The Life and Times of

“Saul, I have seen David on many occasions, as he sought divine guidance, but I don’t think I’ve seen you lately. . . .”

26 One cannot help but compare this event with that described in chapter 14, when Saul fully intended to put his own son, Jonathan, to death. There the people rebuked Saul, insisting that he would most certainly not be put to death (14:45). Here, there is only passive disobedience. Is this because Saul has become even more irrational and violent?

27 The actual means by which David “inquired of the Lord” here is not indicated. From what we are told in verses 6 and following, I would infer that it was not by means of the ephod which Abiathar brought, but by some other means. God’s will was indicated by a variety of means, and the author does not feel it important to inform the reader here which means were employed.

28 See Walvoord, John F. and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

1 And since his father is already elderly, I would think it can’t be too much later (see 1 Samuel 17:12).

2 Scholars do not actually know the location of a place called “Horesh,” though there could have been such a place. The Hebrew word rendered “Horesh” in the NASB is a word meaning “forest,” and thus the NKJV renders it “forest”: “So David saw that Saul had come out to seek his life. And David was in the Wilderness of Ziph in a forest.”

3 This could be at the time David is seeking to protect himself from Saul, or after David becomes king. It was often the practice of newly installed kings to kill off all others who feel they have a claim to the throne.

4 All too often, people try to “encourage” someone who has done a bad job by telling them they did well. If someone attempts to sing a solo and they can’t even get on key, it is no favor to the would-be singer or the audience to falsely compliment them on their efforts. Some of the biggest lies I have heard have been prompted by an embarrassing failure.

5 See also 2 Chronicles 15:1-8; 32:1-8; Haggai 2:1-5.

6 The Ziphites are thus out of the picture until chapter 26, where they again appear in verse 1.

1 I often get input from members of our congregation. This title was the suggestion of 13-year-old Eric Ritchie, who also has drawn some fine cartoons, based upon a biblical passage.

2 A report came to Saul that David was in the wilderness of Engedi, “an oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea, favored with a perennial spring located several hundred feet up a large cliff.” Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, p. 103.

3 From what I read, no one really knows the location of this place, but from Psalm 104:18, we can infer that it was a very high, remote spot, where wild goats would thrive, and where soldiers would not fare well in their pursuit of David.

4 Davis, for example, writes: “David’s act may have been a symbolic declaration of revolt. Only such heavy symbolism explains David’s remorse . . . .” Dale Ralph Davis, vol. 2, p. 105.

5 At this point in the text, the New Geneva Study Bible has a very fine insert on the conscience, which I would encourage you to read.

6 I am not quite certain how they think they will get away with this. They are still trapped inside the cave, or so it seems. Do David’s men think that once their king is dead, Saul’s men will simply scatter?

7 This term is employed in Judges 14:6: “And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a kid though he had nothing in his hand; but he did not tell his father or mother what he had done (emphasis mine).”

8 “One would never know it from our Bible versions, most of which allege in verse 7 that David ‘persuaded,’ ‘rebuked,’ or ‘restrained’ his men with words. But the Hebrew text reads, ‘So David tore apart his men with the words,’ suggesting that David had to resort to violent and threatening language to cool their blood. Many commentators (and seemingly some ancient versions) think the word is too strong, but I do not see why. It is the writer’s very point: David had to ‘tear them up’ or ‘cut them down’ with his words in order to prevent the spilling of Saul’s blood.” Dale Ralph Davis, vol. 2, pp. 105-106.

9 I understand that David is here covenanting with Saul not to kill off all of his descendants, thus keeping Saul’s family (and thus his name) from being carried on after his death. I do not understand David to be promising that he will not kill any of his descendants. Thus, when we come to 2 Samuel 21, David will execute seven of Saul’s descendants to rectify Saul’s slaughter of the Gibeonites. David executes two sons of Rizpah, one of Saul’s concubines, and five sons of Merab, Saul’s daughter, who almost became David’s wife. He does not execute any of Saul’s sons nor any of Jonathan’s children. Thus he keeps his oath to Saul and his covenant with Jonathan.

10 The parting of David and Saul in 24:22 is somewhat parallel to the parting of David and Jonathan in 23:18. I am not really certain what the relationship between these two partings is, but it does seem that they are related somehow.

11 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 2:141-142. As cited by Dale Ralph Davis, vol. 2, p. 108, fn. 10.

1 This note concerning Samuel’s death is repeated in 28:3, which suggests that the author is not merely reporting a historical event in its proper chronological sequence, but that the death of Samuel plays a part in the drama which follows.

2 The term “male” is the translation of the Hebrew expression, which we could render, “he who urinates on the wall.” I am not really sure why David uses this expression in referring to the “males” in Nabal’s household. It is found elsewhere in 1 Samuel 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8.

3 The amazing thing about Abigail’s words is that God does not directly reveal this to David until 2 Samuel 7. Abigail’s words go beyond the revelations given to David up to this point. Her words are prophetic, or virtually so.

4 Abigail’s choice of words is very significant. Of all the images upon which she could draw, she chooses to employ the imagery of a sling, the very weapon David used to kill Goliath.

1 See Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, p. 127.

2 Let us recall that on more than one occasion David has spoken of those who wrongly incited Saul against him.

3 One could easily assume that David and all his men went to Saul’s camp, but the text does not really say so. We are told that spies were sent out and found the place where Saul was camped (verse 4). Then we are told that David arises and comes to the place (verse 6). Only Ahimelech, the Hittite, and Abishai are mentioned as being with David. Were these two men the “spies”? It is not hard to reason that David would leave his troops behind. After all, sneaking up on Saul, and then disappearing into the night, is much easier for a couple of men than for 600 men. And since David did not intend to fight with Saul’s men or to kill Saul, there was no reason to take them along. Furthermore, he would only have to argue with more men about not killing Saul (see 24:4-8).

4 A friend of mine quipped after this message that this is the first time in the text Saul has finally hit his target. If I had been Abner, I would have waited to lie down close to the king until after he had actually hit his mark.

5 There is a certain subtlety here in David’s response to Abishai. He says, “The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD’s anointed. . . .” It is as though Abishai has said to David, “All right, so you can’t find it in yourself to kill Saul; then let me do it.” And David responds in a way that sends the message to Abishai, “Even though you were to kill Saul, it would be my responsibility for letting you do so.” If David, as the commander in chief of his 600 men, allows anyone to kill Saul, it is really David who is held responsible.

6 Not, as at other times, the more distant “son of Jesse.”

7 This is why Abraham built a number of altars in the land of Canaan, but not in the land of Egypt or elsewhere outside Israel.

8 “The spear was the symbol of authority in place of the scepter. This is the reason that the spear (‘javelin’ – A. V.) was at hand in the royal court of Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 18:8ff.; 19:9). This traditional sign of authority still exists among some bedouin Arabs today. A spear stuck in the ground outside the entrance distinguishes the tent of a sheik.” John J. Davis & John C. Whitcomb, Israel: From Conquest to Exile (Winona Lake, Indiana, BMH Books, [combined paper edition], 1989, p. 244.

9 So far as I can see in the Old Testament, the expression rendered “one day” (sometimes read or translated as though it were to mean “someday”) always has the meaning of a specific day.

10 Incidentally, the expression, “David said to himself,” is literally, “David said to (or in) his heart.”

11 Dale Ralph Davis makes a point of the repetition of the word, “perish:” “It is the verb sapah, which David uses in 26:10 when he tells Abishai that Yahweh would surely dispose of Saul in his time; for example, Saul might go down into battle ‘and be swept away.’ Now, however, David is convinced that he himself will be ‘swept away’ by Saul if he does not exit Israel. It is a revealing reverse. Contrary to Yahweh’s record of protection, contrary to Yahweh’s promise via Jonathan and Abigail, David is certain he will now be swept away.” Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, p. 140.

12 Dale Ralph Davis, vol. 2, p. 140.

13 Did these dependents play a significant part in the decision to seek sanctuary in Gath, even as David sought sanctuary for his parents in Moab (22:3-4)? I doubt that this whole group was in the cave in chapter 24. The families of David’s men may have been in danger from Saul (remember Ahimelech, chapter 22). The longer David and his men had to hide out (especially after David refused to take Saul’s life when he had the chance), the more eager these men must be to be reunited with their families.

14 One has to wonder what Abigail thought of David’s plan to flee to Achish. One also wonders if he asked her opinion or considered her counsel. Abigail may not have been as bold here as she was earlier, and perhaps for good reason.

15 In David’s first flight to Achish in chapter 21, it was the servants of this king who pointed out the danger of keeping an Israelite among them who was renowned for killing Philistines (21:11-12). In chapter 29, it is the other Philistine commanders who refuse to let David come to war with them against Israel (29:1-5). Achish is all too easily taken in by David.

16 Okay, I confess. I am exaggerating, but only a little. It’s hard to tell who is the more crooked of the two, Jacob or his uncle Laban. In the New Testament, I don’t hear any Jews bragging about Jacob being in their family tree.

17 The “ideal wife” of Proverbs is just that, an ideal. She is the perfect wife, setting the standard that no wife ever achieves. Admit it, wives, in one sense this woman is disgustingly perfect.

18 This insight was shared with me by one of my fellow-elders, Hugh Blevins, for which I am grateful.

1 In tracing through the history of Saul’s encounters with the Philistines in 1 Samuel, Saul has good reason to feel uneasy about this confrontation, based upon past experience. Although Saul was made king to deliver Israel from the Philistines (9:16), his victories were not glorious or complete. In chapter 13, it was Jonathan who precipitated a large scale Philistine attack on Israel, because he attacked a Philistine garrison at Geba (13:3). Saul did not inspire courage, and so most of those he summoned to war deserted. Once again, it was Jonathan’s secret attack on the Philistines that precipitated a victory over the Philistines, thanks to a divinely sent earthquake (14:15). During the pursuit of the Philistines that followed, a foolish command given by Saul seriously hindered the Israelite’s cause, and nearly cost Jonathan his life. Just as Jonathan overshadowed his father in fighting Philistines, David does as well. His victory over Goliath and the Philistines made David more popular than Saul. All in all, Saul did not do well when dealing with the Philistines. One can see why he would fear their latest attack.

2 Contrast this with David (see 1 Samuel 22:10, 15).

3 This certainly seems to suggest that the woman “saw” Samuel, but Saul did not. Why else did she have to describe to Saul what Samuel looked like? Saul will indeed converse with Samuel, but there is no clear indication that he actually “saw” him.

4 Here is food for thought. Saul certainly does not need to ask, “And who is my neighbor.” David is, for starters.

5 Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 147-157.

6 I use the singular word, sacrifice, because Samuel interrupted Saul after offering the burnt offering, otherwise he would have gone ahead and offered the peace offerings as well (see 13:9-10).

7 It is possible that Samuel commanded Saul to remove the mediums and spiritists, as he commanded him to remove the Amalekites.

8 Compare Isaiah 6; 29:10; Jeremiah 21; Ezekiel 14, 20.

1 Davis entitles this chapter, “Accepting the Philistines as Your Personal Savior.” Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions Of The Book Of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 159-166.

2 Another variation, suggested to me by my friend Marvin Ball, is that the five Philistine commanders stayed at the back of the formation so that they might be removed from some of the dangers of the battle, and might have a kind of “command post’ there. If this were the case, David would be protecting not only Achish, but all five of the commanders. Put in contemporary terms, the “fox” would have been placed in charge of the “hen house.”

3 A friend pointed out to me that this was no idle fear, as we can see by reviewing 1 Samuel 14:21.

4 Davis, vol. 2, p. 161.

5 Hugh Blevins, a friend and fellow-elder, pointed out that this sparing of the people of Ziklag is not an act of humanitarianism; it is an economically based decision. Joseph’s brothers did not spare his life out of compassion; they sold him into slavery for the money they would obtain, and perhaps for the “pleasure” they would get from knowing their brother would suffer throughout his life as a slave. There is no profit in dead bodies. But there is profit in selling slaves.

6 Knowing David and his past strategy, he may have planned to stage a few more raids, now that no Philistine army is around.

7 We are told that it was the Amalekites who raided Ziklag in verse 1 of chapter 30. It does not appear that David knew who it was until later, when they came across a young man who was left behind, probably to die (30:11-15).

8 I remember Dr. Haddon Robinson saying this in my presence, years ago.

9 Davis, vol. 2, p. 163.

10 Davis, vol. 2, p. 164.

1 I am assuming here that Israelites from the south were summoned to come fight with Saul against the Philistines, thus leaving the Israelite towns (especially those in the south) vulnerable to an Amalekite attack.

2 We have already dealt with verses 1-6 in the previous message, so this is simply a review.

3 Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), vol. 2, p. 173.

4 I am assume that this Amalekite camp is much like Ziklag. Not only do the soldiers live here, but also their wives and families and cattle (and servants, like the one who led David and the rest back here).

5 There is some scholarly discussion about just what expressions of time are used here, but all in all the author is telling us that the slaughter went on for many hours. Many of the enemy are killed.

6 This is, of course, the same number as those who were with David to fight the Amalekites. Another suggestion is that David and his men are greatly outnumbered.

7 I think if we had been there, we would often have seen the same wicked men involved in certain activities. Were these the ones who wanted to see Saul killed? Were these the ones who just a few days earlier talked about stoning David? I would not be surprised.

8 I should point out here that these wicked and worthless men may have also been challenging David, their leader. It seems that the same spoils in question here (whether they should be divided among 400 or 600) are the spoils which verse 20 calls “David’s spoil.”

9 I find it most interesting to compare our text with the account of David’s intended attack on Nabal and the male members of his household. There, David has the same 600 men with him. He takes 400 with him to fight against Nabal and leaves 200 men behind with the baggage. This strongly suggests that what happens in our text is not out of the ordinary at all. Would the 200 men in chapter 25 not share in the gift Abigail gave to David and his men? Most certainly!

10 I really like Davis’ observations here: “David stifles their scheme with an astute blend of warmth (‘You’re not going to act that way, my brothers, v. 23a), argument (‘. . . with what Yahweh has given us; now he has kept us and given this band that came against us into our hand,’ v. 23b), incredulity (‘Who will listen to you about this matter?,’ v. 24a), and authority (‘For the share of the one who goes down to battle and the share of the one who stays by the equipment will be the same—they will share together,’ v. 24b).” Davis, vol. 2, pp. 175-176.

1 I know it sounds insensitive and judgmental, but there appears to be a kind of poetic justice here, in that Saul is buried under “the tamarisk tree” (verse 13). It seems that Saul spent much of his time under a tree, some of which should have been spent doing battle with his enemies (see 14:2; 22:6).