1Sa 25:2-30:24 | KD | STEP | At Maon , i.e., Main or the mountains of Judah (see at ), there lived a rich man (גּדול, great through property and riches), who had his establishment at Carmel . מעשׂה, work, occupation, then establishment, possessions (vid., ). Carmel is not the promontory of that name (Thenius), but the present Kurmul on the mountains of Judah, scarcely half an hour’s journey to the north-west of Maon (see at ). This man possessed three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and was at the sheep-shearing at Carmel. His name was Nabal (i.e., fool): this was hardly his proper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly. His wife Abigail was “ of good understanding ,” i.e., intelligent, “ and of beautiful figure ;” but the husband was “ harsh and evil in his doings .” He sprang from the family of Caleb . This is the rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Vulgate, according to the Keri כּלבּי. The Chethibh is to be read כּלבּו, “according to his heart;” though the lxx (ἄνθρωπος κυνικός) and Josephus, as well as the Arabic and Syriac, derive it from כּלב, and understand it as referring to the dog-like, or shameless, character of the man.

‏ 1 Samuel 25:2-44

At Maon, i.e., Main or the mountains of Judah (see at Jos 15:55), there lived a rich man (גּדול, great through property and riches), who had his establishment at Carmel. מעשׂה, work, occupation, then establishment, possessions (vid., Exo 23:15). Carmel is not the promontory of that name (Thenius), but the present Kurmul on the mountains of Judah, scarcely half an hour’s journey to the north-west of Maon (see at Jos 15:55). This man possessed three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and was at the sheep-shearing at Carmel. His name was Nabal (i.e., fool): this was hardly his proper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly. His wife Abigail was “of good understanding,” i.e., intelligent, “and of beautiful figure;” but the husband was “harsh and evil in his doings.” He sprang from the family of Caleb. This is the rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Vulgate, according to the Keri כּלבּי. The Chethibh is to be read כּלבּו, “according to his heart;” though the lxx (ἄνθρωπος κυνικός) and Josephus, as well as the Arabic and Syriac, derive it from כּלב, and understand it as referring to the dog-like, or shameless, character of the man. 1Sa 25:4-8

When David heard in the desert (cf. 1Sa 25:1) that Nabal was shearing his sheep, which was generally accompanied with a festal meal (see at Gen 38:12), he sent ten young men up to Carmel to him, and bade them wish him peace and prosperity in his name, and having reminded him of the friendly services rendered to his shepherds, solicit a present for himself and his people. לשׁלום לו שׁאל, ask him after his welfare, i.e., greet him in a friendly manner (cf. Exo 18:7). The word לחי is obscure, and was interpreted by the early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures. The simplest explanation is apparently in vitam, long life, understood as a wish in the sense of “good fortune to you” (Luther, Maurer, etc.); although the word חי in the singular can only be shown to have the meaning life in connection with the formula used in oaths, נפשׁך חי, etc. But even if חי must be taken as an adjective, it is impossible to explain לחי in any other way than as an elliptical exclamation meaning “good fortune to the living man.” For the idea that the word is to be connected with אמרתּם, “say to the living man,” i.e., to the man if still alive, is overthrown by the fact that David had no doubt that Nabal was still living. The words which follow are also to be understood as a wish, “May thou and thy house, and all that is thine, be well!” After this salutation they were to proceed with the object of their visit: “And now I have heard that thou hast sheep-shearers. Now thy shepherds have been with us; we have done them no harm (הכלים, as in Jdg 18:7 : on the form, see Ges. §53, 3, Anm. 6), and nothing was missed by them so long as they were in Carmel.” When living in the desert, David’s men had associated with the shepherds of Nabal, rendered them various services, and protected them and their flocks against the southern inhabitants of the desert (the Bedouin Arabs); in return for which they may have given them food and information. Thus David proved himself a protector of his people even in his banishment. וימצאוּ, “so may the young men (those sent by David) find favour in thine eyes! for we have come to a good (i.e., a festive) day. Give, I pray, what thy hand findeth (i.e., as much as thou canst) to thy servant, and to thy son David.” With the expression “thy son” David claims Nabal’s fatherly goodwill. So far as the fact itself is concerned, “on such a festive occasion near a town or village even in our own time, an Arab sheikh of the neighbouring desert would hardly fail to put in a word either in person or by message; and his message both in form and substance would be only the transcript of that of David” (Robinson, Palestine, p. 201). 1Sa 25:9

David’s messengers delivered their message to Nabal, ויּנוּחוּ, “and sat down,” sc., awaiting the fulfilment of their request. The rendering given by the Chaldee (פּסקוּ, cessaverunt loqui) and the Vulgate (siluerunt) is less suitable, and cannot be philologically sustained. The Septuagint, on the other hand, has καὶ ἀνεπήδησε, “and he (Nabal) sprang up,” as if the translators had read ויּקם (vid., lxx at 1Sa 20:34). This rendering, according to which the word belongs to the following clause, gives a very appropriate sense, if only, supposing that ויּקם really did stand in the text, the origin and general adoption of ויּנוּחוּ could in any way be explained. 1Sa 25:10

Nabal refused the petitioners in the most churlish manner: “Who is David? who the son of Jesse?” i.e., what have I to do with David? “There by many servants now-a-days who tear away every one from his master.” Thus, in order to justify his own covetousness, he set down David as a vagrant who had run away from his master. 1Sa 25:11

“And I should take my bread and my water (i.e., my food and drink), and my cattle, ... and give them to men whom I do not know whence they are?” ולקחתּי is a perfect with vav consec., and the whole sentence is to be taken as a question. 1Sa 25:12-13

The messengers returned to David with this answer. The churlish reply could not fail to excite his anger. He therefore commanded his people to gird on the sword, and started with 400 men to take vengeance upon Nabal, whilst 200 remained behind with the things. 1 Samuel 25:14-31

However intelligible David’s wrath may appear in the situation in which he was placed, it was not right before God, but a sudden burst of sinful passion, which was unseemly in a servant of God. By carrying out his intention, he would have sinned against the Lord and against His people. But the Lord preserved him from this sin by the fact that, just at the right time, Abigail, the intelligent and pious wife of Nabal, heard of the affair, and was able to appease the wrath of David by her immediate and kindly interposition. 1Sa 25:14-16

Abigail heard from one of (Nabal’s) servants what had taken place (בּרך, to wish any one prosperity and health, i.e., to salute, as in 1Sa 13:10; and יעט, from עיט, to speak wrathfully: on the form, see at 1Sa 15:19 and 1Sa 14:32), and also what had been praiseworthy in the behaviour of David’s men towards Nabal’s shepherds; how they had not only done them no injury, had not robbed them of anything, but had defended them all the while. “They were a wall (i.e., a firm protection) round us by night and by day, as long as we were with them feeding the sheep,” i.e., a wall of defence against attacks from the Bedouins living in the desert. 1Sa 25:17

“And now,” continued the servant, “know and see what thou doest; for evil is determined (cf. 1Sa 20:9) against our master and all his house: and he (Nabal)is a wicked man, that one cannot address him.” 1Sa 25:18-19

Then Abigail took as quickly as possible a bountiful present of provisions, - two hundred loaves, two bottles of wine, five prepared (i.e., slaughtered) sheep (עשׁוּות, a rare form for עשׂוּית: see Ewald, §189, a.), five seahs (an ephah and two-thirds) of roasted grains (Kali: see 1Sa 17:17), a hundred צמּקים (dried grapes, i.e., raisin-cakes: Ital. simmuki), and two hundred fig-cakes (consisting of pressed figs joined together), - and sent these gifts laden upon asses on before her to meet David whilst she herself followed behind to appease his anger by coming to meet him in a friendly manner, but without saying a word to her husband about what she intended to do. 1Sa 25:20

When she came down riding upon the ass by a hidden part of the mountain, David and his men came to meet her, so that she lighted upon them. ההר סתר, a hidden part of the mountain, was probably a hollow between two peaks of a mountain. This would explain the use of the word ירד, to come down, with reference both to Abigail, who approached on the one side, and David, who came on the other. 1Sa 25:21-22 1Sa 25:21 and 1Sa 25:22 contain a circumstantial clause introduced parenthetically to explain what follows: but David had said, Only for deception (i.e., for no other purpose than to be deceived in my expectation) have I defended all that belongs to this man (Nabal) in the desert, so that nothing of his was missed, and (for) he hath repaid me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David, if I leave, etc.; i.e., “as truly as God will punish the enemies of David, so certainly will I not leave till the morning light, of all that belongeth to him, one that pisseth against the wall.” This oath, in which the punishment of God is not called down upon the swearer himself (God do so to me), as it generally is, but upon the enemies of David, is analogous to that in 1Sa 3:17, where punishment is threatened upon the person addressed, who is there made to swear; except that here, as the oath could not be uttered in the ears of the person addressed, upon whom it was to fall, the enemies generally are mentioned instead of “to thee.” There is no doubt, therefore, as to the correctness of the text. The substance of this imprecation may be explained from the fact that David is so full of the consciousness of fighting and suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, that he discerns in the insult heaped upon him by Nabal an act of hostility to the Lord and the cause of His kingdom. The phrase בּקיר משׁתּין, mingens in parietem, is only met with in passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man (viz., besides this passage, 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 16:11; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8), and neither refers primarily to dogs, as Ephraem Syrus, Juda ben Karish, and others maintain; nor to the lowest class of men, as Winer, Maurer, and others imagine; nor to little boys, as L. de Dieu, Gesenius, etc., suppose; but, as we may see from the explanatory clause appended to 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 9:8, to every male (quemcumque masculi generis hominem: vid., Bochart, Hieroz. i. pp. 776ff., and Rödiger on Ges. Thes. pp. 1397-8). 1Sa 25:23-24 1Sa 25:23 is connected with 1Sa 25:20. When Abigail saw David, she descended hastily from the ass, fell upon her face before him, bowed to the ground, and fell at his feet, saying, “Upon me, me, my lord, be the guilt; allow thy handmaid to reveal the thing to thee.” She takes the guilt upon herself, because she hopes that David will not avenge it upon her. 1Sa 25:25-26

She prayed that David would take no notice of Nabal, for he was what his name declared - a fool, and folly in him; but she (Abigail) had not seen the messengers of David. “The prudent woman uses a good argument; for a wise man should pardon a fool” (Seb. Schmidt). She then endeavours to bring David to a friendly state of mind by three arguments, introduced with ועתּה (1Sa 25:26, 1Sa 25:27), before asking for forgiveness (1Sa 25:28). She first of all pointed to the leadings of God, by which David had been kept from committing murder through her coming to meet him. ^{▼▼“She founds her argument upon their meeting, which was so marvellously seasonable, that it might be easily and truly gathered from this fact that it had taken place through the providence of God; i.e., And now, because I meet thee so seasonably, do thou piously acknowledge with me the providence of God, which has so arranged all this, that innocent blood might not by change be shed by thee.” - Seb. Schmidt.} “As truly as Jehovah liveth, and by the life of thy soul! yea, the Lord hath kept thee, that thou camest not into blood-guiltiness, and thy hand helped thee” (i.e., and with thy hand thou didst procure thyself help). אשׁר, introducing her words, as in 1Sa 15:20, lit. “as truly as thou livest, (so true is it) that,” etc. In the second place, she points to the fact that God is the avenger of the wicked, by expressing the wish that all the enemies of David may become fools like Nabal; in connection with which it must be observed, in order to understand her words fully, that, according to the Old Testament representation, folly is a correlate of ungodliness, which inevitably brings down punishment. ^{▼▼Seb. Schmidt has justly observed, that “she reminds David of the promise of God. Not that she prophesies, but that she has gathered it from the general promises of the word of God. The promise referred to is, that whoever does good to his enemies, and takes no vengeance upon them, God himself will avenge him upon his enemies; according to the saying, Vengeance is mine, I will repay. And this is what Abigail says: And now thine enemies shall be as Nabal.”}

The predicate to the sentence “and they that seek evil to my lord” must be supplied from the preceding words, viz., “may they become just such fools.” 1Sa 25:27

It is only in the third line that she finally mentions the present, but in such a manner that she does not offer it directly to David, but describes it as a gift for the men in his train. “And now this blessing (בּרכה here and 1Sa 30:26, as in Gen 33:11 : cf. ἡ εὐλογία, 2Co 9:5-6), which thine handmaid hath brought, let it be given to the young men in my lord’s train” (lit. “at the feet of:” cf. Exo 11:8; Jdg 4:10, etc.). 1Sa 25:28

The shrewd and pious woman supports her prayer for forgiveness of the wrong, which she takes upon herself, by promises of the rich blessing with which the Lord would recompense David. She thereby gives such clear and distinct expression to her firm belief in the divine election of David as king of Israel, that her words almost amount to prophecy: “For Jehovah will make my lord a lasting house (cf. 1Sa 2:35; and for the fact itself, 2Sa 7:8., where the Lord confirms this pious wish by His own promises to David himself); for my lord fighteth the wars of Jehovah (vid., 1Sa 18:17), and evil is not discovered in thee thy whole life long.” רעה, evil, i.e., misfortune, mischief; for the thought that he might also be preserved from wrong-doing is not expressed till 1Sa 25:31. “All thy days,” lit. “from thy days,” i.e., from the beginning of thy life. 1Sa 25:29

“And should any one rise up to pursue thee, ... the soul of my lord will be bound up in the bundle of the living with the Lord thy God.” The metaphor is taken from the custom of binding up valuable things in a bundle, to prevent their being injured. The words do not refer primarily to eternal life with God in heaven, but only to the safe preservation of the righteous on this earth in the grace and fellowship of the Lord. But whoever is so hidden in the gracious fellowship of the Lord in this life, that no enemy can harm him or injure his life, the Lord will not allow to perish, even though temporal death should come, but will then receive him into eternal life. “But the soul of thine enemies, He will hurl away in the cup of the sling.” “The cup (caph: cf. Gen 32:26) of the sling” was the cavity in which the stone was placed for the purpose of hurling. 1Sa 25:30-31

Abigail concluded her intercession with the assurance that the forgiveness of Nabal’s act would be no occasion of anguish of heart to David when he should have become prince over Israel, on account of his having shed innocent blood and helped himself, and also with the hope that he would remember her. From the words, “When Jehovah shall do to my lord according to all the good that He hath spoken concerning him, and shall make thee prince over Israel,” it appears to follow that Abigail had received certain information of the anointing of David, and his designation to be the future king, probably through Samuel, or one of the pupils of the prophets. There is nothing to preclude this assumption, even if it cannot be historically sustained. Abigail manifests such an advance and maturity in the life of faith, as could only have been derived from intercourse with prophets. It is expressly stated with regard to Elijah and Elisha, that at certain times the pious assembled together around the prophets. What prevents us from assuming the same with regard to Samuel? The absence of any distinct testimony to that effect is amply compensated for by the brief, and for the most part casual, notices that are given of the influence which Samuel exerted upon all Israel. 1Sa 25:32-34

These words could not fail to appease David’s wrath. In his reply he praised the Lord for having sent Abigail to meet him (1Sa 25:32), and then congratulated Abigail upon her understanding and her actions, that she had kept him from bloodshed (1Sa 25:33); otherwise he would certainly have carried out the revenge which he had resolved to take upon Nabal (1Sa 25:34). ואוּלם is strongly adversative: nevertheless. מהרע, inf. constr. Hiph. of רעע. כּי, ὅτι, introduces the substance of the affirmation, and is repeated before the oath: אם כּי ... לוּלי כּי, (that) if thou hadst not, etc., (that) truly there would not have been left (cf. 2Sa 2:27). The very unusual form תּבאתי, an imperfect with the termination of the perfect, might indeed possibly be a copyist’s error for תּבאי (Olsh. Gr. pp. 452, 525), but in all probability it is only an intensified form of the second pers. fem. imperf., like תּבואתה (Deu 33:16; cf. Ewald, §191, c.). 1Sa 25:35

David then received the gifts brought for him, and bade Abigail return to her house, with the assurance that he had granted her request for pardon. פּנים נשׂא, as in Gen 19:21, etc. 1Sa 25:36

When Abigail returned home, she found her husband at a great feast, like a king’s feast, very merry (עליו, “therewith,” refers to משׁתּה: cf. Pro 23:30), and drunken above measure, so that she told him nothing of what had occurred until the break of day. 1Sa 25:37

Then, “when the wine had gone from Nabal,” i.e., when he had become sober, she related the matter to him; whereat he was so terrified, that he was smitten with a stroke. This is the meaning of the words, “his heart died within him, and it became as stone.” The cause of it was not his anger at the loss he had sustained, or merely his alarm at the danger to which he had been exposed, and which he did not believe to be over yet, but also his vexation that his wife should have made him humble himself in such a manner; for he is described as a hard, i.e., an unbending, self-willed man. 1Sa 25:38

About ten days later the Lord smote him so that he died, i.e., the Lord put an end to his life by a second stroke. 1Sa 25:39-44

When David heard of Nabal’s death, he praised Jehovah that He had avenged his shame upon Nabal, and held him back from self-revenge. וגו רב עשׁר, “who hath pleaded the cause of my reproach (the disgrace inflicted upon me) against Nabal.” “Against Nabal” does not belong to “my reproach,” but to “pleaded the cause.” The construction of ריב with מן is a pregnant one, to fight (and deliver) out of the power of a person (vid., Psa 43:1); whereas here the fundamental idea is that of taking vengeance upon a person.

‏ 1 Samuel 26

1Sa 26:1-2

The second betrayal of David by the Ziphites occurred after David had married Abigail at Carmel, and when he had already returned to the desert of Judah. On 1Sa 26:1 and 1Sa 26:2 compare the explanations of 1Sa 23:19 and 1Sa 24:3. Instead of “before (in the face of) Jeshimon” (i.e., the wilderness), we find the situation defined more precisely in 1Sa 23:19, as “to the right (i.e., on the south) of the wilderness” (Jeshimon). 1Sa 26:3-4

When David saw (i.e., perceived) in the desert that Saul was coming behind him, he sent out spies, and learned from them that he certainly had come (אל־נכון, for a certainty, as in 1Sa 23:23). 1Sa 26:5-7

Upon the receipt of this information, David rose up with two attendants (mentioned in 1Sa 26:6) to reconnoitre the camp of Saul. When he saw the place where Saul and his general Abner were lying - Saul was lying by the waggon rampart, and the fighting men were encamped round about him - he said to Ahimelech and Abishai, “Who will go down with me into the camp to Saul?” Whereupon Abishai declared himself ready to do so; and they both went by night, and found Saul sleeping with all the people. Ahimelech the Hittite is never mentioned again; but Abishai the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister (1Ch 2:16), and a brother of Joab, was afterwards a celebrated general of David, as was also his brother Joab (2Sa 16:9; 2Sa 18:2; 2Sa 21:17). Saul’s spear was pressed (stuck) into the ground at his head, as a sign that the king was sleeping there, for the spear served Saul as a sceptre (cf. 1Sa 18:10). 1Sa 26:8-11

When Abishai exclaimed, “God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: now will I pierce him with the spear into the ground with a stroke, and will give no second” (sc., stroke: the Vulgate rendering gives the sense exactly: et secundo non opus erit, there will be no necessity for a second), David replied, “Destroy him not; for who hath stretched out his hand against the anointed of the Lord, and remained unhurt?” נקּה, as in Exo 21:19; Num 5:31. He then continued (in 1Sa 26:10, 1Sa 26:11): “As truly as Jehovah liveth, unless Jehovah smite him (i.e., carry him off with a stroke; cf. 1Sa 25:38), or his day cometh that he dies (i.e., or he dies a natural death; 'his day' denoting the day of death, as in Job 14:6; Job 15:32), or he goes into battle and is carried off, far be it from me with Jehovah (מיהוה, as in 1Sa 24:7) to stretch forth my hand against Jehovah’s anointed.” The apodosis to 1Sa 26:10 commences with חלילה, “far be it,” or “the Lord forbid,” in 1Sa 26:11. “Take now the spear which is at his head, and the pitcher, and let us go.” 1Sa 26:12

They departed with these trophies, without any one waking up and seeing them, because they were all asleep, as a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen upon them. שׁאוּל מראשׁתי stands for שׁ ממראשׁתי, “from the head of Saul,” with מ dropped. The expression “a deep sleep of Jehovah,” i.e., a deep sleep sent or inflicted by Jehovah, points to the fact that the Lord favoured David’s enterprise. 1Sa 26:13

“And David went over to the other side, and placed himself upon the top of the mountain afar off (the space between them was great), and cried to the people,” etc. Saul had probably encamped with his fighting men on the slope of the ill Hachilah, so that a valley separated him from the opposite hill, from which David had no doubt reconnoitred the camp and then gone down to it (1Sa 26:6), and to which he returned after the deed was accomplished. The statement that this mountain was far 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 without hesitation from the cave and called after him (1Sa 24:9), and that in fact he rather feared lest Saul should endeavour to get him into his power as soon as he woke from his sleep. 1Sa 26:14

David called out to Abner, whose duty it was as general to defend the life of his king. And Abner replied, “Who art thou, who criest out to the king?” i.e., offendest the king by thy shouting, and disturbest his rest. 1Sa 26:15-16

David in return taunted Abner with having watched the king carelessly, and made himself chargeable with his death. “For one of the people came to destroy thy lord the king.” As a proof of this, he then showed him the spear and pitcher that he had taken away with him. ראה is to be repeated in thought before את־צפּחת: “look where the king’s spear is; and (look) at the pitcher at his head,” sc., where it is. These reproaches that were cast at Abner were intended to show to Saul, who might at any rate possibly hear, and in fact did hear, that David was the most faithful defender of his life, more faithful than his closest and most zealous servants. 1Sa 26:17-19

When Saul heard David’s voice (for he could hardly have seen David, as the occurrence took place before daybreak, at the latest when the day began to dawn), and David had made himself known to the king in reply to his inquiry, David said, “Why doth my lord pursue his servant? for what have I done, and what evil is in my hand?” He then gave him the well-meant advice, to seek reconciliation for his wrath against him, and not to bring upon himself the guilt of allowing David to find his death in a foreign land. The words, “and now let my lord the king hear the saying of his servant,” serve to indicate that what follows is important, and worthy of laying to heart. In his words, David supposes two cases as conceivable causes of Saul’s hostility: (1) if Jehovah hath stirred thee up against me; (2) if men have done so. In the first case, he proposes as the best means of overcoming this instigation, that He (Jehovah) should smell an offering. The Hiphil ירח only means to smell, not to cause to smell. The subject is Jehovah. Smelling a sacrifice is an anthropomorphic term, used to denote the divine satisfaction (cf. Gen 8:21). The meaning of the words, “let Jehovah smell sacrifice,” is therefore, “let Saul appease the wrath of God by the presentation of acceptable sacrifices.” What sacrifices they are which 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. The thought to which David gives utterance here, namely, that God instigates a man to evil actions, is met with in other passages of the Old Testament. It not only lies at the foundation of the words of David in Psa 51:6 (cf. Hengstenberg on Psalms), but is also clearly expressed in 2Sa 24:1, where Jehovah instigates David to number the people, and where this instigation is described as a manifestation of the anger of God against Israel; and in 2Sa 16:10., where David says, with regard to Shimei, that God had bade him curse him. These passages also show that God only instigates those who have sinned against Him to evil deeds; and therefore that the instigation consists in the fact that God impels sinners to manifest the wickedness of their hearts in deeds, or furnishes the opportunity and occasion for the unfolding and practical manifestation of the evil desire of the heart, that the sinner may either be brought to the knowledge of his more evil ways and also to repentance, through the evil deed and its consequences, or, if the heart should be hardened still more by the evil deed, that it may become ripe for the judgment of death. The instigation of a sinner to evil is simply one peculiar way in which God, as a general rule, punishes sins through sinners; for God only instigates to evil actions such as have drawn down the wrath of God upon themselves in consequence of their sin. When David supposes the fact that Jehovah has instigated Saul against him, he acknowledges, implicitly 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.

The second supposition is: “if, however, children of men” (sc., have instigated thee against me); in which case “let them be cursed before the Lord; for they drive me now (this day) that I dare not attach myself to the inheritance of Jehovah (i.e., the people of God), saying, Go, serve other gods.” The meaning is this: They have carried it so far now, that I am obliged to separate from the people of God, to fly from the land of the Lord, and, because far away from His sanctuary, to serve other gods. The idea implied in the closing words was, 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, and revealed His face or gracious presence (vid., Psa 42:2-3; Psa 84:11; Psa 143:6.). “We are not to understand that the enemies of David were actually accustomed to use these very words, but David was thinking of deeds rather than words” (Calvin). 1Sa 26:20

“And now let not my blood fall to the earth far away from the face of the Lord,” i.e., do not carry it so far as to compel me to perish in a foreign land. “For the king of Israel has gone out to seek a single flea (vid., 1Sa 24:15), as one hunts a partridge upon the mountains.” This last comparison does not of course refer to the first, so that “the object of comparison is compared again with something else,” as Thenius supposes, but it refers rather to the whole of the previous clause. The king of Israel is pursuing something very trivial, and altogether unworthy of his pursuit, just as if one were hunting a partridge upon the mountains. “No one would think it worth his while to hunt a single partridge that had flown to the mountains, when they may be found in coveys in the fields” (Winer, Bibl. R. W. ii. p. 307). This comparison, therefore, does not presuppose that קרא must be a bird living upon the mountains, as Thenius maintains, so as to justify his altering the text according to the Septuagint. These words of David were perfectly well adapted to sharpen Saul’s conscience, and induce him to desist from his enmity, if he still had an ear for the voice of truth. 1Sa 26:21

Moreover, Saul could not help confessing, “I have sinned: return, my son David; I will do thee harm no more, because my life was precious in thine eyes that day.” A good intention, which he never carried out. “He declared that he would never do any more what he had already so often promised not to do again; and yet he did not fail to do it again and again. He ought rather to have taken refuge with God, and appealed to Him for grace, that he might not fall into such sins again; yea, he should have entreated David himself to pray for him” (Berleb. Bible). He adds still further, “Behold, I have acted foolishly, and have gone sore astray;” but yet he persists in this folly. “There is no sinner so hardened, but that God gives him now and then some rays of light, which show him all his error. But, alas! when they are awakened by such divine movings, it is only for a few moments; and such impulses are no sooner past, than they fall back again immediately into their former life, and forget all that they have promised.” 1Sa 26:22-23

David then bade the king send a servant to fetch back the spear and pitcher, and reminded him again of the recompense of God: “Jehovah will recompense His righteousness and His faithfulness to the man into whose hand Jehovah hath given thee to-day; and (for) I would not stretch out my hand against the anointed of the Lord.” 1Sa 26:24-25

“Behold, as thy soul has been greatly esteemed in my eyes to-day, so will my soul be greatly esteemed in the eyes of Jehovah, that He will save me out of all tribulation.” These words do not contain any “sounding of his own praises” (Thenius), but are merely the testimony of a good conscience before God in the presence of an enemy, who is indeed obliged to confess his wrong-doing, but who no longer feels or acknowledges his need of forgiveness. For even Saul’s reply to these words in 1Sa 26:25 (“Blessed art thou, my son David: thou wilt undertake, and also prevail:” תּוּכל יכל, lit. to vanquish, i.e., to carry out what one undertakes) does not express any genuine goodwill towards David, but only an acknowledgment, forced upon him by this fresh experience of David’s magnanimity, that God was blessing all his undertakings, so that he would prevail. Saul had no more thoughts of any real reconciliation with David. “David went his way, and Saul turned to his place” (cf. Num 24:25). Thus they parted, and never saw each other again. There is nothing said about Saul returning to his house, as there was when his life was first spared (1Sa 24:22). On the contrary, he does not seem to have given up pursuing David; for, according to 1Sa 27:1-12, David was obliged to take refuge in a foreign land, and carry out what he had described in 1Sa 26:19 as his greatest calamity. David at Ziklag in the Land of the Philistines - 1Sa 27:1-12

In his despair of being able permanently to escape the plots of Saul in the land of Israel, David betook himself, with his attendants, to the neighbouring land of the Philistines, to king Achish of Gath, and received from him the town of Ziklag, which was assigned him at his own request as a dwelling-place (1Sa 27:1-7). From this point he made attacks upon certain tribes on the southern frontier of Canaan which were hostile to Israel, but described them to Achish as attacks upon Judah and its dependencies, that he might still retain the protection of the Philistian chief (1Sa 27:8-12). David had fled to Achish at Gath once before; but on that occasion he had been obliged to feign insanity in order to preserve his life, because he was recognised as the conqueror of Goliath. This act of David was not forgotten by the Philistines even now. But as David had been pursued by Saul for many years, Achish did not hesitate to give a place of refuge in his land to the fugitive who had been outlawed by the king of Israel, the arch-enemy of the Philistines, possibly with the hope that if a fresh war with Saul should break out, he should be able to reap some advantage from David’s friendship.

‏ 1 Samuel 27

1Sa 27:1

The result of the last affair with Saul, after his life had again been spared, could not fail to confirm David in his conviction that Saul would not desist from pursuing him, and that if he stayed any longer in the land, he would fall eventually into the hands of his enemy. With this conviction, he formed the following resolution: “Now shall I be consumed one day by the hand of Saul: there is no good to me (i.e., it will not be well with me if I remain in the land), but (כּי after a negative) I will flee into the land of the Philistines; so will Saul desist from me to seek me further (i.e., give up seeking me) in the whole of the territory of Israel, and I shall escape his hand.” 1Sa 27:2

Accordingly he went over with the 600 men who were with him to Achish, the king of Gath. Achish, the son of Maoch, is in all probability the same person not only as the king Achish mentioned in 1Sa 21:11, but also as Achish the son of Maachah (1Ki 2:39), since Maoch and Maachah are certainly only different forms of the same name; and a fifty years’ reign, which we should have in that case to ascribe to Achish, it not impossible. 1Sa 27:3-4

Achish allotted dwelling-places in his capital, Gath, for David and his wives, and for all his retinue; and Saul desisted from any further pursuit of David when he was informed of his flight to Gath. The Chethibh יוסף is apparently only a copyist’s error for יסף. 1Sa 27:5-6

In the capital of the kingdom, however, David felt cramped, and therefore entreated Achish to assign him one of the land (or provincial) towns to dwell in; whereupon he gave him Ziklag for that purpose. This town was given to the Simeonites in the time of Joshua (Jos 19:5), but was afterwards taken by the Philistines, probably not long before the time of David, and appears to have been left without inhabitants in consequence of this conquest. The exact situation, in the western part of the Negeb, has not been clearly ascertained (see at Jos 15:31). Achish appears to have given it to David. This is implied in the remark, “Therefore Ziklag came to the kings of Judah (i.e., became their property) unto this day.” 1Sa 27:7

The statement that David remained a year and four months in the land of the Philistines, is a proof of the historical character of the whole narrative. The ימים before the “four months” signifies a year; strictly speaking, a term of days which amounted to a full year (as in Lev 25:29 : see also 1Sa 1:3, 1Sa 1:20; 1Sa 2:19). 1Sa 27:8-9

From Ziklag David made an attack upon the Geshurites, Gerzites, and Amalekites, smote them without leaving a man alive, and returned with much booty. The occasion of this attack is not mentioned, as being a matter of indifference in relation to the chief object of the history; but it is no doubt to be sought for in plundering incursions made by these tribes into the land of Israel. For David would hardly have entered upon such a war in the situation in which he was placed at that time without some such occasion, seeing that it would be almost sure to bring him into suspicion with Achish, and endanger his safety. ויּעל, “he advanced,” the verb being used, as it frequently is, to denote the advance of an army against a people or town (see at Jos 8:1). At the same time, the tribes which he attacked may have had their seat upon the mountain plateau in the northern portion of the desert of Paran, so that David was obliged to march up to reach them. פּשׁט, to invade for the purpose of devastation and plunder. Geshuri is a tribe mentioned in Jos 13:2 as living in the south of the territory of the Philistines, and is a different tribe from the Geshurites in the north-east of Gilead (Jos 12:5; Jos 13:11, Jos 13:13; Deu 3:14). These are the only passages in which they are mentioned. The Gerzites, or Gizrites according to the Keri, are entirely unknown. Bonfrere and Clericus suppose them to be the Gerreni spoken of in 2 Macc. 13:24, who inhabited the town of Gerra, between Rhinocolura and Pelusium (Strabo, xvi. 760), or Gerron (Ptol. iv. 5). This conjecture is a possible one, but is very uncertain nevertheless, as the Gerzites certainly dwelt somewhere in the desert of Arabia. At any rate Grotius and Ewald cannot be correct in their opinion that they were the inhabitants of Gezer (Jos 10:33). The Amalekites were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites, who had taken to flight on Saul’s war of extermination, and had now assembled again (see at 1Sa 15:8-9). “For they inhabit the land, where you go from of old to Shur, even to the land of Egypt.” The עשׁר before מעולם may be explained from the fact that בּואך is not adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as an infinitive: literally, “where from of old thy coming is to Shur.” עשׁר cannot have crept into the text through a copyist’s mistake, as such a mistake would not have found its way into all the MSS. The fact that the early translators did not render the word proves nothing against its genuineness, but merely shows that the translators regarded it as superfluous. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, and עולם is confounded with עלם, ἀπὸ Γελάμ. Shur is the desert of Jifar, which is situated in front of Egypt (as in 1Sa 15:7). These tribes were nomads, and had large flocks, which David took with him as booty when he had smitten the tribes themselves. After his return, David betook himself to Achish, to report to the Philistian king concerning his enterprise, and deceive him as to its true character. 1Sa 27:10-11

Achish said, “Ye have not made an invasion to-day, have ye?” אל, like μὴ, is an interrogative sense; the ה has dropped out: vid., Ewald, §324, b. David replied, “Against the south of Judah, and the south of the Jerahmeelites, and into the south of the Kenites,” sc., we have made an incursion. This reply shows that the Geshurites, Gerzites, and Amalekites dwelt close to the southern boundary of Judah, so that David was able to represent the march against these tribes to Achish as a march against the south of Judah, to make him believe that he had been making an attack upon the southern territory of Judah and its dependencies. The Negeb of Judah is the land between the mountains of Judah and the desert of Arabia (see at Jos 15:21). The Jerahmeelites are the descendants of Jerahmeel, the first-born of Hezron (1Ch 2:9, 1Ch 2:25-26), and therefore one of the three large families of Judah who sprang from Hezron. They probably dwelt on the southern frontier of the tribe of Judah (vid., 1Sa 30:29). The Kenites were protégés of Judah (see at 1Sa 15:6, and Jdg 1:16). In 1Sa 27:11 the writer introduces the remark, that in his raid David left neither man nor woman of his enemies alive, to take them to Gath, because he thought “they might report against us, and say, Thus hath David done.” There ought to be a major point under דּוד עשׂה, as the following clause does not contain the words of the slaughtered enemies, but is a clause appended by the historian himself, to the effect that David continued to act in that manner as long as he dwelt in the land of the Philistines. משׁפּט, the mode of procedure; lit. the right which he exercised (see 1Sa 8:9). 1Sa 27:12 is connected with 1Sa 27:10; Achish believed David’s words, and said (to himself), “He hath made himself stinking (i.e., hated) among his own people, among Israel, and will be my servant (i.e., subject to me) for ever.” David in the Army of the Philistines. Attack upon Israel. Saul and the Witch of Endor - 1 Samuel 28

The danger into which David had plunged through his flight into the land of the Philistines, and still more through the artifice with which he had deceived the king Achish as to his real feelings, was to be very soon made apparent to him. For example, when the Philistines went to war again with Israel, Achish summoned him to go with his men in the army of the Philistines to the war against his own people and land, and David could not disregard the summons. But even if he had not brought himself into this danger without some fault of his own, he had at any rate only taken refuge with the Philistines in the greatest extremity; and what further he had done, was only done to save his own life. The faithful covenant God helped him therefore out of this trouble, and very soon afterwards put an end to his persecution by the fact that Saul lost his life in the war.

‏ 1 Samuel 28

1Sa 28:1-2

“In those days,” i.e., whilst David was living in the land of the Philistines, it came to pass that the Philistines gathered their armies together for a campaign against Israel. And Achish sent word to David that he was to go with him in his army along with his men; and David answered (1Sa 28:2), “Thereby (on this occasion) thou shalt learn what thy servant will do.” This reply was ambiguous. The words “what thy servant will do” contained no distinct promise of faithful assistance in the war with the Israelites, as the expression “thy servant” is only the ordinary periphrasis for “I” in conversation with a superior. And there is just as little ground for inferring from 1Sa 29:8 that David was disposed to help the Philistines against Saul and the Israelites; for, as Calovius has observed, even there he gives no such promise, but “merely asks for information, that he may discover the king’s intentions and feelings concerning him: he simply protests that he has done nothing to prevent his placing confidence in him, or to cause him to shut him out of the battle.” Judging from his previous acts, it would necessarily have been against his conscience to fight against his own people. Nevertheless, in the situation in which he was placed he did not venture to give a distinct refusal to the summons of the king. He therefore gave an ambiguous answer, in the hope that God would show him a way out of this conflict between his inmost conviction and his duty to obey the Philistian king. He had no doubt prayed earnestly for this in his heart. And the faithful God helped His servant: first of all by the fact that Achish accepted his indefinite declaration as a promise of unconditional fidelity, as his answer “so (לכן, itaque, i.e., that being the case, if thy conduct answers to thy promise) “I will make thee the keeper of my head” (i.e., of my person) implies; and still more fully by the fact that the princes of the Philistines overturned the decision of their king (1Sa 29:3.). 1Sa 28:3 Saul with the witch at Endor. - The invasion of Israel by the Philistines, which brought David into so difficult a situation, drove king Saul to despair, so that in utter helplessness he had recourse to ungodly means of inquiring into the future, which he himself had formerly prohibited, and to his horror had to hear the sentence of his own death. This account is introduced with the remark in 1Sa 28:3 that Samuel was dead and had been buried at Ramah (cf. 1Sa 25:1; וּבעירו, with an explanatory vav, and indeed in his own city), and that Saul had expelled “those that had familiar spirits and the wizards out of the land” (on the terms employed, oboth and yiddonim, see at Lev 19:31). He had done this in accordance with the law in Lev 19:31; Lev 20:27, and Deu 18:10. 1Sa 28:4-5

When the Philistines advanced and encamped at Shunem, Saul brought all Israel together and encamped at Gilboa, i.e., upon the mountain of that name on the north-eastern edge of the plain of Jezreel, which slopes off from a height of about 1250 feet into the valley of the Jordan, and is not far from Beisan. On the north of the western extremity of this mountain was Shunem, the present Sulem or Solam (see at Jos 19:18); it was hardly two hours distant, so that the camp of the Philistines might be seen from Gilboa. When Saul saw this, he was thrown into such alarm that his heart greatly trembled. As Saul had been more than once victorious in his conflicts with the Philistines, his great fear at the sight of the Philistian army can hardly be attributed to any other cause than the feeling that God had forsaken him, by which he was suddenly overwhelmed. 1Sa 28:6

In his anxiety he inquired of the Lord; but the Lord neither answered him by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets, that is to say, not by any of the three media by which He was accustomed to make known His will to Israel. בּיהוה שׁאל is the term usually employed to signify inquiring the will and counsel of God through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (see at Jdg 1:1); and this is the case here, with the simple difference that here the other means of inquiring the counsel of God are also included. On dreams, see at Num 12:6. According to Num 27:21, Urim denotes divine revelation through the high priest by means of the ephod. But the high priest Abiathar had been with the ephod in David’s camp ever since the murder of the priests at Nob (1Sa 22:20., 1Sa 23:6; 1Sa 30:7). How then could Saul inquire of God through the Urim? This question, which was very copiously discussed by the earlier commentators, and handled in different ways, may be decided very simply on the supposition, that after the death of Ahimelech and the flight of his son, another high priest had been appointed at the tabernacle, and another ephod made for him, with the choshen or breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim. It is no proof to the contrary that there is nothing said about this. We have no continuous history of the worship at the tabernacle, but only occasional notices. And from these it is perfectly clear that the public worship at the tabernacle was not suspended on the murder of the priests, but was continued still. For in the first years of David’s reign we find the tabernacle at Gibeon, and Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar, officiating there as high priest (1Ch 16:39, compared with 1Ch 6:8 and 1Ch 6:53); from which it follows with certainty, that after the destruction of Nob by Saul the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon, and the worship of the congregation continued there. From this we may also explain in a very simple manner the repeated allusions to two high priests in David’s time (2Sa 18:17; 2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:29, 2Sa 15:35; 1Ch 15:11; 1Ch 18:16). The reason why the Lord did not answer Saul is to be sought for in the wickedness of Saul, which rendered him utterly unworthy to find favour with God. 1Sa 28:7-14

Instead of recognising this, however, and searching his own heart, Saul attempted to obtain a revelation of the future in ungodly ways. He commanded his servants (1Sa 28:7) to seek for a woman that had a familiar spirit. Baalath-ob: the mistress (or possessor) of a conjuring spirit, i.e., of a spirit with which the dead were conjured up, for the purpose of making inquiry concerning the future (see at Lev 19:31). There was a woman of this kind at Endor, which still exists as a village under the old name upon the northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see at Jos 17:11), and therefore only two German (ten English) miles from the Israelitish camp at Gilboa. 1Sa 28:15-17

Then Samuel said, “Why hast thou disturbed me (sc., from my rest in Hades; cf. Isa 14:9), to bring me up?” It follows, no doubt, from this that Samuel had been disturbed from his rest by Saul; but whether this had been effected by the conjuring arts of the witch, or by a miracle of God himself, is left undecided. Saul replied, “I am sore oppressed, for the Philistines fight against me, and God has departed from me, and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; then I had thee called (on the intensified form ואקראה, vid., Ewald, §228, c.), to make known to me what I am to do.” The omission of any reference to the Urim is probably to be interpreted very simply from the brevity of the account, and not from the fact that Saul shrank from speaking about the oracle of the high priest, on account of the massacre of the priests which had taken place by his command. There is a contradiction, however, in Saul’s reply: for if God had forsaken him, he could not expect any answer from Him; and if God did not reply to his inquiry through the regularly appointed media of His revelation, how could he hope to obtain any divine revelation through the help of a witch? “When living prophets gave no answer, he thought that a dead one might be called up, as if a dead one were less dependent upon God than the living, or that, even in opposition to the will of God, he might reply through the arts of a conjuring woman. Truly, if he perceived that God was hostile to him, he ought to have been all the more afraid, lest His enmity should be increased by his breach of His laws. But fear and superstition never reason” (Clericus). Samuel points out this contradiction (1Sa 28:16): “Why dost thou ask me, since Jehovah hath departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?” The meaning is: How canst thou expect an answer under these circumstances from me, the prophet of Jehovah? ערך, from ער, signifies an enemy here (from עיר, fervour); and this meaning is confirmed by Psa 139:20 and Dan 4:16 (Chald.). There is all the less ground for any critical objection to the reading, as the Chaldee and Vulgate give a periphrastic rendering of “enemy,” whilst the lxx, Syr., and Arab. have merely paraphrased according to conjectures. Samuel then announced his fate (1Sa 28:17-19): “Jehovah hath performed for himself, as He spake by me (לו, for himself, which the lxx and Vulg. have arbitrarily altered into לך, σοί, tibi (to thee), is correctly explained by Seb. Schmidt, 'according to His grace, or to fulfil and prove His truth'); and Jehovah hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbour David.” The perfects express the purpose of God, which had already been formed, and was now about to be fulfilled. 1Sa 28:18-19

The reason for Saul’s rejection is then given, as in 1Sa 15:23 : “Because (כּאשׁר, according as) thou ... hast not executed the fierceness of His anger upon Amalek, therefore hath Jehovah done this thing to thee this day.” “This thing” is the distress of which Saul had complained, with its consequences. ויתּן, that Jehovah may give (= for He will give) Israel also with thee into the hand of the Philistines. “To-morrow wilt thou and thy sons be with me (i.e. in Sheol, with the dead); also the camp of Israel will Jehovah give into the hand of the Philistines,” i.e., give up to them to plunder. The overthrow of the people was to heighten Saul’s misery, when he saw the people plunged with him into ruin through his sin (O. v. Gerlach). Thus was the last hope taken from Saul. His day of grace was gone, and judgment was now to burst upon him without delay. 1Sa 28:20

These words so alarmed him, that he fell his whole length upon the ground; for he had been kneeling hitherto (1Sa 28:14). He “fell straightway (lit. he hastened and fell) upon the ground. For he was greatly terrified at the words of Samuel: there was also no strength in him, because he had eaten no food the whole day and the whole night,” sc., from mental perturbation or inward excitement. Terror and bodily exhaustion caused him to fall powerless to the ground. 1Sa 28:21-22

The woman then came to him and persuaded him to strengthen himself with food for the journey which he had to take. It by no means follows from the expression “came unto Saul,” that the woman was in an adjoining room during the presence of the apparition, and whilst Samuel was speaking, but only that she was standing at some distance off, and came up to him to speak to him when he had fallen fainting to the ground. As she had fulfilled his wish at the risk of her own life, she entreated him now to gratify her wish, and let her set a morsel of bread before him and eat. “That strength may be in thee when thou goest thy way” (i.e., when thou returnest).

This narrative, when read without prejudice, makes at once and throughout the impression conveyed by the Septuagint at 1Ch 10:13 : ἐπηρώτησε Σαοὺλ ἐν τῷ ἐγγαστριμύθῳ τοῦ ζητῆσαι, καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ Σαμουὴλ ὁ προφήτης; and still more clearly at Ecclus. 46:20, where it is said of Samuel: “And after his death he prophesied, and showed the king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.” Nevertheless the fathers, reformers, and earlier Christian theologians, with very few exceptions, assumed that there was not a real appearance of Samuel, but only an imaginary one. According to the explanation given by Ephraem Syrus, an apparent image of Samuel was presented to the eye of Saul through demoniacal arts. Luther and Calvin adopted the same view, and the earlier Protestant theologians followed them in regarding the apparition as nothing but a diabolical spectre, a phantasm, or diabolical spectre in the form of Samuel, and Samuel’s announcement as nothing but a diabolical revelation made by divine permission, in which truth is mixed with falsehood. ^{▼▼Thus Luther says (in his work upon the abuses of the Mass, 1522): “The raising of Samuel by a soothsayer or witch, in 1Sa 28:11-12, was certainly merely a spectre of the devil; not only because the Scriptures state that it was effected by a woman who was full of devils (for who could believe that the souls of believers, who are in the hand of God, Ecclus. 3:1, and in the bosom of Abraham, Luk 16:31, were under the power of the devil, and of simple men?), but also because it was evidently in opposition to the command of God that Saul and the woman inquired of the dead. The Holy Ghost cannot do anything against this himself, nor can He help those who act in opposition to it.” Calvin also regards the apparition as only a spectre (Hom. 100 in 1 Samuel.): “It is certain,” he says, “that it was not really Samuel, for God would never have allowed His prophets to be subjected to such diabolical conjuring. For here is a sorceress calling up the dead from the grave. Does any one imagine that God wished His prophet to be exposed to such ignominy; as if the devil had power over the bodies and souls of the saints which are in His keeping? The souls of the saints are said to rest and live in God, waiting for their happy resurrection. Besides, are we to believe that Samuel took his cloak with him into the grave? For all these reasons, it appears evident that the apparition was nothing more than a spectre, and that the senses of the woman herself were so deceived, that she thought she saw Samuel, whereas it really was not he.” The earlier orthodox theologians also disputed the reality of the appearance of the departed Samuel on just the same grounds; e.g., Seb. Schmidt (Comm.); Aug. Pfeiffer; Sal. Deyling; and Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. V. t. ii. p. 243, and many more.}

It was not till the seventeenth century that the opinion was expressed, that the apparition of Samuel was merely a delusion produced by the witch, without any real background at all. After Reginald Scotus and Balth. Becker had given expression to this opinion, it was more fully elaborated by Ant. van Dale, in his dissert. de divinationibus idololatricis sub V. T.; and in the so-called age of enlightenment this was the prevailing opinion, so that Thenius still regards it as an established fact, not only that the woman was an impostor, but that the historian himself regarded the whole thing as an imposture. There is no necessity to refute this opinion at the present day. Even Fr. Boettcher (de inferis, pp. 111ff.), who looks upon the thing as an imposture, admits that the first recorder of the occurrence “believed that Samuel appeared and prophesied, contrary to the expectation of the witch;” and that the author of the books of Samuel was convinced that the prophet was raised up and prophesied, so that after his death he was proved to be the true prophet of Jehovah, although through the intervention of ungodly arts (cf. Eze 14:7, Eze 14:9). But the view held by the early church does not do justice to the scriptural narrative; and hence the more modern orthodox commentators are unanimous in the opinion that the departed prophet did really appear and announce the destruction of Saul, not, however, in consequence of the magical arts of the witch, but through a miracle wrought by the omnipotence of God.

This is most decidedly favoured by the fact, that the prophetic historian speaks throughout of the appearance, not of a ghost, but of Samuel himself. He does this not only in 1Sa 28:12, “When the woman saw Samuel she cried aloud,” but also in 1Sa 28:14, 1Sa 28:15, 1Sa 28:16, and 1Sa 28:20. It is also sustained by the circumstance, that not only do the words of Samuel to Saul, in 1Sa 28:16-19, create the impression that it is Samuel himself who is speaking; but his announcement contains so distinct a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons, that it is impossible to imagine that it can have proceeded from the mouth of an impostor, or have been an inspiration of Satan. On the other hand, the remark of Calvin, to the effect that “God sometimes give to devils the power of revealing secrets to us, which they have learned from the Lord,” could only be regarded as a valid objection, provided that the narrative gave us some intimation that the apparition and the speaking were nothing but a diabolical delusion. But it does nothing of the kind. It is true, the opinion that the witch conjured up the prophet Samuel was very properly disputed by the early theologians, and rejected by Theodoret as “unholy, and even impious;” and the text of Scripture indicates clearly enough that the very opposite was the case, by the remark that the witch herself was terrified at the appearance of Samuel (1Sa 28:12). Shöbel is therefore quite correct in saying: “It was not at the call of the idolatrous king, nor at the command of the witch, - neither of whom had the power to bring him up, or even to make him hear their voice in his rest in the grave, - that Samuel came; nor was it merely by divine 'permission,' which is much too little to say. No, rather it was by the special command of God that he left his grave (?), like a faithful servant whom his master arouses at midnight, to let in an inmate of the house who has wilfully stopped out late, and has been knocking at the door. 'Why do you disturb me out of my sleep?' would always be the question put to the unwelcome comer, although it was not by his noise, but really by his master’s command, that he had been aroused. Samuel asked the same question.” The prohibition of witchcraft and necromancy (Deu 18:11; Isa 8:19), which the earlier writers quote against this, does not preclude the possibility of God having, for His own special reasons, caused Samuel to appear. On the contrary, the appearance itself was of such a character, that it could not fail to show to the witch and the king, that God does not allow His prohibitions to be infringed with impunity. The very same thing occurred here, which God threatened to idolaters through the medium of Ezekiel (Eze 14:4, Eze 14:7,Eze 14:8): “If they come to the prophet, I will answer them in my own way.” Still less is there any force in the appeal to Luk 16:27., where Abraham refuses the request of the rich man in Hades, that he would send Lazarus to his father’s house to preach repentance to his brethren who were still living, saying, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” For this does not affirm that the appearance of a dead man is a thing impossible in itself, but only describes it as useless and ineffectual, so far as the conversion of the ungodly is concerned.

The reality of the appearance of Samuel from the kingdom of the dead cannot therefore be called in question, especially as it has an analogon in the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration of Christ (Mat 17:3; Luk 9:30-31); except that this difference must not be overlooked, namely, that Moses and Elijah appeared “in glory,” i.e., in a glorified form, whereas Samuel appeared in earthly corporeality with the prophet’s mantle which he had worn on earth. Just as the transfiguration of Christ was a phenomenal anticipation of His future heavenly glory, into which He was to enter after His resurrection and ascension, so may we think of the appearance of Moses and Elijah “in glory” upon the mount of transfiguration as an anticipation of their heavenly transfiguration in eternal life with God. It was different with Samuel, whom God brought up from Hades through an act of His omnipotence. This appearance is not to be regarded as the appearance of one who had risen in a glorified body; but though somewhat spirit-like in its external manifestation, so that it was only to the witch that it was visible, and not to Saul, it was merely an appearance of the soul of Samuel, that had been at rest in Hades, in the clothing of the earthly corporeality and dress of the prophet, which were assumed for the purpose of rendering it visible. In this respect the appearance of Samuel rather resembled the appearances of incorporeal angels in human form and dress, such as the three angels who came to Abraham in the grove at Mamre (Gen 18), and the angel who appeared to Manoah (Judg 13); with this exception, however, that these angels manifested themselves in a human form, which was visible to the ordinary bodily eye, whereas Samuel appeared in the spirit-like form of the inhabitants of Hades. In all these cases the bodily form and clothing were only a dress assumed for the soul or spirit, and intended to facilitate perception, so that such appearances furnish no proof that the souls of departed men possess an immaterial corporeality. ^{▼▼Delitzsch (bibl Psychol. pp. 427ff.) has very properly rejected, not only the opinion that Samuel and Moses were raised up from the dead for the purpose of a transient appearance, and then died again, but also the idea that they appeared in their material bodies, a notion upon which Calvin rests his argument against the reality of the appearance of Samuel. But when he gives it as his opinion, that the angels who appeared in human form assumed this form by virtue of their own power, inasmuch as they can make themselves visible to whomsoever they please, and infers till further from this, “that the outward form in which Samuel and Moses appeared (which corresponded to their form when on this side the grave) was the immaterial production of their spiritual and psychical nature,” he overlooks the fact, that not only Samuel, but the angels also, in the cases referred to, appeared in men’s clothing, which cannot possibly be regarded as a production of their spiritual and psychical nature. The earthly dress is not indispensable to a man’s existence. Adam and Eve had no clothing before the Fall, and there will be no material clothing in the kingdom of glory; for the “fine linen, pure and white,” with which the bride adorns herself for the marriage supper of the Lamb, is “the righteousness of saints” (Rev 19:8}. 1Sa 28:23-24

On Saul’s refusing to take food, his servants (i.e., his two attendants) also pressed him, so that he yielded, rose up from the ground, and sat down upon the bed (Mittah: i.e., a bench by the wall of the room provided with pillows); whereupon the woman quickly sacrificed (served up) a stalled calf, baked unleavened cakes, and set the food she had prepared before the king and his servants. The woman did all this from natural sympathy for the unhappy king, and not, as Thenius supposes, to remove all suspicion of deception from Saul’s mind; for she had not deceived the king at all. 1Sa 28:25

When Saul and his servants had eaten, they started upon their way, and went back that night to Gilboa, which was about ten miles distant, where the battle occurred the next day, and Saul and his sons fell. “Saul was too hardened in his sin to express any grief or pain, either on his own account or because of the fate of his sons and his people. In stolid desperation he went to meet his fate. This was the terrible end of a man whom the Spirit of God had once taken possession of and turned into another man, and whom he had endowed with gifts to be the leader of the people of God” (O. v. Gerlach). Whilst Saul derived no comfort from his visit to the witch at Endor, but simply heard from the mouth of Samuel the confirmation of his rejection on the part of God, and an announcement of his approaching fate, David was delivered, through the interposition of God, from the danger of having to fight against his own people.

‏ 1 Samuel 29

1Sa 29:1

The account of this is introduced by a fuller description of the position of the hostile army. “The Philistines gathered all their armies together towards Aphek, but Israel encamped at the fountain in (at) Jezreel.” This fountain is the present Ain Jalûd (or Ain Jalût, i.e., Goliath’s fountain, probably so called because it was regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath), a very large fountain, which issues from a cleft in the rock at the foot of the mountain on the north-eastern border of Gilboa, forming a beautifully limpid pool of about forty or fifty feet in diameter, and then flowing in a brook through the valley (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 168). Consequently Aphek, which must be carefully distinguished from the towns of the same name in Asher (Jos 19:30; Jdg 1:31) and upon the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:53) and also at Ebenezer (1Sa 4:1), is to be sought for not very far from Shunem, in the plain of Jezreel; according to Van de Velde’s Mem., by the side of the present el Afûleh, though the situation has not been exactly determined. The statement in the Onom., “near Endor of Jezreel where Saul fought,” is merely founded upon the Septuagint, in which בּעין is erroneously rendered ἐν Ἐνδώρ. 1Sa 29:2-3

When the princes of the Philistines (sarne, as in Jos 13:3) advanced by hundreds and thousands (i.e., arranged in companies of hundreds and thousands), and David and his men came behind with Achish (i.e., forming the rear-guard), the (other) princes pronounced against their allowing David and his men to go with them. The did not occur at the time of their setting out, but on the road, when they had already gone some distance (compare 1Sa 29:11 with 1Sa 30:1), probably when the five princes (Jos 13:3) of the Philistines had effected a junction. To the inquiry, “What are these Hebrews doing?” Achish replied, “Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, who has been with me days already, or years already? and I have found nothing in him since his coming over unto this day.” מאוּמה, anything at all that could render his suspicious, or his fidelity doubtful. נפל, to fall away and go over to a person; generally construed with אל (Jer 37:13; Jer 38:19, etc.) or על (Jer 21:9; Jer 37:14; 1Ch 12:19-20), but here absolutely, as the more precise meaning can be gathered from the context. 1Sa 29:4

But the princes, i.e., the four other princes of the Philistines, not the courtiers of Achish himself, were angry with Achish, and demanded, “Send the man back, that he may return to his place, which thou hast assigned him; that he may not go down with us into the war, and may not become an adversary (satan) to us in the war; for wherewith could he show himself acceptable to his lord (viz., Saul), if not with the heads of these men?” הלוא, nonne, strictly speaking, introduces a new question to confirm the previous question. “Go down to the battle:” this expression is used as in 1Sa 26:10; 1Sa 30:24, because battles were generally fought in the plains, into which the Hebrews were obliged to come down from their mountainous land. “These men,” i.e., the soldiers of the Philistines, to whom the princes were pointing. 1Sa 29:5

To justify their suspicion, the princes reminded him of their song with which the women in Israel had celebrated David’s victory over Goliath (1Sa 18:7).

After this declaration on the part of the princes, Achish was obliged to send David back. 1Sa 29:6-7

With a solemn assertion, - swearing by Jehovah to convince David all the more thoroughly of the sincerity of his declaration, - Achish said to him, “Thou art honourable, and good in my eyes (i.e., quite right in my estimation) are thy going out and coming in (i.e., all thy conduct) with me in the camp, for I have not found anything bad in thee; but in the eyes of the princes thou art not good (i.e., the princes do not think thee honourable, do not trust thee). Turn now, and go in peace, that thou mayest do nothing displeasing to the princes of the Philistines.” 1Sa 29:8-9

Partly for the sake of vindicating himself against this suspicion, and partly to put the sincerity of Achish’s words to the test, David replied, “What have I done, and what hast thou found in thy servant, since I was with thee till this day, that I am not to come and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?” These last words are also ambiguous, since the king whom David calls his lord might be understood as meaning either Achish or Saul. Achish, in his goodness of heart, applies them without suspicion to himself; for he assures David still more earnestly (1Sa 29:9), that he is firmly convinced of his uprightness. “I know that thou art good in my eyes as an angel of God,” i.e., I have the strongest conviction that thou hast behaved as well towards me as an angel could; but the princes have desired thy removal. 1Sa 29:10

“And now get up early in the morning with the servants of thy lord (i.e., Saul, whose subjects David’s men all were), who have come with thee; get ye up in the morning when it gets light for you (so that ye can see), and go.” 1Sa 29:11

In accordance with this admonition, David returned the next morning into the land of the Philistines, i.e., to Ziklag; no doubt very light of heart, and praising God for having so graciously rescued him out of the disastrous situation into which he had been brought and not altogether without some fault of his own, rejoicing that “he had not committed either sin, i.e., had neither violated the fidelity which he owed to Achish, nor had to fight against the Israelites” (Seb. Schmidt).

‏ 1 Samuel 30:1-24

DAVID AVENGES UPON THE AMALEKITES THE PLUNDERING AND BURNING OF ZIKLAG. CHAP. XXX.

During David’s absence the Amalekites had invaded the south country, smitten Ziklag and burnt it down, and carried off the women and children whom they found there; whereat not only were David and his men plunged into great grief on their return upon the third day but David especially was involved in very great trouble, inasmuch as the people wanted to stone him. But he strengthened himself in the Lord his God (1Sa 30:1-6).

1Sa 30:1-5 1Sa 30:1-4 form one period, which is expanded by the introduction of several circumstantial clauses. The apodosis to “It came to pass, when,” etc. (1Sa 30:1), does not follow till 1Sa 30:4, “Then David and the people,” etc. But this is formally attached to 1Sa 30:3, “so David and his men came,” with which the protasis commenced in 1Sa 30:1 is resumed in an altered form. “It came to pass, when David and his men came to Ziklag ... the Amalekites had invaded ... and had carried off the wives ... and had gone their way, and David and his men came into the town (for 'when David and his men came,' etc.), and behold it was burned ... . Then David and the people with him lifted up their voice.” “On the third day:” after David’s dismission by Achish, not after David’s departure from Ziklag. David had at any rate gone with Achish beyond Gath, and had not been sent back till the whole of the princes of the Philistines had united their armies (1Sa 29:2.), so that he must have been absent from Ziklag more than two days, or two days and a half. This is placed beyond all doubt by 1Sa 30:11., since the Amalekites are there described as having gone off with their booty three days before David followed them, and therefore they had taken Ziklag and burned it three days before David’s return. These foes had therefore taken advantage of the absence of David and his warriors, to avenge themselves for David’s invasions and plunderings (1Sa 27:8). Of those who were carried off, “the women” alone expressly mentioned in 1Sa 30:2, although the female population and all the children had been removed, as we may see from the expression “small and great” (1Sa 30:3, 1Sa 30:6). The lxx were therefore correct, so far as the sense is concerned, in introducing the words καὶ πάντα before בּהּ עשׁר. “They had killed no one, but (only) carried away.” נהג, to carry away captive, as in Isa 20:4. Among those who had been carried off were David’s two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail (vid., 1Sa 25:42-43; 1Sa 27:3). 1Sa 30:6-10

David was greatly distressed in consequence; “for the people thought ('said,' sc., in their hearts) to stone him,” because they sought the occasion of their calamity in his connection with Achish, with which many of his adherents may very probably have been dissatisfied. “For the soul of the whole people was embittered (i.e., all the people were embittered in their souls) because of their sons and daughters,” who had been carried away into slavery. “But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God,” i.e., sought consolation and strength in prayer and believing confidence in the Lord (1Sa 30:7.). This strength he manifested in the resolution to follow the foes and rescue their booty from them. To this end he had the ephod brought by the high priest Abiathar (cf. 1Sa 23:9), and inquired by means of the Urim of the Lord, “Shall I pursue this troop? Shall I overtake it?” These questions were answered in the affirmative; and the promise was added, “and thou wilt rescue.” So David pursued the enemy with his six hundred men as far as the brook Besor, where the rest, i.e., two hundred, remained standing (stayed behind). The words עמדוּ והנּותרים, which are appended in the form of a circumstantial clause, are to be connected, so far as the facts are concerned, with what follows: whilst the others remained behind, David pursued the enemy still farther with four hundred men. By the word הנּותרים the historian has somewhat anticipated the matter, and therefore regards it as necessary to define the expression still further in 1Sa 30:10. We are precluded from changing the text, as Thenius suggests, by the circumstance that all the early translators read it in this manner, and have endeavoured to make the expression intelligible by paraphrasing it. These two hundred men were too tired to cross the brook and go any farther. (פּגר, which only occurs here and in 1Sa 30:21, signifies, in Syriac, to be weary or exhausted.) As Ziklag was burnt down, of course they found no provisions there, and were consequently obliged to set out in pursuit of the foe without being able to provide themselves with the necessary supplies. The brook Besor is supposed to be the Wady Sheriah, which enters the sea below Ashkelon (see v. Raumer, Pal. p. 52). 1Sa 30:11-12

On their further march they found an Egyptian lying exhausted upon the field; and having brought him to David, they gave him food and drink, namely “a slice of fig-cake (cf. 1Sa 25:18), and raisin-cakes to eat; whereupon his spirit of life returned (i.e., he came to himself again), as he had neither eaten bread nor drunk water for three days.” 1Sa 30:13-14

When David asked him whence he had come (to whom, i.e., to what people or tribe, dost thou belong?), the young man said that he was an Egyptian, and servant of an Amalekite, and that he had been left behind by his master when he fell sick three days before (“to-day three,” sc., days): he also said, “We invaded the south of the Crethites, and what belongs to Judah, and the south of Caleb, and burned Ziklag with fire.” הכּרתי, identical with כּרתים (Eze 25:16; Zep 2:5), denotes those tribes of the Philistines who dwelt in the south-west of Canaan, and is used by Ezekiel and Zephaniah as synonymous with Philistim. The origin of the name is involved in obscurity, as the explanation which prevailed for a time, viz., that it was derived from Creta, is without sufficient foundation (vid., Stark, Gaza, pp. 66 and 99ff.). The Negeb “belonging to Judah” is the eastern portion of the Negeb. One part of it belonged to the family of Caleb, and was called Caleb’s Negeb (vid., 1Sa 25:3). 1Sa 30:15-16

This Egyptian then conducted David, at his request, when he had sworn that he would neither kill him nor deliver him up to his master, down to the hostile troops, who were spread over the whole land, eating, drinking, and making merry, on account of all the great booty which they had brought out of the land of the Philistines and Judah. 1Sa 30:17

David surprised them in the midst of their security, and smote them from the evening twilight till the evening of the next day, so that no one escaped, with the exception of four hundred young men, who fled upon camels. Nesheph signifies the evening twilight here, not the dawn, - a meaning which is not even sustained by Job 7:4. The form מחרתם appears to be an adverbial formation, like יומם. 1Sa 30:18-19

Through this victory David rescued all that the Amalekites had taken, his two wives, and all the children great and small; also the booty that they had taken with them, so that nothing was missing. 1Sa 30:20 1Sa 30:20 is obscure: “And David took all the sheep and the oxen: they drove them before those cattle, and said, This is David’s booty.” In order to obtain any meaning whatever from this literal rendering of the words, we must understand by the sheep and oxen those which belonged to the Amalekites, and the flocks taken from them as booty; and by “those cattle,” the cattle belonging to David and his men, which the Amalekites had driven away, and the Israelites had now recovered from them: so that David had the sheep and oxen which he had taken from the Amalekites as booty driven in front of the rest of the cattle which the Israelites had recovered; whereupon the drovers exclaimed, “This (the sheep and oxen) is David’s booty.” It is true that there is nothing said in what goes before about any booty that David had taken from the Amalekites, in addition to what they had taken from the Israelites; but the fact that David had really taken such booty is perfectly obvious from 1Sa 30:26-31, where he is said to have sent portions of the booty of the enemies of Jehovah to different places in the land. If this explanation be not accepted, there is no other course open than to follow the Vulgate, alter לפני into לפניו, and render the middle clause thus: “they drove those cattle (viz., the sheep and oxen already mentioned) before him,” as Luther has done. But even in that case we could hardly understand anything else by the sheep and oxen than the cattle belonging to the Amalekites, and taken from them as booty. 1Sa 30:21

When David came back to the two hundred men whom he had left by the brook Besor (יושׁיבם, they made them sit, remain), they went to meet him and his warriors, and were heartily greeted by David. 1Sa 30:22

Then all kinds of evil and worthless men of those who had gone with David to the battle replied: “Because they have not gone with us (lit. with me, the person speaking), we will not give them any of the booty that we have seized, except to every one his wife and his children: they may lead them away, and go.” 1Sa 30:23-24

David opposed this selfish and envious proposal, saying, “Do not so, my brethren, with that (את, the sign of the accusative, not the preposition; see Ewald, §329, a.: lit. with regard to that) which Jehovah hath done to us, and He hath guarded us (since He hath guarded us), and given this troop which came upon us into our hand. And who will hearken to you in this matter? But (כּי, according to the negation involved in the question) as the portion of him that went into the battle, so be the portion of him that stayed by the things; they shall share together.” הורד is a copyist’s error for היּרד.