Commentaria in I Regum (I Samuelis)
6. AFTER THIS DAVID’S HEART STRUCK HIM, BECAUSE HE HAD CUT OFF THE HEM OF SAUL’S ROBE,—as though to say: Conscience bit David, because he had dared to cut his king’s and lord Saul’s garment, and so to violate royal majesty. For “heart” here is the same as conscience. Whence “heart” is the nominative case, “David” the accusative, as though to say: “His heart,” that is, the heart of David, “struck” David himself; that is, conscience pricked David. That it is so is plain from the Hebrew and Septuagint. “For it belongs to good minds,” says St. Bernard, “to recognise fault where there is no fault”; for David had cut off the hem of the robe, not to kill Saul, but to show his goodwill toward him, by which, having him in his hand, he had spared him; so that he might break Saul’s stubborn hatred, and bind him to himself reconciled, as in fact he did. The Rabbis therefore fable when they say David sinned by cutting off the hem of Saul’s robe, whence it was given him as a punishment that when he grew old he could not be warmed by clothes. Abulensis more mildly thinks that David here repents of the will to kill Saul which had crept over him, as we shall hear at verse 11: less correctly, however; for the cause of the striking is added when it says: “Because he had cut off the hem of Saul’s robe.”
Allegorically Eucherius: “David,” he says, “cutting off the hem of Saul’s robe signifies that Christ did not kill the Jews, but took from them the glory of the kingdom; for the cutting off of the robe is the lopping of the kingdom.”
Tropologically St. Gregory, Pastoral Rule part 3, admonition 9: “What,” he says, “is signified by Saul but bad rulers; what by David but good subjects? For Saul to relieve his bowels is for wicked superiors to extend the malice conceived in the heart to works of foul odour, and to show by outward deeds the harmful things thought in themselves. Yet David fears to strike him, because the pious minds of subjects, abstaining from every plague of detraction, strike the life of their superiors with no sword of the tongue, even when they rebuke them for imperfection. And if at any time through infirmity they can scarcely restrain themselves, so that they speak of certain extreme and outward faults of their superiors, yet humbly, they silently cut, as it were, the hem of the robe: because, while they detract from the dignity of their superior at least harmlessly and secretly, they as it were cut the garment of the king set over them, but nevertheless they return to themselves, and rebuke themselves most vehemently even for the slightest laceration of a word.” So also Eucherius and Angelomus.
7. THE LORD BE MERCIFUL TO ME, THAT I MAY DO NO SUCH THING, ETC.—See here and wonder at David’s clemency and reverence toward King Saul, whom, though having in his hands a most hostile persecutor, he is unwilling to harm. Whence this victory of David over Saul was more glorious than that which he won over Goliath.
Hear St. Chrysostom, homily On David and Saul: “Saul went out of the cave, and David went out after him, with free eyes looking at heaven, and at that time exulting more than when he had cast down Goliath and cut off the barbarian’s head. For this was a more munificent victory, these more magnificent spoils, this a more illustrious prey, this a more glorious trophy.” The reason of which he gives, that that victory consisted in arms, this in virtues, and concludes: “So he returned bearing not the head of that barbarian, but the commotion of the mind put to death, wrath unnerved; nor did he lay up these spoils in Jerusalem, but in heaven, and in that supernal city; now no women came to meet him in dances, receiving him with praises, but the angelic people from on high applauded, admiring his philosophy and humanity.” And a little after: “He won a more illustrious victory by saving Saul than if he had slain him. For what prize of such value would he have gained by slaying his enemy, as he now won by sparing him?”
Moreover, “the Lord be merciful to me” some think to be an oath, and an antiphrasis, as though to say: Let God be “merciful,” that is, adverse to me, and overturn all that is mine, if I lay hands upon my king. Others explain more plainly, as though to say: May God be merciful to me, that by his grace he may restrain and prevent me from committing so great a crime against my king. It is plain from the Hebrew, which has: Prohibition be to me from the Lord, that is, as the Chaldee: far be it from me through the Lord; Pagninus: far be it from me from the Lord; Vatablus: may the Lord forbid that I do it, may he not permit me to do it.
8. AND DAVID STOPPED HIS MEN WITH HIS WORDS, AND SUFFERED THEM NOT TO RISE AGAINST SAUL.—Note that “stopped” (literally “broke”) signifies that David’s companions were plainly eager and resolved to kill Saul; so that David had to use force with them to break their spirits. For the Hebrew shasa signifies to break, split, shatter, tear apart; whence Vatablus renders it “tore away.” Hence learn how gentle and pious David was toward Saul, that he fought with so great force and virtue for the life of one by whom he was continually assailed; this was surely the sign of a placid, lofty and royal mind.
Elegantly Seneca, book 1 On Clemency, chapter 5: “It is the mark of a great mind,” he says, “to be placid, tranquil, and always to despise injuries and offences. It is womanish to rage in anger. It belongs to wild beasts, and not even noble ones, to bite and press upon the fallen. Elephants and lions pass by those they have struck down. Persistence is the mark of an ignoble beast. Savage and inexorable wrath does not become a king; for he does not rise much above him to whom by being angry he makes himself equal. But if he grants life to those who deserve to lose it, he does what is lawful for none but one who has the mastery of affairs; for life is taken even from a superior, but never given except to an inferior; to save is the proper act of a lofty fortune, which ought never to be more admired than when it befalls it to be able to do the same as God, by whose bounty we are brought into the light, good and bad alike.”
You ask whether David could lawfully have killed Saul? Abulensis, Question 11, answers in the negative. His first reason is that David shrank from this slaughter as base; the second, that Saul was king, David a subject; and it is not lawful to kill a king, even a cruel one; the third, that David was not yet king, but a private person, and it is not lawful for a private person to kill anyone, even guilty, on private authority; for this public authority is required. For granted David had been anointed king by Samuel, that was only that he should reign after Saul’s death, not while he lived. So also Dionysius.
Others think it lawful for David to kill Saul, because St. Thomas, Francis Victoria, Covarruvias, St. Antoninus, Sylvester, Corduba, Navarrus, and with them Lessius, book 2 On Justice, chapter 9, doubt 8, no. 45, teach that one attacked may forestall the attacker, even if he has not yet approached but is equipped to attack, if he cannot otherwise escape death except by forestalling him; and such was this attack which David continually sustained from Saul, so that he could not naturally escape death unless he forestalled him. However that may be, I say it was not fitting, both because it was not fitting for David, a private man, to kill the king of Israel; and because David knew that he was God’s care, and that God would perform the kingdom promised him, and therefore would free him from all Saul’s snares; and because it became him to give an example of perfect patience and meekness, that by it he might win men’s minds, and so prepare for himself the way to the kingdom; and that he might be a type and forerunner of Christ, who would not resist Pilate and Caiphas, but permitted himself to be killed by them. From these the answer to Abulensis’s arguments is plain.
9. AND DAVID BOWING HIMSELF WITH HIS FACE TO THE EARTH, ADORED SAUL,—as though to say: David, prostrating himself on the ground, showed Saul, as king, the utmost lowliness, honour and reverence. Learn here how Prelates and Superiors, even if wicked and hostile, ought to be honoured and revered. For by such reverence they will be bent to piety and equity, as Saul was here bent by David to weep, and to turn hatred into love. Wherefore David then dictated Psalm 56, in which he gives thanks to God for his own deliverance and the confusion of his enemies. Whence he says, verse 4: “He hath sent from heaven and delivered me: he hath made them a reproach that trod upon me.” And verse 7: “They have dug a pit before my face, and are fallen into it. Arise, O my glory, arise, psaltery and harp.” For the title of this psalm is: Unto the end, when David fled from the face of Saul into the cave.
11. BEHOLD THIS DAY THY EYES HAVE SEEN THAT THE LORD HATH DELIVERED THEE INTO MY HAND IN THE CAVE: AND I HAD A THOUGHT TO KILL THEE,—that is, this thought of killing thee crept in, or rather was suggested to me by my companions. Whence the Chaldee renders, and others said that I should kill thee. For David himself with deliberate will constantly resisted this thought and the suggestion of his companions, and even used force upon them and broke them, as I said at verse 8.