The Ziphites came to Saul to Gibeah, saying, “Doesn’t David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before the desert?” Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph. Saul encamped in the hill of Hachilah, which is before the desert, by the way. But David stayed in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness. David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul had certainly come. Then David arose, and came to the place where Saul had encamped; and David saw the place where Saul lay, with Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his army. Saul lay within the place of the wagons, and the people were encamped around him.
Then David answered and said to Ahimelech the Hittite, and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother of Joab, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp?” Abishai said, “I will go down with you.”
So David and Abishai came to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the place of the wagons, with his spear stuck in the ground at his head; and Abner and the people lay around him. Then Abishai said to David, “God has delivered up your enemy into your hand today. Now therefore please let me strike him with the spear to the earth at one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.”
David said to Abishai, “Don’t destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against Yahweh’s anointed, and be guiltless?” David said, “As Yahweh lives, Yahweh will strike him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall go down into battle and perish. Yahweh forbid that I should stretch out my hand against Yahweh’s anointed; but now please take the spear that is at his head, and the jar of water, and let’s go.”
So David took the spear and the jar of water from Saul’s head; and they went away: and no man saw it, or knew it, nor did any awake; for they were all asleep, because a deep sleep from Yahweh had fallen on them. Then David went over to the other side, and stood on the top of the mountain afar off; a great space being between them; and David cried to the people, and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, “Don’t you answer, Abner?” Then Abner answered, “Who are you who cries to the king?”
David said to Abner, “Aren’t you a man? Who is like you in Israel? Why then have you not kept watch over your lord, the king? For one of the people came in to destroy the king your lord. This thing isn’t good that you have done. As Yahweh lives, you are worthy to die, because you have not kept watch over your lord, Yahweh’s anointed. Now see where the king’s spear is, and the jar of water that was at his head.”
Saul knew David’s voice, and said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” David said, “It is my voice, my lord, O king.”
He said, “Why does my lord pursue his servant? For what have I done? What evil is in my hand? Now therefore, please let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it is so that Yahweh has stirred you up against me, let him accept an offering. But if it is the children of men, they are cursed before Yahweh; for they have driven me out today that I shouldn’t cling to Yahweh’s inheritance, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods!’ Now therefore, don’t let my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yahweh; for the king of Israel has come out to seek a flea, as when one hunts a partridge in the mountains.”
Then Saul said, “I have sinned. Return, my son David; for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes today. Behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly.”
David answered, “Behold the spear, O king! Then let one of the young men come over and get it. Yahweh will render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; because Yahweh delivered you into my hand today, and I wouldn’t stretch out my hand against Yahweh’s anointed. Behold, as your life was respected today in my eyes, so let my life be respected in Yahweh’s eyes, and let him deliver me out of all oppression.”
Then Saul said to David, “You are blessed, my son David. You will both do mightily, and will surely prevail.” So David went his way, and Saul returned to his place.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 Or, in Gibeah.
Or, in Gibeah.
Or, the wilderness.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–25 1Sa 26:1 And the Ziphites came unto Saul to…
1Sa 26:1 And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, [which is] before Jeshimon?
Ver. 1. And the Ziphites came unto Saul.] As they had done once before, {1Sa 23:19} and therefore being conscious of their former treachery, and in addition desirous to curry favour with Saul, they stir him up to destroy David, whom they ought to have favoured, as being of their own tribe. {Jos 15:55}
Read full note →
Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah?] Is he not, with the hunted hare, returned to his old form? There he had found God appearing for him, as out of an engine, and there he hopeth to find him again. It is not amiss in our daily prayers, to accustom ourselves to the same place; faith may hereby be somewhat helped, as Jacob’s was by Bethel and Penuel.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 Having once betrayed him before, they thought their case…
Having once betrayed him before, they thought their case desperate with David; and therefore did more strenuously assist Saul in discovering him, in order to his ruin. Doth not David hide himself? he is returned to his former haunt; of which see 1Sa 23:19. This place might be convenient for him, either for its nearness to Abigail’s estate; or because he might think that Saul was mollified, and the Ziphites cautioned by the unsuccessfulness of their former attempt; or because he could from thence make good his retreat into other places, if need were.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 13, 21 Here, 1. Saul gets information of David's movements and…
Here, 1. Saul gets information of David's movements and acts offensively. The Ziphites came to him and told him where David now was, in the same place where he was when they formerly betrayed him, Sa1 23:19. Perhaps (though it is not mentioned) Saul had given them intimation, under-hand, that he continued his design against David, and would be glad of their assistance. If not, they were very officious to Saul, aware of what would please him, and very malicious against David, to whom they despaired of ever reconciling themselves, and therefore they stirred up Saul (who needed no such spur) against him, Sa1 26:1. For aught we know, Saul would have continued in the same good mind that he was in (Sa1 24:17), and would not have given David this fresh trouble, if the Ziphites had not put him on. See what need we have to pray to God that, since we have so much of the tinner of corruption in our own hearts, the sparks of temptation may be kept far from us, lest, if they come together, we be set on fire of hell. Saul readily caught at the information, and went down with an army of 3000 men to the place where David hid himself, Sa1 26:2. How soon do unsanctified hearts lose the good impressions which their convictions have made upon them and return with the dog to their vomit!
2. David gets information of Saul's movements and acts defensively. He did not march out to meet and fight him; he sought only his own safety, not Saul's ruin; therefore he abode in the wilderness (Sa1 26:3), putting thereby a great force upon himself, and curbing the bravery of his own spirit by a silent retirement, showing more true valour than he could have done by an irregular resistance. (1.) He had spies who informed him of Saul's descent, that he had come in very deed (Sa1 26:4.); for he would not believe that Saul would deal so basely with him till he had the utmost evidence of it. (2.) He observed with his own eyes how Saul was encamped, Sa1 26:5. He came towards the place where Saul and his men had pitched their tents, so near as to be able, undiscovered, to take a view of their entrenchments, probably in the dusk of the evening.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–25 And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah,.... Of…
And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah,.... Of Benjamin, called sometimes Gibeah of Saul, because it was the place of his birth and residence; hither Saul had returned after his last interview with David; whether, notwithstanding what had passed between him and David, he had privately encouraged the Ziphites to watch David, and give him information of him where he was, and when it was a proper opportunity to seize him; or whether the Ziphites were so officious as of themselves to acquaint him with it, is not certain; the latter is probable, since having attempted to betray David, they might fear, that should he come to the throne, he would remember it, and therefore they might be desirous of having him cut off by the hand of Saul:
saying, doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon? the same place where he was when the Ziphites before gave information of him, Sa1 23:10; here he might choose to be, supposing that the Ziphites now would not meditate anything against him, since Saul had declared he would be king after him, and had made him swear that he would not cut off his posterity; and as he thought it his wisdom to provide against the worst, knowing the inconstancy of Saul, he might judge this the most proper place of safety, and from whence he could, on occasion, easily retreat into the wilderness; and it may be also, because it was near to Abigail's estate and possessions, which were now a good resource for him.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 The Ziphites inform Saul of David, who pursues him…
The Ziphites inform Saul of David, who pursues him again, ver. 1-3. David sends out spies, and views his camp, ver. 4, 5. Comes to him, being asleep, and takes his spear and cruse of water, ver. 6-12. Reasons with him upon it, ver. 13-20. Saul again owns his spirit, and promises to pursue him no more, ver. 21-25
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25 The Ziphites inform Saul of David's hiding place, 1.
CHAPTER XXVI
The Ziphites inform Saul of David's hiding place, 1.
Read full note →
Saul, with three thousand men, goes in pursuit of him, 2, 3.
David sends out spies; and finds where Saul had pitched his
camp; and he and Abishai come to the camp by night, find all
asleep, and bring away Saul's spear, and the cruse of water
that was at his head, 4-12.
David goes to the opposite hill; awakes Abner, captain of Saul's
host; chides him for being so careless of his master's life;
and calls on Saul to send one of his servants for the spear;
and severely chides him for his continued hostility to him,
13-24.
Saul humbles himself to David; promises to persecute him no
more; and returns to his own place, 25.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXVI
Verse 1. The Ziphites came] This is the second time that these enemies of David endeavoured to throw him into the hands of Saul. 1Sa 23:19.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 1Sa 26:1-2. Doth not David hide himself with us?…
1Sa 26:1-2. Doth not David hide himself with us? — The number of men whom David supported would not allow him to continue long in the same place, and therefore he was often obliged to shift his quarters for subsistence. We now find him again in the wilderness of Ziph. How much time had elapsed between his marriage of Abigail and his going thither, we are not informed, nor is it easy to determine, but it is probable it was considerable. Then Saul arose — Probably he would have pursued David no more if these Ziphites had not thus excited him.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 15, 19 The incident related in this chapter of the meeting…
The incident related in this chapter of the meeting between Saul and David bears a strong general resemblance to that recorded in 1 Sam. 24, and is of a nature unlikely to have occurred more than once. Existing discrepancies are explained by the supposition that one narrative relates fully some incidents on which the other is silent. On the whole the most probable conclusion is that the two narratives relate to one and the same event. (Compare the two narratives of the Creation, Gen. 1; Gen 2:4 ff; the two narratives of David’s war, 2 Sam. 8; and 2 Sam. 10; and those of the death of Ahaziah, 2Ki 9:27 ff; and 2Ch 22:9.)
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Ziph. Having declared themselves so decidedly against David, they…
Ziph. Having declared themselves so decidedly against David, they apprehended the utmost danger if he should ascend the throne. --- Hill. Hebrew, "Gabaa," as the Vulgate leaves it, ver. 3. It lay to the right hand of Ziph, (chap. xxiii. 19,) or "of Jesimon." (Septuagint)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 VIII. David, betrayed again by the Ziphites, spares Saul…
VIII. David, betrayed again by the Ziphites, spares Saul the second time
1Sa_26:1-25
Read full note →
1And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself 2in the hill of Hachilah1 which Isaiah 2 before Jeshimon. Then [And] Saul arose and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of 3Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah which is before Jeshimon in the way, but [and] David abode 4in the wilderness. And he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness, David therefore [And David] sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very 5deed.3 And David arose and came to the place where Saul had pitched. And David beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner, the son of Ner, the captain of the host; and Saul lay in the trench [wagon-rampart],4 and the people pitched round about him.
6Then answered David [And David answered] and said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, saying, Who will go down 7with me to Saul to the camp? And Abishai said, I will go down with thee. So [And] David and Abishai came to the people by night, and behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench [in the wagon-rampart], and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster [head],5 but [and] Abner and the people lay round about him.
8Then said Abishai [And Abishai said] to David, God6 hath [ins. this day] delivered thine enemy7 into thine hand this day [om. this day]; now, therefore [and now,] let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even [om. even] to the earth8 9at [om. at] once, and I will not smite him the second time. And David said to Abishai, Destroy9 him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s 10[Jehovah’s] anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore [And David said], As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, [ins. but] the Lord [Jehovah] shall smite him, or his day shall come to die [and he shall die], or he shall descend into battle 11and perish. The Lord [Jehovah] forbid10 that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed; but, I pray thee, take thou now [and now, take] the spear that is at his bolster [head] and the cruse of water, and let 12us go. And David took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul’s bolster [head],11 and they gat them away, and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither awaked, for they were all asleep, because [for] a deep sleep12 from the Lord [Jehovah] was fallen upon them.
13Then David went over to the other side, and stood on the top of an hill [the 14mountain] afar off, a great space being between them, And David cried to the people and to Abner, the son of Ner, saying, Answerest thou not, Abner? Then 15[And] Abner answered and said, Who art thou that criest to the king? And David said to Abner, Art not thou a valiant [om. valiant]13 man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore, then, hast thou not kept thy lord the king? for there 16came one of the people in to destroy the king thy lord. This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, ye are worthy to die, because ye have not kept [watched over] your master [lord] [ins. over] the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed. And now, see where the king’s spear is, and the cruse14 of water that was at his bolster [head].
17And Saul knew [recognized] David’s voice and said, Is this thy voice, my son 18David? And David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king. And he said, Wherefore doth my lord thus [om. thus] pursue after his servant? for what have I done? 19or [and] what evil is in mine hand? Now, therefore [And now], I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the Lord [Jehovah] have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering; but if they be [it be] the children of men, cursed be they before the Lord [Jehovah], for they have driven me out this day from abiding15 in the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, 20Go, serve other gods. Now, therefore, [And now,] let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the Lord [Jehovah]; for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea,16 as when [om. when] one doth hunt a [the] partridge in the mountains.
21Then said Saul [And Saul said],17 I have sinned; return, my son David; for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul [life] was precious in thine eyes this 22day; behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly. And David answered and said, Behold the king’s spear!18 and let one of the young men come 23over and fetch it. [Ins. And] the Lord [Jehovah] render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; for the Lord [Jehovah] delivered thee into my19 hand to-day, but [and] I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] 24anointed. And behold, as thy life was much set by this day in my eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord [Jehovah], and let him deliver 25me out of all tribulation. Then [And] Saul said to David, Blessed be thou, my son David; thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt surely prevail. So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The comparison of chap. 26 with the section 1Sa_23:19-24; 1Sa_23:24, shows that the narratives agree in three principal points, in the treachery of the Ziphites towards David, in the persecution of David by Saul, and in the sparing of Saul by David. There is besides much concerning localities, connected circumstances, conversation, wherein an agreement cannot be denied. 1Sa_26:1 = 1Sa_23:19, the coming of the Ziphites to Saul, and their information as to David’s whereabouts. 1Sa_26:2 = 1Sa_24:3 [2], Saul’s march against David with three thousand men. 1Sa_26:8-11 = 1Sa_24:5-7 [4–6.], David’s protest against laying hands on Saul as the anointed of the Lord. 1Sa_26:17 = 1Sa_24:17 [16], Saul’s question about the voice of David. 1Sa_26:18 = 1Sa_24:10-12 [9–11.], David’s affirmation of his innocence. 1Sa_26:20 = 1Sa_24:15 [14] concerning the flea. 1Sa_26:21 = 1Sa_24:18 [17.] Saul’s penitent confession of his guilt. 1Sa_26:23 = 1Sa_24:13-16 [12–15], David’s appeal to his innocence and to the divine justice. 1Sa_26:25 = 1Sa_24:20-21 [19, 20], Saul’s invocation of blessing.
But it does not follow necessarily from these agreements that these narratives are two accounts of the same event, as Ew., Then., De Wette, Bleek (the last, however, “with some probability” only) and others suppose. The wilderness of Ziph, and especially the strong, protected position on the mountain Hachilah, might well seem to David on his return from the wilderness of Paran a suitable abiding-place for himself and his men. That the Ziphites, who held with Saul, consequently again showed him David’s abode cannot, however, seem strange. The coincidence as to the three thousand men need not be regarded as showing that there was only one occurrence, since according to 1Sa_13:2 Saul had found a body of “three thousand chosen men out of Israel” (as they are called here also 1Sa_26:2) as a standing army, with which guard he might easily under similar circumstances have marched a second time against David. Thenius, indeed, affirms that “Saul must have been a moral monster, which he, however, evidently was not, if he had deliberately and under the persuasion of the same persons made a second attempt on David’s life after the latter had so magnanimously spared his life.” Against which Nägelsbach (Herz. XII., 402 sq.) rightly says: “That Saul marched a second time against David is psychologically only too easily explained, even though he was no moral monster. His hatred to David was so deeply rooted that it could be only temporarily suppressed by that magnanimous deed, not extinguished.” Saul’s inner life under the dominion of envy and hate towards David, on the one hand, and of the various influences of the better spirit, on the other hand, had hitherto been full of vacillations and contradictions. Why should it seem strange if, in the better impulses which, through David’s presence, words, and noble conduct, got suddenly the upper hand and lasted for awhile, there followed in all the stronger reaction of the evil spirit, especially as the spur to violent procedure against David again came from the same quarter as before? How little David himself relied on the permanence of Saul’s good inclinations (expressed in 1Sa_23:19-24; 1Sa_23:24) appears from the fact that he did not leave the wilderness, and foreseeing a repetition of Saul’s persecution, determined to go to another land. Thenius’ own remark on 1Sa_27:1 sq., that “David knew how quickly Saul could change his mind, and therefore preferred to leave the country,” confirms the clear statement of the preceding history as to Saul’s vacillation and moral ungodliness, which makes a new persecution, as narrated in chap. 24. psychologically and ethically easily explicable. According to this remark of Thenius, therefore, the account of this second march fits in pyschologically between chaps, 24. and 27., which sections are referred by him to the same author. Thenius affirms that “this narrative [chap, 26.] is shown by the dramatic form of the action (Night—Secret entry into the camp—Spear and water-cruse—Ironical address to Abner), by an improbability (1Sa_26:24), individual declarations (1Sa_26:19-20), and in part also by the language (1Sa_26:6; 1Sa_26:11-12) to be the later, resting on popular tradition; but these particulars pertain to those points of the narrative in which its difference from the former account (23, 24), and therefore its reference to another occurrence may be recognised, as will appear in the explanation of the special points and the comparison with the related passages. See Keil’s excellent remarks.
1Sa_26:1. The information given by the Ziphites concerning David supposes that he had returned from the wilderness of Paran into the wilderness of Judah in consequence of his marriage with Abigail. “In the face of [over against] the desert;” for which we have in 1Sa_23:19 more exactly “on the right;” that is, south of the desert. The agreement with the words of 1Sa_23:19 is the result of the narrator’s desire to conform the account of this second occurrence to that of the first in the points in which there was essential agreement.20 1Sa_26:2. The “three thousand chosen men of Israel” are the permanent guard whose formation is mentioned in 1Sa_13:2.
1Sa_26:3 sq. Saul’s camp was near the mountain Hachilah “on the way,” that is, in a well-known highroad passing by. And David abode in the wilderness; that is, he had withdrawn from the hill Hachilah (where the Ziphites reported him as being, and Saul sought first to attack him) farther into the wilderness, and was then on the highland (comp. 1Sa_26:6 : “who will go down with me?”), while Saul was encamped on the road in the plain. On hearing (וַיַּרְא = “he learned,” not “he saw”) that Saul had followed him into the wilderness, he assured himself of the fact by scouts. Certainly [Eng. A. V. “in very deed,” Heb. “to certainty”—Tr.], undoubtedly, comp. 1Sa_23:23. [So in 1Sa_23:24-25 David learns (probably by scouts) that Saul is come into the wilderness of Maon, south of the desert.—Tr.]
1Sa_26:5. David now himself goes by night to examine Saul’s camp and position. The Sept. and Vulg. add: “secretly,” an explanatory addition which we need not insert in the text (= כַּלָּט, Thenius). He found Saul at the wagon-rampart21 (see on 1Sa_17:29) with Abner, his general, and the army camped around him. David was accompanied by Ahimelech, the Hittite, who is nowhere else mentioned, and Abishai “the son of Zeruiah,” David’s sister (1Ch_2:16), and brother of Joab, afterwards one of David’s captains (2Sa_18:2; 2Sa_20:6; 2Sa_23:19).—The difference in particulars between this narrative and that of 1Sa_23:19 sq. is as follows: There on Saul’s approach David proceeds to the wilderness of Maon, where he is surrounded, and only escapes capture by the invasion of the Philistines, which compels Saul to withdraw, 1Sa_23:25-28. Here, on the contrary, nothing is said of such a Philistine invasion; Saul’s camp is on another spot; the endangered person is not David, but Saul, whose camp David enters at night, and whom David might have killed. [However, this incident is parallel to 1Sa_24:3 [2] sq.—Tr.] There, after Saul’s return from the Philistine campaign, the scene of the persecution is Engedi, where David is hidden in a cave into which Saul enters, 1Sa_24:2-4—completely different circumstances and situations.
1Sa_26:6 sq. Ahimelech, the Hittite. This Canaanitish people, already settled around Hebron in Abraham’s time (Gen. 15:23), dwelt, after the return of the Israelites from Egypt, in the hill-country of Judah along with the Amorites reaching as far north as toward Bethel (Judg. 2:26), subdued but not exterminated by the Israelites. A portion of them had maintained a certain independence. Comp. 1Ki_9:20; 1Ki_10:29; 2Ki_7:6. In the time of Saul’s reign the internal contrast between the Israelites and the remnant of the Canaanites may have greatly diminished, so that a Hittite could occupy so prominent a position with David, and be employed by him in his service. For, according to this narrative, he must have held a preferred position with David, along with Abishai (2Sa_2:18; 2Sa_16:9), who is here named. Uriah also was a Hittite (2Sa_11:3; 2Sa_11:6; 2Sa_23:39).—They find Saul in his camp asleep, his “spear (the sign of royal authority, in place of the sceptre) stuck in the ground at his head.”
1Sa_26:8. Thy enemy—the Sing. [Qeri] is preferable [Keth. has Plu.]. Abishai speaks merely according to the right of retaliation and the usage of war. The sense of his words is: I will pin him to the ground so thoroughly with one blow that it will not need another to kill him. Vulg.: “there will be no need of a second.”
1Sa_26:9. David rejects not the first part of Abishai’s word: “God has given thy enemy into thy hand,” but the second: “I will transfix him.” For certainly God had given Saul into his hand; but “the divine providence thus gives David opportunity not to slay his enemy, but rather to conquer him by a new kindness” (Berl. B.); David’s reply to Abishai is a brief, strict prohibition: Destroy him not, and the reason for it, made more earnest and pressing by the interrogative form: Who stretches out his hand against the Lord’s anointed and goes unpunished?—(נִקָּה = Exo_21:19; Num_5:31). By the royal anointing Saul’s person was made sacred and inviolable. As anointed he was the Lord’s property. Therefore only God’s hand could touch his life. And so David says, 1Sa_26:10, with an oath: “As God lives, his life is in God’s hand only, and far be it from me to touch it.” Translate not with De Wette: “No! but Jehovah will smite him, either his day will come, etc.”, but with Then, and Keil: “Unless the Lord smite him, etc.”, the apodosis being: “far be it from me, etc.” [1Sa_26:11]. David mentions three possible cases: 1) sudden death by a stroke (as in 1Sa_25:38); 2) dying a natural death “in his day;” the day of death, as Job_14:6; Job_15:32; Job 3) falling in battle. “Far be it to me from Jehovah” (מיהוה), that is, as in 1Sa_24:7, on the part of the Lord, on the Lord’s account I will not smite him.—Abishai is ordered to take the spear at his head, and the water pitcher (not basin, Ewald, comp. 1Ki_17:12 sq.); then, says he, we will “go our way” (לָנוּ).
1Sa_26:12. David took, it is said (though David had ordered Abishai to take), having reference to the fact that David was the controlling head.22 Their unobserved taking of the spear, and cruse and subsequent departure is vividly portrayed in three expressions: No one saw, no one observed, no one woke.—The narrative represents this as a divine arrangement by the words: for a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen on them, that is, God threw them into deep slumber, that David might so act. Comp. 1Sa_14:15, “the terror of God,” Psa_76:7 (6) “at thy rebuke, God of Jacob, both chariot and horse are cast into a deep sleep.”—A comparison of 1Sa_26:6-12 with 1Sa_24:5-8 [Eng. 4–7] shows the great difference between the two narratives in spite of the sameness of the speeches of David’s men “God has delivered thy enemy into thy hand.” There they say: “Do to him as seemeth thee good,” and David cuts off the skirt of Saul’s upper garment, whereupon he says, having in mind this deed of his and his thereby disquieted conscience: Far be it from me to lay hands on the Lord’s Anointed (1Sa_24:5-8 [4–7]). Here Abishai wishes to kill Saul, and David in connection with this wish says similar words. [The Bib. Comm. remarks that “the description in 1Sa_26:7 is quite compatible with David and his companion’s being hid in the cave.” This is true, and so far as this point is concerned we might hold the two narratives to refer to the same event. But the difficulty is the numerous important changes which must then be made in one narrative or both, and, it may be added, the great carelessness which must be ascribed to the editor. At the same time the supposition of a single incident in these two narratives does not impugn the inspiration of the Book, since we should therein have merely the error of an editor, or possibly of a transcriber.—Tr.]
1Sa_26:13. David went beyond to the top of the mountain, that is, the mountain whence he had previously reconnoitred Saul’s camp, and whence he had descended, 1Sa_26:6.—The express mention of “the great distance and the wide interval between them” shows that David’s conduct was here the reverse of that at the former meeting with Saul, when he followed him out of the cave and called after him (1Sa_24:9 [8]). Here the danger seemed to David much greater than there.
1Sa_26:14. (אֶל = towards). David’s call concerned Abner especially, because it was his duty to watch over the king’s life. Vulg.: “who art thou that criest and disquietest the king?”
1Sa_26:15. David’s ironical speech.—Art thou not a man? that is, a valiant warrior,23 who is to answer for the protection and security of his king, (שָׁמַר with אֶל is unusual; עַל (Then.) is probably the original reading). Then he refers to the peril of life, in which Saul just before really was. Sons of death are ye, ye deserve death for your neglect of duty.—As sign thereof he shows him the spear and the water-cruse. See, where is the king’s spear?—That was a clear proof that Saul might have been slain by him who took it away (Cler.). (אֶת־צ׳ pregnant construction—supply רְאֵה, so Maurer, who refers to Jdg_6:28). And (see after) the water cruse, namely, see where it is (Keil).
1Sa_26:17. In the darkness and at such a distance Saul could not recognize David’s person, but could recognize him from his voice. My voice! answers David to Saul’s question. As the Sept. reads simply “thy servant,” Thenius combines the two and takes as original text “the voice of thy servant.” But the brief “my voice,” is perfectly intelligible, and the designation “servant” is involved in the added words: My lord king.—[It may also be said in general that the less courtly form is the more probable—Tr.].
1Sa_26:18. Comp. 1Sa_24:10-13 [9–12]. This question as to the cause of the persecution is the affirmation of his innocence and of the groundlessness of Saul’s continued hostility to him. Berl. B.: “The way in which David addresses Saul is so humble, so gentle, and so reverent, that we may sufficiently thence recognize the character of his heart.”
1Sa_26:19. And now let my lord the king hear the words of his servant; by this adjuration David will indicate to Saul how important he thinks his following words for their relation to one another and to God, and how serious a matter it is for him that Saul should weigh them. He supposes two causes of Saul’s hostility as possible. First: If the Lord hath incited thee against me.—Wrongly Clericus: “If Jehovah incited thee, if thou deservedly attemptedst my destruction, acting in accordance with God’s will, He would hear thy prayers and take care that thou shouldst never fall into my hands [which has not been the case].” For, according to this the divine causation would be denied, while the human would be in the next clause assumed as the factual one. [Clericus says only that the fact that Saul had been in David’s power would show that God was not watching over him, and therefore his persecution was not with God’s approval.—Tr.] David’s word is based on the conception that God sometimes incites men to evil. Comp. 2Sa_16:10 sq., where God is said to have commanded Shimei to curse David, and 2Sa_24:1, according to which God incited David to number the people. The idea that evil is, from one point of view, to be referred to God as its cause, is not a product of later times, but is early found in connection with the idea of the divine ordering of the world, in which evil must serve God in order to bring about His saving help (Gen_50:20 comp. with Gen_45:7-8) and reveal His judicial glory (Exo_9:16). David therefore supposes the case that Saul’s hatred towards him rests on the divine causality,—comp. 1Sa_18:10; 1Sa_19:9, where the “evil spirit from the Lord,” which has come upon Saul, is said to be the cause of his hate to David. The “divine incitement” to evil consists, according to David’s view, in the fact that Saul, sunk deep in sin by his own fault, is further given over by God to evil in that opportunity is given him to develop in deeds the evil of his heart. [Others suppose here, not so well, an immediate reference to the possession of Saul by the evil spirit, which drives him to these persecutions.—Tr.]. The words: Let him accept [literally, smell] an offering, indicate the way by which Saul, seeing whither he is come by this self-occasioned inclination to evil from God, may again come into right relation with God. “Let him smell an offering” (יָרַה; the Hiph. of רִיחַ not = “cause to smell,” but = “smell;” Sept. ὀσφρανθείη, Vulg., odoretur, Luther, man lasse riechen). The odor of the offering, here to be smelled, comes from the incense which was connected with the meat-offering (of flour and groats) and was burned (Lev_2:15-16; Lev_6:15) “for a sweet odor, a memorial to the Lord.” The smelling of this odor represents God’s acceptance of the offering and the offerer (Gen_8:21), the offering itself, the Minchah (מִנְחָה), meat-offering, signifying not atonement, but sanctification of life in devotion to the Lord, the effect of which is God’s gracious acceptance. The sense is: “Instead of the anger, in which God drives thee to evil, mayest thou gain God’s acceptance, by (as the outward offering with its sweet odor signifies) giving him thy heart and life, abstaining from evil and sanctifying thyself to Him.” David thereby also indirectly affirms that the divine incitement to evil has its ground in Saul’s evil nature and will. Bunsen, in general correctly: “The sense is: pray to God that He take the temptation from thee.” Grotius is altogether wrong: “If this anger is just, I do not deprecate that it be appeased by my death as a victim.” [Others: Let the evil spirit from God be driven away by an offering to God.—Tr.].—The other case: But if men (have stirred thee up), be they accursed before the Lord.—David here refers, as in 1Sa_24:10 [9], to the hostile party that calumniated him to Saul, and kindled Saul’s hatred against him. He sees no other way of escaping these dangers than flight to a heathen land. For they drive me away now; the emphasis is on the “to-day,” “now” (הַיּוֹם); “they have now brought it about that, to be safe, I must flee the country” (Then.). His present position is such that he must regard himself as one driven out of the country. That I cannot join myself to [Eng. A. V., abide in] the inheritance of the Lord, that is, I am excluded from association with the Lord’s inheritance (Bunsen). The Lord’s inheritance is the people of God, the covenant-people. Saying, Go, serve other gods, not that his enemies had actually given this order, “but David looked to deeds rather than words” (Calvin); their enmity drove him out as effectually as a command. David’s line of thought here is as follows: Only in the people Israel and in the land of promise has the covenant-God His dwelling, for there are all His revelations in respect to Israel; only there therefore, in the consecrated place of His dwelling can there be true worship of the Lord; outside this holy region of God’s revelation and dwelling among His people is the domain of strange gods; thither driven he sees everywhere inducement and temptation to “serve other gods.”—This is the ground of his wish and prayer in 1Sa_26:20 : And now, may my blood not fall to the ground far from the presence of the Lord, that is, may I be preserved from such a fate, namely, driven from the place of the Lord’s gracious presence and His people, to lose my life by violence afar off in the midst of an idolatrous people. The expression “far from the presence of the Lord,” and the preceding words show indeed David’s longing after the place of divine worship in the tabernacle, but contain nothing which necessarily points “to a later insertion of this section” (Then.), or, as Ewald affirms, echoes the “bitter lament of many who in the seventh century were banished by unrighteous kings like Manasseh.” The words are sufficiently explained by the pain that David felt at his fugitive life, which must now lead him to a foreign land, where he must wander or perhaps die far from association in divine worship with the people of God and from the place of supplication to God. Grotius wrongly: “in the presence of the Lord, God being witness and hereafter Avenger” [so Eng. A. V., and this rendering is grammatically defensible, though here perhaps not so appropriate as the other.—Tr.].—For the king of Israel is come out to seek a single flea, comp. 1Sa_24:15 [14]. Here too the “flea” sets forth what is insignificant in contrast with the king of Israel. The sense is: Thou pursuest me, who am as weak in respect to thee as a flea in respect to him who kills it. It is herein involved not only that it is not worth Saul’s while to pursue him (Then.), but also that it will be only too easy for the powerful king of Israel to conquer, him, the powerless, as one crushes a flea. So understood, the words satisfactorily give the reason for the preceding “Let not my blood fall,” which Then, wrongly calls in question. There is no reason for substituting for the text (“a flea”) the Sept. reading “my soul” (Then.), which, however, expresses the same thought, “Thou seekest to kill me” as the reason for the preceding. As one hunts a partridge in the mountains; an unnecessary difficulty is here made (Then.) by supposing that the comparison (seeking a flea) is itself compared with something else (hunting a partridge), which would certainly be unnatural and unexampled. But there is here rather a second comparison alongside of the first, and with the same meaning: Thou strivest to destroy me, the insignificant and powerless, in my isolation and abandonment. Thenius rejects the reading partridge (קֹרֵא), on the ground that the bird is found not in the mountains but in the plain, and accepts the Sept. “horn-owl” (הַכּוֹם), and further, regarding the designation of David as an insignificant person as here out of place, proposes to render: “as the owl hunts on the mountains;” but, to say nothing of this untenable supposition and of the unheard-of figure of the owl as a “hunter,” we reply simply with Winer in reference to the “partridge on the mountains:” “Partridges are usually not hunted on the mountains, since they stay in the fields. … But the text is not so absurd; … a single straying partridge on the mountains is not thought worth hunting, since they can be found in flocks in the plain” (Bib. R.-W. II. s. v.). (Also the German “Rebhuhn” [partridge] is derived from “rufen” [to call]. Bunsen.24) But from the connection and the words of David, who has before lamented his enforced separation from association with the people of Israel, the following thought also is expressed in this comparison, as in the other: Me, isolated from God’s people, far from all association, a fugitive from thy machinations on the mountain heights, thou seekest at all costs to destroy, as one hunts a single fugitive partridge on the mountains only to kill it at all costs, while otherwise from its insignificance it would not be hunted, since partridges are to be found in the field in flocks.—“This speech of David was thoroughly suited to sharpen Saul’s’ conscience and lead him to give up his enmity, if he still had an ear for the voice of truth” (Keil). While these words are similar to those in 1Sa_24:10-16 [9–15] (as natural from the similarity of the circumstances), the following essential differences yet exist. There David, in order to prove to Saul how unfounded his illusion is (namely, that David is seeking his life), shows him that his life was in his (David’s) hand, that he would not touch the Lord’s anointed but spared him; here, on the contrary, he calls Saul to account for his ceaseless persecution, represents to him that he is determined to destroy him who, compared with the mighty king, is insignificant, and presses him to abandon this purpose.
1Sa_26:21. To these words of David corresponds with precision Saul’s answer (1Sa_26:21), which is essentially different from that in 1Sa_24:18 [17]. With the confession: I have sinned, he joins the request that David would return, and the promise that he would no more do him evil, and adds as reason; because my life was precious in thy eyes this day.—[Keil thinks that Saul is less penitent, more hardened here than in chap. 24, and this shows the difference of the events; but Thenius and Bib. Comm. are right in declaring that Saul’s expression of sorrow and repentance is as decided here as in the former case. No good argument can be drawn from this for either view.—Tr.].
1Sa_26:22. David offers to return the spear and cruse, the sign that he had spared Saul’s life.
1Sa_26:23-24. These words attach themselves immediately to that silently eloquent proof of his guilelessness and pure disposition. Hebrews 1) declares himself to be a “man of righteousness and faithfulness,” and assigns as proof his sparing Saul’s life. (For בְּיָד read with all the vss. בְּיָדִי, the י might easily fall out on account of the following ו). Thenius holds this self-praise of David as proof that the section 1Sa_24:18-20 [17–19], where Saul praises and blesses David, is the original. But what is this alleged “self-praise” but the positive affirmation of what David says in 1Sa_24:12 [11] (regarded by Then, as original): “there is no evil in my hand and no iniquity, and I have not sinned against thee,” and in his confident appeal to God’s righteous judgment, 1Sa_26:13; 1Sa_26:16 [12, 15]? All that is the content of the idea “righteousness,” which he here, in contrast with Saul’s unrighteousness, applies to himself. And no more is it self-praise when he speaks of his faithfulness, but simply the expression of his reverence towards the Lord’s Anointed, in spite of Saul’s perfidious and injurious conduct.—The words “the Lord gave thee into my hand” include the thought: “Thereby did the Lord put me to the test.” This test David had stood, exhibiting “righteousness and faithfulness.” And therefore he can now 2) say in good conscience: The Lord will requite the man (namely, me) [Eng. A. V. better, “render to every man.”—Tr.]. The explanation of this assertion is given in 1Sa_26:24 : And behold, as thy life was much set by this day in my eyes, so will my life, etc., that is, the Lord will requite my righteousness and faithfulness towards thee in sparing thy life as the Lord’s Anointed, by so valuing my life as to save it from the dangers which thou preparest for it. It is difficult to see why (Thenius) such an expectation of the Lord’s protection and help, founded on a good conscience, is not genuinely Davidic, and therefore to be esteemed not original. Yet David here says nothing essentially different from what he declares in 1Sa_24:13; 1Sa_24:16 [12, 15] of the Lord as his judge, who will avenge him on Saul, give success to his cause, and save him from Saul’s hand. Stähelin’s remark (Leben David’s, p. 25), that David liked to praise himself like the Arabian heroes, is thoroughly wrong; for David everywhere gives God the highest praise, even where, as here, he affirms what is true of himself.—“All tribulation” (כָּל־צָרָה), all the straits which Saul would hereafter, as he knew, prepare for him. For Saul confesses indeed that he has done him wrong, and will no more work evil against him; but this, recollecting Saul’s instability and that former tearful promise of his [1Sa_24:16], he could regard only as the expression of a momentary better feeling; behind this he saw Saul’s unbroken heart, more and more hardened, which, when this gust of better feeling had passed over, would exhibit its old wickedness, yea, after the quenching of these better impulses and resolutions, must be all the more hardened.25
1Sa_26:25. Saul’s last word to David: “Blessed be thou, my son David; thou wilt both undertake and also fully perform, does not express a changed disposition, love instead of the old enmity, but the fleeting better feeling which David’s noble conduct had induced, and which compelled him to affirm that David would come victorious forth through the Lord’s help out of all the straits of his persecutions.—The content and character of Saul’s words in 1Sa_24:17-22 [Eng. 16–22] are very different from these, though both contain Saul’s confession of wrong. But the first time [24.] he makes his confession with tears, with acknowledgment of the fruitlessness of his attempts against David and the unavoidable transition of the kingdom to the latter, whom he adjures them to spare his family. But here his inward emotion is not nearly so strong and deep; he affirms merely that he is sorry for his former conduct, and will not repeat it. Keil is therefore right in saying that “he is evidently here already much more hardened.” And David went his way, and Saul returned to his place. Thus they parted forever. Berl.-B.: “Their souls were not at one; therefore they remained asunder.” It is worthy of note that it is not said of Saul, as 1Sa 24:23 [1Sa_24:22]: “He returned to his house.” This points to the fact that he continued his persecution of David, as also appears from the latter’s flight (hinted at in 1Sa_26:19-20) to the Philistines, where we find him in chap. 27. [It is not necessary to suppose that Saul continued his pursuit of David. David’s apprehension in 1Sa_27:1 was a general one, and very natural, even though Saul had returned home to his “place” in Gibeah.—Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The conception “that God incites to sin” in the Old Testament belongs to the same circle of thought as the idea, carried over by Paul into the New Testament, of man’s hardening in sin as a divine act. The hardening pertains only to the inner being, to heart and disposition (which becomes insusceptible to the influences of the divine word and Spirit), to the will, which persistently sets itself against God’s holy will, to the ethical habit of the whole personality, in which irreceptivity for good has become permanent in such wise that the capacity for free self-determination against the evil for the good has ceased. According to the law of His righteous moral government of the world, which punishes evil with evil, God abandons the man who shuts himself up against the invoking of the divine Spirit to the thereby engendered moral condition of inward hardening, sin becoming a factual necessity for him. The divine incitement to evil, on the other hand, refers to individual acts, as is shown by 1Sa_26:19 and the passages above cited, 2Sa_16:10 sq.; 1Sa_24:1 sq. The divine causation, however, consists not in God’s producing evil, which would he inconsistent with His holiness (comp. Jam_1:13), but in His occasioning the evil to break forth from the hidden depths of the heart and realize itself in deeds, though this need neither presuppose nor induce hardening, is rather intended to be the mean and avenue to the salvation and bettering of the sinner. Hengstenberg on Psa_51:6 : “Sin pertains, indeed, to man. He may always free himself from it by penitence. But if he does not repent, then the forms in which sin exhibits itself are no longer under his control, but under God’s dispensation, who determines them as pleases Him, as accords with the plan of His government of the world, for His own honor, and, so long as He is not absolutely rejected, for the good of the sinner. He puts the sinner in positions in which just this or that temptation specially assails him; He leads the thoughts to definite objects of sinful desire, and causes them there to remain and not pass on to others.” This divine incitement to sin presupposes the actual free determination of the will in respect to the sins to which the incitement pertains. In this connection O. v. Gerlach excellently remarks on 1Sa_26:19 : “That the Lord incites a man to sin … must always be the result of a conscious, cherished sin or sinful direction of the will, whence then come sins of deed for punishment, and also for the possible bettering of the man. In order to obviate this terrible punishment of sin by sin, David says Saul must again approach the Lord in an offering which atones for sin and restores the heart to the Lord.”
2. The inheritance = possession, property is the people of God in so far as He is their Lord, who has made them His people by choosing them out of the mass of the other nations to be the bearer and organ of His self-revelation, and has, made a covenant with them. Comp. Deu_1:29; Deu_4:20; Deu_9:26; Deu_9:29; Psa_28:9. The complete fulfilment of this idea of the peculiar people [= property-people] is found in the New Testament covenant-relation and the thence resulting association of men, who by Christ’s redemption and reconciliation have become God’s property; that is, [it is found] in the community of the kingdom in faith in Christ. The greatest evil David thinks to be exclusion from holy life-association with his God among idolaters. The greatest good for him is to belong to this property of God, and to this kingdom-community in the service of the living God. Therein is typically set forth the highest good which he who has become God’s property in Christ, finds in participation in God’s kingdom and its blessings.
3. There is a self-accusation which, like Saul’s confession of sin (1Sa_26:21), is far from true repentance, because it is based not on the broken heart and the abandoned self-will, but on a transient disposition and superficial emotion, and in the recognition of the impossibility of carrying out one’s own will over against the divine will, and there is wanting the earnestness of self-denial. In such a condition of soul, as Saul’s example shows, even these better impulses and superficial penitences gradually cease, and the judgment of hardening recedes with irretardable steps from repentance.
4. There is a self-assertion, as David’s example shows (1Sa_26:23-24), which not only, without becoming self-praise and self-glorification, in righteousness and faithfulness sets one in the true light against unjust accusation and enmity, for the sake of the Lord and His honor (in whose service the man knows himself to be), but also serves to affirm the moral worth of one’s own personality, and to maintain one’s real personal honor, which has its root in God’s service. One is not therein concerned with the affirmation of his own merits, but with the earnest, true declaration of the position which his inner life, in accordance with God’s demands, and through the power of His Spirit, occupies towards God in true piety. Conscious of such relation of heart to his God, the servant of God (as David knew himself to be over against his unjust persecutor, Saul) in tribulation and sufferings has the right to appeal to God’s righteous judgment, and with joyful confidence to look for His help and salvation promised to the righteous and innocent.
5. Among the Psalms of David it is particularly the 17 and 18 in which there is such clear expression of earnest, conscious power to affirm righteousness and innocence by reason of personal experience of ungodly enmity and divine deliverance, that we must at least suppose the recollection of Saul’s persecutions to be a concurring factor in them. In the title of Psalms 18 : “By the servant of the Lord, by David, who spake to the Lord the words of this Song in the day when the Lord had saved him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul,” the reference to Saul accords with essential features in the content of the Psalm according to the points of view above indicated, though the Psalm does not refer exclusively to the time of Saul (see on 2 Samuel 22). But it is beyond doubt that the whole content of Psalms 17. presupposes such a position and such experiences as are described here in chaps. 24 and 26; for individual portions set forth the same ideas and thoughts that David here expresses; in 1Sa_26:1-2; 1Sa_26:5 is contained a similar appeal, in part to his righteousness and faithfulness, in part to God’s righteous judgment, against the unrighteousness of His enemies; through the whole Psalm sounds the same tone of firm confidence in the Lord’s help and victorious conduct of the course of the righteous against their enemies. Here, too, the experiences of the Sauline Period show themselves as the fruitful soil of David’s psalm-poetry.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa_26:1. Cramer: The temporal good fortune of pious men often does not last long; ere one expects it, the cross is again before their door. Therefore boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. Pro_27:1
1Sa_26:2-3. Hedinger (from Hall): Good motions that fall into wicked hearts are like some sparks that fall from the flint and steel into wet tinder, lightsome for the time but soon out. 1Sa_24:17—Berl. B.: Ah Saul, thou deceivedst thyself, God is stronger than thou, and thou wilt only be an occasion for new victories.
1Sa_26:5 sq. Schlier: Saul is in peril of his life; to human eyes he is lost. And who has cast him into such peril? Who else than himself? His hatred, with which he anew persecuted David. From this we should learn how constantly sin is the ruin of men. He who does evil, always does himself the greatest hurt.—[1Sa_26:8. Our best friend becomes our worst enemy, when he would persuade us to do wrong. Comp. Mat_16:23—Tr.].
1Sa_26:10-11. Hedinger: Love and righteousness in a pious man’s heart is invincible. [1Sa_26:9-11. Henry: David gives two reasons why he would not destroy Saul, nor permit another to do it. 1. It would be a sinful affront to God’s ordinance. Saul was the Lord’s anointed king of Israel. … No man could resist him and be guiltless; the thing David feared was guilt, and his concern respected his innocence more than his safety. 2. It would be a sinful anticipation of God’s providence; God had sufficiently showed him, in Nabal’s case, that if he left it to Him to do right He would do it in due time.… Thus bravely does he prefer his conscience to his interest, and trust God with the issue.—Tr.
1Sa_26:12 sq. Osiander: Even though opportunity for revenge is given us, yet we should not avenge ourselves, but commit vengeance to God.—Schlier: God grant that we may all learn to love our enemies, that we may learn to requite evil with good! For this is certain: hatred excites strife; but love helps mightily to peace, and overcomes much evil.
1Sa_26:14. Starke: Even in cross and persecution one should rejoice and be of good courage.
1Sa_26:20. S. Schmid: The feebler and more powerless the pious are under trouble and persecution, the more they may lean on God’s support.
1Sa_26:21. Berl. B.: Nothing can more soften a hard disposition than humility and gentleness.—There is no sinner so hardened but God sends him now and then a ray of illumination to show him all his error. But ah! when they are awakened by such divine movings, it is only for some moments; and such a movement is scarcely past ere they fall back at once into their former life, and forget again all that they had promised.—Starke: Although the ungodly sometimes appear as if they wished to turn and become pious, yet they soon fall off again and go on again in their ungodliness.—Schlier: Even if we here and there lightly make a confession of our faults, how is it as to a downright confession of sin in the sight of God? Has God’s goodness led us to repentance? Has His compassion opened our heart? O let us not turn the long-suffering of God into lasciviousness.—Starke: Truly penitent sinners must confess their sins, ask forgiveness, and promise amendment, and this not hypocritically but in all sincerity (Mat_19:16). [“I have sinned.” Spurgeon has a sermon (Am. Ed., Third Series) upon this confession as made by seven different persons in the Bible.—Tr.].
1Sa_26:23. God is righteous; a believing soul recognizes that to its consolation.
1Sa_26:24. Osiander: Just as God punishes one barbarity through another, so He rewards benefits with benefits. Seb. Schmid: No one is greater than he whose soul is much set by in the eyes of God.
1Sa_26:25. Cramer: Horrible wickedness, to know one thing and do another, and thus knowingly to kick against the pricks.—The ungodly must often be their own prophets. Pro_10:24—Seb. Schmid: When the enemies and persecutors of the pious have long enough raged and striven against the will of God, they must at last against their will yield the victory to God and the pious. [Taylor: So far as we know, this was the last meeting between Saul and David; and it is pleasing to think that after all that had occurred, Saul’s latest utterance to him was one of benediction; at once a vindication of David’s conduct in the past, and a forecast of his glory in the future. Verily, the Psalmist was speaking from his own experience when he said, “commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass. And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.”—Tr.]
[1Sa_26:15. “Art thou a man?” True men exhorted not to act unworthily of their manhood.—Tr.]
[1Sa_26:21. “I have played the fool.” 1) In listening to slanderers against an innocent man (1Sa_26:19, comp. 1Sa_24:9). 2) In opposing a man who evidently must succeed (1Sa_26:25). 3) In resisting the known designs of Providence (1Sa_24:20, comp. 1Sa_23:17). 4) In renewing a wrong already confessed and temporarily forsaken (1Sa_24:16-22). Remark: One may confess his folly and take no step towards becoming wiser. The benefit of such a confession depends upon whether it is made in bitterness or in humility.—Tr.]
[Upon this chapter in general, comp. above on chap. 24—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa_26:1. Here, as in 1Sa_23:19, there is diversity of spelling, Syr. and Arab. having “Havilah,” and some MSS. and Edd. “Habilah;” but the Heb. text seems preferable.—Tr.]
[2][1Sa_26:1. The Rel. is supplied in 1Sa_26:3 and in 1Sa_23:19, and is involved in the connection. For הַיְשִׁימוֹן Aq. has τῆς ἠφανισμένης, as if from שָׁמַם, “the desolated,” and Sym. ἐρήμου, “the desert.”—Tr.]
[3][1Sa_26:4. Instead of אֶל־נָכוֹן, Ewald would read אֶל־נֶקֹר מְעָרָה, “into the fissure of a cave,” partly after the Sept. Κεϊλά, or, as Thenius affirms, for the purpose of introducing here a trace of his alleged “original narrative,” though the context shows that Saul was not in a cave, but in a wagon-rampart (1Sa_26:5). The text-phrase occurs in 1Sa_23:23 in the sense “certainly,” and is quite intelligible here, though, as Wellhausen remarks, its position is strange, we should expect it after וַיֵּדַע, while after בָא שָׁאוּל we should look for the name of the place to which Saul goes. The Sept. gives not only ἕτοιμος, but also the place from which Saul comes, ἐκ Κεἴλα, which throws no light on the sense; Vulg. and Chald. support the Heb., and Syr. and Arab. render “after him,” “to him.” On the whole there does not seem sufficient reason for altering the text; the VSS. testify that there was something after שָׁאוּל, and nothing better than this offers itself.—Tr.]
[4][1Sa_26:5. As in 1Sa_17:29. Here the VSS. vary greatly, some laying hold of the idea of the Heb. verb (עגל) “round” (Aq., Sym., στρογγυλώσις, another reading of Aq. κάμπη), others giving it as chariot (Sept. λαμπήνη), Sym. (σκηνή) and Vulg. (tentorium) thence passing to the notion of “tent,” while Syr. and Vulg. take the ordinary meaning of the word “way.” Bib. Com. proposes (without ground) to read מְעִיל, and thus bring this passage into accordance with 1Sa_24:5.—Tr.]
[5][1Sa_26:7. “The place at his head,” see on 1Sa_19:13. Derive from מְרֶאשֶׁת.—Tr.]
[6][1Sa_26:8. Sept. κύριος, Jahveh. This variation in the divine names may be error in the Sept., or it may be from variation in manuscripts; there is no decisive internal reason for the use of one name rather than the other.—Tr.]
[7][1Sa_26:8. So the Qeri (Kethib is plural), which is found in the text of several MSS. and Edd.—Tr.]
[8][1Sa_26:8. The Heb. construction: “with the spear and in the ground,” is unusual; from 1Sa_17:11; 1Sa_19:10, we should expect: “with the spear in him and in the ground” (Wellh.).—Tr.]
[9][1Sa_26:9. Sept.: “humble (שׁחה) him not;” here inappropriate.—Tr.]
[10][1Sa_26:11. Literally: “be it a profane thing to me from Jehovah,” Erdmann “on Jehovah’s account,” or, it may be “by, through Jehovah” (as in Eng. A. V.).—Tr.]
[11][1Sa_26:12. The form is variously explained (מֵרַאֲשֹׁתֵי), some taking it for מִמּר׳, one Mem falling out (so Erdmann), others from a noun רֶאשֶׁת (so Fürst). In any case we have to suppose the presence of the Prep. מִן.—Tr.]
[12][1Sa_26:12. This word (תַּרדֵּמָה) is used only a few times in the Old Testament, and apparently of a supernatural sleep. In prose it occurs, besides here, only in Gen_2:21; Gen_15:12, in both which places the sleep is supernatural. So in Job, Eliphaz (1Sa_4:13) and Elihu (Job_33:15) refer to revelations from God, and in Isa_29:10 the רוּהַ תַּרְדֵּמָה is a divine judicial infliction. Even in Pro_19:15 the “deep sleep,” which is the result of slothfulness, is viewed, from the connection, as a part of God’s moral government of men. A distinctly supernatural sleep would, therefore, seem to be here intended. This is the general feeling of the Greek rendering of the word (Sept. θάμβος, Aq. καταφορά, Sym. κάρος, Theod. ἔκστασις); Syr, Arab., Vulg., Chald., render “sleep;” Sam. Vers. gives תּנוּמת “sleep,” in Gen_15:12, and in 1Sa_2:21 פילוּקא, compared by Uhlemann with Rabb. הַפְלָנָה (hyperbole) in sense of “ecstasy,” but comp. Talm. פַּלֵק, “bind,” hence, perhaps, “a binding sleep.—Tr.]
[13][1Sa_26:15. The Adj. is understood, though not expressed, in Heb. as in English.—Tr.]
[14][1Sa_26:16. On the construction see Erdmann. The אֵת might be regarded an emphatic sign introducing the second thing mentioned, which might then be in the Acc.: “and as to the cruse.” The Vulg. inserts a second “where?” the Sept. omits it where the Heb. has it—two ways of smoothing over the difficulty of the construction.—Tr.]
[15][1Sa_26:19. Literally: “from joining myself to” (Ges.). So Aq. ἄπτεσθαι, Sym. συνδυάςεθαὶ, Sept. μὴ ἐστηρίγθαι—Tr.]
[16][1Sa_26:20. Or, “a single flea,” as in 1Sa_24:15. This repetition is somewhat surprising, and the Sept. reading “my soul” seems better. The repetition of the phrase would enter into the question whether we are to suppose two betrayals by the Ziphites, or only two accounts of the same betrayal.—Tr.]
[17][1Sa_26:21. Syr., Arab. and 2 MSS. have “Saul said to David.”—Tr.]
[18][1Sa_26:22. The Art. with חֲנִית (om. in Qeri) in stat. const. is strange, but not impossible, especially where the defining noun is comparatively insignificant, or the defined is to be brought out more prominently, as here. See Ew., § 290 d, Philippi, “Stat. Const. im Heb.,” p. 36 sq.—Tr.]
[19][1Sa_26:23. The insertion of the suffix is supported by many VSS., MSS. and EDD.—Tr.]
[20][We should, however, expect an indication of the repetition of the occurrence by some such phrase as “the Ziphites came again to Saul,” and the absence of such indication is one of those delicate features which favor the supposition of a single occurrence, while, on the other hand, the argument for two occurrences, as given by Erdmann and others, cannot be considered a weak one.—Tr.]
[21][The proposal of Bib.-Com. to read מְעִיל, “garment,” and represent Saul as sleeping in his garment, as in 1Sa_24:5 [4], is an unfounded conjecture, and the assimilation of the two accounts in this way can be effected only by a violent reconstruction of the narratives, the necessity for which is a serious objection to the supposition of one occurrence.—Tr.]
[22]In מֵרַאֲשֹׁתֵי remark 1) the double Plu. וֹת and –יִם, especially the stat. constr. form –יֵ, Ges. § 87, 5, Rem. 1; Ewald, § 160 b and Anm. 2, § 211 d; 2) מֵ for מִמְ—one מ having fallen out.
[23][Bib. Com. “This incidental testimony to Abner’s eminence as a warrior is borne out by his whole history. At the same time David’s bantering tone, coupled with 1Sa_26:19, makes it probable that David considered Abner his enemy; the latter’s great influence with Saul might have prevented the persecution of David. Abner may have feared David as a rival; his opposition to him is shown by his conduct after Saul’s death.” But all this may be explained also by Abner’s devoted loyalty to his kinsman Saul.—Tr.]
[24][The Heb. word for “partridge,” gore means “the caller,” and so perhaps the Eng. “quail.” Pictet (Orig. Indoe europ.) thinks that rebhuhn=“speckled bird,” and perdix, partridge has perhaps the same meaning.—Tr.]
[25][Bib.-Com remarks that the sentiment here ascribed to David is put into Saul’s mouth in 1Sa_24:17-19 [Heb. 18–20], and that (supposing the same event related in 24 and 26) a parallel case is found in Mat_21:41, and Luk_20:16. However this does not favor the supposition of one event, for as in the Gospels both Jesus and His hearers may have said on the same occasion what is reported, so here Saul may have said at one time what David said at another.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 25 David . . . sent out spies . .…
David . . . sent out spies . . . and David arose, and came to the place where Saul had pitched--Having obtained certain information of the locality, he seems, accompanied by his nephew (Sa1 26:6), to have hid himself, perhaps disguised, in a neighboring wood, or hill, on the skirts of the royal camp towards night, and waited to approach it under covert of the darkness.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 25 THE ZIPHITES’ SECOND ATTEMPT TO BETRAY DAVID, 1Sa_26:1-5.
THE ZIPHITES’ SECOND ATTEMPT TO BETRAY DAVID, 1Sa_26:1-5.
1. Ziphites… Hachilah… Jeshimon — See notes on 1Sa_23:14; 1Sa_23:19. The assumption of certain critics, that because this account resembles the one in chap. 23 it is therefore one and the same, is unworthy of serious attempt at refutation. In their argument the major premise is: Whenever two narratives resemble each other they must always be regarded as based upon the same identical facts!
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Ch. 1Sa_26:1-4. Saul’s renewed pursuit of David
Ch. 1Sa_26:1-4. Saul’s renewed pursuit of David
1. And the Ziphites came] On the theory that this is only another account of the incidents related in 1Sa_23:19 to 1Sa_24:22, see Note VII. p. 243. The view there taken that the narratives refer to different events, is assumed in the notes.
Read full note →
Psalms 54 is referred by its title either to this occasion or to that of 1Sa_23:19 ff.
the hill of Hachilah] See on 1Sa_23:19.
is before Jeshimon] Looketh towards the Waste. See on 1Sa_23:19, where the position of the hill of Hachilah is more particularly defined as “on the south of the Waste.”
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 (1) The Ziphites came unto Saul.—There is grave difficulty…
(1) The Ziphites came unto Saul.—There is grave difficulty connected with the recital contained in this chapter. Is it another account of the incident told in 1 Samuel 24, 26 by a different narrator? This is the opinion of some modern expositors of weight: for instance, Ewald and the Bishop of Bath and Wells in the Speaker’s Commentary. The question at issue is as follows:—We have in this First Book of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 23, 24, 26, two recitals of David sparing his great adversary’s life, at first sight under very similar circumstances. For instance: in both these occurrences (1) it is the same people, the Ziphites, who call Saul’s attention to David’s presence in their neighbourhood; (2) in both, Saul comes from Gibeah with the same number of men, 3,000; (3) the general bearing of the incident is identical in both—viz., the persuasions of David’s followers to induce their leader to take Saul’s life when in his power resisted by the noble-minded chieftain; the taking of something personal by David from the sleeping king, as a proof that the royal life had been in his hands; the sequel, which describes the heartfelt temporary repentance of Saul for the past. But here the resemblance ends. The circumstances of the night raid by David and his companions into the camp of the sleeping Saul are, when examined closely, so entirely different from the circumstances of the midday siesta of Saul in the En-gedi cavern, where David and his band were dwelling, that it is really impossible to assume that they are versions of one and the same incident. We conclude, therefore, with some certainty, that the accounts contained in 1 Samuel 23, 24, , 26 refer to two distinct and separate events; and so Keil, Erdmann and Lange, Dean Payne Smith in the Pulpit Commentary, Wordsworth, &c. Bishop Hervey, in the Speaker’s Commentary, is, however, supported in his hypothesis of the two accounts referring to only one incident by Ewald, De Wette, and others. In the course of this exposition, the more striking agreements and divergencies will be discussed.
There remains, however, a still graver question to be considered, the gravity and difficulty of which remains the same whether we assume, as we propose to do, that twice in the course of the outlaw life of David the king’s life was in his power, or that only once David stood over the sleeping king, sword in hand, and that the two accounts refer to one and the same event—For what purpose did the compiler of the First Book of Samuel insert in his narrative this twenty-sixth chapter—where either the old story of 1 Samuel 23, 24 is repeated with certain variations, or else an incident of a similar nature to one which has been told before in careful detail is repeated at great length? To this important question no perfectly satisfactory reply can be given. The object of one such recital in an account of the early life of the great founder of Israelitic greatness is clear, but we may well ask why was a second narrative of an incident of like nature inserted in a book where conciseness is ever so carefully studied? All we can suggest is, that everything which conduced to the glory of the favourite hero of Israel was of the deepest interest to the people, and the surpassing nobility and generosity of the magnanimity of David to his deadly foe was deemed worthy of these detailed accounts even in the necessarily brief compilation of the inspired writer of the history of this time.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25 SAUL, ON INFORMATION FROM THE ZIPHITES, AGAIN SEEKS TO…
SAUL, ON INFORMATION FROM THE ZIPHITES, AGAIN SEEKS TO DESTROY DAVID (vers. 1-3).
The Ziphites came unto Saul. There are so many points of similarity between this narrative and that contained in 1Sa_23:19-24 1Sa_24:1-22, that it has been argued that in these two accounts we have substantially the same fact, only modified by two different popular traditions, and not recorded until a late subsequent period, at which the narrator, unable to decide which was the true form of the story, determined upon giving both. The main points of similarity are
Read full note →
(1) The treachery of the Ziphites. (1Sa_26:1 1Sa_23:19)
(2) David"s position in the hill Hachilah. (1Sa_26:1, 3 23:19)
(3) Saul"s march with 3000 men. (1Sa_26:2 1Sa_24:2)
(4) The speech of David"s men. (1Sa_24:4 1Sa_26:8)
(5) David"s refusal to lay hands on the anointed of Jehovah. (1Sa_24:6 1Sa_26:9, 1Sa_26:11)
(6) Saul"s recognition of David"s voice. (1Sa_24:16 1Sa_26:17)
(7) David"s comparison of himself to a flea. (1Sa_24:14 1Sa_26:20)
Besides these there are several remarkable verbal coincidences; but some other matters which have been enumerated are either such as must have happened, supposing the two events to have occurred, or are even points of difference. Of these there are many. Thus the first occasion on which David spared Saul"s life was in a cave at En-gedi; the latter was in Saul"s entrenched comp. In this second narrative David"s return to Maon was the natural result of his marriage with Abigail, and when the Ziphites report his presence there to Saul, which they were sure to do for fear of David"s vengeance for their former betrayal of him, he awaits Saul"s attack, whereas before he fled in haste, and was saved for the moment by the wonderful ravine which Conder has so unmistakably verified, (see on 1Sa_23:26) and finally by an invasion of the Philistines. Mr. Conder"s visit to the ground, and the way in which the difficulties in the previous narrative are cleared up by what he saw, sets the historical credibility of that account above all reasonable doubt. Had there been a mountain between David and his pursuers, he would have been safe enough; but as it was he was in full sight of his enemies, and the ravine alone enabled him to escape from Saul"s vengeance. The number of Saul"s army, 3000, was the number of the chosen men whom he always had in attendance upon him; (1Sa_13:2) and it is Saul who encamps on the hill Hachilah, while David, instead of being all but caught as before, had scouts to watch Saul"s movements, and was himself safe in the wilderness on the south. On the previous occasion Saul had withdrawn from his men, but here he lies in his camp surrounded by them, when David, accompanied only by Abishai, undertakes this bold enterprise, which was entirely in accordance with his growing sense of security. The argument, moreover, that Saul must have been a "moral monster" thus to seek David"s life after his generous conduct towards him keeps out of view the fact that Saul was scarcely accountable for his actions. We have seen that he was subject to fits of madness, and that the form which it took was that of deadly hatred against David. Even this was but a form of the ruling passion which underlies all Saul"s actions, namely, an extreme jealousy of everything that in the slightest degree seemed to trench upon his royal prerogative and supremacy. To what an extreme length his ferocity was capable of proceeding in punishing what he regarded as an overt act of resistance to his authority we have seen in the account of the massacre of the priests at Nob with their wives and children. (1Sa_22:18, 1Sa_22:19) No worse act is recorded of any man in history, and we may hope that Saul would not have committed such a crime had not his mental faculties been disturbed. Nor was Saul alone in his estimate of what was due to him as Jehovah"s Messiah; David had equally high views of Saul"s rights and position, and regarded them as fenced in by religious sanctions. But in Saul"s case the passion had grown till it had become a monomania, and as he brooded over his relations to David, and thought of him as one that was to usurp his crown, and was already a rebel and an outlaw, the sure result was the return of his hatred against David, and when news was brought him that his enemy was so near, he gladly welcomed another opportunity of getting him into his power. On the hill of Hachilah. See 1Sa_23:19. It is there said to be "on the right hand," but here "over against," i.e. facing the desert which lies on the northeastern coast of the Dead Sea.
HOMILETICS.
Vers. 1-12.
The moral use of Biblical difficulties.
The facts are
1. At the request of the Ziphites, Saul goes out in pursuit of David, who by spies ascertains his true position.
2. David, observing Saul"s camp, goes to it by night with Abishai while all are asleep.
3. Abishai urges David to seize the opportunity to slay Saul, but is rebuked by the declaration that if Saul dies it shall be in such way as God may ordain, and not by the self-chosen hand of David.
4. David carries off Saul"s spear and cruse of water. Expositors raise thequestion as to whether this narrative is identical in point of time and main circumstance with that of 1Sa_23:19-26 1Sa_24:1-15. That question is dealt with elsewhere. Our business is with the fact of the difficulty and with the teaching it involves. We may therefore consider
I THE MORAL USE OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The difficulty raised in reference to this section is only one of a class on which for ages much ingenuity and learning have been spent, and which have been the occasion of no little trouble and anxiety to certain minds in consequence of their supposed bearing on the reality of revelation and the authority of Scripture. The enemies of Christianity have not been slow to take advantage of any apparent discrepancies or confused statements. The following considerations may be of service from a practical point of view:
1. These various difficulties teach us the vanity of our wisdom in relation to the unfolding of the purposes of God. God has certainly revealed his will to mankind, and wrought out a merciful purpose in Christ. None but those who reject plainest evidence can doubt that he has been pleased to give this revelation concerning his merciful purpose in the Bible as we have it. The presence of variations in narrative, as here and in Genesis 1 and 2, and in the Gospels, is the fact which causes great perplexity. Now had we the construction of a vehicle of revelation intended for man, our wisdom would have suggested its freedom from all such difficulties to its reception. Is not this the real feeling of many? Man would have left no room for
2. hesitation. All should have been so clear that no adverse criticism should be possible. Facts, however, are against this wisdom. It is shown to be inadequate to deal with the vast problems of universal life. God"s ways are not our ways.
3. These difficulties enable us to believe in the honesty of the writers of the sacred history. As soon as our wisdom is assessed we discern in the variations and free representations of the same or similar events clear evidence that the book could not have been the work of cunning men intent on making out a consistent theory of their own. For such men would have made each document to square in detail with the one preceding, and compilers intent on furthering a theory handed down by tradition would have been careful to exclude all separate documents not manifestly coherent with others.
1. We can use the Bible, with these variations in it, with deeper interest because of the intensely human character of its narratives. Had all been so sifted and reduced to such mathematical precision and sameness of statement as to eliminate any possible appearance of discrepancy, we should have felt the non-human character of the historic record. As it is, we see human life in its pages, and trace human idiosyncracies in its varieties of representation, and as "one touch of nature makes the whole world kin," so this human element in the Bible lays hold of men, and excites in them a greater interest in its narratives.
2. The careful reader also, by means of these variations, sees in stronger light the one spiritual purpose running through the whole. The great revelation of God in Christ is more conspicuous in its oneness and continuity by reason of the very diversities and sometimes irreconcilable differences of the narrative. Our appreciation of the spiritual is the higher because we see that not one great truth is in the slightest degree affected by any verbal, chronological, or historical difficulties. Admit them all, if need be, and the real saving truth is as clear as the sun at noonday.
3. The difficulties in question are a means of wholesome discipline. All historic studies furnish scope for the exercise of caution, discrimination, patience, reticence, and suspended judgment because of the necessary incompleteness of all historic records. This is especially true of the Bible, the more so as we do not always know the particular reason of the selection or omission of items, while we do know that we have not a thousandth part of the actual events associated with the unfolding in the long line of human history of the great purpose of God in Christ. The light thrown on obscure passages by advancing discoveries is an additional reason for the exercise of patience and cautious reserve. God is educating us by the intricate lessons, written often with an appearance of confusion, in the rocks that form the crust of the globe; and likewise in the peculiar manner in which he has been pleased to allow his revelation to man to be incorporated by human hands with narratives of events.
II THE SPECIAL TRUTH EMBODIED IN THE FACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE DIFFICULTY OF THIS SECTION. The object of the narrative is evidently to point out that David was under a strong temptation to forestall the order of Providence by forcing events with his own hand, and that he, with true spiritual heroism, resisted the suggestions of expediency. As we have dwelt on this topic in treating of 1Sa_24:1-8, and 1Sa_25:36-44, it may suffice here to note how, in this triple reference to the same form of trial, the historian was impressed with the persistence of this peculiar temptation during this period of David s life. Doubtless other unrecorded instances of the same, in one form or another, occurred during the period of his persecution, but these three representations are enough to indicate the fact. The persistence of the temptation to desire the disposal of events to be in our own hands, by wishing something to be done which God does not do, or to take the disposal into our hands by actually doing what is not warranted by religious principle, but only by the rules of a contracted expediency, is real in the lives of many of God"s servants. Our Saviour himself was tempted to it again and again. There is a hypothesis that even Judas was induced to betray Christ to force him to assert his power, and so hasten the establishment of his kingdom. The trims of the persecuted Church suggested the expediency of rising in armed endeavour to defend and extend their principles. The slow progress of Christianity suggests to some the adoption of methods other than apostolic. The safe rule for us is that of David God carries on his cause on earth according to laws which he himself has ordained, and no improvement can be made on them, even though their working appears to us to be too slow and painful. Saul was anointed by God"s command; David was chosen to succeed Saul He who appointed Saul had power to end his life; till he did this of his own will, and in his own way, David must wait as the coming king. So the laws of the human mind, of the social forces at work in the world, and of the spiritual agencies that operate on the soul of man are of God; the cause of Christ among men is to be established by action in harmony with these; we are to resist any temptation to seek to set them aside by the introduction of agencies not spiritual, and are not to wish that other agencies operating according to other laws were in existence. The principle of living and acting according to law will also apply to private life and enterprise.
General lessons:
1. A reverent spirit will prove a good solvent of many Biblical difficulties,and will extract many lessons from them.
2. Where there is not concern for spiritual life the verbal and historicaldifficulties of the Bible will not assume great importance.
3. It is a matter of gratitude that the way of life is clear to the mostunlettered of men. (Isa_35:8)
4. While we are waiting and doing our best as God"s servants, hisprovidence is quietly at work to realise the purpose of our life.
5. In dealing with men who urge expediency, it is safe to appeal to God"sword and his unceasing government of men.
6. No man ever regretted fidelity to principle; many have mourned over thebitter fruits of expediency.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-12. (THE HILL OF HACHILAH.)
The man worthy of the sceptre.
David took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul"s bolster" (ver. 12).
1. David"s innocence with respect to any evil design against Saul was fully vindicated at their previous meeting. Saul himself was melted to tears, confessed, "Thou art more righteous than I," etc., prayed that the Lord might reward his preserver, and declared, "I know well that thou shalt surely be king"; (1Sa_24:17-20) but his insincerity, instability, and. perversity were such that as soon as he was informed by the treacherous Ziphites that David was again in the hill of Hachilah, (1Sa_23:19) he started in pursuit with his 3000 men. (1Sa_13:2) His sin was now greater than before because of its opposition to his clearer conviction of the integrity of David and the purpose of God, and there are indications in this interview of the increased obduracy of his heart.
1. The aim of David is not so much to afford a further vindication ofhimself as to stay the persecution of Saul, and induce him to act in accordance with his former confession (ver. 18). For this purpose he proves to him that although he might have the power to deprive him of his authority and life, he has no wish to do so, and is his most faithful guardian (ver. 16); appeals to his best feelings, and warns him that he is fighting against God and exposing himself to his righteous judgment. He takes away his spear sceptre (an emblem of royal authority Gen_49:10;
2. (Num_24:17; Psa_45:6) and his cruse of water (a necessary sustenance of life , (1Sa_25:11) but only to restore them into his hand (ver. 22).
3. In acting thus David shows his incomparable superiority to Saul, and that he alone is worthy to reign over Israel, even as he has been ordained to succeed to that exalted dignity. "Behold now, once more, our David, as he goes away with Saul"s spear, the emblem of his sovereign power. At that moment he presents a symbolically significant appearance. Unconsciously he prophesied of his own future, while he stands before us as the projected shadow of that form in which we must one day behold him. In the counsel of the invisible Watcher it was indeed irrevocably concluded that the Bethlehemite should inherit Saul"s sceptre, and here we see before us a dim pre-intimation of that fact" (Krummacher). As the man most worthy to rule, and furnishing in some respects a pattern to others, he was distinguished (see 1Sa_13:14) by
I PRE-EMINENT ABILITY (vers. 4-7). In the enterprise which he undertook during the night (either with the express intention of doing what he did, or from some internal impulse) he displayed those qualities for which Saul and his ablest general, Abner, were noted, and in a higher degree than they, viz.
1. Sagacity, skill, (Psa_78:72) and practical wisdom; perceiving what was defective in the condition of his adversaries and how to take advantage of it. Tact, although by no means one of the highest mental endowments, is an indispensable qualification in a successful ruler.
2. Vigilance. His experiences in the desert had taught him to be ever on the alert, and he watched while others slept (vers. 4, 16).
3. Courage. "Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp?" (ver. 6). Even the brave Hittite dared not accept the challenge, and only Abishai (afterwards David"s pre-server (2Sa_21:17) would accompany him. They went fearlessly (like Jonathan and his armour bearer) right into the midst of danger.
4. Energy and activity, by which alone he could achieve success. Mental and physical strength is of God, should be ascribed to him and employed for him.
For by thee I can scatter a troop, And by my God do I break down walls; Who maketh my feet like hinds" feet, And setteth me on my high places; Who traineth my hands for war, So that mine arms can bend a bow of brass". (Perowne) (Psa_18:29, Psa_18:33)
II LOWLY REVERENCE, submission, and obedience. "The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord"s anointed" (ver. 11; 1Sa_24:6) There was in David (as there should be in others)
1. An unbounded reverence for God as the source of power, justice, order, and all excellence. This was the principle from which his conduct toward Saul proceeded.
2. Profound respect for every authority ordained by God. Saul had been anointed king, and was still openly reigning by Divine permission (his rejection having been only privately declared to him); his person was therefore regarded by David as sacred. "Liable as the Israelite kings were to interference on the part of priest and prophet, they were, by the same Divine power, shielded from the unholy hands of the profane vulgar; and it was at once impiety and rebellion to do injury to the Lord"s anointed" (Kitto, "Cyc. of Bib. Lit."). "He gives two reasons why he would not destroy Saul, nor permit another to do it:
1. It would be a sinful affront to God"s ordinance.
2. It would be a sinful anticipation of God"s providence" (M. Henry).
3. Due subordination of the claims of every such authority to the claims of God; which both rulers and subjects, who have proper reverence for him, must observe.
4 . Entire subjection of personal impulses, purposes, and aims to the will of God, in the assurance that he will" render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness" (ver. 23). "Commit thy way unto the Lord," etc. (Psa_37:5-9)
III NOBLE GENEROSITY. "Destroy him not," etc. vers. 8-11 Ps 57., inscription, Altaschith = Destroy not; (see Hengstenberg) The opportunity of slaying his enemy was again placed in his hands, and in sparing him a second time David showed still greater forbearance than before, because of
1. The renewed persecution to which he was subjected, and the increasedhopelessness of turning Saul from his purpose. "I say not unto thee, Until seven times," etc.. (Mat_18:22-35)
2. The peculiar circumstances of the case. He was there alone with Abishai in the night, and his companion entreated that he might be permitted to give but one stroke (ver. 8). None else would witness the deed. Moral restraint alone prevented his permission of it.
3. His not entertaining the temptation for a moment; even the thought of itcould find no place in his breast. Recent experience had evidently strengthened his spirit. (1Sa_25:32)
4. His fixed determination to leave the matter entirely with God (ver. 10)."it is evident that David"s faith in God was one of the great roots out of which all these fruits of forbearance and compassion grew. He was confident that God would in his own way and in his own time fulfil the promises which had been made, and, therefore, instead of taking the matter into his own hands, he could rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him" (C. Vince). And he alone who will exercise power in mercy as well as in justice is worthy to have it intrusted to him.
IV DIVINE APPROVAL. "A deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them" (ver. 12), indicative of the fact that the Lord 6, favoured David"s enterprise." He was providentially preserved from harm, and this, along with many other circumstances (all concurring with his eminent personal qualifications), manifested it to be the will of God that he should rule over his people. The sceptre which he had no desire to wrest from the hand of Saul would be given to him by the hand of God, and be "a sceptre of uprightness." The highest realisation of these principles appears in One greater than David, and alone "worthy to receive" the sceptre of universal dominion (1Sa_2:10; 2Sa_23:2; Php_2:9; Heb_1:8; Rev_5:5, Rev_5:12) D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 7, 9, 21 Doth not David hide himself in the hill of…
1Sa_26:1-25
Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah.
Read full note →
The reproach of the enemy
Dr. Maclaren is specially emphatic in connecting Psa_7:1-17 with this part of Davids history, and indicates its value in helping us to understand the rapid vacillations is Sauls behaviour.
1. It is headed Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord. That is, it is an irregular ode; like a stream broken over a bed of rocks and stones, expressing by its uneven measure and sudden changes the emotion of its author. We have often to sing these Shiggaion metres; our songs are frequently broken with sighs and groans.
Happy are they who can find themes for singing to the Lord in every sad and bitter experience!
2. The title proceeds, concerning the words of Cush, a Benjamite. Who was this Cush? The word means black. It may possibly refer to the colour of the skin and hair, and been given as a familiar designation to some swarthy Benjamite. Some have supposed that it was Davids title for Saul. Others have referred it to Shimei, the Benjamite, whose furious abuse of the king, in the hour of his calamity, elicited such plaintive resignation from him, such passionate resentment from Abishai. If the psalm be carefully examined, it will be found to hear a close resemblance to the words spoken by David, when Saul and he held the brief colloquy outside the cave at Engedi, and afterwards at the hill Hachilah. On comparison of psalm and narrative it seems more than likely that, Cush was one of Sauls intimate friends and constant companions, and that he was incessantly at work poisoning the kings mind with malignant and deliberate falsehoods about David.
I. Search your heart to see if these slanders have foundation in fact. Perhaps those quick, envious eyes have discerned weaknesses in your character, of which your closest friends are aware, but they have shrunk from telling you.
II. If there is no basis for them, rejoice! How thankful we should be that God has kept us from being actually guilty of the things whereof we are accused! We might have clone them, and worse.
III. Take shelter in the righteous judgment of God. We are his servants, and if He is satisfied with us, why should we break our hearts over what our fellow servants say? It is, after all, but a small matter with us to be judged of mans judgment.
IV. Abjure more completely the carnal life. Why do we smart under these unkind and slanderous words, which are as baseless as uncharitable? Is it not because we set too high a value upon the favour and applause of men?
V. Leave God to vindicate your good name. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 The fact that the incidents related in this chapter…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
The fact that the incidents related in this chapter agree in some points with those narrated in chapters 23; 24 has led Ewald, Thenius, and others to conclude that the historian has given two accounts of the same event. But a writer who could thus repeat himself in the general, while professing to give an account of events in their proper order, and at the same time could vary so much in detail, would be quite unworthy of confidence. And, as Keil shows, the details, after all, differ greatly. “When David was betrayed the first time, he drew back into the desert of Maon before the advance of Saul, and, being completely surrounded upon one of the mountains there, was only saved from being taken prisoner by the advance of the Philistines. (1Sa_23:25-28.) But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of Hachilah, whilst David had secretly drawn back into the adjoining desert, from which he crept secretly into Saul’s encampment.… On the first occasion Saul entered a cave in the desert of Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior.… The second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul, upon the hill of Hachilah.… It is true that on both occasions David’s men told him that God had given his enemy into his hand; but the first time they added, ‘Do to him what seemeth good in thy sight;’ and David cut off the lappel of Saul’s coat, whereupon his conscience smote him.… In the second instance, on the contrary, David called two of his heroes to go with him into the camp of his sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said, ‘God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand; let me alone, that I may pierce him with the spear.’ But David rejected this proposal, and merely took away the spear and water-bowl that were at Saul’s head. And, notwithstanding that the words of David and the replies of Saul agree in certain general thoughts, yet they differ entirely in the main. On the first occasion David showed the king that his life had been in his power, and yet he had spared him, to dispel the illusion that he was seeking his life. On the second he asked the king why he was pursuing him, and called upon him to desist. But Saul was so affected the first time that he wept aloud, and openly declared that David would obtain the kingdom, and asked him to promise on oath that when he did he would not destroy his family. The second time he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and would do David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail, but he neither shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of David’s ascending the throne, so that he was evidently much more hardened than before.” As to the moral unlikelihood that Saul would have made a second attempt upon David’s life after being treated so generously by him, such conduct on his part seems quite in keeping with his vacillating character on other occasions. On this subject Nägelsbach remarks, “That Saul marched against David a second time is easily explained, even although he was no moral monster (as Thenius affirms he must have been in such a case). His hatred to David was so deeply rooted that it could be only temporarily suppressed by that magnanimous deed, not extinguished.” It is indeed plain, from David’s conduct after the first remonstrance with Saul, that he placed little or no reliance upon his professions of repentance.
Read full note →
1Sa_26:1. “Hill of Hachilah.” See on 1Sa_23:19. Jamieson suggests that one reason for David’s returning to this locality might have been to be near Abigail’s possessions. “Before Jeshimon.” Jeshimon literally signifies “the waste or wilderness;” before should be “in the face of,” or “south of.”
1Sa_26:2. “Three thousand chosen men.” “The permanent guard whose formation is mentioned in 1Sa_13:2.” (Erdmann.) “Went down.” “Though Gibeah, as its name imports, stood on an elevated position, and the desert of Ziph may have been higher than Gibeah, it was still necessary to descend in leaving the latter place; hence Saul ‘went down’ into the wilderness of Ziph.” (Jamieson.)
1Sa_26:3. “David abode in the wilderness.” “That is, he had withdrawn from the hill Hachilah (where the Ziphites reported him as being, and Saul sought first to attack him) farther into the wilderness, and was then on the highland (compare 1Sa_26:6, ‘who will go down with me?’), while Saul was encamped on the road to the plain” (1Sa_26:3, “by the way.”) (Erdmann.) “He saw.” Rather, he learned, or perceived by the report of his spies.
1Sa_26:5. “Abner.” “The Hebrew Ab signifies father; but the captain of Saul’s host may have been so called in honour of some ancestor, without any reference to the meaning of the word. Another explanation has been suggested. ‘In Abner there are two pure Gomeric roots, and ab is the contrary of father, for it is expressly stated—Abner, son of Ner, etc. The ab is of course the ab or ap of the Appii of Italy and of the Cymry of Britain—son; Abner, son of strength; or in Latin, Appius Nero; and as we know that the Appii Claudii Nerones were a pure Umbrian family, we have in the centre of Palestine, B.C. 1000, and in the centre of Italy, B.C. at least 700, two Gomeric families of precisely the same name derived from their common family language (Japhetic) in the most natural way conceivable. It is utterly impossible that the Jewish writer, whoever he was, could have devised such a coincidence, or imagined its ethnological significance. He wrote down the simple fact. We know how to explain it, but this very knowledge is a confirmation of the prophetic utterance of Noah.’ ” (Gen_9:27.) (“Vindication of the Mosaic Ethnology of Europe.”) (Jamieson.) “Trench.” Literally “the place of wagons.” (See on 1Sa_17:20)
1Sa_26:6. “Ahimelech the Hittite.” This man is only mentioned here. “The Hittites, a Canaanitish people, already settled around Hebron in Abraham’s time (Gen_15:21), dwelt, after the return of the Israelites from Egypt, in the hill country of Judah with the Amorites, reaching as far north as towards Bethel (Jdg_2:23), subdued but not exterminated by the Israelites. A portion of them had maintained a certain independence” (1Ki_9:20; 1Ki_10:29; 2Ki_7:6). (Erdmann.) Uriah was also a Hittite. “Abishai.” The nephew of David (see 1Ch_2:16), and afterwards one of his famous generals (2Sa_18:2, etc.)
1Sa_26:8. “I will not smite him a second time.” Abishai could have easily pinned David to the ground with one thrust of his sword, and no second blow would have been needed.
1Sa_26:10. “The Lord shall smite him,” etc. Rather, unless the Lord shall smite, etc. So Keil, Thenius, and others.
1Sa_26:11. “The spear that is at his bolster and the cruse of water.” “I noticed at all the encampments which we passed that the sheik’s tent was distinguished from the rest by a tall spear stuck upright in the front of it; and it is the custom, when a party is out on an excursion for robbery or for war, that when they halt to rest, the spot where the chief reclines or rests is thus designated. The whole of the scene in 1Sa_26:7, is perfectly natural, even to the deep sleep into which all had fallen, so that David and Abishai could walk among them in safety. The Arabs sleep heavily, especially when fatigued. Often, when travelling, my muleteers and servants have agreed to watch together in places thought to be dangerous; but in every instance I soon found them to be fast asleep, and generally their slumbers were so profound that I could not only walk among them without their waking, but might have taken the very aba with which they were covered. Then the cruse of water at Saul’s head is in exact accordance with the customs of the people at this day. No one ventures to travel over these deserts without their cruse of water, and it is very common to place it at the bolster, so that the owner can reach it during the night. The Arabs eat their dinner in the evening, and it is generally of such a nature as to create thirst; and the quantity of water which they drink is enormous. (Thomson’s Land and the Book.)
1Sa_26:13-14. “And David stood,” etc. The purity of the air of Palestine would render this quite easy. Dr. Thomson says, “There are thousands of ravines where the whole scene could be enacted, every word be heard, and yet the speaker be quite beyond the reach of his enemies.” “David had, no doubt, reconnoitered the camp from the opposite hill, and then gone down to it (1Sa_26:6), and returned after the deed was accomplished. The statement that this mountain was afar off, so that there was a great space between David and Saul, not only favours the accuracy of the historical tradition, but shows that David reckoned far less now upon any change in the state of Saul’s mind than he had done before when he followed Saul from the cave without hesitation, and called after him; and that in fact he rather feared that Saul should endeavour to get him into his power as soon as he woke from his sleep.” (Keil.)
1Sa_26:15. “Art thou not a man?” i.e., a warrior. “This incidental reference to Abner’s eminence as a warrior is borne out by his whole history. At the same time, David’s bantering tone, coupled with 1Sa_26:19, makes it probable that he considered Abner his enemy; the latter’s great influence with Saul might have prevented the persecution of David. Abner may have feared David as a rival; his opposition to him is shown after Saul’s death.” (Biblical Commentary.) “For there came one of the people,” etc. “These reproaches cast at Abner were intended to show to Saul, who might, at anyrate, possibly hear, and who, in fact, did hear, that David was a more faithful defender of his life than his closest and most zealous servants.” (Keil.)
1Sa_26:16. “Worthy to die.” Literally, son of death.
1Sa_26:19. “If the Lord have stirred thee up,” etc. “David’s word is based on the conception that God sometimes incites men to evil. (Comp. 2Sa_16:10 and 2Sa_24:1.) The idea that evil is, from one point of view, to be referred to God as its cause, is not a product of later times, but is early found in connection with the idea of the Divine ordering of the world, in which evil must serve God in order to bring about His saving help (Gen_1:20, comp. with 1Sa_14:7-8), and reveal His judicial glory (Exo_9:16). David therefore supposed the case that Saul’s hatred towards him rests on the Divine causality (comp. 1Sa_18:10; 1Sa_19:9), where the evil spirit from the Lord which has come upon Saul is said to be the cause of his hate to David. The Divine incitement to evil consists, according to David’s view, in the fact that Saul, sunk deep in sin by his own fault, is further given over by God to evil in that opportunity is given him to develop in deeds the evil of his heart.” (Erdmann.) Keil’s remarks on this phrase are substantially the same, and he adds, “The instigation of a sinner to evil is simply one peculiar way in which God, as a general rule, punishes sin through sinners; for God only instigates to evil actions, such as have drawn down the wrath of God upon them in consequence of their sins. When David supposes the fact that Jehovah has instigated Saul against him, he acknowledges, implicity at least, that he himself is a sinner, whom the Lord may be intending to punish, though without lessening Saul’s wrong by this indirect confession.” “Let him accept an offering.” Literally, let him smell an offering. (cf. Gen_8:21). “The meaning is, let Saul appease the wrath of God by the presentation of acceptable sacrifices. What sacrifices they are that please God is shown in Psa_51:18-19, and it is certainly not by accident merely that David uses the word minchah, the technical expression in the law for the bloodless sacrifice, which sets forth the sanctification of life in good works.” (Keil.) “The sense is: pray to God that He take the temptation from thee.” (Bunsen.) “Cursed be they,” etc. “David does not utter a wish, but states a fact, he does not pray that they may be cursed, but he asserts that they are incurring a curse from God.” (Wordsworth.) “Saying, go, serve other gods.” “The idea implied is, that Jehovah could only be worshipped in Canaan, at the sanctuary consecrated to Him, because it was only there that He manifested Himself to His people.” (Keil.) “We are not to understand that David’s enemies were accustomed to use these words, but David was thinking of deeds rather than words.” (Calvin.)
1Sa_26:20. “As when one doth hunt a partridge.” “Me, isolated from God’s people, far from all association, a fugitive by thy machinations on the mountain heights, thou seekest at all costs to destroy, as one hunts a single fugitive partridge on the mountains only to kill it at all costs, while otherwise from its insignificance it would not be hunted since partridges are found in the fields in flocks.” (Erdmann.) People in the east, in hunting the partridge and other game birds, pursue them till observing them becoming languid and fatigued, after they have been put up two or three times, they rush upon the birds stealthily and knock them down with bludgeons. (Shaw’s Travels.) It was exactly in this manner that Saul was persecuting David; he drove him from time to time from his hiding-place, hoping to render him weary of his life or obtain an opportunity of accomplishing his destruction. (Jamieson.)
1Sa_26:23. “To every man.” Keil and Erdmann translate to the man—i.e., to David himself. “These words are not a sounding of his own praises, but merely the testimony of a good conscience in the presence of an enemy.” (Keil.)
1Sa_26:24. “Let my life.” Keil and Erdmann read “so will my life.”
1Sa_26:25. “Thou wilt both undertake,” etc. Here Saul does not express a changed disposition, love instead of the old enmity, but the fleeting better feeling which David’s conduct had induced, and which compelled him to affirm that David would come forth victorious through the Lord’s help out of all the straits of his persecution. The content and character of Saul’s words in 1Sa_24:16-22, are very different.” (Erdmann.) “David went his way,” attaching no worth to Saul’s acknowledgment of wrong. “Saul returned to his place.” Some expositors make a contrast between this expression and that in 1Sa_24:22, in which Saul is said to have gone home after his interview with David, and understand that this time he did not desist even for a season from his pursuit.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
DAVID’S VISIT TO SAUL’S CAMP
I. There is a tendency in good to repeat itself in the soul of a good man. Good deeds are not a sure indication of a good character, for a wicked man may perform such from motives which are not good. Nor does one good deed, even if done from a worthy motive, make a good character. But one such action performed from a desire to do right in the sight of God lays the foundation for another and another, and such a repetition establishes that right habit of thinking and feeling and doing which constitute a godlike and holy character. And it is a strengthening reflection for all who are engaged in the struggle against the evil within them that every temptation met and conquered makes the next victory more easy, and every godlike and divine impulse obeyed gives an increase to the power and dominion of good in the soul. David’s conduct here is a witness of this tendency of good to repeat itself. Since Saul was last in his power, every day had increased the provocation which he had suffered at the hand of his persecutor, who had now added to his other crimes that of pursuing the man who had so lately spared his life. If David’s former act of forbearance had not been dictated by right principle—if his entire attitude to Saul from the beginning of his persecution had not been the outcome of a spirit under the influence of the Spirit of God, he would have broken down under the long continuance of the demand upon his forbearance, and this last proof of Saul’s ingratitude and inextinguishable enmity would have been too much for him to forgive, but as David was a godly man, it was as easy for him to spare Saul’s life in the camp as it had been in the cave, and possibly this time the temptation was more easily overcome than on the former occasion.
II. There is a tendency in evil to repeat itself in the soul of a wicked man. If the good within becomes stronger by repetition, it is no less certain that the strength of sin increases in proportion as it is indulged in, and a sinful tendency or habit which once only bound a man as by a silken thread may come to fetter him as with an iron chain. The first few snowflakes that fall upon the earth are not noticed much, and can be easily swept away, even by a child, but continuing to fall hour after hour they will form a barrier which it may be well-nigh impossible to penetrate. So the first seeds of any sinful passion may enter into a human soul without producing any marked effect upon the life, and almost without the consciousness of the soul itself; but one sinful thought or feeling, if unchecked and harboured, will be quickly followed by another and another of the same character, until the man in whose spirit they have found a resting place becomes, before he is aware, a moral slave. Saul appears to afford a melancholy instance of such a process. Permitting jealous feelings towards David to find a lodging in his spirit, and listening to the evil suggestions of the worst part of his nature within and of the devil without, he came to be that slave of a sinful passion which he here appears. We cannot suppose, when he gave a place to the first emotions of envy of David, that he had any idea of the crimes to which they would one day lead him. But they had been permitted to remain undisturbed, and had so grown and strengthened by indulgence that all noble emotions had been buried alive beneath them and their victim stands before us in this picture not altogether unconscious of his degrading bondage, and yet making no effort to free himself. For although he here confesses his moral foolishness, and we read of no more active measures against David, his after history gives no reason to suppose that any radical change took place in his feelings towards him. If he had followed up his former conviction and confession of sin by struggle against it he would have found repentance then less difficult than now, and would not have added this darkest blot to the character he had already dimmed by many transgressions.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1Sa_26:12. Behold now, once more, our David, as he goes away with Saul’s spear, the emblem of his sovereign power. At that moment he presents a symbolically significant appearance. Unconsciously he prophesied of his own future, while he stands before us as the projected shadow of that form in which we must one day behold him. In the counsel of the Invisible Watcher, it was, indeed, irrevocably concluded that the Bethlehemite should inherit Saul’s sceptre, and here we see before us a dim pre-intimation of that fact.—Krummacher.
1Sa_26:19. It was part of Saul’s punishment that he was constrained to persecute David, and in so doing he suffered more than David—consuming hatred, fear, the perpetual consciousness of the fruitlessness of all his measures—all this was perfect torture to him. Doubtless he would willingly have been freed from it, but there was only one way in which he could obtain this freedom, viz., by true repentance; and this way he refused to take. Because he would not desist from sin in general, he could not become free from this special form of sin. This was his fate. David’s piety is seen in the fact that he characterises it as the greatest sorrow inflicted on him by his enemies that they obliged him to leave the land of the Lord and go out into the heathen world, depriving him of the blessedness of religious communion.—Hengstenberg.
1Sa_26:21. How wonderful is the effect of a single flash of lightning, when previously the heavens had been veiled in deepest gloom, and the darksome night had thrown over all nature its dreariest mantle. How completely, for a moment, it lifts that mantle.… Houses, trees, streets—they burst upon you; you seem never to have seen them so distinctly before.… And yet it is but for a moment; while you look the flash is gone.… It lasted long enough to make you feel its effect and then departed.… “I have played the fool and erred exceedingly;” tells of such a sudden gleam. To our view, it lays open in a moment the whole features of Saul’s history, as he saw them himself.… Nothing escapes him; each avenue opens up its concealment, each pathway reveals the footsteps imprinted upon it … and then the gloom returned.… It was not the dawn of true repentance, gradually unfolding reason for encouragement, and losing itself in brighter hopes and lasting joy, but it was the sudden flash which conscience, excited, will send through a soul, preliminary only to a deeper despair—to hopeless ruin.… I. Saul’s history justifies this expression inasmuch as his public life was marked by a continued attempt at thorough independence of God.… This was folly—first, because it was subversive of all that reason and wisdom suggested. For the very being of a God is of itself sufficiently indicative of the place which the creatures of that God should occupy.… The laws of nature, in regard to matter, allow no interference with them which would subvert the relative conditions of strength and weakness, independence and dependence, without such results as would expose the folly of the attempt.… And on the same principle must there be read out the condemnation of downright folly when man so acts as to take upon himself the right to dictate for his own guidance.… What is this but an attempt to subvert what is fixed irrevocably?… Besides, secondly, it is not less against our own interests to put our own will in the place of God’s.… Did Saul get on as well without God as with Him? And did ever the history of a single individual justify the supposition that this was possible?… II. There was one particular course of action which was at this moment more especially present to Saul’s view.… In many respects he had erred; in one respect most especially so.…
1. His folly and error consisted in treating a man as his enemy who was, in reality, his best friend … How often is this mistake committed. How often do we see men making the least welcome those who have the highest title to their confidence, because they would do them real good; and treating as most welcome those whose influence on them is plainly prejudicial. The man who would not allow David in his sight, promoted Doeg the Edomite.…
2. Saul’s folly also consisted in attempting by this conduct towards David to fly in the face of those Divine arrangements to which, however humiliating in their character, he was bound in meekness to submit.… Never does a man commit himself to a harder, and at the same time more fruitless, enterprise than when he fights against God’s providential arrangements—when, for instance, God is evidently calling on him to give up some scheme for his own exaltation or his family’s aggrandisement, and requiring him to take a humbler level, and he will grasp tightly and hold tenaciously the position which everything combines to tell him is for another. Nothing too, is a greater temptation to a man to do unprincipled things than such an attempt.… But it is a fruitless work, however long maintained.—Miller.
1Sa_26:25. Saul is here also “among the prophets,” and foretells David’s exaltation and victory, “Vicisti; Nazarene!” was the exclamation of Julian.—Wordsworth.
Before we pass away from Saul’s persecution of David, an interesting inquiry presents itself, which may be answered by the help of one of the Psalms. How came it, one is tempted to ask, that Saul was thus at one time so friendly to David, and at another filled with such bitter enmity against him? Much of this was owing, doubtless, to the impulsive, wayward, and capricious disposition which, as we have seen, grew upon him after his rejection by Samuel.
But this will not explain it all. An impulse will go on in a man until it exhausts itself; but it will then leave him, at least, indifferent, and something else will be required to account for the rapid reversal of his feelings, when we see him change in a short time from grateful appreciation to fierce antagonism. Where, then, shall we find that something in the case of Saul? The answer seems to me to be furnished by the inscription to the 7th Psalm, which, from its similarity to David’s utterances to Saul on the occasions which have been before us, has been by most expositors connected with these events. It is entitled “Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite.” “That is a dithyrambic ode of David concerning the words of Cush.” Now if we adopt the conjecture that Cush was one of Saul’s confidential adherents, and that he had set himself deliberately and malignantly to poison his master’s mind in reference to David, by inventing all manner of false assertions, and indulging in every variety of significant innuendoes concerning him, we have an explanation atonce, of many statements in the narrative, of the vacillations in the disposition of Saul, and of the character of the Psalm to which the title belongs.… When the king was alone, away from the influence of this black-hearted sycophant, David’s noble and frank ingenuousness produced its appropriate impression on his heart; but when David disappeared, and this Cush resumed his insinuating supremacy, then Saul’s heart was again estranged, and he vowed vengeance on the son of Jesse. Of course, if Saul had not been weak, this effect would not have been produced upon him; but, in the circumstances, we can see how the larger measure of the guilt belonged to Cush, and can understand why, while David spared the king, his heart was full of abhorrence of the part which was played by the false-hearted Benjamite.—Dr. W. M. Taylor.
A few words may suitably be added in connection with these signal victories of David over the spirit of revenge, respecting what have been called his vindictive or imprecatory Psalms.… When loud complaints are made of the vindictive character of some of the Psalms of David, and when all the more favourable explanations of some of these Psalms are rejected with contempt, objectors may be fairly challenged to show how they can reconcile the view taken by them of these Psalms with the elevated generosity and forbearance that were so conspicuous in David’s general character. Saul was not the only enemy of David’s, or of God’s, that experienced his forbearance. Absalom, Shemei, and other bitter opponents of himself and of the cause of truth, shared the same generous treatment. It may surely be held as established that, so far as David was concerned, no feeling of personal revenge could have led him to use the language or breathe the spirit of the imprecatory Psalms. It can easily be proved that many, where individuals seem at first to be the objects of denunciation, in point of fact either do not contemplate the case of individuals at all, or make use of them chiefly as signs or types of principles.… The fifth Psalm, for example, appears to be a denunciation of the Psalmist’s personal enemies. But in Rom_3:13 the words are quoted as part of a proof of the universal corruption of mankind. The proof would be palpably irrelevant if the language of the Psalmist applied only to his personal and public enemies. But it is not irrelevant if these enemies were viewed as types or signs of those principles and habits of sin which infest the world.… Still, we freely admit that among the imprecatory Psalms there are several where living persons are the objects of the most earnest imprecations. What is to be said of these? The least strained seems also the best explanation of them. They are the expression of holy indignation at those wicked men who were opposing every good work, and encouraging, for their own vile ends, all that was wicked and destructive; they convey the earnest desire which every good man must have, that such persons may be arrested, overthrown, and punished, in their impious and pernicious career. In some cases, the mode of punishment is that of the well-known lex-talionis.… Our ears tingle at the mention of them; we can hardly read the 137th Psalm without a shudder, but the sense of the perfect justice of the law was so deeply impressed on the minds of pious Jews, that no such feeling of horror appears to have been awakened in them. The judicial aspect prevailed over the personal.—Blaikie.
Note.—It was during this sojourn of David in the wilderness that the Gadites, mentioned in 1Ch_12:8-14, enlisted themselves in his service, and probably in the interval between the event recorded in this chapter and that which opens the next, that there came to him some belonging to his own tribe of Judah, and also some of the tribe of Benjamin to which Saul belonged (1Ch_12:16-18). These occurrences show that Saul was gradually losing his hold upon the people, and that their confidence in David was increasing.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv5, 21 1 Samuel
1 Samuel
LOVE AND REMORSE
Read full note →
1Sa 26:5 - 1Sa 26:12; 1Sa 26:21 - 1Sa 26:25.
It is fashionable at present to regard this incident and the other instance of David’s sparing Saul, when in his power, as two versions of one event. But it if not improbable that the hunted outlaw should twice have taken refuge in the same place, or that his hiding-place should have been twice betrayed. He had but a small choice of safe retreats, and the Ziphites had motive for a second betrayal in the fact of the first, and of its failure to secure David’s capture. The whole cast of the two incidents is so different that it is impossible to see how the one could have been evolved from the other, and either they are both true, or they are both unhistorical, or, at best, are both the product of fancy working on, and arbitrarily filling up, a very meagre skeleton of fact. Many of the advocates of the identity of the incident at the bottom of the two accounts would accept the latter explanation; we take the former.
Saul had three thousand men with him; David had left his little troop ‘in the wilderness,’ and seems to have come with only his two companions, Ahimelech and his own nephew, Abishai, to reconnoitre. He sees, from some height, the camp, with the transport wagons making a kind of barricade in the centre-just as camps are still arranged in South Africa and elsewhere,-and Saul established therein as in a rude fortification. A bold thought flashes into his mind as he looks. Perhaps he remembered Gideon’s daring visit to the camp of Midian. He will go down, and not only into the camp, but ‘to Saul,’ through the ranks and over the barrier. What to do he does not say, but the two fierce fighters beside him think of only one thing as sufficient motive for such an adventure. Abishai volunteers to go with him; no doubt Ahimelech would have been ready also, but two were enough, and three would only have increased risk. So they lay close hid till night fell, and then stole down through the sleeping ranks with silent movements, like a couple of Indians on the war-trail, climbed the barricade, and stood at last where Saul lay, with his spear, as the emblem of kingship, stuck upright at his head, and a cruse of water for slaking thirst, if he awoke, beside him. Those who should have been his guards lay sleeping round him, for a ‘deep sleep from Jehovah was fallen upon them.’ What a vivid, strange picture it is, and how characteristic of the careless discipline of unscientific Eastern warfare!
The tigerish lust for blood awoke in Abishai. Whatever sad, pitying, half-tender thoughts stirred in David as he looked at the mighty form of Saul, with limbs relaxed in slumber, and perhaps some of the gloom and evil passions charmed out of his face, his nephew’s only thought was,’ What a fair mark! what an easy blow!’ He was brutally eager to strike once, and truculently sure that his arm would make sure that once would be enough. He was religious too, after a strange fierce fashion. God-significantly he does not say ‘Jehovah’; his religion was only the vague belief in a deity-had delivered Saul into David’s hands, and it would be a kind of sin not to kill him. How many bloody tragedies that same unnatural alliance of religion and murderous hate has varnished over! Very beautifully does David’s spirit contrast with this. Abishai represents the natural impulse of us all-to strike at our enemies when we can, to meet hate with hate, and do to another the evil that he would do to us.
David here, though he could be fierce and cruel enough sometimes, and had plenty of the devil in him, listens to his nobler self, which listens to God, and, at a time when everything tempted him to avenge himself, resists and overcomes. He is here a saint after the New Testament pattern. Abishai had, in effect, said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ David’s finely-tuned ear heard, long before they were spoken on earth, the great Christian words, 11 say unto you, Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.’ He knew that Saul had been ‘rejected,’ but he was ‘Jehovah’s anointed,’ and the unction which had rested on that sleeping head lingered still. It was not for David to be the executor of God’s retribution. He left himself and his cause in Jehovah’s hands, and no doubt it was with sorrow and pitying love, not altogether quenched by Saul’s mad hate, that he foresaw that the life which he spared now was certain one day to be smitten. We may well learn the lesson of this story, and apply it to the small antagonisms and comparatively harmless enmities which may beset our more quiet lives. David in Saul’s ‘laager,’ Stephen outside the wall, alike lead up our thoughts to Jesus’ prayer,’ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’
The carrying off of the spear and the cruse was a couch of almost humour, and it, with the ironical taunt flung across the valley to Abner, gives relief to the strain of emotion in the story. Saul’s burst of passionate remorse is morbid, paroxysmal, like his fits of fury, and is sure to foam itself away. The man had no self-control. He had let wild, ungoverned moods master him, and was truly ‘possessed.’ One passion indulged had pushed him over the precipice into insanity, or something like it. Let us take care not to let any passion, emotion, or mood get the upper hand. ‘That way madness lies.’ ‘He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, without walls.’
And let us not confound remorse with repentance ‘The sorrow of the world worketh death.’ Saul grovelled in agony that day, but tomorrow he was raging again with more than the old frenzy of hate. Many a man says, ‘I have played the fool,’ and yet goes on playing it again when the paroxysm of remorse has stormed itself out. David’s answer was by no means effusive, for he had learned how little Saul’s regrets were to be trusted. He takes no notice of the honeyed words of invitation to return, and will not this time venture to take back the spear and cruse, as he had done, on the previous occasion, the skirt of Saul’s robe. He solemnly appeals to Jehovah’s righteous judgment to determine his and Saul’s respective ‘righteousness and faithfulness.’ He is silent as to what that judgment may have in reserve for Saul, but for himself he is calmly conscious that, in the matter of sparing Saul’s life, he has done right, and expects that God will deliver him ‘out of all tribulation.’ That is not self-righteous boasting, although it does not exactly smack of the Christian spirit; but it is faith clinging to the confidence that God is ‘not unrighteous to forget’ his servant’s obedience, and that the innocent will not always be the oppressor’s victim.
What a strange, bewildered, self-contradictory chaos of belief and intention is revealed in poor, miserable Saul’s parting words! He blesses the man whom he is hunting to slay. He knows that all his wild efforts to destroy him are foredoomed to failure, and that David ‘shall surely prevail’; and yet he cannot give up fighting against the inevitable,-that is, against God. How many of us are doing the very same thing-rushing on in a course of life which we know, when we are sane, to be dead against God’s will, and therefore doomed to utter collapse some day!
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 David spares Saul's Life a Second Time
David spares Saul's Life a Second Time
1. Hachilah] near the wilderness of Ziph: see 1Sa_23:19.
Read full note →
4. Was come in very deed] Heb. 'was come to Nakon.' Nakon = 'a set place' (RM), though it may have been the corruption of a place-name, such as Maon.
6. Hittite] So he belonged to one of the original inhabitants of the country. We might expect to find some of them among David's followers: cp. 1Sa_22:2. Uriah, another Hittite, played an important part in David's history. Abishai] is here mentioned for the first time. He saved David's life in one of the Philistine wars (2Sa_21:17), was implicated in the murder of Abner (2Sa_3:30), shared the command of the army (2Sa_10:10), and remained faithful to David in Absalom's rebellion.
8. At once] RV 'at one stroke.'
19. Let him accept an offering] cp. Gen_4:7. The idea in this v. is simply that if Jehovah had prompted Saul's action, Saul was doing right, and David would seek pardon by an offering. Go, serve other gods] This seems to suggest that David limited the rule of Jehovah to the land of Israel as the rule of Chemosh was limited to Moab: cp. Jephthah's reference to Chemosh in Jdg_11:24. In the older Hebrew thought, Jehovah was specially present in Palestine (though cp. Jdg_5:4). Hence it seemed difficult and almost impossible to worship the true God in a heathen land, since when a Hebrew became naturalised elsewhere, he would conform to the religion of his new home.
20. Before the face] RV 'away from the presence of,' i.e. let not my blood be shed without Jehovah requiring it: cp. Gen_4:10.
A flea] LXX 'my soul.' The Heb. reading is due to a recollection of 1Sa_24:14.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The Ziphites and Saul’s pursuit (1Sa 26:1-4)
CHAPTER 26
1. The Ziphites and Saul’s pursuit (1Sa 26:1-4)
Read full note →
2. David again spares Saul (1Sa 26:5-12)
3. David’s words to Abner (1Sa 26:13-16)
4. David’s words to Saul (1Sa 26:17-20)
5. Saul’s confession and David’s reply (1Sa 26:21-25)
Hachilah, where we find David now, was six miles east of Ziph and about halfway to En-gedi. The Ziphites once more reveal his hiding place to Saul. And Saul was rushing forward to his doom when with his three thousand chosen men he took up the hunt again. The two, the rejected king and God’s true king, are close together and David finds Saul in the trench and the people round about. With David were Ahimelech, the Hittite and Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, the sister of David. They creep up to sleeping Saul. Once more his enemy is given into his hands and once more David does not want to take his case out of the Lord’s hands. He is true to his own words (1Sa 24:15). Abishai, David’s own nephew, counsels the smiting of Saul. But David does not want to touch the Lord’s anointed. He declares “the Lord shall smite him” or “his day shall come to die.” He leaves him in the Lord’s hands to deal with him as it pleases Him. He acts in faith. Would to God that all the Lord’s people would act at all times in the same manner, when they suffer persecution. The sleep which had fallen upon the company was of the Lord. He can keep awake (Est 6:1) and He can put to sleep, to suit His own will and purpose. Then David took Saul’s spear, perhaps the same he had cast at him and his water-cruse. Alas! poor, apostate Saul had been deprived before of what these two things mean spiritually; he had lost his weapon to fight in faith and righteousness, he knew no longer the water, which refreshes the soul. How the spear and the water-cruse are lost today to nominal, disobedient, apostate Christendom!
The sleeping company is aroused. He ridicules and chides Abner for his unwatchfulness. Saul recognized David’s voice and the last discourse between the two kings follows. We call attention to two statements. David witnesses to his faith and trust in the Lord. He trusts Him that He will deliver him out of all tribulation. Saul’s last words to David are prophetic. “Thou shalt both do great things, and also shall prevail.” David did not hear Saul’s voice again after this, nor did Saul see David again. The sad history of poor, lost Saul will soon be consummated in his visit to the witch at Endor and his miserable end.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 13 David in Saul’s Camp
David in Saul’s Camp
v. 1. And the Ziphites, who had once before played traitors against David, came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself in the hill Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, south of the wilderness?
Read full note →
v. 2. Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having forgotten, apparently, that he owed his life to the magnanimity of David, 1Sa 24:18, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, evidently his permanent guard and the nucleus of his standing army, 1Sa 13:2, to seek David in the Wilderness of Ziph.
v. 3. And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, for the entire neighborhood bore this name, the mountain with its foothills and lower slopes, which is before Jeshimon, by the way, on the well-known highroad which passed along near the mountain. But David abode in the wilderness, having withdrawn from the mountain Hachilah, and, or for, he saw, he found out through his scouts, that Saul came after him into the wilderness.
v. 4. David, therefore, sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very deed, he received definite information to that effect, the matter was beyond a doubt.
v. 5. And David arose and came to the place where Saul had pitched, he himself made a scouting trip by night, accompanied by at least a few of his faithful men; and David, having reached a spot where he could overlook the entire camp of Saul, beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner, the son of Ner, the captain of his host; and Saul lay in the trench, inside the wagon fortification, or rampart, and the people pitched round about him.
v. 6. Then answered David and said to Ahimelech, the Hittite, for parts of this heathen nation had remained and were gradually merged with the Israelites, and to Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, the son of David’s sister and afterwards one of David’s captains, 1Ch 2:16; 2Sa 18:2; 2Sa 20:6; 2Sa 23:19, saying, Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp? It was a very dangerous trip for the purpose of reconnoitering the king’s camp. And Abishai said, I will go down with thee.
v. 7. So David and Abishai came to the people by night; and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench, probably considering the bulwark of the wagons a sufficient safeguard, and his spear, the sign of royal authority, stuck in the ground at his bolster, near his head, to be ready for any emergency; but Abner and the people lay round about him, all soundly asleep.
v. 8. Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day; for so, according to the usage of war, he regarded Saul; now, therefore, let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time. This grim remark, that there would be no need of a second blow, shows how David’s men felt about Saul’s searching expedition.
v. 9. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed and be guiltless? David had not changed his position toward Saul’s person, as being sacred and inviolable by virtue of his kingship, 1Sa 24:6.
v. 10. And David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or, unless the Lord smite him, for David’s oath put the revenge entirely in God’s hand, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle and perish, these three being the contingencies which David took into account: sudden death by a stroke, a normal death, and death in battle.
v. 11. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed; he would not, on the part of the Lord, on the Lord’s account, take vengeance into his own hand; but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, at his head, and the cruse of water, the water-pitcher, and let us go.
v. 12. So David, Abishai acting for him, took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul’s bolster; and they gat them away; and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither awaked; for they were all asleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them, Jehovah thus expressing His approval of David’s expedition. That is the disposition of the children of God, not to seek their own revenge, but to place their matter into the hands of the Lord, for He has said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay. "
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24 Is not David hiding ... Jeshimon?
Is not David hiding ... Jeshimon?
This rhetorical question can be translated as an exclamation. AT: "David is hiding ... Jeshimon!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
Read full note →
before Jeshimon
"from which we can see Jeshimon"
Jeshimon
This is the name of a desert area near the Dead Sea. It can also be translated as "the Judean Wilderness" or "the wasteland." See how you translated this in 1 Samuel 23:19. (See: How to Translate Names)
Then Saul arose and went
The word "arose" is an idiom for taking action. AT: "Then Saul took action and he went" (See: Idiom)
three thousand
3,000 (See: Numbers)
chosen men
men whom he had chosen because of their superior military abilities
translationWords
Saul (OT)
David
desert
chosen one
Israel
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 26:1-25 This was the last time Saul and David…
26:1-25 This was the last time Saul and David were together. The Ziphites told Saul for the second time where David was hiding (see 23:19-20), and David spared Saul’s life a second time as he did in the cave at En-gedi (see ch 24).
26:1 Men from Ziph had previously volunteered to capture David and hand him over to Saul (23:19-20). • Hakilah . . . Jeshimon is the same geographical location they had mentioned to Saul before (23:19). David had not moved far, probably because the hilly terrain was dotted with numerous caves, providing many good hiding places.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.