Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Samuel 26

The Ziphites came to Saul. — There is grave difficulty connected with the account contained in this chapter. Is it another account of the incident told in 1 Samuel 24 and 1 Samuel 26, by a different narrator? This is the opinion of some respected modern commentators: for instance, Ewald and the Bishop of Bath and Wells in the Speaker’s Commentary. The question at issue is this: In this First Book of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 23:24 and 1 Samuel 23:26, we have two accounts of David sparing his great adversary's life, under what appear at first sight to be 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—namely, the persuasions of David’s followers to induce their leader to take Saul’s life when Saul was in his power (persuasions resisted by the noble-minded chieftain); David’s taking of something personal from the sleeping king as proof that the royal life had been in his hands; and the sequel, which describes Saul’s heartfelt, temporary repentance 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 Saul's midday siesta in the En-gedi cavern, where David and his band were dwelling, that it is truly impossible to assume they are versions of the same incident. We conclude, therefore, with some certainty, that the accounts in 1 Samuel 23:24 and 1 Samuel 23:26 refer to two distinct and separate events. This is also the view of Keil, Erdmann, and Lange; Dean Payne Smith in the Pulpit Commentary, Wordsworth; and others. Bishop Hervey, in the Speaker’s Commentary, however, is supported in his hypothesis (that the two accounts refer to only one incident) by Ewald, De Wette, and others. In the course of this exposition, the more striking agreements and divergences will be discussed.

There remains, however, a still graver question to consider. Its gravity and difficulty persist whether we assume, as we propose to do, that twice during David's outlaw life the king’s life was in his power, or that only once David stood over the sleeping king, sword in hand, with the two accounts referring to that single event. The question is this: For what purpose did the compiler of the First Book of Samuel insert chapter twenty-six into his narrative? For in this chapter, either the old story of 1 Samuel 23:24 is repeated with certain variations, or an incident similar to one already detailed is repeated at great length.

No perfectly satisfactory reply can be given to this important question. The purpose of one such account in a narrative of the early life of the great founder of Israelite greatness is clear. But we may well ask why a second narrative of a similar incident was inserted in a book where conciseness is usually so carefully observed.

All we can suggest is that everything that contributed to the glory of Israel's favourite hero was of the deepest interest to the people. The surpassing nobility and generosity of David's magnanimity toward his deadly foe were considered worthy of these detailed accounts, even in the necessarily brief compilation by the inspired writer of the history of that time.

Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph. — We assume, then, that after David’s marriage to Abigail, he and his armed band returned to his old neighborhood in the south, in the desert of Judah. The district named after the Hill of Hachilah was, no doubt, in every respect well-suited for the permanent encampment of such a large band as David's had now certainly become.

David had been forced to leave this area on a previous occasion because of Saul's hot pursuit, aided by the Ziphites who knew the country and its resources so well. He probably now supposed, after Saul's solemn promise at En-gedi, that he would, at least, be left in peace.

But David forgot who he was dealing with—he 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 attitude toward David that existed at Saul's court, repeated their old tactics and sent word, as on a previous occasion, suggesting that with their help the obnoxious chieftain and his free lances could be destroyed.

The temptation was too great for Saul to resist, so, probably with Abner's advice, Saul took the field again. The 3,000 men seem to have been the standing force Saul kept around him in the Gibeah garrison (see the first notice of this standing army in 1 Samuel 13:2).

But David remained in the wilderness. —The former incident, when David spared Saul’s life, happened long after the information from 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, retreated into the wilderness of Maon. Saul pursued him, and David and his force were then only saved from destruction because of the news of a formidable Philistine invasion. This intelligence called Saul’s forces away from the pursuit of David. David, unmolested, withdrew his band and sought refuge at En-gedi (1 Samuel 23).

After the Philistine invasion had been repulsed, Saul again resumed operations against David and marched his force to En-gedi. In one of its caves, the event occurred where David for the first time spared the king’s life (1 Samuel 24). Now, after the information from the Ziphites had brought down Saul and his soldiers from Gibeah, David does not flee in haste to Maon, and from there to En-gedi, nor is Saul called away by any Philistine invasion; but David remains 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 David arose. —Immediately after the scouts informed him of Saul's purpose and the nearness of the royal army, David seems to have resolved to undertake 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 it, “by the wagon rampart”; The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word as “covered chariots.” The meaning is, no doubt, that the king lay down within the barricade or rampart formed by the baggage wagons.

Ahimelech the Hittite. — The Hittites were one of the old Canaanite peoples; we hear of them around Hebron in the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:20). The conquering Israelites subdued, but did not exterminate them. Gradually, during the days of weakness and divisions that followed the first conquest, the Hittites, in common with many other old tribes, seem 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 and faithful men. 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 David's famous generals, was brother to Joab, who later became the captain of the royal army. Abishai was apparently nearly the same age as David. There was a third younger brother also high in the favor of his kinsman David—Asahel, celebrated especially for his speed in running.

A blood feud seems to have existed between these three sons of Zeruiah and Abner. Abner, a close relative and captain of Saul’s army throughout Saul's reign, was closely associated with Saul's fortunes. It has been supposed, with some probability, that he was among David's determined enemies. Dreading the advent of the son of Jesse to the throne, Abner saw in David's elevation the signal for the downfall of all Saul’s family and friends.

Abner surely reasoned that he would no longer be captain of the army of Israel. The words of David to Abner in this chapter (1 Samuel 26:14–16) seem to point to the fierce hatred that existed between them. The bloody sequel to the feud between Saul's great kinsman 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 killed the young Asahel, who seems to have been passionately loved by his elder brother. Abner became reconciled to David, but the reconciliation did not save the friend of Saul and the killer of Asahel from the vengeance of Joab and Abishai, who murdered the illustrious Abner in cold blood.

And Abishai said, I will go down with thee. — Ahimelech seems to have backed out of the perilous night enterprise. But Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, with the reckless gallantry and intense devotion to David that, despite all their pride and self-will, always characterized these famous warrior kinsmen of the king, at once volunteered to go with his loved chief.