Augustine of Hippo

The book of Kings [Samuel] gives us an example about prophecy. Saul was the persecutor of David. When he was persecuting him, he sent guards to drag him away to punishment, and those who were sent to bring David to be slain found him among the prophets; and Samuel was there too.… So he had fled to the place where besides Samuel, the most distinguished of all the prophets, there were also many other prophets. Pushing their way among them, while they were prophesying, came the emissaries of Saul, to drag him off, as I said, to death. The spirit of God leaped upon them and they began to prophesy, having come to lead a holy and just man of God to the execution block and snatch him away from among the prophets. They were suddenly filled with the spirit of God and turned into prophets. It’s possible this happened because of their innocence; after all, they hadn’t come of their own accord to arrest him but had been sent by their king. And perhaps they had indeed come to the place where David was but weren’t going to do what Saul had told them to; perhaps they too were intending to stay there. Because such things even happen today. Sometimes a bailiff is sent by high authority to drag somebody out of the church; he dare not act against God, and in order not to face execution himself he stays there, in the place he was sent, to haul someone out of it. So you could say, pleasantly surprised and relieved, that these men suddenly became prophets because they were innocent; the very gift of prophecy bore witness to their innocence. They came because they were sent, but they weren’t going to do what that bad man had told them to. Let us believe that about them.Others were sent; the Spirit of God leaped on them too, and they too began to prophesy. Let’s count them too with the first lot as being quite innocent. A third lot were sent; the same happened to them too; let them all be innocent. When they delayed and what Saul had ordered wasn’t done, he came himself. Was he too innocent? Was he also sent by some authority, and not ill-intentioned of his own free will? Yet the Spirit of God leaped on him too, and he began to prophesy. There you are, Saul is prophesying, he has the gift of prophecy, but he has not got charity. He has become a kind of instrument to be touched by the Spirit, not one to be cleansed by the Spirit. The Spirit of God, you see, touches some hearts to set them prophesying, and yet does not cleanse them.… And so the Spirit of God did not cleanse Saul the persecutor, but all the same it touched him to make him prophesy.
Caiaphas, the chief priest, was a persecutor of Christ; and yet he uttered a prophecy when he said, “It is right and proper that one man should die, and not the whole nation perish.” The Evangelist went on to explain this as a prophecy and said, “He did not, however, say this of himself, but being high priest, he prophesied.” Caiaphas prophesied, Saul prophesied; they had the gift of prophecy, but they didn’t have charity. Did Caiaphas have charity, considering he persecuted the Son of God, who was brought to us by charity? Did Saul have charity, who persecuted the one by whose hand he had been delivered from his enemies, so that he was guilty not only of envy but also of ingratitude? So we have proved that it is possible for you to have prophesy and not to have charity. But prophecy does you no good, according to the apostle: “If I do not have charity,” he says, “I am nothing.” He doesn’t say, “Prophesy is nothing,” or “Faith is nothing,” but “I myself am nothing, if I don’t have charity.” So while he has great gifts, he is nothing; although he has great gifts, he is nothing; because these great gifts which he has, he doesn’t have to his benefit but to his condemnation. It isn’t a great thing to have great gifts; but it is a great thing to use great gifts well; but you don’t use them well if you haven’t got charity. The fact is, it is only a good will that uses anything well; but there cannot be a good will where charity is not to be found.

All these modes of expression will be thought lies, if a figurative expression or action is to be considered a lie. But, if it is not a lie when signs signifying one thing are put for another to serve the understanding of a truth, certainly that should not be judged a lie either which Jacob did or said to his father in order to be blessed, or what Joseph said in sporting with his brothers, or David’s pretense of insanity, or other signs of the same kind. They should be judged as prophetic expressions and actions set forth for the understanding of those things which are true. Those things are veiled in figures, in garments as it were, in order that they may exercise the mind of the pious inquirer and not become cheap for being bare and obvious. Although we have learned their meaning stated openly and plainly in other places, still, when they are dug out of obscurity, they are somehow recreated in our knowledge and thus become sweet. A student is not hindered because they are shrouded in this way. On the contrary, they are rendered more acceptable: for being remote they are more ardently desired, and for being desired they are more joyfully discovered.

While the holy man David was on the run from Saul’s persecution, he fled to a place where he thought he would be safe. He passed by the house of a priest named Ahimelech and accepted loaves from him. In so doing, he acted in the role not of a king only, but of a priest too, because he ate the bread of the presence which “it was unlawful for anyone other than the priests to eat,” as the Lord reminds us in the Gospel. Saul, when later he began to hunt him, was angry with his retainers because none of them was willing to betray David. The story has just been read from the book of the Kingdoms [Samuel]. But there was a man present that day named Doeg, who was an Edomite and the principal herdsman in Saul’s service; he too had come to Ahimelech the priest. He was present again when Saul raged against his followers because none of them would betray David. Doeg revealed where he had seen him. Saul immediately sent for the priest and all his family to be brought before him, and [he] ordered that they be killed. Not one of Saul’s entourage dared raise a hand against the priests of the Lord, even under orders from the king. But this Doeg, who had betrayed David’s whereabouts, was like Judas; he did not recoil from his evil purpose but persisted in bringing forth fruit from that same root even to the end, the kind of fruit typical of a rotten tree. So at the king’s order Doeg killed the priest and all his family, and afterwards the city of the priests was demolished.We have seen, then, that this man Doeg was the enemy of both David the king and Ahimelech the priest. Doeg was a single person, but he represents a whole class of people. Similarly David embodies both king and priest, like one man with a dual personality, though the human race is one. So too at the present time and in our world let us recognize these two groups of people, so that what we sing, or hear sung, may profit us. Let us recognize Doeg still with us today, as we recognize the kingly and priestly body today, and so we shall recognize the body that is opposed to king and priest still. Notice from the outset how mysteriously significant their names are. Doeg is said to mean “movement,” and Edomite means “earthly.” Already you can see what kind of people this “movement,” this Doeg, symbolizes: the kind that does not remain stable forever but is destined to be moved elsewhere. As for “earthly”: why expect any fruit from an earthly person? But the heavenly humans will last forever. So, to put it briefly, there is an earthly kingdom in this world today, but there is also a heavenly kingdom. Each of them has its pilgrim citizens, both the earthly kingdom and the heavenly, the kingdom that is to be uprooted and the kingdom that is to be planted for eternity.

Indeed, because David swore that he would kill Nabal and then in more considerate forbearance did not, shall we say that we should imitate him by swearing rashly that we are going to do what we see later ought not to be done? But, just as fear confounded the one [Lot] so that he was willing to prostitute his daughters, so did anger confound the other [David] so as to swear rashly. In short, if it were permitted us to make inquiry and ask them both why they did these things, the one could reply, “Fear and trembling are come upon me: and darkness has covered me,” and the other also could say, “My eye is troubled through indignation.” And so we would not be surprised that the one in the darkness of fear and the other in the indignation of his eye did not see what ought to have been seen so as not to do what ought not to have been done.Indeed, to the righteous David we might with reasonable justice say that he ought not to have become angry, not even with an ingrate who returned evil for good. Even if anger crept upon him, as it does upon a man, at least it ought not to have prevailed so far that he swore to do what he would either do in rage or not do and be forsworn.

In the case of David also, we read of both good and bad actions. But where David’s strength lay, and what the secret of his success was, is sufficiently plain, not to the blind malevolence with which Faustus assails holy writings and holy men, but to pious discernment, which bows to the divine authority and at the same time judges human conduct correctly. The Manichaeans will find, if they read the Scriptures, that God rebukes David more than Faustus does. But they will read also of the sacrifice of his penitence, of his surpassing gentleness to his merciless and bloodthirsty enemy, whom David, pious as he was brave, dismissed unhurt when now and again he fell into his hands. They will read of his memorable humility under divine chastisement, when the kingly neck was so bowed under the Master’s yoke, that he bore with perfect patience bitter taunts from his enemy, though he was armed and had armed men with him. And when his companion was enraged at such things being said to the king and was on the point of requiting the insult on the head of the scoffer, he mildly restrained him, appealing to the fear of God in support of his own royal order and saying that this bad happened to him as a punishment from God, who had sent the man to curse him.