Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
1 Samuel 26:17-25
Saul's Response (1 Samuel 26:17).
The difference between this reply and that in 1 Samuel 24:17 is striking. In 1 Samuel 24:17 Saul had declared that David was more righteous than he because he had repaid good for evil, and admitted that he himself had been at fault in the matter and he expressed his gratitude that David had not killed him when he had had the opportunity. He had then declared his recognition that on his own death the kingship would go to David, and sought an oath that David would not slaughter all the males in his house when he did became king, thus cutting off the name of Saul's family. He was clearly deeply concerned about the succession.
Here in contrast in 1 Samuel 26:17 Saul admitted that he had erred and played the fool in treating David as he had, and expressed his thankfulness that his life was precious in David's eyes. And he then blessed David and declared that he would do many things and succeed in them. It was as though he gave no hint that he thought that David might succeed him. Thus while he spoke of his coming successful life there was no mention of the kingship, nor specifically of David's goodness, nor was there any mention of any required oath to do with the succession. Here it was as though Saul did not consider that David was a threat to the succession at all. This striking difference is explainable in terms of a Saul who was sometimes paranoid about the kingship when in his black moods, but was otherwise free from those fears when not in a black mood. It does not fit at all with the idea that they are duplicate narratives.
Analysis.
And Saul knew David's voice, and said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” And David said, “It is my voice, my lord, O king” (1 Samuel 26:17).
b And he said, “Why does my lord pursue after his servant? For what have I done, or what evil is in my hand?” (1 Samuel 26:18).
c “Now therefore, I pray you, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it be YHWH who has stirred you up against me, let him accept an offering, but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before YHWH, for they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of YHWH, saying, “Go, serve other gods” (1 Samuel 26:19).
d “Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of YHWH, for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one hunts a partridge in the mountains” (1 Samuel 26:20).
e Then Saul said, “I have sinned, return, my son David, for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes this day. Look, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly” (1 Samuel 26:21).
d And David answered and said, “See, the spear, O king! Let then one of the young men come over and fetch it” (1 Samuel 26:22).
c And YHWH will render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; forasmuch as YHWH delivered you into my hand today, and I would not put forth my hand against YHWH's anointed” (1 Samuel 26:23).
b “And, behold, as your life was much set by this day in my eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of YHWH, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation” (1 Samuel 26:24).
a Then Saul said to David, “Blessed are you, my son David. You will both do mightily, and will surely prevail.” So David went his way, and Saul returned to his place (1 Samuel 26:25).
Note that in ‘a' Saul speaks of David as his son, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘b' David asks what evil he has done, and in the parallel he confirms that he has behaved rightly towards Saul. In ‘c' he asks whether YHWH has anything against him, and in the parallel declares that in fact he has behaved in such a way that YHWH cannot have anything against him. In ‘d' David declares that he is as a flea or a partridge in contrast with the king, and in the parallel he humbly hands back to the king the ceremonial sceptre which represents his kingship. Centrally in ‘e' Saul admits that he has done wrong by David and declares that he will do him no more harm. Saul is at this stage clearly in a good state mentally.
‘ And Saul knew David's voice, and said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” And David said, “It is my voice, my lord, O king.” '
Recognising David's voice Saul asked ‘is this your voice, my son David?' The question did not mean that he was doubtful about the fact that it was David for he had asked the same question in 1 Samuel 24:17 when he knew perfectly well that it was David. It was rather an opening greeting indicating conciliation. David replied with great respect that it was indeed his voice, addressing Saul as ‘my lord, O king'. He was taking no chances.
‘ And he said, “Why does my lord pursue after his servant? For what have I done, or what evil is in my hand?”
He then asked Saul why he was again pursuing after him. If he knew that he had done anything wrong, or that he intended evil to him, let him declare it. All David wanted to know was what his offence had been. He could never understand why Saul behaved as he did. (Even modern psychiatrists would have had problems with the question)
“ Now therefore, I pray you, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it be YHWH who has stirred you up against me, let him accept an offering (literally ‘let YHWH smell sacrifice'), but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before YHWH, for they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of YHWH, saying, “Go, serve other gods.” '
David then made what was to be his final plea to Saul. They would never meet again. He posited two possibilities. The first was that it was YHWH Who had stirred up Saul against him. If that were the case, and his sin was pointed out, he would gladly admit it, offer up a sin offering and thus deal with the problem once and for all. But if it was men who had maligned him, then let them be cursed before YHWH, for by their activities they had driven him to recognise that he must leave Israel, (‘the inheritance of YHWH') and go and live in a foreign country where there was no institutional worship of YHWH. Thus they were basically telling him to go and worship other gods. (He did not, of course, have the intention of worshipping other gods. His faith and awareness of God as revealed in his Psalms indicated that he knew that he could worship YHWH wherever he was. But it was not the same thing as being able to worship at the Sanctuary with God's people). It is clear that at this stage the decision recorded in 1 Samuel 27:1 had already been made.
“Let YHWH smell sacrifice.” This is simply an anthropomorphic way of indicating God's acceptance with pleasure of men's offerings (compare Genesis 8:21). Some see in it a reference to the daily offerings made by Israel, others the possibility of a personal offering. The main point is that if YHWH has been offended He has made a way by which David could come back and be restored to His favour.
“ Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of YHWH, for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one hunts a partridge in the mountains.”
So he pleaded that Saul would leave him along so that when he died his blood would fall on Israel's soil, on the inheritance of YHWH. He did not want to die outside YHWH's inheritance, and away from the Sanctuary where He had established His Name. After all surely he was simply the equivalent of a flea which men searched out because it was irritating them, or a partridge (a rock partridge) which men hunted in the mountains. Why then should Saul take such trouble over him when he was just a minor irritant? You did not call out the standing army of Israel to find a flea or a partridge. (Like all godly men David never fully recognised just how influential he was).
The flea appears to have been a favourite description of David. Compare 1 Samuel 24:14. No doubt in their wilderness life he and his men suffered from fleas more than most and were aware of how much irritation they could cause. But note that in 1 Samuel 24:14 the flea is associated with a dead dog, not compared with a partridge.
The mention of the partridge here was a word play on Abner's question, "Who are you who calls (Hebrew qarata) to the king?" (verse 14). David's reply was that he was like a "partridge" hunted in the mountains (1 Samuel 26:20, Hebrew haqqore, i.e. a caller-bird). Furthermore he and his men would no doubt have hunted many a rock partridge in the mountains in their search for food, but few who lived under normal conditions would have sought for partridge in the mountains, for there would be partridge much nearer to hand. Thus to look for a partridge in the mountains was to go to a great deal of effort for little reward.
‘ Then Saul said, “I have sinned, return, my son David, for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes this day. Look, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly.” '
In contrast with 1 Samuel 24:16 Saul made no reference to the kingship or to his fears that David would take it from his house, which is all the more significant because the kingship was one of the writer's emphases. Here Saul is seen as free from his paranoia and delusion. His illness has left him for a while, and he is no longer obsessed with the idea of kingship. Rather he now admitted that he had behaved wrongly, and that he had ‘played the fool and erred exceedingly'. Note the comparison with Nabal ‘the fool' although the Hebrew word is a different one. David's generosity in again sparing his life and therefore treating it as precious had, in his present state, moved him deeply, and had made him realise what a fool he had been. He probably did not even understand himself.
“Return, my son David.” It was seemingly a promise to restore David to his former position. But it was not one that David was willing to take seriously. He knew how rapidly Saul's mood could change.
‘ And David answered and said, “See, the spear, O king! Let then one of the young men come over and fetch it.” '
David responded by offering him back his ceremonial spear which was the symbol of his kingship, the equivalent of a royal sceptre. But he would not approach the king himself. He had suffered too much at Saul's hands to trust the genuineness of his repentance. Let one of Saul's young men come over and collect it. Thus he did not take the request for him to return as reliable.
‘ And YHWH will render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; forasmuch as YHWH delivered you into my hand today, and I would not put forth my hand against YHWH's anointed.”
Instead of trusting in Saul's repentance he would put his trust in YHWH. Let YHWH work out events and give to every man what he was worthy of. And he was confident that YHWH would reward his own righteousness and faithfulness in not putting out his hand against the one who was consecrated to YHWH
“ And, behold, as your life was much set by this day in my eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of YHWH, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation.”
Indeed he applied to himself the maxim ‘what a man sows, that will he reap' (Galatians 6:7; compare Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29). He asked that just as he had treated Saul's life as important because he was the anointed of YHWH, so YHWH would treat his life as important because he too was the anointed of YHWH, even to such an extent that he would deliver him out of ‘tribulation', that is, out of trouble and distress. He had a firm confidence that if he was faithful to YHWH, YHWH would be faithful to him.
‘Then Saul said to David, “Blessed are you, my son David. You will both do mightily, and will surely prevail.”
Saul humbly replied by blessing ‘my son David', and assuring him that he would surely yet do mighty things, and would prevail in all to which he set his hand. That at least was sure.
‘So David went his way, and Saul returned to his place.'
And then they parted for the last time. David ‘went on his way', for he had no settled place to go to, while Saul returned to his palace-fortress at Gibeah.
Note On The Question Of Whether The Incident In Chapter 26 Is Merely A Duplicate Of The Incidents In Chapter s 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 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; 1 Samuel 26:1).
· In both cases Saul is at David's mercy (1 Samuel 24:3; 1 Samuel 26:3).
· In both cases David refrains from slaying him because he is YHWH's Anointed (1 Samuel 24:3; 1 Samuel 26:3).
· In both cases David appropriates a symbol of Saul's authority, in one case the hem of his robe, 1 Samuel 24:5; 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; 1 Samuel 26:14).
· In both cases David pleads his case before Saul at some length (1 Samuel 24:9; 1 Samuel 26:17; 1 Samuel 26:22).
· 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; 1 Samuel 26:21; 1 Samuel 26:25).
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 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.
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.
(End of note.)