Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
1 Samuel 25:1-3
The End Of A Prophet and An Introduction To A Fool (1 Samuel 25:1).
The death of Samuel introduces a period of folly, possibly in order to bring out what the loss of his influence resulted in. This period commences with the story of Nabal the fool, (‘Nabal is his name and folly is with him' - 1 Samuel 25:25) illustrative of the folly of the wealthy in Israel towards David under Saul, and continues with Saul's further gross act of folly against David in which he declares, ‘I have played the fool, and erred exceedingly' (1 Samuel 26:21).
It is probably not accidental that having described Samuel's death and his being buried ‘in his house', Nabal is described as ‘of (the house/family) of Caleb'. In the context the second description may be seen as rather ominously pointing to the fact that Nabal too will also shortly be joining his fathers.
A further thing to note is that the description of Samuel's death and burial which then introduces the folly and end of Nabal (1 Samuel 25:1), parallels similar words about Samuel's death and burial which commence the passage which introduces the final folly and end of Saul (1 Samuel 28:3). Nabal's end as ‘a fool' would thus seem to be intended as a kind of pre-indication of what will happen to Saul the fool. This parallel can be seen as confirmed by a number of further indications that we should relate the two:
1). Nabal's ‘three thousand sheep' (1 Samuel 25:2) may be seen as paralleling Saul's ‘three thousand men' (1 Samuel 24:2).
2). David is depicted as ‘your son' to both of them (1 Samuel 24:11; 1 Samuel 24:16; 1 Samuel 25:8).
3). Nabal holds a feast in his house ‘like the feast of a king' (1 Samuel 25:36).
4). Both would soon suffer premature death because of their opposition to David (1 Samuel 25:38; 1 Samuel 31:6).
In contrast we have the presentation of David, the man who ‘dealt wisely' (1 Samuel 18:15; 1 Samuel 18:30) and was of ‘a beautiful countenance' (1 Samuel 16:12), which can be paralleled with the presentation of Abigail, Nabal's wife, as a woman of ‘good understanding' and ‘beautiful countenance'. Both of them (David and Abigail) would enjoy ‘life' together and share a glorious future. Thus the story of Nabal and Abigail is a kind of cameo of the story of the lives of Saul and David, the one foolish and condemned, the other wise and beautiful and destined for life and glory.
Analysis.
a And Samuel died, and all Israel gathered themselves together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah (1 Samuel 25:1 a).
b And David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran (1 Samuel 25:1 b).
c And there was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel, and the man was very prosperous, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats. And he was shearing his sheep in Carmel, and the name of the man was Nabal (1 Samuel 25:2 a).
b And the name of his wife Abigail, and the woman was of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance (1 Samuel 25:3 b).
a But the man was churlish and evil in his doings, and he was ‘of (the house of) Caleb' (1 Samuel 25:3 c).
Note that in ‘a' Samuel died and all lamented him, and he was buried ‘in his house' (in his family garden or tomb) and in the parallel we have a man about to die whom no one will lament, who was of good stock, i.e. ‘of Caleb', and was, unsuspectingly, about to join Caleb ‘in his house'. His death is being depicted as a kind of forerunner to that of Saul, the death of a fool. It is in contrast with the one who lives and who carries on himself the mantle of Samuel. In ‘b' we have David, the man anointed by Samuel who will live, and in whom the future lay as he carried on and extended Samuel's work, and whom we know from what we have been told already was of beautiful countenance (1 Samuel 16:12) and wise in his dealings (1 Samuel 18:15; 1 Samuel 18:30), and in the parallel we have the woman Abigail (‘my father is joy') who will live and will share that future, who was also of good understanding and of beautiful countenance. Centrally in ‘c' we have a description of a prosperous man, who was celebrating an abundant ‘harvest' of wool with an outward show of hospitality, but whose name was Nabal (‘fool', compare Psalms 14:1; Proverbs 30:22). Like Saul he would not include David, and thus he lived and died like a fool.
‘ And Samuel died, and all Israel gathered themselves together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah.'
We had almost lost sight of Samuel amidst the follies of Saul and YHWH's preservation of David, but we are now reminded that he had continued his prophetic work in Israel, and was generally greatly loved. Thus when he died all Israel gathered together to lament him. And he was then buried in his ancestral home, no doubt in a special tomb or mausoleum in the grounds (compare 2 Kings 21:18; with 2 Chronicles 33:20. To literally bury him in the house would be to render it permanently unclean). What a contrast with Nabal whom no one seems to have lamented, (although he no doubt had a rich funeral), and with Saul who was disgraced in his death (1 Samuel 31:10) and was only remembered by a few (1 Samuel 31:11), who buried him away from his ancestral home (Isaiah 1:13).
In this passage the description of Samuel's end leads on to the story of a man who behaved like a fool and died like a fool. A parallel description in 1 Samuel 28:3 leads on to the story of how Saul also behaved like a fool, and how, while he appears to have died bravely, he came to a fool's end. If David had been with him at the battle with the Philistines at which he died things might have gone very differently.
‘And David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran.'
In contrast with the death of Samuel is the fact that his protégé David continued his advancement. He did not die but ‘arose' and went into the wilderness and pasture land of Paran, where he was to learn an important lesson and gain a good and beautiful wife to replace Michal who had been taken from him (25:44). For him life, and God's purposes, went on. We must not see ‘wilderness' simply as representing a desert. In such wildernesses there would be much good pasture land, and when at times such places as the Negev were irrigated they could be very fertile. ‘The wilderness of Paran' was in the area south and south west of the Dead Sea, It represented a large region bounded by the wilderness of Shur on the west and Edom on the east, with the wilderness of Sinai to the south. In it had wandered both Ishmael (Genesis 21:21) and the wandering Israelites, and from it had gone out the spies into Canaan (Numbers 10:12; Numbers 12:16; Numbers 13:3). It thus reached to the borders of Canaan. Like all such regions it was not closely defined, and the name was clearly seen here as loosely describing a large area extending northwards towards Maon.
‘ And there was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel, and the man was a very important man, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats, and he was shearing his sheep in Carmel.'
Living in the town of Maon, with extensive lands in Carmel (see Joshua 15:55), was a prosperous and important man who had large flocks of sheep and goats. Maon and Carmel (now Khirbet el-Karmil) were in a wilderness area west of the Dead Sea, and 12 kilometres (eight miles) south south east of Hebron. Such areas were regularly open to attack by marauding tribesmen and bandits looking for spoils. (We should note that this was a different Carmel from Mount Carmel on the Mediterranean coast).
“And he was shearing his sheep in Carmel.” As described above, the end of sheep-shearing was a time of great festivity, when the wool harvest was celebrated. Ample food and drink would be made available and visitors would be welcomed. Note how Nabal's festivities are describes as ‘like the feast of a king' (1 Samuel 25:36). Indeed to turn people away from the provision made would be looked on as a sign of and favour and enmity. Thus it was quite common for the leaders of local desert tribesmen, who had refrained from molesting the flocks and whose presence had ensured the peaceful conduct of the sheepshearing and had prevented unwanted visitors from interfering with it, to send representatives assuring the sheepshearers of their goodwill and at the same time asking for their share of what was being provided as being ‘friendly neighbours'. To refuse such a request would have been looked on as an act of inhospitality, and therefore of enmity, for it was a time of recognised hospitality.
‘Now the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail, and the woman was of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance.'
The man's name was Nabal, which means ‘fool' (compare Psalms 14:1). This was possibly a nickname by which he had become popularly known because of the kind of man he was. In contrast his wife was called Abigail which means ‘joy is my father'. She was a sensible and wise woman and very beautiful. It is probable that the writer intends us to see here a contrast between Saul and David for he has previously revealed the folly of Saul (13:13; 26:21 - sacal), and the wisdom and beauty of David (1Sa 18:15; 1 Samuel 18:30; 1 Samuel 16:12).
‘But the man was hard (obstinate, churlish) and evil in his doings, and he was of (of the house/family of) Caleb.'
In striking contrast with his wife, Nabal was obstinate and unpleasant in his dealings. The mention of his connection with the house/family of Caleb (literally ‘of Caleb') indicated that he came from a noble house, and was possibly intended in context as a hint of the fact that he would soon be joining his fathers in the same way as Samuel had.
Caleb was of the ‘royal' house of Judah. He had settled Hebron and the hill county around (Judges 1:8). His brother Othniel had subsequently been Judge and War-leader of Israel (Judges 3:9). Thus, like Saul, Nabal had noble forebears. But he was a fool.
As we have seen the contrast between Nabal and Abigail could not be more striking. He was a fool, she was of ‘good understanding'. He was evil and ungenerous, she was good and generous. He was repulsive in character, she was ‘beautiful', both in character and appearance. He was arrogant and thoughtless, she was humble and thoughtful. He was ungodly, she was godly. He was an antagoniser, she was a peacemaker. We could equally say the same about Saul as he had become, and David.