord therefore be judge and decide between you and me; and may He see and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand.”

16 When David had finished speaking these words to Saul, Saul said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” Then Saul lifted up his voice and wept. 17 He said to David, “You are more righteous than I; for you have dealt well with me, while I have dealt wickedly with you. 18 You have declared today that you have done good to me, that the Lord delivered me into your hand and yet you did not kill me. 19 For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safely? May the Lord therefore reward you with good in return for what you have done to me this day. 20 Now, behold, I know that you will surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hand. 21 So now swear to me by the Lord that you will not cut off my descendants after me and that you will not destroy my name from my father’s household.” 22 David swore to Saul. And Saul went to his home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold.

1 Sam 26

17 Then Saul recognized David’s voice and said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” And David said, “It is my voice, my lord the king.” 18 He also said, “Why then is my lord pursuing his servant? For what have I done? Or what evil is in my hand? 19 Now therefore, please let my lord the king listen to the words of his servant. If the Lord has stirred you up against me, let Him accept an offering; but if it is men, cursed are they before the Lord, for they have driven me out today so that I would have no attachment with the inheritance of the Lord, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods.’ 20 Now then, do not let my blood fall to the ground away from the presence of the Lord; for the king of Israel has come out to search for a single flea, just as one hunts a partridge in the mountains.”

21 Then Saul said, “I have sinned. Return, my son David, for I will not harm you again because my life was precious in your sight this day. Behold, I have played the fool and have committed a serious error.” 22 David replied, “Behold the spear of the king! Now let one of the young men come over and take it. 23 The Lord will repay each man for his righteousness and his faithfulness; for the Lord delivered you into my hand today, but I refused to stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed. 24 Now behold, as your life was highly valued in my sight this day, so may my life be highly valued in the sight of the Lord, and may He deliver me from all distress.” 25 Then Saul said to David, “Blessed are you, my son David; you will both accomplish much and surely prevail.” So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.

Essentially, the same sequence of events is replicated on both occasions. Each time, Saul was pursuing David as a criminal on the lam. Yet, David had done no evil to incur this wrath of the king. Twice God presented Saul into David’s hand. Twice David reacted by not killing Saul, secretly sparing his life. Both men afterward dialogue with one another, for Saul to conclude that David was truly God’s man, and that Saul had done evil. And both, most importantly, understood that God was their judge, and he would avenge the faithful and righteous.

It is commonly stated that David spared Saul because of mercy. This is only the immediate cause, however, and does not reveal the heart of the matter. The real reason for David’s action was that he would not kill Saul because Saul was Yahweh’s anointed, ” “the Lord had given you today into my hand in the cave, and some said to kill you, but my eye had pity on you; and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed'” (24:10); ” “I refused to stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” ” (26:23). 

One might be excused for thinking that Saul was speaking merely according to a moral sliding-scale, as it were, for David was “more righteous” than he. However, Saul was thinking in absolute categories created by the setting of God’s true anointed. He had been discarded as king by Yahweh (1 Sam.15), and was cognizant that Yahweh had anointed David as the new king (1 Sam.16; 20:31; 23:17). Saul’s confession that he had unjustly pursued David must be read in that light (24:19), and so he says in 24:20 that David must become king. David had to wait on Yahweh to bring vengeance; only he could ‘put the sword’ to Saul the king (24:12). For David to have done so would have been a wicked act on his part as the true anointed one (24:12).

Why is such a distinction important? It is so because the phrase “more righteous” is not to be understood as a measurement of who had the most righteousness, or that David had mercy and Saul did not. Certainly, it is true that David had mercy and Saul did not. But, as stated already, there was a greater pattern or cause behind David’s action and Saul’s enmity. It is evident that the measurement is, properly speaking, who is Yahweh’s anointed? It is therefore not a ‘moral’ standard such as ‘Don’t steal’, or ‘Show mercy’. We can say on a superficial level that Saul had no just moral cause to pursue David, and that David was morally the superior man. But such morality is not the ultimate measurement. David’s entire set of behaviors were an accumulation of testimonies, witnesses, that he was following Yahweh’s will for him as the anointed. By contrast, Saul goes rogue as soon as he is discarded as king by Yahweh. David’s stands out as Yahweh’s righteous man, his anointed; Saul, however, is marked for his demonic hatred as an anti-anointed (anti-christ).

So, we see that there is of first importance a spiritual standard that is objective to both men: it is that of Yahweh’s anointed man. This is God’s ‘righteous pattern’, as it were, his model of a true king. Both men were measured by God: one was found to be true; the other was unveiled as false. Thus, even the ‘doing of righteousness’ by David was not a series of moral or ethical actions. They were, to be pointed, the fulfillment of the divine model for the anointed one. His actions as a ‘righteous man’ were not valued in and of themselves, therefore, as if one act after another was weighed in the scales of morality. Rather, his ‘righteousnesses’ were measured against the ‘gold standard’ of God’s own objective pattern of the true anointed king.

When we look at the same model from the NT, we see a similar contrast throughout. One place in particular that stands out- to me anyway- is Matthew 5:20, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” This is, yet again, seen by many as comparing levels of righteousness between groups. Unfortunately, that interpretation makes the same mistake as the view that says there is a moral sliding-scale of a sort going on in 1 Sam.24:17. If we look at the entirety of Jesus’ kingdom-teaching, it is set over against the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, who themselves were heavily reliant of the Old Covenant Law of Moses. Jesus’ kingdom values are derived from his own authority as the king of the heavenly kingdom. These heavenly values sit in direct contrast to the ‘earthly kingdom’ values of the Jews, and of the resident Mosaic scholars of the scribes and Pharisees (see Matt.23:2). By saying to his disciples that their righteousness is to surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus is not suggesting a moral sliding-scale, but is putting before us two contrasting models, two contrasting kingdom values: one founded upon Moses and the Jewish flesh and scribal tradition; the other given by the king of heaven himself. It is this contrast that is teased out in example after example in the Sermon on the Mount.

On a practical level, this is hugely relevant because it does not define our doing of righteousness to be a case of personal moral actions. The model that Christians follow is not a universal one, but is a pattern that Christ the king founded, reflecting his Messianic authority, character, and mission. It is, specifically, concerned with heavenly and kingdom values of the next world. How many times have we read of the Sermon on the Mount as a form of personalized morality that is then considered a moral template/textbook for those who are not even Christians? Jesus is implying, rather, the ‘doing of righteousness’, according to the Sermon on the Mount, is that of following the pattern of the teaching of the heavenly king; it is not that of adhering to Moses, or the scribes, or a combo, or a mix of any other authorities. Jesus himself understood his task of ‘doing righteousness’ to be in pursuit of the objective standard of God’s will for his Anointed One, and for the Anointed One’s followers: “Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented” (Matt.3:15). We are not dealing, then, with sheer morality, nor with sheer personal righteousness. We are, however, to do our righteousnesses as in fulfillment of that objective Christological pattern given in the Sermon on the Mount, a model that the Jews and scribes rejected entirely.