THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
One who harbors malice ultimately harms only themselves, much like a person who stokes a fire may end up scorched, or someone who strikes a diamond can injure their own hand, or a person who steps on sharp nails inflicts wounds upon themselves. Such is the nature of an individual who can graciously endure offense; they resemble diamonds, sharp nails, and fire, while those who seek to offend them are as lowly as dirt. Therefore, experiencing offense is not inherently negative; rather, it becomes a problem if one causes offense to others or lacks the ability to withstand grievances. Consider how deeply David was wronged and how unjustly Saul treated him. Yet, who ultimately emerged more resilient and content? Who was more wretched and deserving of pity?
Read more (1238 words)
Was it not the one who committed the offense? Let us examine this further. Saul promised that if David defeated the foreigner, he would honor David with kinship and give him his daughter with great joy. David fulfilled that promise by defeating the foe; what did Saul do in return? He broke his vow, refusing to give his eldest daughter to David and instead sought his life. Who merited more honor in this scenario? Saul was tormented by desire and afflicted by an evil spirit, while David, through his triumph and God's favor, gained glory that outshone the sun. Saul became envious when he heard the women singing David's praises, but David bore all in silence, drawing people to himself. When David had the chance to destroy Saul but chose to spare him, who then was happy and who was miserable? Who showed strength, and who showed weakness? Was it not David who appeared strongest for refraining from exacting vengeance against his adversary when he had the right to do so? Without a doubt. Saul commanded an armed force, while David was accompanied by the strength of truth, which surpasses any army. Therefore, despite suffering countless injustices, he refused to take Saul's life, knowing through previous experiences that it is not the infliction of harm on another but the endurance of wrongs that fortifies one's spirit.
Who among us was more wicked than Saul, or more simple and unkind than David? Yet which of them demonstrated true strength? David had Saul in his grasp on two occasions yet chose to spare him when he could have ended his life. Even when others urged him to act against Saul's numerous transgressions, David let him go unharmed. Saul relentlessly pursued David with an entire army, while David wandered with a handful of disheartened followers, constantly fleeing. In those moments, it was the fugitive who bested the king. This occurred because David embraced simplicity, whereas Saul was motivated by malice. Can we conceive of anyone more nefarious than Saul, who attempted to assassinate the commander of his own forces—a man who had led successful campaigns, achieved victory, shouldered responsibilities, and blessed him with laurels? Yet, after Saul drove David out of his realm, what kept David compliant and restrained him from waging war against the king? Was it not the very circumstances that could have justified Saul's demise? Did Saul not plot David's destruction multiple times? Was David not entitled to accuse him? Was his ascension to kingship and even his life not in peril? Did David not constantly flee, trembling for his safety while Saul reigned? Yet nothing compelled David to stain his hands with blood. When Saul lay asleep in the cave, vulnerable among his soldiers, David, influenced by many who saw it as a divinely appointed chance, silenced their entreaties and chose not to kill Saul but instead let him go, treating him not as an enemy but as his protector. What can possibly equate to such a character? What measure do we have for this level of humility? We can discern this from the observations made earlier, but it becomes even clearer when we reflect on present realities. When we recognize our own failings, we glean the true virtue of the saints. Consequently, I urge you to emulate their fervor for righteousness.
Indeed, one who, having received countless benefits, honors, and victories, still harbored ill will against his benefactor, plotting daily to kill him, is the one who, when caught in David’s grasp multiple times—like a captive in a prison cell and devoid of protection—was shown mercy. Though he could have avenged himself based on the counsel of many, David restrained his wrath, knowing that by allowing Saul to escape, he retained a formidable adversary. Yet nothing, not past grievances, future fears, or any similar considerations, swayed David towards murder. He acted with wisdom, maintaining self-control over his anger, valuing his homeland and freedom more than succumbing to the urge to kill an unjust enemy, even after he had threatened his life countless times. Saul addressed David as the son of Jesse; however, when David found Saul asleep in the cave, he did not refer to him as the son of Kish but with reverence, saying, "But let not the Lord allow me to lift up my hand against the anointed of the Lord." This illustrates his purity from spite and desire for vengeance. He recognized Saul, despite the latter's transgressions, as the Lord's anointed. David looked not at what Saul deserved to suffer, but at what he himself ought to pursue, demonstrating unparalleled prudence. How remarkable it is that when he had a sworn enemy captured—bound and alone—he did not demand retribution but focused entirely on his own moral duty. While it would have been easy to kill, David considered instead what was right for him to execute. Even with the simplicity of the act set before him, he remained undistracted from his principles. Was it not evident that he could have justified taking Saul's life with the betrayal that placed him at ease? And while others pushed for action, no past grievances prompted him to take a life; in fact, the very simplicity of the act deterred him. He perceived that God had presented him with this opportunity to exercise wisdom. What amazes us even further is that the specter of future conflict did not sway him to act against Saul. David understood that Saul would likely raise arms against him again after escaping death, yet he prioritized the preservation of his enemy's life over his own safety. What greater moral character can we discern than that of one who, under the law which states an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, could have justly avenged himself yet opted instead to act with greater wisdom? Even if David had slain Saul, he would not have gained accolades for being wise since revenge without provocation does not align with virtue. Furthermore, he would have merely fulfilled the claim of reciprocity under the law. Instead, David did not repay one murder with another; for every death Saul threatened him with, David would have succeeded only in reopening that cycle. He would indeed have earned a crown for his patience. Truly, righteous anger in response to past wrongs does not warrant praise for patience; rather, the individual who, despite great injustices and in the face of imminent danger, still chooses mercy may ascend to the heights of meekness. David exemplified this perfectly, exhibiting marvelous insight. Undeterred by the recollections of the past or the fears of the future, nor the urgings of his allies, nor the favorable circumstances that would have justified killing, he spared his adversary as if showing generosity to a benefactor. What justification do we possess for clinging to past transgressions and enacting vengeance against those who have wronged us while this gallant soul, who experienced so much suffering and anticipated greater tribulations, chose instead to show mercy, risking his own safety rather than end the life of a man intent on causing him harm? This integrity shines forth not merely in David's failure to take Saul’s life at that dire moment but also in that he refrained from uttering even a harsh word against him—a contrast to how many often malign the absent. Thus, his wisdom is evident, demonstrating a profound humanity that shows in how he treated his enemies.