The refusal by David on two separate occasions to take the life of King Saul, who was hunting him down to murder him, has often been used to justify submission to tyrants. The use of this Scriptural event to justify compliance with tyranny is not new; Samuel Rutherford reported that the advocates of the divine right of kings were employing it in this fashion in his day:

But saith, the royalist, David’s argument, “God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed, my master the king,” concludeth universally, that the king in his most tyrannous acts, still remaining the Lord’s anointed, cannot be resisted.[1]

And Christopher Goodman noted it in the tenth chapter of his book How Superior Powers Ought To be Obeyed by Their Subjects And Wherein They may be lawfully By God’s Word Be Disobeyed And Resisted, entitled Objections Out of the Old Testament, and answers to the same.

We shall now deal with this objection, first noting the two true premises on which it is built, and then the false conclusion that is drawn from the two correct premises. After that, we shall show why the conclusion is false because it fails to take into account other relevant information Scripture provides us from the life of David and his dealings with Saul.

Saul was clearly an unjust tyrant.

That Saul was an unjust tyrant cannot be disputed. Commanding the murder of the priests and inhabitants of Nob, a massacre which was carried out, settles this point. Furthermore, Saul had broken the Israelite “constitution,” the covenant made with God to honor the law of God in the life of the Israelites in other ways, besides breaking the sixth commandment. He had attempted, as chief magistrate, to usurp the independence of the priesthood and accrue the sacerdotal function for himself. And for a second time, he violated the constitution, when he refrained from executing Agag, king of Amalek, and took prisoners and booty from this military victory, a constitutional infraction (see Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Failure to obey the instructions of Samuel the prophet, who repeated these instructions to him, was another constitutional infraction (see Deuteronomy 18:15;19) The Israelite constitution placed the law above the king, who was instructed as a condition of office, “to fear the Lord his God,” and to “keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them,” and not “turn aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:19-20)   For these constitutional infractions, Saul had forfeited his right to the throne, and if these were not enough, he appointed Doeg, an Edomite, to a high government position, (an illegal act, since Edomites were ineligible to serve in Israel’s government until the third generation, see Deuteronomy 23:7-8), and allowed Doeg to murder the priests of Nob, which Saul had ordered his own soldiers to do, but which they had refused. And if all this was not enough, Saul had attempted the murder of David on several occasions before.

Yet David refuses to kill him, and calls him “the lord’s anointed.”

Yet despite the fact, that Saul was actively seeking to take his life, and that Saul had forfeited his right to rule by Israel’s constitution, when David was given the opportunity to kill Saul on two occasions, first in the cave at Engedi, (1 Samuel 24) and then at Ziph, (1 Samuel 26), David refused to do so, despite the urging of his men, (1 Samuel 24:4; 26:8), and would not lay a hand on the “Lord’s anointed,”

And he said unto his men, the Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. (Samuel 24:6)

And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed and be guiltless…The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed… (1 Samuel 26:9; 11a)

False conclusion: This is tied to Romans 13:2; and the conclusion therefore, is that tyrants may not be resisted, apparently even when they murder their own subjects or citizens.

If David refused to use deadly force against Saul, the argument goes, despite his numerous constitutional infractions and commanding the massacre at Nob, then resistance against the tyrants of our day must be wrong as well. And in regard to Romans 13, the subject of this book, the point is made that if Saul is the Lord’s anointed, then Romans 13:2 teaches that the tyrants of our day must be the Lord’s anointed, in regard to us.

But first of all, it should be countered, that no civil magistrate today is chosen specifically by God through his prophet, like Saul and David were. Saul and David had the nearest thing to the “divine right” of any king that ever existed, since God himself chose them. (1 Samuel 10:1; 16:12) But God no longer makes use of prophets in the manner of the Old Testament prophets, and communicates solely through Scripture, his complete and final revelation to man.

But this conclusion fails to take into account important details in the biblical text.

There are numerous reasons why this conclusion should therefore be rejected.

First, David was willing to flee from Saul. (1 Samuel 21-31)

Flight from tyranny is still a form of resistance, for insofar as one is willing to willing to flee, they are demonstrating that they do not acknowledge the right of the tyrant to implement tyranny upon them. In the case of David, he refused to meekly acquiesce to the tyranny of Saul in trying to murder him.

Second, David was willing to gather and lead a militia composed of fellow outlaws. (1 Samuel 22:2) These outlaws were everyone that was “in distress, “in debt,” and “was discontented,” to the number of four hundred men. Albert Barnes notes of the word “discontented” that it “denotes those who were exasperated by Saul’s tyranny.”

Third, David and his militia bore arms despite the fact that this was contrary to Saul’s law. Saul did not take kindly to people supplying David with aid and comfort, or with weapons. When Ahimelech gave David the showbread and the sword of Goliath when he was fleeing from Saul, Saul attempted to murder Ahimelech as punishment, and did succeed, by the hand of Doeg, in punishing all of Nob for Ahimelech’s arming of the outlaw David. (1 Samuel 22:11-21)

Fourth, David and his militia used their arms to defend Israel from invading bandits and foreign armies, such as the Philistines.

David and his militia were willing to lift the sword against the enemies of Israel, and used their arms to lift the Phillistine siege of Keilah.

Fifth, David was willing to fight against Saul under the leadership of the civil magistrates of Keilah, and of Philistia.

After David defeated the Philistines that were besieging Keilah, and rescued the city out of their hand, (1 Samuel 23:1-5), Saul got word that David was holed up in that city, and moved to lay siege to the place with all the army and militias he could muster against it. (1 Samuel 23:8) When David heard of this (1 Samuel 23:9), he did not instantly vacate the city because he was not willing to fight Saul because he was the Lord’s anointed. Instead, he inquired of the Lord to confirm that Saul was indeed coming down to besiege Keilah, and if so, whether the citizens of Keilah would turn his him and his militia over to them. The Lord answered yes on both counts.

And David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? Will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, they will deliver thee up. (1 Samuel 23:9-12)

The clear implication here is that if the people of Keilah would not deliver him up, David was willing to hold the city against Saul. Otherwise, he would have instantly vacated the city with his men, instead of asking God whether the men of Keilah would hand him and his militia over to Saul. Philip G. Kayser explains:

Why did he ask that question when it is certain that Saul is descending on the city? He asks it because he is willing to stay and fight if Keilah is willing to stand behind him…The sword can be raised against a magistrate if another magistrate interposes himself between you and tyranny and authorizes such resistance. So, David is basically asking, “Will Keilah engage in civil interposition, or will Keilah turn me over?”[2]

When David sought refuge among the Philistines, he and his militia were given the town of Ziklag to dwell in. (1 Samuel 27:5-7)2

As a civil magistrate within Philistia, (chief magistrate or mayor of Ziklag, David waged aggressive wars against the Geshurites, Girzites, Amalekites (1 Samuel 27:8-12), and was apparently willing even to fight against Saul in this capacity. (1 Samuel 29:1-11)[3]

Why David refused to kill Saul: An Explanation in light of the above points we have made.  

In studying the rest of David’s life given to us in the Scriptures and extracting the key points made above, we can conclude a different explanation for David’s refusal to kill Saul in the cave at Engedi, and at Ziph. The first question that comes to mind is why Saul was referred to by David as the Lord’s anointed, even though God had clearly rejected him as king, and David had been anointed in Saul’s stead. Philip G. Kayser provides us with the answer:

And people say, “Wait a shake. God had already rejected Saul from being king, so how could David call him the Lord’s anointed? Isn’t David the Lord’s anointed? And the answer is that there is both an inward call and an outward call. David was inwardly called to be king, but until Israel elected him as king, his call was not confirmed. He was not a king. And the reverse is true of Saul. Inwardly God had removed His Spirit, His blessing, and His call from Saul, but until the people kicked him out of office (which they should have done), he continued to function as the Lord’s anointed. The Lord’s anointed is the office; the position.[4]

While King Saul was chosen by God, he did not begin to rule as king until elected to that office by the people of Israel. (1 Samuel 10:24) Because even the king was not above the law of God, and his office was conditional upon following the law of God,  (Deuteronomy 17:14-20), as we have seen, and to even qualify for the office, he had to meet the biblical standards for civil magistrates found in Exodus 18:21, and Deuteronomy 1:13, it seems that it was incumbent upon the people of Israel to remove Saul was office once it became known that God had rejected him as king. The phrase The Lord’s anointed, therefore, refers, as Kayser has pointed out, to the office, rather than the man. That this is correct can be seen by pointing out that if the phrase referred to the man rather than the office there would be two Lord’s anointed, because both David and Saul both had been chosen by God and anointed king. The difference between them was that one was actually operating as king, and occupying that office, the other was not. So why then, did David refrain from killing Saul? There are several reasons.

First, it would have been murder, and not an act of self-defense.

Scripture makes clear that self-defense is lawful. When someone attempts to kill one, he may lawfully resist the assault and protect his life. However, in the cave at Engedi, Saul had merely entered the cave to relieve himself, and was sitting or standing with his back to David, enabling him to creep up unobserved by Saul and cut the hem of his garment. And at Ziph, Saul was fast asleep. Though Saul was leading armies in pursuit of David to hunt him down and kill him, he was at these particular moments of time, not posing any imminent threats to David’s life, and certainly not personally. David would have been just as safe for the present if he let Saul enter and leave the cave at Engedi unharmed, then if he killed him while he was in the act of relieving himself. David would likewise have been just as safe in the present had he let Saul sleep on undisturbed, at Ziph, then if he had crept down with Abishai to kill him.  In any case, there was no immediate or imminent threat to David’s life. Because of this, it would have been murder for David to kill Saul, because Saul was not at those moments posing an active, imminent threat to David’s very life.[5] The situation would have been different in 1 Samuel 19:10, several chapters earlier, when Saul attempted to murder David as he was playing his harp in Saul’s palace. It would have been lawful for David, had he been armed, to have killed Saul while in the act of throwing or preparing to throw his javelin at him.

Consider an illustration of this principle. Suppose an armed robber breaks into your home and commences a home invasion. One may use deadly force in this situation to defend himself from being killed by the home invader and his belongings plundered. However, suppose the armed robber flees rather than face the armed home owner. If later, the home owner encounters the armed robber in the grocery store while both are shopping, he may not then kill him, because in the second situation in which they encounter each other, the armed robber is not at that moment, posing an imminent threat to the life of the home owner.

Or to use an illustration more exact, suppose two men get into an altercation and man A threatens the life of man B. After the men go their separate ways, man B hears that man A has been skulking around town with a claw hammer intent on killing him. If three days later, man B now encounters man A taking a leak by the side of the road or sleeping under a roadside tree, he may not kill the unsuspecting individual, as it would be murder, because in that case man A is not posing an imminent threat to man B’s life. The case would be different if they encountered each other on the road and man A at that point assaulted man B with the clawhammer. It would be justifiable for man B to defend his life in that situation.

Indeed, David’s life would have been in even less danger than the men in these examples, because David and his men were hidden in the darkness of the cave at Engedi, and there was no chance of Saul spotting them, and at Ziph, Saul was fast asleep, and sleeping men certainly cannot spot anything. In regard to the incident at Ziph, Samuel Rutherford explains:

For David to kill Saul sleeping, and the people, who, out of a mis-informed conscience came out, many of them to help their lawful prince against a traitor (as was supposed) seeking to kill their king, and to usurp the throne, had not been wisdom nor justice; because to kill the enemy in a just self-defense, must be, when the enemy actually doth invade, and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved. A sleeping enemy is not in the act of unjust pursuit…One man sleeping cannot be in actual pursuit of another man; so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep…[6]

Second, since David was willing to resist Saul as a civil magistrate or under the leadership of civil magistrates, his refusal to kill Saul at these times was because David was not yet appointed a lawful magistrate, but was at these times, still a private person.

As we have seen, David was willing to hold Keilah against King Saul if the people would stand behind him, and was apparently even willing to fight Saul under the Phillistine command. After he was elected king of Judah, he was certainly willing to fight Saul’s son Ishbosheth elected by the other tribes as king over them.

As Romans 12 makes clear, (as we have seen), God has reserved to himself the right of vengeance, and has banned man from exercising vengeance, with one exception. That exception is given in Romans 13, (as we have seen). And that is that he permits civil government to avenge the crimes inflicted by those who prey upon the lives and property of their neighbors. As Scripture states in Romans 12:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

Yet Romans 13:4 refers to the civil magistrate as God’s “revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” A private person may use deadly force to defend his life and those of others from imminent threat to their life and property, but they undertake vengeance upon them after the fact. This is the prerogative of civil government. The vengeance that is authorized to civil government is not limited to criminal justice, but also to national defense. (Of course, the Nuremburg trials are the application of the biblical principle that criminal justice can be applied to national defense, and leaders of a nation who wage unjust war can be held to account). Thus, while private citizens may defend their lives and property from government agents intending to murder or rob them, they may not track down these government agents after the fact or while not in the act of committing these crimes, and avenge the wrongs done to them or to others. However, civil government not only has the right to avenge such wrongs, but the duty to do so.

David could not avenge the murder of the priests of Nob, as a private citizen. But had he been a civil magistrate, the case would have been different. Philip G. Kayser explains:

His preference would have been to fight tyranny with other civil magistrates. And if he had been a civil magistrate, he would have had no choice. This is why Jesus said, “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). If Jesus had come as a magistrate instead of as a Savior, He would have been required to use the full weight of His office to fight tyranny – even the tyranny of a Pilate. That is a pretty significant statement. Jesus would have been willing to take on both the Jews and Rome if he was a civil magistrate. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” So that was a huge rebuke to Pilate for failing in his duty of office because Pilate’s kingdom was of this world. Jesus’ statement means that if Jesus were the mayor or king of Keilah, he would have fought to make sure that David was not delivered to Saul.

So it is not as if David is passive when he says that he will not lift his hand against God’s anointed. When he was in Keilah, he was willing to. When he would later be mayor of Ziklag, he was willing to. When he became king of the southern tribes, he was not only willing to, he actually did fight against the tyranny of the north. But when magistrates were not willing to do their duty, God made Israel suffer for their cowardice by giving them seven more years of tyranny.[7]

This principle can be seen illustrated in the fact that while David was not willing to kill Saul, or even raise his hand against him, Ehud was willing to kill Eglon king of Moab, and Eglon was not at that time, posing an imminent threat to Ehud’s life. (Judges 3:12-30) The difference between the two situations is that Ehud was a biblical judge, a civil magistrate, engaged in the waging of war against a hostile and foreign occupying power, while David at these times was not. It should be seen that our explanation harmonizes these two accounts of Scripture and does not put itself in the theologically awkward position of having to justify one of these incidents while condemning the other.

Third, Saul, despite his disqualification to hold the office of king, was nevertheless still the lawful king of Israel.

A key biblical principle of civil government is that political power is delegated by God to the people of a land, who then appoint or elect civil magistrates to rule over them, and delegate that political power to the magistrates.

“Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates…” (Deuteronomy 16:18a)

“…thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee…” (Deuteronomy 17:15a)

Who is the thou and thee mentioned in these verses? To whom is the book of Deuteronomy addressed? To the people of Israel. It was the people who were given the authority to elect an appoint kings and rulers over them. Note also that David was elected king over all Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-5), and prior to that of Judah by the men of that tribe. (2 Samuel 2:4) Because Saul had violated the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates as we noted earlier, it was incumbent upon the people of Israel to remove him from office and appoint David king of Israel instead. However, they did not do this, and Saul remained for many years the king of Israel. Until they grew the biblical backbone they should have grown (which they did not), and removed Saul from his throne, Saul remained the king of Israel, and the “Lord’s anointed”, no matter how unqualified he was to hold that office.

Fourth, David’s actions gave him the opportunity to end the threat to his life without taking a human life.

When Saul had departed from the cave at Engedi, David followed him out of the cave and hailed him. “My lord the king,” David addressed him, and bowed with his face to the ground.

And David said to Saul, wherefore hearest thou men’s words, saying Behold, David seeketh thy hurt? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how the Lord hath delivered thee today into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against the Lord anointed. Moreover, my father, see yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The Lord judge between me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. After whom is the king of Israel come out? After whom dost thou pursue? After a dead dog, after a flea. The Lord therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand. (1 Samuel 24:9-15)

David’s words certainly made quite an impression on Saul. For starters, he did not attack David, nor call upon his men to do so, but stood there listening while David made his speech. He was evidently overcome by David’s honor, respect, and especially his returning good for evil, in not killing him when he had the chance. Saul would not have done so, for here he was trying to kill David. One can only imagine the great shock of Saul as he realized how close he had come to dying, and that his apparent bitterest enemy had just saved his life for no other reason than the goodness of his heart. Such an act would affect anyone but the most callous, and it certainly affected Saul. David thus heaped coals of fire on Saul’s head in accordance with the word of God (Proverbs 25:22; Romans 12:20) and they burned effectively.

When David finished speaking, Saul now spoke. Scripture records his words:

And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this my voice, my son David?” And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil. And thou hast showed me this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? Wherefore the Lord reward thee good for thou hast done unto me this day. (1 Samuel 24:16-19)

Saul’s statement is remarkable. He was overcome with emotion, for he lifted his voice and wept as he spoke. Note that he addressed David as his son, acknowledged the truth that David was more righteous than he, for the precise reason that David had returned good for evil. He went on to acknowledge that David’s behavior was not natural to men; David’s act had shown him that David was righteous and Saul was the murderous and traitorous one. He concluded by wishing the Lord’s blessing upon David. David’s act pacified Saul’s murderous heart, and his desire to kill David vanished as he emotionally acknowledged David’s innocence and his own culpability in trying to murder him. But there was more. Saul went on to state:

And now behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand. (1 Samuel 24:20)

Acknowledging that David would be king over Israel, Saul had just request to make of him:

Swear now therefore unto me by the Lord, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father’s house. (1 Samuel 24:21)

To this David agreed and swore. Saul had good reason to request this of David, for ancient kings typically killed the relatives of those they deposed, or succeeded to the throne, so that they would face no competition for the throne in the future. After securing David’s oath, Saul then went home, abandoning for the time being his attempt to kill David.

Thus, David managed to end the future threat to his life by sparing Saul’s life rather than killing him, fulfilling the Scripturally derived principle that the sixth commandment requires us to safeguard our neighbor’s life to the greatest extent possible, and to forego killing him even in self defense unless no other means of ending the threat to our life exist. In David’s case, he managed to apparently end Saul’s murderous manhunt by means other than taking his life, and his efforts paid off, at least in the short term. For a shocked, humbled, and grieved Saul acknowledged himself to be at fault, acknowledged David’s right to the throne, and in return got David’s oath not to extinguish his lineage. What more could Saul ask for? For all intents and purposes, the threat to David’s life from Saul was over. For any man in his right mind and senses, that would have ended all thoughts of trying to kill David, but for Saul, vexed by an evil spirit from the Lord, even such a good deed as David’s had only temporary effect, and would he would again seek his life. After David spared Saul’s life again at Ziph, the incident made an impression upon Saul for a second time. He spoke thus to David:

…I have sinned: return, my son, David; for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly. (1 Samuel 26:21)

David, of course, did not return. He did not trust Saul after breaking his word, as we see from 1 Samuel 27:1, and they went their separate ways.

Conclusion

The refraining of David to take Saul’s life and his acknowledgement of Saul’s authority and respect for him do not support the conclusion that tyrants may not be resisted, or that such tyrants are “the Lord’s anointed.” Rather, there are other reasons to explain David’s refusal to kill Saul and his treatment of his king with the greatest deference and respect, ones which square with the rest of Scripture and do not overturn the conclusions we have reached in regard to Romans 13. To sum up, David’s forbearance to take Saul’s life and his acknowledgement of Saul as the “Lord’s anointed” does not advance the mistaken notion that Romans 13:2 mandates teaches that tyrants are the ministers of God, or teach that such tyrants may never be resisted in the exercise of tyranny.

[1] Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) [Reprint] p. 161

[2] https://biblicalblueprints.com/Sermons/LifeOfDavid/1Samuel%2023_1-13,%20part2

[3] Phillip G. Kayser Armed Resistance To Tyranny: An Examination of the Biblical Mandate and Limits From the Life of David (Omaha, Nebraska: Biblical Blueprints, 1995) p. 4

[4] https://biblicalblueprints.com/Sermons/LifeOfDavid/1Samuel%2023_1-13,%20part1

[5] Samuel Rutherford points out that had this been a case of warfare, rather than a private attempt of murder on Saul’s part, it would have been lawful for David and his men, if it had been possible to kill Saul and his men in their sleep. (Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) [Reprint] pp.167-168)

[6] Ibid pp.167-168

[7] https://biblicalblueprints.com/Sermons/LifeOfDavid/1Samuel%2023_1-13,%20part1