1 samuel 26 commentary

1 SAMUEL 26 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Introduction by Peter Pett
Saul Determines To Seek Out David Once More, And Once More Survives Because
Of David’s Mercy (1 Samuel 26:1-25).
After his conflict with Nabal David appears to have returned to his encampment on
the Hill of Hachilah, a move which may well have been with a view to furthering his
romantic involvement with Abigail, who would not have been able to marry David
immediately. Nabal would have had to be buried and a respectable period of
mourning would then have been required of Abigail. Thus being on the Hill of
Hachilah would have kept him in close touch with his prospective wife, until she was
free to marry. It would, however, also have resulted in his once again offending the
Ziphites, for it is very probable that, as previously, the presence of David and a
large band of men was straining the resources of the area so that the Ziphites
suffered accordingly. As a result, being unable themselves to do anything against
such a large force, they would again have turned to Saul.
As it happened it would appear that Saul was at this time passing through one of his
dark periods. This comes out in that he responded to the call. We should not be
surprised at this. While no one at the time would have understood it, his illness was
of such a nature that no one would know how he was going to react next, and
medically speaking it should be no surprise that he went back on his previous
decision. If his paranoia had once again thrust itself to the fore, and his perception
of David had once again become twisted in his mind because of his illness, no moral
considerations would even have come into play. His reaction would have been
automatic. We cannot judge a person with his kind of illness in rational terms. Such
a person is not thinking rationally. (We should, however, remember that his
rejection for disobedience dates to before he became ill. It was not, therefore, for
what he did in his illness that he was condemned by YHWH).
(Some have seen this passage as simply a duplicate of 1 Samuel 24 in view of the
similarities between the two, but many others agree that, in the circumstances, those
similarities were in fact to be expected as David continued in the same area, whereas
they would maintain that it is the dissimilarities that are the most striking and
reveal that 1 Samuel 24 and 1 Samuel 26 undoubtedly refer to two different
1

occasions. For further discussion of the question see the note at the end of the
commentary on this passage).
Analysis of the chapter.
a David is declared to be encamped on the Hill of Hachilah (1 Samuel 26:1).
b Saul seeks after David with his army and encamps on the Hill of Hachilah (1
Samuel 26:2-4).
c While Saul and Abner sleep David comes with Abishai and steals his ceremonial
spear and water vessel but refuses to slay the anointed of YHWH (1 Samuel
26:5-11).
d The reason that they were able to do it was because YHWH had caused a deep
sleep from YHWH to fall on the camp (1 Samuel 26:12).
c David chides Abner for allowing two men to steal up to where Saul was sleeping
and steal his ceremonial spear and water vessel, thus failing to protect the anointed
of YHWH (1 Samuel 26:13-16).
b David asks Saul why he has come out to seek him and Saul admits his fault (1
Samuel 26:17-25 a).
a David returns to his camp and Saul to his own place (1 Samuel 26:25 b).
Note On The Question Of Whether The Incident In Chapter 26 Is Merely A
Duplicate Of The Incidents In Chapters 23-24.
Superficially a strong case can be made out for the case that the incident in 1
Samuel 26 is merely a duplicate of the combined but different incidents in 1 Samuel
2

23-24. Consider for example the following:
· In both incidents Saul is alerted by the Ziphites (1 Samuel 23:19; 1 Samuel 26:1).
· Both refer to David’s connection with the Hill of Hachilah (1 Samuel 23:19; 1
Samuel 26:1).
· In both cases Saul seeks David in the wilderness with ‘three thousand’ men (1
Samuel 24:1-2; 1 Samuel 26:1-2).
· In both cases Saul is at David’s mercy (1 Samuel 24:3-7; 1 Samuel 26:3-12).
· In both cases David refrains from slaying him because he is YHWH’s Anointed (1
Samuel 24:3-7; 1 Samuel 26:3-12).
· In both cases David appropriates a symbol of Saul’s authority, in one case the hem
of his robe, 1 Samuel 24:5-6; in the other his spear and water jug, 1 Samuel 26:12).
· In both cases David reveals himself to Saul after the event and displays what he
has appropriated (1 Samuel 24:8-11; 1 Samuel 26:14-16).
· In both cases David pleads his case before Saul at some length (1 Samuel 24:9-15; 1
Samuel 26:17-20; 1 Samuel 26:22-24).
· In both cases David likens himself to a flea (a dead dog and a flea, 1 Samuel 24:14);
a flea and a partridge (1 Samuel 26:20).
· In both cases Saul repents and speaks of coming success for David (1 Samuel
24:17-21; 1 Samuel 26:21; 1 Samuel 26:25).
3

At first sight the duplication appears impressive, but once the incidents are
inspected in detail the coincidence actually becomes less impressive. Firstly we
should notice that David spent some considerable time hiding in the wilderness area
west of the Dead Sea, moving from area to area. It would not therefore be surprising
if he went back to what may well have been a suitable encampment on the Hill of
Hachilah a number of times. And once he had done so it is not surprising that, if at
one of those times the Ziphites had complained to Saul with the result that David
had been forced to depart, the next time they tried complaining to Saul again
because they saw David and his men as a threat and a nuisance and hoped that he
would be made to depart again. What is more significant, and counts against the
idea of duplication, is that the first time David then fled to the wilderness of Maon,
at which point Saul had to cease his search because of the Philistine threat, while the
second time David only hides nearby and does not flee, and there is no suggestion
that Saul’s withdrawal has anything to do with the Philistines. It should further be
noted that in 1 Samuel 23-24 the appeal of the Ziphites and reference to the hill of
Hachilah in 1 Samuel 23 strictly have no direct connection with Saul’s later search
for David in 1 Samuel 24 which occurs because of anonymous information (1
Samuel 24:1). Thus we would have to suggest that 1 Samuel 26 unnecessarily
conflated two narratives and totally ignored the true circumstances.
That Saul had three military units with him each time cannot be regarded as
significant. It simply suggests that he constantly operated with three military units,
compare also 1 Samuel 13:2.
That Saul was twice found to be at the mercy of an astute David is not really
surprising, especially as, while the first time it was accidental, the second time it was
specifically by the deliberate choice of David. What happened the first time may
well have sparked off David’s adventure in the second. David knew from his
experience in 1 Samuel 24 that this was one way in which he could persuade Saul to
return home and leave his men alone. It was surely just common sense to try the
same method again. But we should note that the place at which it happened was
different (the cave of Engedi in the cliffs facing the Dead Sea compared with the Hill
of Hachilah in the mountain range near Hebron some way from the Dead Sea), the
circumstances were very different (accidentally in a pitch black cave, compared
with by David’s choice in the centre of Saul’s camp at night), the objects taken were
totally different, fitting in with the difference in each situation (the hem of the robe
cut off in a pitch black cave compared with Saul’s ceremonial spear and water jug
taken from his camp), the persons involved were very different (David’s men in
hiding and then Saul alone, compared with David and two named men who have set
off with the intention of spying on Saul’s camp, and then Abner and Saul seen as
together) and the spirit in which it happened was very different (in the first case it
was by coincidence because David and his men were hiding in a cave in some
4

trepidation, in the second it was a deliberate act of David as he acted fearlessly and
decisively in order to bring the situation about).
That David spared Saul’s life both times is what we would expect if he genuinely
saw Saul as YHWH’s Anointed (which suggests that he would spare Saul’s life
whenever he saw him), and once David had in each case appropriated something of
Saul’s which expressed his authority we would expect that the main events which
followed would necessarily be duplicated. The whole point of appropriating the very
different symbols of Saul’s authority was precisely in order to reveal them to Saul
and have a conversation with him.
But even the very conversations are very different. In the first case Saul is obsessed
with the question of the kingship, in the second case the idea of kingship does not
arise at all. In the first case he discourses at length, in the second case he says little.
The kingship does not seem to be a concern. In the first case he admits to his actions
being evil compared with David’s good actions, in the second case he quite
spontaneously admits that he has sinned and played the fool, and asserts that he will
in future do David no more harm. To those who suggest that Saul could not have
behaved in a way which was so against character by pursuing David a second time
after what he had said the first time we can only point out that the nature of Saul’s
illness was such that it is quite explicable. When they take over a person’s mind
paranoia and delusion supply their own justification which always seems logical to
the person at the time. That is a symptom of the illness. Nor would Saul be the first
person who, having made a promise about something he felt deeply about, stewed
over it for some time and reneged on that promise because the worst side of his
nature got the better of him..
The dual references to a flea only indicate that David regularly saw himself in those
terms (living in the circumstances that they did he and his men were probably very
familiar with fleas), but in context both are in fact very different pictures. In the
first case the flea is paralleled with a dead dog, as a symbol of what is unpleasant, in
the second it is seen as hunted down and connected with a partridge in the
mountains which was also hunted down.
And finally the emphasis of David is different in each case. In the first case David
stresses that the fact that he has spared Saul is proof of his innocence, in the second
he indignantly demands to know why Saul is pursuing him and considers that there
is a remedy which should have been considered. In the first case he has no thought
of leaving Israel, in the second he has clearly made up his mind to do so.
5

All these differences and different emphases count very strongly against these
simply being duplicate narratives, for if they are they have been changed in every
detail, while history is in fact full of examples of far greater ‘coincidences’ than
these where the fact that different occasions were actually in mind is absolutely
certain. We must therefore conclude that the narratives are not mere duplications
but are dealing with two totally different incidents which occurred during the long
years of Saul’s pursuit of David while he was in hiding in the wilderness areas west
of the Dead Sea.
Robert Roe, "Today we are looking at I Samuel, Chapter 26. I do not agree with
some of the commentators on this particular passage, so I present this interpretation
to you as an option. Some of the commentators believe David was going to the hill of
Hachilah to make Saul repent; that he was going with the idea of forcing Saul to
come to terms. Looking at the passage, I do not agree. I believe David was going
there in anger and fury. I think God was testing him; testing both Saul and David. I
want to approach it from that viewpoint. I am offering this as an option. I believe it
is a valid option. I will not be dogmatic about it, but I do not think a leopard ever
changes its spots. David is a vindictive, hostile person. Just in the last chapter he
intended to wipe out Nabal. From a human standpoint, Nabal deserved to be wiped
out, but David intended to wipe out not only Nabal but all of his children plus any
male servants in the household. When he is angry, David has a strong tendency to
fly off the handle and take matters into his own hands. However, in Chapter 25
David repented of killing Nabal, made a confession and, in a sense, told God "No
more."
Saul is also a vindictive, violent man. You will remember in Chapter 24 that while
chasing David (with God's permission), he was trapped in a cave with David and
could easily have been slain, but David held off. Saul, therefore, swore repentance,
confessed his sin, and told David, "No more."
So in effect now, both men have made confessions regarding their sin of violence
and revenge and have agreed their actions were wrong.
But how can you tell a true confession? 1 John 1:9 says, "If I confess my sins
[literally 'say with God,' agree with Him about my sins] God is faithful and
righteous to forgive my sins and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness." He will
always do it because He is faithful. He has to do it because He is righteous. In
Chapter 24 Saul was sorry about his actions toward David and apparently confessed
publicly. In Chapter 25 David was sorry about his actions toward Nabal and made a
public confession in front of his 400 men and Abigail.
A true confession requires repentance, and repentance means a change of mind, a
turning around, some positive step to stop doing whatever was wrong. With that
6

kind of confession God forgives and God cleanses. However, if it is not that kind,
God does not forgive and God does not cleanse. Understand this, the present state of
mind or the present state of activity has nothing to do with eternal destiny. If you
have received Christ as your Lord and your God, positionally you are forgiven in
Christ. He died for all your sins, past, present and future. There is no question
about that. What we are talking about here is experiencing God's forgiveness, His
fellowship, fellowship with a Holy Being. For that we need to keep short accounts
with God. We need to agree with him that we need forgiveness. Then we need to do
something about our former way of life.
While both Saul and David are already God's anointed, they are two men running
in opposite directions, Saul in the flesh, David in the spirit. David has his ups and
downs spiritually, but his general trend line is up. Saul also has spiritual ups and
downs, but unfortunately his general trend line is down.
We have just seen them both confess. Now God tests their confessions. For Saul, it is
a tragic test and he fails it badly. According to Scripture, this is the end of testing
for Saul. God takes him home. He does not, however, lose his salvation. We will later
see him joined with Samuel.
David, even though his trend line is up, is still tested. I think that is a key, so let's
look at it.
David Again Spares Saul's Life
1 The Ziphites went to Saul at Gibeah and said,
"Is not David hiding on the hill of Hakilah, which
faces Jeshimon?"
Robert Roe, "David has gone into the realm of the Calebites, up around Carmel,
Ziph, just to the west of Engedi which is right on the Dead Sea about its middle
point. About 12 miles into Judah, is the area of Maon, Ziph and Hebron founded by
sons of Caleb. These people are Judahites, David's tribe. David is there married to
Abigail, who is from one of the leading families in that territory. He has also
married Ahinoam of Jezreel, which is only 3 miles north of Carmel. She is probably
from one of its powerful families too. David is a king, and he is making alliances for
the future. So he has married into two powerful Calebite families right in this
7

territory.
Because of these alliances, the one spot in Judah where David ought to be safe, is the
area of the Ziphites, the Calebites. Well, not so Once before the Ziphites deliberately
told Saul where David was hiding, after tricking him into an untenable spot,and
except for God's intervention, David would have been lost. Now David is back, but
this time he is family. Does that make a difference? No. The first thing the Ziphites
do is travel all the way to Gibeah of Benjamin and tell Saul, "Hey, he's back again.
Let's get him." If you were a red-headed, impulsive Irishman with a touch of Jewish
blood, and inclined to get even, how would you respond when betrayed by your own
family? How about David?
BENSON, "1 Samuel 26:1-2. Doth not David hide himself with us? — The number
of men whom David supported would not allow him to continue long in the same
place, and therefore he was often obliged to shift his quarters for subsistence. We
now find him again in the wilderness of Ziph. How much time had elapsed between
his marriage of Abigail and his going thither, we are not informed, nor is it easy to
determine, but it is probable it was considerable. Then Saul arose — Probably he
would have pursued David no more if these Ziphites had not thus excited him.
GILL the same place where he was when the Ziphites before gave information of
him, (1 Samuel 23:10) ; here he might choose to be, supposing that the Ziphites now
would not meditate anything against him, since Saul had declared he would be king
after him, and had made him swear that he would not cut off his posterity; and as
he thought it his wisdom to provide against the worst, knowing the inconstancy of
Saul, he might judge this the most proper place of safety, and from whence he could,
on occasion, easily retreat into the wilderness; and it may be also, because it was
near to Abigail's estate and possessions, which were now a good resource for him.
DEFFINBAUGH We have met the Ziphites before. In chapter 23, we are told that
the Ziphites went up to Saul at his home in Gibeah, informing him of David’s
whereabouts and promising to deliver him over to the king (23:19-20). Saul wanted
to be certain not to let David slip through his fingers, and so he sent the Ziphite
delegation home, with instructions to identify all of David’s hiding places so they
would be certain of his capture on his next campaign (23:21-23). They returned
home, and Saul soon came in hot pursuit of David. When David learned of Saul’s
coming, he moved further south, where he was nearly trapped by Saul on a
mountain in the wilderness of Maon. Had it not been for the timely arrival of a
messenger with the report that the Philistines had attacked Israel, Saul would have
captured David (23:24-29).
These Ziphites, descendants of Caleb and thus of Judah, are fellow-Judahites with
David, and yet they betray their future king to a Benjamite like Saul.
We see, in this, a striking similarity to the other time the
Ziphites revealed to Saul where David was. I Samuel 23:19 "Then came
8

up the Ziphites to Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself
with us in strong holds in the wood, in the hill of Hachilah, which
[is] on the south of Jeshimon?" This does not, however, mean that Saul
kept his oath, that he made to David earlier. Saul had spells when he
was insane. He always showed his madness in hate for David.
Ray Pritchard, "With that we turn to the story which is introduced to us in verse 1:
“The Ziphites went to Saul at Gibeah and said, ‘Is not David hiding on the hill of
Hakilah, which faces Jeshimon?’” Jeshimon was the name for the desolate
wilderness in the far southern reaches of Judah. There was a desert in that place
called the Desert of Ziph and the Bedouins who lived there were called Ziphites.
They were pro-Saul and anti-David. This wasn’t the first time they had turned
David in (see I Samuel 23:19).
For years David and his men have been on the run, burning by day, freezing by
night, climbing on the rocks like goats, fighting, running, hiding, always staying one
step ahead of Saul. Now he comes after them again. This time he takes the standing
army of 3,000 men and begins combing the desert for David. At length he camps
beside the road on the hill called Hakilah. Evidently there was a field nearby
suitable for a bivouac with a deep valley on one side. Verse 4 tells us that when
David heard Saul had come after him, he sent out scouts to find Saul’s precise
location."
We have seen in a previous study that the Ziphites had betrayed David to King Saul,
causing King Saul to come and hunt for David. On the occasion before us the
Ziphites evidently betrayed David to King Saul because they wanted to both stay on
the king’s good side and perhaps also because they were now afraid of David since
they knew that David knew they had previously betrayed David to the king.
BARNES, " The incident related in this chapter of the meeting between Saul and
David bears a strong general resemblance to that recorded in 1 Sam. 24, and is of a
nature unlikely to have occurred more than once. Existing discrepancies are
explained by the supposition that one narrative relates fully some incidents on
which the other is silent. On the whole the most probable conclusion is that the two
narratives relate to one and the same event. (Compare the two narratives of the
Creation, Gen. 1; Gen_2:4 ff; the two narratives of David’s war, 2 Sam. 8; and 2
Sam. 10; and those of the death of Ahaziah, 2Ki_9:27 ff; and 2Ch_22:9.)
CLARKE, "The Ziphites came - This is the second time that these enemies of
David endeavored to throw him into the hands of Saul. See 1Sa_23:19.
K&D, "The repetition not only of the treachery of the Ziphites, but also of the
sparing of Saul by David, furnishes no proof in itself that the account contained in
9

this chapter is only another legend of the occurrences already related in 1 Samuel
23:19-24:22. As the pursuit of David by Saul lasted for several years, in so small a
district as the desert of Judah, there is nothing strange in the repetition of the same
scenes. And the assertion made by Thenius, that “Saul would have been a moral
monster, which he evidently was not, if he had pursued David with quiet
deliberation, and through the medium of the same persons, and had sought his life
again, after his own life had been so magnanimously spared by him,” not only
betrays a superficial acquaintance with the human heart, but is also founded upon
the mere assertion, for which there is no proof, that Saul was evidently no so; and it
is proved to be worthless by the fact, that after the first occasion on which his life
was so magnanimously spared by David, he did not leave off seeking him up and
down in the land, and that David was obliged to seek refuge with the Philistines in
consequence, as may be seen from 1Sa_27:1-12, which Thenius himself assigns to the
same source as 1 Samuel 24. The agreement between the two accounts reduces it
entirely to outward and unessential things. It consists chiefly in the fact that the
Ziphites came twice to Saul at Gibeah, and informed him that David was stopping in
their neighbourhood, in the hill Hachilah, and also that Saul went out twice in
pursuit of David with 3000 men. But the three thousand were the standing body of
men that Saul had raised from the very beginning of his reign out of the whole
number of those who were capable of bearing arms, for the purpose of carrying on
his smaller wars (1Sa_13:2); and the hill of Hachilah appears to have been a place in
the desert of Judah peculiarly well adapted for the site of an encampment. On the
other hand, all the details, as well as the final results of the two occurrences, differ
entirely from one another. When David was betrayed the first time, he drew back
into the desert of Maon before the advance of Saul; and being completely
surrounded by Saul upon one of the mountains there, was only saved from being
taken prisoner by the circumstance that Saul was compelled suddenly to relinquish
the pursuit of David on account of the report that the Philistines had invaded the
land (1Sa_23:25-28). But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of
Hachilah, whilst David had drawn back into the adjoining desert, from which he
crept secretly into Saul's encampment, and might, if he had chosen, have put his
enemy to death (1Sa_26:3.). There is quite as much difference in the minuter details
connected with the sparing of Saul. On the first occasion, Saul entered a cave in the
desert of Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior of the
cave, without having the smallest suspicion that they were anywhere near (1Sa_
24:2-4). The second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul
upon the hill of Hachilah, while the king and all his men were sleeping (1Sa_26:3,
1Sa_26:5). It is true that on both occasions David's men told him that God had given
his enemy into his hand; but the first time they added, Do to him what seemeth good
in thy sight; and David cut off the lappet of Saul's coat, whereupon his conscience
smote him, and he said, “Far be it from me to lay my hand upon the Lord's
anointed” (1Sa_24:5-8). In the second instance, on the contrary, when David saw
Saul in the distance lying by the carriage rampart and the army sleeping round him,
he called to two of his heroes, Ahimelech and Abishai, to go with him into the camp
of the sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said to him,
“God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: let me alone, that I may pierce him
10

with the spear.” But David rejected this proposal, and merely took away the spear
and water-bowl that were at Saul's head (1Sa_26:6-12). And lastly, notwithstanding
the fact that the words of David and replies of Saul agree in certain general
thoughts, yet they differ entirely in the main. On the first occasion David showed the
king that his life had been in his power, and yet he had spared him, to dispel the
delusion that he was seeking his life (1Sa_24:10-16). On the second occasion he
asked the king why he was pursuing him, and called to him to desist from his
pursuit (1Sa_26:18.). But Saul was so affected the first time that he wept aloud, and
openly declared that David would obtain the kingdom; and asked him to promise on
oath, that when he did, he would not destroy his family (1Sa_24:17-22). The second
time, on the contrary, he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and
would to David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail; but he
neither shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of David's ascending the throne, so
that he was evidently much more hardened than before (1Sa_26:21-25). These
decided differences prove clearly enough that the incident described in this chapter
is not the same as the similar one mentioned in 1 Samuel 23 and 24, but belongs to a
later date, when Saul's enmity and hardness had increased.
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).
HAWKER, "The history of David's persecution by Saul is again opened, and
continued through this Chapter. The Ziphites inform Saul against David. Saul goes
in quest of him. David is favoured with another opportunity of slaying Saul, but will
not avail himself of it. A similar interview takes place to what happened before
between David and Saul; after which they depart one from the other.
1 Samuel 26:1
(1) ¶ And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide
himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon?
This is the second instance of the treachery of the Ziphites. (See 1 Samuel 23:19.)
And what had David done to deserve it at their hands?
ELLICOTT, " (1) The Ziphites came unto Saul.—There is grave difficulty
connected with the recital contained in this chapter. Is it another account of the
incident told in 1 Samuel 24, 26 by a different narrator? This is the opinion of some
modern expositors of weight: for instance, Ewald and the Bishop of Bath and Wells
11

in the Speaker’s Commentary. The question at issue is as follows:—We have in this
First Book of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 23, 24, 26, two recitals of David sparing his great
adversary’s life, at first sight under very similar circumstances. For instance: in
both these occurrences (1) it is the same people, the Ziphites, who call Saul’s
attention to David’s presence in their neighbourhood; (2) in both, Saul comes from
Gibeah with the same number of men, 3,000; (3) the general bearing of the incident
is identical in both—viz., the persuasions of David’s followers to induce their leader
to take Saul’s life when in his power resisted by the noble-minded chieftain; the
taking of something personal by David from the sleeping king, as a proof that the
royal life had been in his hands; the sequel, which describes the heartfelt temporary
repentance of Saul for the past. But here the resemblance ends. The circumstances
of the night raid by David and his companions into the camp of the sleeping Saul
are, when examined closely, so entirely different from the circumstances of the
midday siesta of Saul in the En-gedi cavern, where David and his band were
dwelling, that it is really impossible to assume that they are versions of one and the
same incident. We conclude, therefore, with some certainty, that the accounts
contained in 1 Samuel 23, 24, , 26 refer to two distinct and separate events; and so
Keil, Erdmann and Lange, Dean Payne Smith in the Pulpit Commentary,
Wordsworth, &c. Bishop Hervey, in the Speaker’s Commentary, is, however,
supported in his hypothesis of the two accounts referring to only one incident by
Ewald, De Wette, and others. In the course of this exposition, the more striking
agreements and divergencies will be discussed.
There remains, however, a still graver question to be considered, the gravity and
difficulty of which remains the same whether we assume, as we propose to do, that
twice in the course of the outlaw life of David the king’s life was in his power, or
that only once David stood over the sleeping king, sword in hand, and that the two
accounts refer to one and the same event—For what purpose did the compiler of the
First Book of Samuel insert in his narrative this twenty-sixth chapter—where either
the old story of 1 Samuel 23, 24 is repeated with certain variations, or else an
incident of a similar nature to one which has been told before in careful detail is
repeated at great length? To this important question no perfectly satisfactory reply
can be given. The object of one such recital in an account of the early life of the
great founder of Israelitic greatness is clear, but we may well ask why was a second
narrative of an incident of like nature inserted in a book where conciseness is ever
so carefully studied? All we can suggest is, that everything which conduced to the
glory of the favourite hero of Israel was of the deepest interest to the people, and the
surpassing nobility and generosity of the magnanimity of David to his deadly foe
was deemed worthy of these detailed accounts even in the necessarily brief
compilation of the inspired writer of the history of this time.
PULPIT, "1Sa_26:1
The Ziphites came unto Saul. There are so many points of similarity between this
12

narrative and that contained in 1Sa_23:19-24; 1Sa_24:1-22, that it has been argued
that in these two accounts we have substantially the same fact, only modified by two
different popular traditions, and not recorded until a late subsequent period, at
which the narrator, unable to decide which was the true form of the story,
determined upon giving both. The main points of similarity are—
(1) The treachery of the Ziphites (1Sa_26:1; 1Sa_23:19).
(2) David’s position in the hill Hachilah (1Sa_26:1, 1Sa_26:3; 1Sa_23:19).
(3) Saul’s march with 3000 men (1Sa_26:2; 1Sa_24:2).
(4) The speech of David’s men (1Sa_24:4; 1Sa_26:8).
(5) David’s refusal to lay hands on the anointed of Jehovah (1Sa_24:6; 1Sa_26:9,
1Sa_26:11).
(6) Saul’s recognition of David’s voice (1Sa_24:16; 1Sa_26:17).
(7) David’s comparison of himself to a flea (1Sa_24:14; 1Sa_26:20).
Besides these there are several remarkable verbal coincidences; but some other
matters which have been enumerated are either such as must have happened,
supposing the two events to have occurred, or are even points of difference. Of these
there are many. Thus the first occasion on which David spared Saul’s life was in a
cave at En-gedi; the latter was in Saul’s entrenched camp. In this second narrative
David’s return to Maon was the natural result of his marriage with Abigail, and
when the Ziphites report his presence there to Saul, which they were sure to do for
fear of David’s vengeance for their former betrayal of him, he awaits Saul’s attack,
whereas before he fled in haste, and was saved for the moment by the wonderful
ravine which Conder has so unmistakably verified (see on 1Sa_23:26), and finally
by an invasion of the Philistines. Mr. Conder’s visit to the ground, and the way in
which the difficulties in the previous narrative are cleared up by what he saw, sets
the historical credibility of that account above all reasonable doubt. Had there been
a mountain between David and his pursuers, he would have been safe enough; but
as it was he was in full sight of his enemies, and the ravine alone enabled him to
escape from Saul’s vengeance. The number of Saul’s army, 3000, was the number of
the chosen men whom he always had in attendance upon him (1Sa_13:2); and it is
Saul who encamps on the hill Hachilah, while David, instead of being all but caught
as before, had scouts to watch Saul’s movements, and was himself safe in the
wilderness on the south. On the previous occasion Saul had withdrawn from his
men, but here he lies in his camp surrounded by them, when David, accompanied
only by Abishai, undertakes this bold enterprise, which was entirely in accordance
with his growing sense of security. The argument, moreover, that Saul must have
been a "moral monster" thus to seek David’s life after his generous conduct towards
him keeps out of view the fact that Saul was scarcely accountable for his actions. We
13

have seen that he was subject to fits of madness, and that the form which it took was
that of deadly hatred against David. Even this was but a form of the ruling passion
which underlies all Saul’s actions, namely, an extreme jealousy of everything that in
the slightest degree seemed to trench upon his royal prerogative and supremacy. To
what an extreme length his ferocity was capable of proceeding in punishing what he
regarded as an overt act of resistance to his authority we have seen in the account of
the massacre of the priests at Nob with their wives and children (1Sa_22:18, 1Sa_
22:19). No worse act is recorded of any man in history, and we may hope that Saul
would not have committed such a crime had not his mental faculties been disturbed.
Nor was Saul alone in his estimate of what was due to him as Jehovah’s Messiah;
David had equally high views of Saul’s rights and position, and regarded them as
fenced in by religious sanctions. But in Saul’s case the passion had grown till it had
become a monomania, and as he brooded over his relations to David, and thought of
him as one that was to usurp his crown, and was already a rebel and an outlaw, the
sure result was the return of his hatred against David, and when news was brought
him that his enemy was so near, he gladly welcomed another opportunity of getting
him into his power. On the hill of Hachilah. See 1Sa_23:19. It is there said to be "on
the right hand," but here "over against," i.e. facing the desert which lies on the
northeastern coast of the Dead Sea.
JFB 1, 2. the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah--This people seem to have
thought it impossible for David to escape, and therefore recommended themselves to
Saul, by giving him secret information (see on 1Sa 23:19). The knowledge of their
treachery makes it appear strange that David should return to his former haunt in
their neighborhood; but, perhaps he did it to be near Abigail's possessions, and
under the impression that Saul had become mollified. But the king had relapsed into
his old enmity. Though Gibeah, as its name imports, stood on an elevated position,
and the desert of Ziph, which was in the hilly region of Judea, may have been higher
than Gibeah, it was still necessary to descend in leaving the latter place; thence Saul
(1Sa 26:2) "went down to the wilderness of Ziph."
HENRY Here, 1. Saul gets information of David's movements and acts offensively.
The Ziphites came to him and told him where David now was, in the same place
where he was when they formerly betrayed him, 1 Samuel 23:19. Perhaps (though it
is not mentioned) Saul had given them intimation, under-hand, that he continued
his design against David, and would be glad of their assistance. If not, they were
very officious to Saul, aware of what would please him, and very malicious against
David, to whom they despaired of ever reconciling themselves, and therefore they
stirred up Saul (who needed no such spur) against him, 1 Samuel 26:1. For aught we
know, Saul would have continued in the same good mind that he was in (1 Samuel
24:17), and would not have given David this fresh trouble, if the Ziphites had not
put him on. See what need we have to pray to God that, since we have so much of
the tinder of corruption in our own hearts, the sparks of temptation may be kept far
from us, lest, if they come together, we be set on fire of hell. Saul readily caught at
the information, and went down with an army of 3000 men to the place where David
14

hid himself, 1 Samuel 26:2. How soon do unsanctified hearts lose the good
impressions which their convictions have made upon them and return with the dog
to their vomit!
David gets information of Saul's movements and acts defensively. He did not march
out to meet and fight him; he sought only his own safety, not Saul's ruin; therefore
he abode in the wilderness (1 Samuel 26:3), putting thereby a great force upon
himself, and curbing the bravery of his own spirit by a silent retirement, showing
more true valour than he could have done by an irregular resistance. (1.) He had
spies who informed him of Saul's descent, that he had come in very deed (1 Samuel
26:4); for he would not believe that Saul would deal so basely with him till he had
the utmost evidence of it. (2.) He observed with his own eyes how Saul was
encamped, 1 Samuel 26:5. He came towards the place where Saul and his men had
pitched their tents, so near as to be able, undiscovered, to take a view of their
entrenchments, probably in the dusk of the evening.
cofffman, "DAVID SPARED SAUL'S LIFE A SECOND TIME
The critical canard that would relegate this chapter to the status of a "mere
variation" of that other report of Saul's life being spared by David (1 Samuel 24) is
an example of the same kind of "scholarship" that might identify the Battle of New
Orleans with the Battle of Waterloo! Oh, but those battles were at different times,
different places, involving different personnel and with different results. The same
differences mark these two accounts of David's refusal to kill Saul when he had an
excellent opportunity to do so. It is true, of course, that a limited number of the
personnel participated in both events, those battles, and these two Biblical episodes,
but that is no license to claim that these events are contradictory accounts of only
one event or only one battle. The only alleged reason for this radical critical claim is
that given by Canon Cook, "The incident is of a nature unlikely to have occurred
more than once."[1] Indeed! If that was true, why would the Sacred Text have
included both narratives?
THE ZIPHITES BETRAYED DAVID A SECOND TIME
"Then the Ziphites came to Saul at Gibeah, saying, "Is not David hiding himself on
the hill of Hachilah, which is on the east of Jeshimon"? So Saul arose and went
down to the wilderness of Ziph, with three thousand chosen men of Israel, to seek
David in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul encamped on the hill of Hachilah, which
is beside the road on the east of Jeshimon. But David remained in the wilderness;
and when he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness, David sent out spies,
and learned of a certainty that Saul had come. Then David arose and came to the
place where Saul had encamped; and David saw the place where Saul lay, with
Abner the son of Ner, the commander of his army; Saul was lying within the
encampment, while the army was encamped around him."
Porter stressed some remarkable differences here as contrasted with the event in 1
15

Samuel 24. "In the first encounter Saul went alone, unarmed and by chance, into a
cave where David and his men were; here David and Abishai were reconnoitering in
search of Saul, finding him at night where he was sleeping with Abner his
commander. The first incident happened in the day time, this one at night. In the
first event, David cut off part of Saul's robe; here they took Saul's spear and the jar
of water that was beside him. The conclusion supported here is that there were two
occasions."[2] D. F. Payne also supported "The historicity of both accounts."[3]
"Jeshimon is the barren country between the hills of Judah and the dead sea. The
Hill of Hachilah is perhaps El-kolah, six miles west of Ziph and on the eastern edge
of the wilderness where it begins to fall toward the Dead Sea."[4]
"With three thousand chosen men of Israel" (1 Samuel 26:2). "This is the number
of men that Saul always had in attendance with him (1 Samuel 13:2; 24:2; 26:2)."[5]
This so-called "similarity" between the two narratives is of no consequence. Saul
always had that number of men with him.
"When he saw that Saul came after him" (1 Samuel 26:3). This is an idiomatic
expression meaning that David had heard that Saul was coming after him. If he had
seen Saul doing so, he would not have needed to send out spies.
"David sent out spies and learned of a certainty that Saul had come" (1 Samuel
26:4). David's reluctance to believe that Saul had actually come out with an army to
hunt him on this occasion, and which he would not believe until his spies confirmed
it, proves the truth of the previous narrative. After all that Saul had said then,
David could hardly believe the reality of this additional attack.
"David saw the place where Saul lay, with Abner ... commander of his army" (1
Samuel 26:5). Willis suggested that David must have arrived in daylight; but as both
the king and Abner were asleep, it appears more likely that a brilliant moonlight
enabled, not David, but the spies he sent to come back with this report. The word
"saw" here is idiomatic as in 1 Samuel 26:4. David did not enter Saul's camp until
later in the night.
constable, "Verses 1-5
Saul"s encampment near the hill of Hachilah
The Ziphites betrayed David a second time (cf. 1 Samuel 23:19). David was again
hiding by the hill of Hachilah ( 1 Samuel 23:19). When Saul came down from
Gibeah with his3 ,000 (or three military units of) soldiers, he camped near the main
road. David had only600 men ( 1 Samuel 23:13; 1 Samuel 25:13). David evidently
stayed on the other side of the hill ( 1 Samuel 26:3). Perhaps he went up on the hill
at night to survey Saul"s encampment and there spotted Saul and Abner in the
middle of the camp ( 1 Samuel 26:5). Saul should have been very secure, surrounded
as he was by his men, but really he was very vulnerable (cf. 1 Samuel 26:12).
16

PETT, "Verses 1-4
The Ziphites Inform Saul That David Has Returned to the Hill of Hachilah And
Saul Again Pursues David (1 Samuel 26:1-4).
The Ziphites were probably annoyed that David had again brought his men into
their territory, partly because they saw it as their own preserve and disliked all
intruders, partly because they were loyal to their king, and partly because it would
result in diminishing resources being available for their own families. In such a
wilderness six hundred men with their families could make a huge difference to
what was available. They thus sent messengers to Saul informing against David.
Saul, who was going through a period when his illness was accentuated, responded,
and, as a result of his paranoia and obsession with the idea of maintaining his
dynasty, again took the standing army of three military units and sought to root
David out. But when he arrived at the Hill of Hachilah he discovered that David had
decamped. It appears that by now David had an efficient system of spies (we
remember how he had ‘heard’ about the sheep-shearing and about Nabal’s death).
Analysis.
a And the Ziphites came to Saul to Gibeah, saying, “Does not David hide himself in
the hill of Hachilah, which is before the Waste (Jeshimon)?” ’ (1 Samuel 26:1).
b Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand
chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph (1 Samuel
26:2).
c And Saul encamped in the hill of Hachilah, which is before the Waste (Jeshimon),
by the highway (1 Samuel 26:3 a).
b But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the
wilderness (1 Samuel 26:3 b).
a David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was definitely come (1
Samuel 26:4).
Note that in ‘a’ Saul learns from the Ziphites that David is encamped on the Hill of
Hachilah, and in the parallel learns that Saul has definitely come to the Hill of
Hachilah. In ‘b’ Saul went into the wilderness (mentioned twice) and in the parallel
David saw that Saul had come after him into the wilderness (mentioned twice).
Centrally in ‘c’ Saul arrives with his army and encamps on the Hill on which David
and his men had had their encampment.
1 Samuel 26:1
17

‘And the Ziphites came to Saul to Gibeah, saying, “Does not David hide himself in
the hill of Hachilah, which is before the Waste (Jeshimon)?” ’
When David and his men returned to the Hill of Hachilah which was south of ‘the
Waste’ (Jehimon), a hot and barren area of hills, peaks and precipices west of the
Dead Sea (1 Samuel 23:19), he was back on what the Ziphites saw as ‘their
territory’. Thus they immediately sent messengers to Saul, hoping thereby to rid
themselves of the menace. They did not like trespassers in their area. It may also be
that they were fiercely loyal to Saul. Tightly bound, more isolated groups with a
strong sense of loyalty often have the strongest traditions of loyalty towards kings
who do not bother them overmuch, whatever others may think about them.
2 So Saul went down to the Desert of Ziph, with
his three thousand chosen men of Israel, to search
there for David.
1. Robert Roe, "Before we go further, let's look at Saul's confession. Does it meet the
test? In Chapter 24 Saul publicly confessed to David, "You are more righteous than
I; for you have dealt well with me, while I have dealt wickedly with you." However,
at the next opportunity to commit the same exact sin, Saul with an army of three
thousand men travels all the way from Benjamin down to Ziphite territory to seek
David out. Now you don't move an army of that size without a lot of thought and
planning. There's no change of direction here, and Saul fails the test of a true
confession."
CLARKE Though they knew that David was but six hundred strong, yet Saul
thought it was not safe to pursue such an able general with a less force than that
mentioned in the text; and, that he might the better depend on them, they were all
elect or picked men out of the whole of his army.
GILL, "Then Saul arose,.... Immediately, glad of an opportunity to seize on David,
having the same disposition towards him as ever; and perhaps had repented he had
not laid hold on him when he followed him out of the cave:
and went down to the wilderness of Ziph: or towards it:
having three thousand chosen men of Israel; young men, so called, because usually
18

chosen for business, and for war particularly, rather than old men; the same
number he took with him when he sought him at Engedi, 1Sa_24:2,
to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph; where or whereabouts he was informed by
the Ziphites he was.
PULPIT, "1Sa_26:2-4
Three thousand chosen men. Not chosen for this expedition, but the force which
Saul always kept under arms (1Sa_13:2). By the way. The high road which led down
to Arad. David abode in the wilderness. Hebrew, "abides." Instead of fleeing in
haste as before, he remains apparently on the higher ground, as he speaks in 1Sa_
26:6 of going down to Saul’s camp. And he saw. I.e. learned, was told. It was only
when his scouts brought him their report that he knew that Saul was come in very
deed, or "for a certainty" (see 1Sa_23:23).
BI, "Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah.
The reproach of the enemy
Dr. Maclaren is specially emphatic in connecting Psa_7:1-17 with this part of
David’s history, and indicates its value in helping us to understand the rapid
vacillations is Saul’s behaviour.
1. It is headed Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord. That is, it is an
irregular ode; like a stream broken over a bed of rocks and stones, expressing by
its uneven measure and sudden changes the emotion of its author. We have often
to sing these Shiggaion metres; our songs are frequently broken with sighs and
groans.
Happy are they who can find themes for singing to the Lord in every sad and
bitter experience!
2. The title proceeds, concerning the words of Cush, a Benjamite. Who was this
Cush? The word means black. It may possibly refer to the colour of the skin and
hair, and been given as a familiar designation to some swarthy Benjamite. Some
have supposed that it was David’s title for Saul. Others have referred it to
Shimei, the Benjamite, whose furious abuse of the king, in the hour of his
calamity, elicited such plaintive resignation from him, such passionate
resentment from Abishai. If the psalm be carefully examined, it will be found to
hear a close resemblance to the words spoken by David, when Saul and he held
the brief colloquy outside the cave at Engedi, and afterwards at the hill
Hachilah. On comparison of psalm and narrative it seems more than likely that,
Cush was one of Saul’s intimate friends and constant companions, and that he
was incessantly at work poisoning the king’s mind with malignant and
deliberate falsehoods about David.
I. Search your heart to see if these slanders have foundation in fact. Perhaps those
quick, envious eyes have discerned weaknesses in your character, of which your
19

closest friends are aware, but they have shrunk from telling you.
II. If there is no basis for them, rejoice! How thankful we should be that God has
kept us from being actually guilty of the things whereof we are accused! We might
have clone them, and worse.
III. Take shelter in the righteous judgment of God. We are his servants, and if He is
satisfied with us, why should we break our hearts over what our fellow servants
say? It is, after all, but a small matter with us to be judged of man’s judgment.
IV. Abjure more completely the carnal life. Why do we smart under these unkind
and slanderous words, which are as baseless as uncharitable? Is it not because we
set too high a value upon the favour and applause of men?
V. Leave God to vindicate your good name. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
PETT, "1 Samuel 26:2
‘Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand
chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph.’
The result of the activity of the Ziphites was that Saul’s paranoia and delusion again
took over and he gathered the three units of his standing army to seek for David in
the wilderness of Ziph. He again sought his death.
HAWKER, "(2) Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having
three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of
Ziph. (3) And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, by the
way. But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into
the wilderness.
Observe, how little effect the pretended contrition of Saul had left upon his mind.
Alas! until grace makes a saving change upon the heart, there is neither real sorrow,
nor true repentance, wrought in the soul.
GUZIK, "DAVID SPARES SAUL’S LIFE AGAIN
A. David’s second opportunity to kill Saul.
1. (1Sa_26:1-4) The Ziphites betray David again.
Now the Ziphites came to Saul at Gibeah, saying, “Is David not hiding in the hill
of Hachilah, opposite Jeshimon?” Then Saul arose and went down to the
Wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to
20

seek David in the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul encamped in the hill of
Hachilah, which is opposite Jeshimon, by the road. But David stayed in the
wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness. David
therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul had indeed come.
a. Now the Ziphites came to Saul: The Ziphites - the people of the city of
Ziph - had betrayed David’s whereabouts to Saul before (1Sa_23:19-23).
Now, they try to gain King Saul’s favor again by helping Saul find David
again.
b. Saul went, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek
David. This means Saul has gone back on his previous repentance shown in
1Sa_24:16-21. At that time, David had opportunity to kill Saul, but did not
take it. When David boldly demonstrated this to Saul, the king was greatly
moved emotionally, and publicly repented for his murderous intentions
toward David. Saul’s repentance was deep, sincere, and emotional - but it
didn’t last very long.
i. Three thousand chosen men reminds us that Saul had a great numerical
advantage. 3,000 against 600 is a significant advantage.
c. David therefore sent out spies: David, as wise and capable commander,
constantly monitors the movements of Saul. David knows where Saul is, but
Saul does not know where David is.
Now that is exactly what happened in study number five. He took three thousand
men, he went down and started looking for David again.
Now what happened the last time he did that? Do you remember after the robe was
cut off and David comes out and says, “see, you were in my hands?” Remember
what Saul said?
Saul said, "I will never touch you, I love you, you are going to become king of the
land, you can trust me, I will never do this again, and he weeps—is this my servant
David.
Remember all that?
“David, please, make a covenant with me that you will not let my family be wiped
out when you become king. It is all yielding to David. Now all of the sudden, all of
this comes up again. Why? Saul is a man who never repented.
It has been two years since that experience. And all of the sudden the Ziphites come
up and what happens? Bam! The green-eyed monster of jealousy just rises up and
engulfs him. So he grabs three thousand men and he heads down there and it is the
same song, second verse, and it is always a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse
when you come back to it again the second time.
ELLICOTT, "(2) Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph.—We
21

assume, then, that after the marriage of David with Abigail he and his armed band
returned again to his old neighbourhood in the south—in the desert of Judah—the
district named after the Hill of Hachilah being, no doubt, in all respects well
adapted for the permanent encampment of such a large band as David’s now most
certainly was. David, who had been forced on a previous occasion to leave it on
account of the hot pursuit of Saul, aided by the Ziphites, who knew the country and
its resources so well, probably now supposed, after the protestation of Saul at En-
gedi, that he would now at least be left in peace. But he forgot with whom he had to
do—forgot the state of mind of his determined foe, and how likely it was that the old
mania would return with redoubled force. The Ziphites, however, who knew Saul,
and the feeling respecting David which existed at the court of Saul, repeated their
old tactics, and sent, as on a previous occasion, to suggest that with their help the
obnoxious chieftain and his free lances could be destroyed. The temptation was too
great to be resisted; so probably, with the advice of Abner, Saul took the field again.
The 3,000 seem to have been the standing force which Saul kept round him in the
Gibeah garrison. (See the first notice of this standing army in 1 Samuel 13:2.)
3 Saul made his camp beside the road on the hill
of Hakilah facing Jeshimon, but David stayed in
the desert. When he saw that Saul had followed
him there,
Years ago, an employee in the butcher shop where I worked was caught stealing
several hams. He defended himself by saying that he had earned them because he
was underpaid. That was a flimsy reason for his sinful behavior.
In 1 Samuel we read how David was being hunted by King Saul. One night, David
and his companions went to Saul's camp and discovered that the king and his men
were asleep. Abishai asked permission to kill Saul, saying that this opportunity had
come from God. David could have easily agreed. He undoubtedly remembered the
last time he spared Saul's life when he could have killed him. At that time Saul had
wept when he learned of David's mercy. He had declared David's fitness to be
Israel's next king, and had quit the chase (1 Samuel 24).
But Saul had resumed his grim pursuit. David could have reasoned, "I spared him
once. God is giving me this second opportunity." David rejected such thinking
22

because he believed it would be wrong to kill the man God had anointed to be
Israel's king. So he refused to do it.
When you are treated unjustly, it's easy to excuse your own hatred, impurity,
dishonesty, and cruelty. But don't give in to the temptation. Like David, do what's
right. —Herbert Vander Lugt (Our Daily Bread, Copyright RBC Ministries, Grand
Rapids, MI. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved)
Injustices are hard to bear,
They make us want to fight;
But God knows what we're going through--
In time He'll make things right. --Sper
If you rationalize one sin, it becomes two.
1 Samuel 26:1-26
Unexpected Kindness
A missionary was teaching a class of young girls about kindness. She told them
about Jesus, who said that a person who gives a cup of water in His name "will by
no means lose his reward" (Mark 9:41).
The next day the missionary watched as a group of weary men walked into the
village square, removed their heavy backpacks, and sat down to rest. A few minutes
later, several little girls shyly approached the surprised men and gave them all a
drink. Then they ran to the missionary. "Teacher!" they shouted. "We gave those
men a drink in Jesus' name."
Although Mark 9:41 applies primarily to showing kindness to believers in Christ,
we know that we are to "do good to all" (Galatians 6:10) and even give our enemy a
drink (Romans 12:20).
In today's Bible reading, David had the chance for revenge against King Saul (1
Samuel 26:9). But because David revered God, he showed kindness to the king.
Showing unexpected kindness to strangers or enemies will not always change their
hearts. But sooner or later someone will wonder why we were kind, and we will
have an opportunity to tell about our Lord, who was kind even to His enemies
(Romans 5:10).—Herbert Vander Lugt (Our Daily Bread, Copyright RBC
Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved)
Do a deed of simple kindness,
Though its end you may not see;
It may reach, like widening ripples,
Down a long eternity. —Norris
23

One act of kindness may teach more about the love of God than many sermons.
GILL. "And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, by the
way,.... To the wilderness; the very same place where the Ziphites suggested David
was:
but David abode in the wilderness; not in the hill of Hachilah, but in the wilderness
of Ziph itself:
and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness; he understood, by some
information he had, that Saul had set out from Gibeah, and was coming to seek for
him in the wilderness of Ziph; perhaps Jonathan had given him intelligence;
however, he was not quite certain, as appears by what follows.
HENRY, "David gets information of Saul's movements and acts defensively. He did
not march out to meet and fight him; he sought only his own safety, not Saul's ruin;
therefore he abode in the wilderness (1Sa_26:3), putting thereby a great force upon
himself, and curbing the bravery of his own spirit by a silent retirement, showing
more true valour than he could have done by an irregular resistance.
K&D 3-4, "But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of Hachilah,
whilst David had drawn back into the adjoining desert, from which he crept secretly
into Saul's encampment, and might, if he had chosen, have put his enemy to death
(1Sa_26:3.). There is quite as much difference in the minuter details connected with
the sparing of Saul. On the first occasion, Saul entered a cave in the desert of
Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior of the cave, without
having the smallest suspicion that they were anywhere near (1Sa_24:2-4). The
second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul upon the hill of
Hachilah, while the king and all his men were sleeping (1Sa_26:3, 1Sa_26:5). It is
true that on both occasions David's men told him that God had given his enemy into
his hand; but the first time they added, Do to him what seemeth good in thy sight;
and David cut off the lappet of Saul's coat, whereupon his conscience smote him,
and he said, “Far be it from me to lay my hand upon the Lord's anointed” (1Sa_
24:5-8). In the second instance, on the contrary, when David saw Saul in the
distance lying by the carriage rampart and the army sleeping round him, he called
to two of his heroes, Ahimelech and Abishai, to go with him into the camp of the
sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said to him, “God
hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: let me alone, that I may pierce him with
the spear.” But David rejected this proposal, and merely took away the spear and
water-bowl that were at Saul's head (1Sa_26:6-12). And lastly, notwithstanding the
fact that the words of David and replies of Saul agree in certain general thoughts,
yet they differ entirely in the main. On the first occasion David showed the king that
his life had been in his power, and yet he had spared him, to dispel the delusion that
he was seeking his life (1Sa_24:10-16). On the second occasion he asked the king
why he was pursuing him, and called to him to desist from his pursuit (1Sa_26:18.).
But Saul was so affected the first time that he wept aloud, and openly declared that
24

David would obtain the kingdom; and asked him to promise on oath, that when he
did, he would not destroy his family (1Sa_24:17-22). The second time, on the
contrary, he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and would to
David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail; but he neither
shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of David's ascending the throne, so that he
was evidently much more hardened than before (1Sa_26:21-25). These decided
differences prove clearly enough that the incident described in this chapter is not
the same as the similar one mentioned in 1 Samuel 23 and 24, but belongs to a later
date, when Saul's enmity and hardness had increased.
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 (‫ון‬ֹ‫ָכ‬‫נ‬‫ל־‬ ֶ‫,א‬ for a
certainty, as in 1Sa_23:23).
ELLICOTT, "(3) But David abode in the wilderness.—The former incident, when
David spared Saul’s life, happened long after the information of the Ziphites
brought the king to the hill “Hachilah, on the south of Jeshimon.” Then David, on
hearing of the march of Saul and his army, retired into the wilderness of Maon. Saul
pursued him, and David and his force were then only saved from destruction owing
to the news of a formidable Philistine invasion. This intelligence called Saul’s forces
away from the pursuit of David. David, unmolested, drew off his band, and sought
refuge et En-gedi (1 Samuel 23). After the Philistine invasion had been repulsed,
Saul again commenced operations against David; and marched his force to En-gedi,
in one of the caves of which took place the scene where David for the first time
spared the king’s life (1 Samuel 24). Now, after the information of the Ziphites had
brought down Saul and his soldiers from Gibeah, David does not flee in haste to
Maon, and thence to En-gedi, nor is Saul called away to any Philistine invasion; but
David abides in the wilderness, and his scouts come and tell him that Saul in very
deed (1 Samuel 26:4) was come after him in force.
‘And Saul encamped in the hill of Hachilah, which is before the Waste (Jeshimon),
by the highway. But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after
him into the wilderness.’
David clearly had advanced notice of his movements, for he and his men moved
from their encampment on the Hill of Hachilah before Saul’s arrival, and took
refuge in the hot and deserted wilderness. His men would by now have become
expert at moving under these conditions, and at fading into the background. Thus
David was able to keep watch on the army that had come against him, as it also
came into the wilderness to seek him. But the question was, was Saul with it?
25

The fact that the Hill of Hachilah was ‘by the highway’, the main route through the
mountains, may explain why David and his men were there. It is quite possible that
they robbed non-Israelite caravans as they made their way through the mountains.
This may have given a further reason why Saul felt that he had to act against him.
On the other hand it may simply be that they lived off game, but wanted to be in as
close a touch with things as possible. David would not feel that he was simply
surviving. He knew that he had a future in Israel, and would want to keep in touch.
4 he sent out scouts and learned that Saul had
definitely arrived. [a]
David therefore sent out spies…
To observe if he was coming or come, and where he was, that he might not be
surprised by him; for though David knew the Lord was and would be his protection,
he thought proper to be upon his guard, and to make use of means for his safety:
GILL, "David therefore sent out spies,.... To observe if he was coming or come, and
where he was, that he might not be surprised by him; for though David knew the
Lord was and would be his protection, he thought proper to be upon his guard, and
to make use of means for his safety:
and understood that Saul was come in very deed; that he was most certainly come,
and come to some certain place; which he himself went to reconnoitre, as in 1Sa_
26:5.
HENRY, "He had spies who informed him of Saul's descent, that he had come in
very deed (1Sa_26:4.); for he would not believe that Saul would deal so basely with
him till he had the utmost evidence of it. (2.) He observed with his own eyes how
Saul was encamped, 1Sa_26:5. He came towards the place where Saul and his men
had pitched their tents, so near as to be able, undiscovered, to take a view of their
entrenchments, probably in the dusk of the evening.
JAMISON, "David ... sent out spies ... and David arose, and came to the place
where Saul had pitched — Having obtained certain information of the locality, he
seems, accompanied by his nephew (1Sa_26:6), to have hid himself, perhaps
disguised, in a neighboring wood, or hill, on the skirts of the royal camp towards
night, and waited to approach it under covert of the darkness.
26

‘David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was definitely come.’
David then specifically sent out scouts in order to discover whether Saul was with
his troops, and as a result discovered that Saul really was among them. The
impression given in 1 Samuel 23 & 1 Samuel 24 had been of David and his men in
full flight before Saul. Here the impression is very different. David is depicted as
confident and in control. It would appear that David’s spy system was now more
organised, and that he and his men were now more sure of their ability to move
around and keep the situation under control. Having been there for so long this was
now his territory. It was rather Saul’s army who were unfamiliar with the terrain.
David’s six small ‘military units’ (hundreds) may well also have grown considerably
larger.
5 Then David set out and went to the place where Saul
had camped. He saw where Saul and Abner son of Ner,
the commander of the army, had lain down. Saul was
lying inside the camp, with the army encamped around
him.
In the first instance Saul had come into the cave, where David
and his men were camped. This time, Saul is in his camp with his men
gathered around him for protection. It seems, the captain of the host,
Abner, was lying very near to Saul. Perhaps, this precaution was
because of the other incident. Saul felt he was safe from harm,
because the 3,000 men were encamped around him.
CLARKE Saul lay in the trench
The word bammaegal, which we translate in the trench, and in the margin in the
midst of his carriages, is rendered by some in a ring of carriages, and by others in
the circle, i.e., which was formed by his troops. Luther himself translates it
wagenburg, a fortress formed of wagons or carriages.
27

As agal signifies any thing round, it may here refer to a round pavilion or tent made
for Saul, or else to the form of his camp. The Arabs, to the present day, always form
a circle in their encampments, and put their principal officers in the centre.
GILL and Saul lay in the trench;
or circuit; not in the foss or ditch thrown up, in which an army sometimes lies
entrenched; but this is to be understood either of the camp itself, so called, as Ben
Gersom, Abarbinel, and Ben Melech think, because it lay in a circular form, that all
comers to it on every side might be seen; or else a sort of fortress all around the
camp, made of carriages joined together; and as the word signifies a carriage, cart
or chariot, it may design the chariot in which Saul slept, as kings have been used to
do when not in their houses; and to this the Septuagint agrees, which uses a word
that Procopius Gazaeus says signifies one kind of a chariot, and is used of a chariot
drawn by mules, in the Greek version of (Isaiah 66:20) ; Grotius observes, kings
used to sleep in chariots where there were no houses; (See Gill on 17:20); though he
rather seems to have slept, "sub die", in the open air: and the people pitched round
about him;
both for the sake of honour, and for his greater security; this shows it could not be
the loss he laid in, for then they could not pitch around him.
HENRY, "He observed with his own eyes how Saul was encamped,
1Sa_26:5. He came towards the place where Saul and his men had
pitched their tents, so near as to be able, undiscovered, to take a view
of their entrenchments, probably in the dusk of the evening.
JAMISON, "1Sa_26:5-25. David stays Abishai from killing Saul, but
takes his spear and cruse.
Saul lay in the trench, and the people pitched round about him —
Among the nomad people of the East, the encampments are usually
made in a circular form. The circumference is lined by the baggage
and the men, while the chief’s station is in the center, whether he
occupy a tent or not. His spear, stuck in the ground, indicates his
position. Similar was the disposition of Saul’s camp - in this hasty
expedition he seems to have carried no tent, but to have slept on the
ground. The whole troop was sunk in sleep around him.
BENSON, :1 Samuel 26:5. David came to the place where Saul had
pitched — Within sight of it; where he might observe how he lay. Saul
lay in a trench — Hebrews ‫במעגל‬ bammanggal, in the carriage, or rather, within
the circle of the carriages, that he might be safe from any sudden attack.
K&D 25-27, "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.
28

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).
HAWKER, "Verses 5-7
(5) And David arose, and came to the place where Saul had pitched:
and David beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner,
the captain of his host: and Saul lay in the trench, and the people
pitched round about him. (6) ¶ Then answered David and said to
Ahimelech the Hittite, and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother to
Joab, saying, Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp? And
Abishai said, I will go down with thee. (7) So David and Abishai came
to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the
trench, and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster: but Abner and
the people lay round about him.
This bold attempt probably was from some secret influence imparted
to David's mind. The sequel of the history of it proves, how sweet a
lesson he gathered from it, and therefore it seems not improbable,
that the Lord inclined his heart to the undertaking. Reader! it is very
profitable at times to observe, how graciously the Lord leads on the
minds of his people to do what they themselves would otherwise have
never been competent to perform.
PULPIT, "1Sa_26:5
David arose. It seems as if David could scarcely believe that Saul
would thus a second time pursue him; but when the scouts informed
him that it was really so, he went in person to reconnoitre Saul’s
camp. From the opposite hill he was able to see that he lay in the
trench, i.e. the barricade formed by the wagons. At night Saul’s place
would be in the centre, with Abner near him, while the rest would lie
sleeping around, but all of them within the rampart. When David
reconnoitred them they would probably be arranging their wagons to
29

form this barricade.
GUZIK 5-8, "(1Sa_26:5-8) David’s second opportunity to kill Saul.
So David arose and came to the place where Saul had encamped.
And David saw the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner,
the commander of his army. Now Saul lay within the camp, with
the people encamped all around him. Then David answered, and
said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah,
brother of Joab, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the
camp?” And Abishai said, “I will go down with you.” So David and
Abishai came to the people by night; and there Saul lay sleeping
within the camp, with his spear stuck in the ground by his head.
And Abner and the people lay all around him. Then Abishai said to
David, “God has delivered your enemy into your hand this day.
Now therefore, please, let me strike him at once with the spear,
right to the earth; and I will not have to strike him a second time!”
a. Now Saul lay within the camp: The King James Version says
that Saul lay within the trench. The translation is pretty literal
from the Hebrew, but gives the wrong idea. The idea is that the
perimeter of Israeli army camp was marked by the tracks of
their wagons, and it was within the perimeter of the camp that
Saul slept. Saul lay within the camp is a good translation of the
idea.
b. So David arose and came to the place where Saul had
encamped: The last time David and Saul met, David was simply
hiding from Saul, and Saul happened upon the place where
David hid. This time, David actively seeks Saul out.
i. So David arose means that David himself went. He could
have sent any of his 600 men to do this job, and from a
military sense, it made more sense to send someone else.
Why should David take on such a dangerous mission? The
fact that David did this shows his boldness and courage; the
outcome of it all shows God was leading him in it.
c. David saw the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner,
the commander of his army: As the entire army sleeps, Saul
sleeps near the commander of his army. Then David, with a
trusted assistant (Abishai the son of Zeruiah), secretly creeps
down to where Saul and Abner sleep. With Saul’s spear stuck in
the ground by his head, and all asleep, Saul is completely
vulnerable.
d. Then Abishai said to David, “God has delivered your enemy
into your hand this day”: Here, David receives the same advice
as on the previous occasion he had to kill Saul (1Sa_24:4). Each
30

time, David’s associates pointed out that this circumstance was
not an accident, God designed it - and the design was for David
to take righteous vengeance upon Saul.
i. Abishai even makes it easy for David: Please let me strike at
once with the spear. David would not raise his hand against
Saul; Abishai would do it, and not feel bad about it in the
slightest way. David could say to himself and everyone else,
“I did not kill Saul.”
ii. Abishai also weaves into the matter an element of poetic
justice: the spear used to kill Saul would be the king’s own
spear, stuck in the ground by his head. The spear that was
thrown at David in attempted murder before (1Sa_18:10-11
and 1Sa_19:9-10), would now be used as the instrument of
the LORD’s righteous judgment! It all might have seemed to
be perfectly given from the hand of God!
ELLICOTT, " (5) And David arose.—Immediately after the scouts informed him of
the purpose of Saul, and of the near proximity of the royal army David seems to
have resolved upon that night adventure which resulted in the episode told in this
twenty-sixth chapter.
In the trench.—The English Version (Margin) has, “in the midst of his carriages”;
Keil renders, “by the wagon rampart”; The LXX. translate the Hebrew word by
“covered chariots.” The meaning is, no doubt, that the king lay down within the
barricade or rampart formed by the baggage wagons.
DON ANDERSON
But you see what the Ziphites did? They stirred up this green monster of jealousy
that had kind of been put to rest but had never been dealt with and here it jumps
out all over again.
Principle: If you do not judge sin properly in your life, it is going to come back
worse the second time.
7
And for Saul the Ziphites stirred it up again. He is reliving two years ago all over
again. He is right back to square one.
Do you have any problems like that in your life -- lust, alcohol, anger, bitterness, or
resentment?
Have you gotten to the place now where you just excuse it?
“Well, that is just the way I am. I am sorry, you are just going to have to learn to live
with it.”
You know, that’s a chicken’s way out. It is just a stubborn, bullheaded pride that
keeps you failing in those areas.
Rev. Arthur W. Pink points out, “The action of Saul here provides a solemn
illustration of a well-known principle. If sin be not dethroned and mortified,
31

it will soon recover its strength and when a suitable temptation is presented, break
out again with renewed force.”
David comes into this situation and he surveys these three thousand guys down here
in the valley, he is in fellowship with the Lord, and in the middle of it he sees Saul
and Abner down there.
MACLAREN 5-12
It is fashionable at present to regard this incident and the other instance of David’s
sparing Saul, when in his power, as two versions of one event. But it if not
improbable that the hunted outlaw should twice have taken refuge in the same
place, or that his hiding-place should have been twice betrayed. He had but a small
choice of safe retreats, and the Ziphites had motive for a second betrayal in the fact
of the first, and of its failure to secure David’s capture. The whole cast of the two
incidents is so different that it is impossible to see how the one could have been
evolved from the other, and either they are both true, or they are both unhistorical,
or, at best, are both the product of fancy working on, and arbitrarily filling up, a
very meager skeleton of fact. Many of the advocates of the identity of the incident at
the bottom of the two accounts would accept the latter explanation; we take the
former.
Saul had three thousand men with him; David had left his little troop ‘in the
wilderness,’ and seems to have come with only his two companions, Ahimelech and
his own nephew, Abishai, to reconnoiter. He sees, from some height, the camp, with
the transport wagons making a kind of barricade in the centre—just as camps are
still arranged in South Africa and elsewhere,—and Saul established therein as in a
rude fortification. A bold thought flashes into his mind as he looks. Perhaps he
remembered Gideon’s daring visit to the camp of Midian. He will go down, and not
only into the camp, but ‘to Saul,’ through the ranks and over the barrier. What to
do he does not say, but the two fierce fighters beside him think of only one thing as
sufficient motive for such an adventure. Abishai volunteers to go with him; no doubt
Ahimelech would have been ready also, but two were enough, and three would only
have increased risk. So they lay close hid till night fell, and then stole down through
the sleeping ranks with silent movements, like a couple of Indians on the war-trail,
climbed the barricade, and stood at last where Saul lay, with his spear, as the
emblem of kingship, stuck upright at his head, and a cruse of water for slaking
thirst, if he awoke, beside him. Those who should have been his guards lay sleeping
round him, for a ‘deep sleep from Jehovah was fallen upon them.’ What a vivid,
strange picture it is, and how characteristic of the careless discipline of unscientific
Eastern warfare!
The tigerish lust for blood awoke in Abishai. Whatever sad, pitying, half-tender
thoughts stirred in David as he looked at the mighty form of Saul, with limbs
relaxed in slumber, and perhaps some of the gloom and evil passions charmed out of
his face, his nephew’s only thought was,’ What a fair mark! what an easy blow!’ He
32

was brutally eager to strike once, and truculently sure that his arm would make
sure that once would be enough. He was religious too, after a strange fierce fashion.
God-significantly he does not say ‘Jehovah’; his religion was only the vague belief in
a deity-had delivered Saul into David’s hands, and it would be a kind of sin not to
kill him. How many bloody tragedies that same unnatural alliance of religion and
murderous hate has varnished over! Very beautifully does David’s spirit contrast
with this. Abishai represents the natural impulse of us all—to strike at our enemies
when we can, to meet hate with hate, and do to another the evil that he would do to
us.
David here, though he could be fierce and cruel enough sometimes, and had plenty
of the devil in him, listens to his nobler self, which listens to God, and, at a time
when everything tempted him to avenge himself, resists and overcomes. He is here a
saint after the New Testament pattern. Abishai had, in effect, said, ‘Thou shalt love
thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ David’s finely-tuned ear heard, long before
they were spoken on earth, the great Christian words, 11 say unto you, Love your
enemies; do good to them that hate you.’ He knew that Saul had been ‘rejected,’ but
he was ‘Jehovah’s anointed,’ and the unction which had rested on that sleeping head
lingered still. It was not for David to be the executor of God’s retribution. He left
himself and his cause in Jehovah’s hands, and no doubt it was with sorrow and
pitying love, not altogether quenched by Saul’s mad hate, that he foresaw that the
life which he spared now was certain one day to be smitten. We may well learn the
lesson of this story, and apply it to the small antagonisms and comparatively
harmless enmities which may beset our more quiet lives. David in Saul’s ‘laager,’
Stephen outside the wall, alike lead up our thoughts to Jesus’ prayer,’ Father,
forgive them; for they know not what they do.’
The carrying off of the spear and the cruse was a couch of almost humour, and it,
with the ironical taunt flung across the valley to Abner, gives relief to the strain of
emotion in the story. Saul’s burst of passionate remorse is morbid, paroxysmal, like
his fits of fury, and is sure to foam itself away. The man had no self-control. He had
let wild, ungoverned moods master him, and was truly ‘possessed.’ One passion
indulged had pushed him over the precipice into insanity, or something like it. Let
us take care not to let any passion, emotion, or mood get the upper hand. ‘That way
madness lies.’ ‘He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken
down, without walls.’
And let us not confound remorse with repentance ‘The sorrow of the world worketh
death.’ Saul groveled in agony that day, but tomorrow he was raging again with
more than the old frenzy of hate. Many a man says, ‘I have played the fool,’ and yet
goes on playing it again when the paroxysm of remorse has stormed itself out.
David’s answer was by no means effusive, for he had learned how little Saul’s
regrets were to be trusted. He takes no notice of the honeyed words of invitation to
33

return, and will not this time venture to take back the spear and cruse, as he had
done, on the previous occasion, the skirt of Saul’s robe. He solemnly appeals to
Jehovah’s righteous judgment to determine his and Saul’s respective ‘righteousness
and faithfulness.’ He is silent as to what that judgment may have in reserve for Saul,
but for himself he is calmly conscious that, in the matter of sparing Saul’s life, he
has done right, and expects that God will deliver him ‘out of all tribulation.’ That is
not self-righteous boasting, although it does not exactly smack of the Christian
spirit; but it is faith clinging to the confidence that God is ‘not unrighteous to forget’
his servant’s obedience, and that the innocent will not always be the oppressor’s
victim.
What a strange, bewildered, self-contradictory chaos of belief and intention is
revealed in poor, miserable Saul’s parting words! He blesses the man whom he is
hunting to slay. He knows that all his wild efforts to destroy him are foredoomed to
failure, and that David ‘shall surely prevail’; and yet he cannot give up fighting
against the inevitable,—that is, against God. How many of us are doing the very
same thing—rushing on in a course of life which we know, when we are sane, to be
dead against God’s will, and therefore doomed to utter collapse some day!
COKE, ". And Saul lay in the trench— Within the trench, Houbigant; which
appears to be the true meaning of the original word. The Chaldee renders it the
same. This entrenchment is generally thought to have consisted of chariots joined
together; and therefore Le Clerc renders it, not improperly, intra ambitum
plaustrorum. The LXX with no great propriety read; in his chariot. The author of
the Observations is of a different opinion from Houbigant. "One can hardly
imagine," says he, "that the Hebrew word ‫מעגל‬ mangal, signifies a ditch and bank
thrown up; as one would suppose our translators apprehended, from their using the
word trench; for it appears from the history, that no precautions were taken against
David. Nor does it seem to mean a ring of carriages, as it is supposed in the Margins
of our Bibles, and as Buxtorf interprets the word; for, most probably, the parting of
carriages was impracticable in that mountainous country. It seems then simply to
mean the round which the troops formed, in the midst of whom, as in the place of
honour, Saul slept. The view which D'Arvieux gives us of a modern Arab camp,
agrees perfectly well with this account of Saul; only supposing that, for the sake of
expedition, they carried no tents with them: for he tells us, that, when the
disposition of the ground will permit, an Arab camp is always round, the prince
being in the middle, and the Arabs about him, but so as to leave a respectful
distance between them. Add to this, that their lances are fixed near them in the
ground, all the day long, ready for action. When David is represented as sometimes
secreting himself in the night, when he was with his armies, 2 Samuel 9-17:8 it is to
be supposed to refer to his not lodging in the middle of the camp, which was a
proper place for a king, the better to avoid any surprize from enemies."
Observations, p. 347. See Hom. Iliad. ix. ver. 47. and Sil. Ital. lib. vii. ver. 291.
REFLECTIONS.—Good impressions are quickly worn out, where the heart is not
34

truly turned to God.
1. Saul returns to the pursuit of David, still retaining the old rancour, and perhaps
instigated by the Ziphites, who, from their former ill behaviour to David, might be
apprehensive of suffering for it, should he ever come to the throne. Note; (1.) One
sin usually involves the soul in another, so connected is the chain of evil. (2.) A little
instigation will revive an old grudge, where the reconciliation is not sincere.
2. David gets information of Saul's motions, and, as before, trusts not to his sword,
but to concealment, for his safety. So unwilling was he, under every provocation, to
appear in arms against his sovereign.
PETT 5-7. "Verses 5-7
David Pays A Secret Visit To Saul And Enters His Camp (1 Samuel 26:5-7).
David then took two of his best men with him and went to an eminence from which
he could observe Saul’s camp, and from there he saw the lay out of the camp, and
the place where Saul and Abner slept among the wagons. Then that night, taking
one of his men, he evaded the guards and entered the camp, making his way
stealthily towards the spot where Saul lay asleep, alongside Abner, his commander-
in-chief. Stuck in the ground at Saul’s head was his ceremonial spear, the symbol of
his kingship. The situation was totally different from the previous time when they
had fled from Saul and been hiding in a cave, with Saul coming into their power by
‘accident’. Here David was in control, and Saul came into his power by design.
Analysis.
a And David arose, and came to the place where Saul had encamped, and David
beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his host,
and Saul lay within the place of the wagons, and the people were encamped round
about him (1 Samuel 26:5).
b Then answered David and said to Ahimelech the Hittite, and to Abishai the son of
Zeruiah, brother to Joab, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp?”
And Abishai said, “I will go down with you” (1 Samuel 26:6).
a So David and Abishai came to the people by night, and, behold, Saul lay sleeping
within the place of the wagons, with his spear stuck in the ground at his head, and
Abner and the people lay round about him (1 Samuel 26:7).
Note that in ‘a’ Saul was sleeping, along with Abner, among the wagons, with his
people around him, and in the parallel he is described as being the same. Central in
‘b’ is David’s decision to enter the enemy camp. Note how the distinctive features of
this venture are being accentuated by the use of small chiasmuses. This is the first
stage, entry into the enemy camp.
35

1 Samuel 26:5
‘And David arose, and came to the place where Saul had encamped, and David
beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his host,
and Saul lay within the place of the wagons, and the people were encamped round
about him.’
Leaving his troops in hiding, David, more confident now than he had been when
Saul had previously hunted for them, took two of his best men, Ahimelech the
Hittite and Abishai, the son of Zeruiah (and therefore Joab’s brother), and led them
to an eminence from which he could observe what was happening in Saul’s camp.
From there he observed the lay out of the camp and exactly where Saul and Abner
had their sleeping quarters. This was among the supply wagons, which were parked
in the centre of the sleeping army.
6 David then asked Ahimelech the Hittite and Abishai
son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother, "Who will go down into
the camp with me to Saul?"
"I'll go with you," said Abishai.
BARNES, "Ahimelech the Hittite - Only mentioned here. Uriah was also a Hittite.
Abishai - He was son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, but probably about the same age
as David. He because very famous as a warrior 2Sa_23:18, but was implicated with
his brother Joab in the murder of Abner in retaliation for the death of their brother
Asahel 2Sa_3:30.
CLARKE, "Abishai the son of Zeruiah - She was David’s sister; and therefore
Abishai and Joab were nephews to David.
GILL, "Then answered David,.... Or addressed himself to the two following
persons:
and said to Ahimelech the Hittite; who was either an Hittite by birth, but was
36

become a proselyte, or he was an Israelite that had dwelt among the Hittites, and so
had this name given him; the former seems most probable; some say (k) this was
Uriah the Hittite:
and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab; Zeruiah was the sister of David,
1Ch_2:15; and these were two sons of hers, who very probably joined David at the
cave of Adullam, 1Sa_22:1,
saying, who will go down with me to Saul to the camp? that is, which of you two?
and Abishai said, I will go down with thee; the other being timorous, or Abishai
being most forward spoke first.
HENRY, "Here is, I. David's bold adventure into Saul's camp in the night,
accompanied only by his kinsman Abishai, the son of Zeruiah. He proposed it to
him and to another of his confidants (1Sa_26:6), but the other either declined it as
too dangerous an enterprise, or at least was content that Abishai, who was forward
to it, should run the risk of it rather than himself. Whether David was prompted to
do this by his own courage, or by an extraordinary impression upon his spirits, or
by the oracle, does not appear; but, like Gideon, he ventured through the guards,
with a special assurance of the divine protection.
PULPIT, "1Sa_26:6
Ahimelech the Hittite. Though a portion of this once powerful people (Gen_15:20;
Jdg_1:26) was reduced to the position of bondmen (1Ki_9:20), yet others had
retained their independence, and their kings even are spoken of (ibid. 10:29; 2Ki_
7:6). As Ahimelech is mentioned before Abishai, he must have held an honourable
place with. David, as did subsequently another Hittite, Uriah (2Sa_11:3). Abishai
the son of Zeruiah. Zeruiah is described in 1Ch_2:16 as sister to Jesse’s sons, but
apparently only by adoption, as both she and Abigail seem to have been daughters
of the king of Ammon (2Sa_17:25), whence probably the absence of any direct
reference to their father. Abishai, who was probably about David’s age, and his two
brothers were high in rank among David’s heroes (1Ch_11:6, 1Ch_11:20, 1Ch_
11:26), and apparently he was one of the three captains who, when David was in the
cave of Adullam, broke through the host of the Philistines to fetch him water from
the well of Bethlehem. Who will go down? It is evident that David and his men
remained upon the mountains, which extend from Maon far to the southwest. Saul’s
camp, being "by the way," i.e. near the road, would be on the lower ground. David
having personally examined it, and seen that the watches were ill kept, asks which of
the two will accompany him for the more hazardous enterprise of penetrating into
it. Ahimelech seems prudently to have declined, but Abishai at once offers his
services.
37

BENSON "1 Samuel 26:6-7. Ahimelech the Hittite — A valiant man of that nation,
who was a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and not only followed David, but was
always near to his person. Abishai — Brother to Joab, the son of Zeruiah, David’s
sister. His father is not named, either because he was now dead, or because he was
an obscure person. Abishai said, I will go — Either Ahimelech declined it, as too
hazardous an enterprise; or Abishai, being a forward young man, offered himself
while the other stood deliberating. David and Abishai came to the people by night —
A bold attempt for two men to come into the midst of an army of three thousand
chosen men. But it should be considered, 1st, That David had a particular assurance
that God would preserve him to the kingdom; and, 2d, That he probably had a
particular impression from God, exciting him to this work, and, possibly, God might
reveal to him that he had cast them into this deep sleep, in order that David might
have this second opportunity of manifesting his innocence toward Saul.
ELLICOTT, " (6) Ahimelech the Hittite.—The Hittites were one of the old
Canaanitish peoples; we hear of them round Hebron in the time of Abraham
(Genesis 15:20). The conquering Israelites subdued, but did not exterminate them;
and gradually, in the days of the weakness and divisions which succeeded the first
conquest, the Hittites, in common with many other of the old tribes, seeem to have
enjoyed the Land of Promise with the children of Israel in a kind of joint
occupation. We find the Hittites ranking here among David’s trusted faithful men;
and later we hear of another Hittite, Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, filling an
important post in the royal army, and possessing a house and an establishment in
the capital city of Jerusalem. We do not hear again of this Ahimelech in the sacred
record.
Abishai the son of Zeruiah.—Zeruiah was David’s sister. Abishai, later one of the
famous generals of David, was brother to Joab, afterwards the captain of the royal
host. Abishai was apparently nearly of the same age as David. There was a third
younger brother also high in the favour of his kinsman David—Asahel, celebrated
especially for his speed in running. Between these three sons of Zeruiah and Abner a
blood feud seems to have existed. Abner, the near relative, and captain of the host of
Saul throughout that monarch’s reign, is closely associated with the fortunes of
Saul. It has been supposed, and with some probability, that he was among the
determined foes of David. Dreading the advent of the son of Jesse to the throne, he
saw in his elevation the signal of the downfall of all Saul’s family and friends. He,
Abner, surely would no longer be captain of the host of Israel. The words of David
to Abner in this chapter (1 Samuel 26:14-16) seem to point to the fierce hatred
which existed between them. The bloody sequel to the feud between the great
kinsman of Saul and the three brothers, the famous sons of David’s sister, is strictly
in accordance with what we should expect in these fierce, wild days. Some time after
Saul’s death Abner slew the young Asahel, who seems to have been passionately
loved by his elder brother. Abner became reconciled to David, but the reconciliation
38

1 samuel 26 commentary

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie 1 samuel 26 commentary

Ähnlich wie 1 samuel 26 commentary (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

1 samuel 26 commentary