Ch. 1Sa 26:1-4<\/span>. Saul’s renewed pursuit of David<\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. And the Ziphites came<\/em> ] On the theory that this is only another account of the incidents related in 1Sa 23:19<\/span> to 1Sa 24:22<\/span>, see Note VII. p. 243. The view there taken that the narratives refer to different events, is assumed in the notes.<\/p>\n Psalms 54<\/span> is referred by its title either to this occasion or to that of 1Sa 23:19<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n the hill of Hachilah<\/em> ] See on 1Sa 23:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n is before Jeshimon<\/em> ] Looketh towards the Waste.<\/strong> See on 1Sa 23:19<\/span>, where the position of the hill of Hachilah is more particularly defined as “on the south of the Waste.”<\/p>\n 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>; Gen 2:4<\/span> ff; the two narratives of Davids war, 2 Sam. 8<\/span>; and 2 Sam. 10<\/span>; and those of the death of Ahaziah, 2Ki 9:27<\/span> ff; and 2Ch 22:9<\/span>.)<\/P> <\/p>\n 1Sa 26:1-25<\/span><\/p>\n Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The reproach of the enemy<\/strong><\/p>\n Dr. Maclaren is specially emphatic in connecting Psa 7:1-17<\/span> with this part of Davids history, and indicates its value in helping us to understand the rapid vacillations is Sauls behaviour.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n Happy are they who can find themes for singing to the Lord in every sad and bitter experience!<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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 Davids 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 Sauls intimate friends and constant companions, and that he was incessantly at work poisoning the kings mind with malignant and deliberate falsehoods about David.<\/p>\n CHAPTER XXVI <\/P> The Ziphites inform Saul of David’s hiding place<\/I>, 1.<\/P> Saul, with<\/I> three thousand men, goes in pursuit of him<\/I>, 2, 3.<\/P> David sends out spies; and finds where Saul had pitched his<\/I><\/P> camp; and he and Abishai come to the camp by night, find all<\/I><\/P> asleep, and bring away Saul’s spear, and the cruse of water<\/I><\/P> that was at his head<\/I>, 4-12.<\/P> David goes to the opposite hill; awakes Abner, captain of Saul’s<\/I><\/P> host; chides him for being so careless of his master’s life;<\/I><\/P> and calls on Saul to send one of his servants for the spear;<\/I><\/P> and severely chides him for his continued hostility to him<\/I>,<\/P> 13-24.<\/P> Saul humbles himself to David; promises to persecute him no<\/I><\/P> more; and returns to his own place<\/I>, 25. <\/P> NOTES ON CHAP. XXVI<\/P> <\/P> Verse 1<\/span>. The Ziphites came<\/B><\/I>] This is the second time that these enemies of David endeavoured to throw him into the hands of Saul. 1Sa 23:19<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Having once betrayed him before, they thought their case desperate with David; and therefore did more strenuously assist Saul in discovering him, in order to his ruin. Doth not David hide himself?<\/B> he is returned to his former haunt; of which see 1Sa 23:19<\/span>. This place might be convenient for him, either for its nearness to Abigails estate; or because he might think that Saul was mollified, and the Ziphites cautioned by the unsuccessfulness of their former attempt; or because he could from thence make good his retreat into other places, if need were. <\/P> <\/p>\n 1, 2. the Ziphites came unto Saul toGibeah<\/B>This people seem to have thought it impossible for Davidto escape, and therefore recommended themselves to Saul, by givinghim secret information (see on 1Sa23:19<\/span>). The knowledge of their treachery makes it appear strangethat David should return to his former haunt in their neighborhood;but, perhaps he did it to be near Abigail’s possessions, and underthe impression that Saul had become mollified. But the king hadrelapsed into his old enmity. Though Gibeah, as its name imports,stood on an elevated position, and the desert of Ziph, which was inthe hilly region of Judea, may have been higher than Gibeah, it wasstill necessary to descend in leaving the latter place; thence Saul(1Sa 26:2<\/span>) “went down tothe wilderness of Ziph.”<\/P><\/p>\n And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah<\/strong>,…. Of Benjamin, called sometimes Gibeah of Saul, because it was the place of his birth and residence; hither Saul had returned after his last interview with David; whether, notwithstanding what had passed between him and David, he had privately encouraged the Ziphites to watch David, and give him information of him where he was, and when it was a proper opportunity to seize him; or whether the Ziphites were so officious as of themselves to acquaint him with it, is not certain; the latter is probable, since having attempted to betray David, they might fear, that should he come to the throne, he would remember it, and therefore they might be desirous of having him cut off by the hand of Saul:<\/p>\n saying, doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, [which is] before Jeshimon<\/strong>? the same place where he was when the Ziphites before gave information of him, 1Sa 23:10<\/span>; 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.<\/p>\n 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 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<\/em> 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<\/span>, 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<\/em>, 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<\/span>); and the hill of Hachilah<\/em> 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>.). 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>, 1Sa 26:5<\/span>). 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>.). 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<\/span>). 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<\/span>). 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.<\/p>\n 1Sa 26:1-2<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> 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<\/span> and 1Sa 26:2<\/span> compare the explanations of 1Sa 23:19<\/span> and 1Sa 24:3<\/span>. Instead of “ before<\/em> (in the face of) Jeshimon<\/em> ” (i.e., the wilderness), we find the situation defined more precisely in 1Sa 23:19<\/span>, as “ to the right<\/em> (i.e., on the south) of the wilderness<\/em> ” (Jeshimon).<\/p>\n 1Sa 26:3-4<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> 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<\/em> ( , for a certainty, as in 1Sa 23:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Sa 26:5-7<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Upon the receipt of this information, David rose up with two attendants (mentioned in 1Sa 26:6<\/span>) to reconnoitre the camp of Saul. When he saw the place where Saul and his general Abner were lying – Saul was lying by the waggon rampart<\/em>, 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?<\/em> ” Whereupon Abishai declared himself ready to do so; and they both went by night, and found Saul sleeping with all the people. Ahimelech<\/em> the Hittite is never mentioned again; but Abishai<\/em> the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister (1Ch 2:16<\/span>), and a brother of Joab, was afterwards a celebrated general of David, as was also his brother Joab ( 2Sa 16:9<\/span>; 2Sa 18:2<\/span>; 2Sa 21:17<\/span>). Saul’s spear was pressed<\/em> (stuck) into the ground at his head<\/em>, as a sign that the king was sleeping there, for the spear served Saul as a sceptre (cf. 1Sa 18:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Sa 26:8-11<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> When Abishai exclaimed, “ God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: now will I pierce him with the spear into the ground with a stroke, and will give no second<\/em> ” (sc., stroke: the Vulgate rendering gives the sense exactly: et secundo non opus erit, there will be no necessity for a second), David replied, “Destroy him not; for who hath stretched out his hand against the anointed of the Lord, and remained unhurt?” , as in Exo 21:19<\/span>; Num 5:31<\/span>. He then continued (in 1Sa 26:10<\/span>, 1Sa 26:11<\/span>): “As truly as Jehovah liveth, unless Jehovah smite him (i.e., carry him off with a stroke; cf. 1Sa 25:38<\/span>), or his day cometh that he dies (i.e., or he dies a natural death; ‘his day’ denoting the day of death, as in Job 14:6<\/span>; Job 15:32<\/span>), or he goes into battle and is carried off, far be it from me with Jehovah ( , as in 1Sa 24:7<\/span>) to stretch forth my hand against Jehovah’s anointed.” The apodosis to 1Sa 26:10<\/span> commences with , “far be it,” or “the Lord forbid,” in 1Sa 26:11<\/span>. “Take now the spear which is at his head, and the pitcher, and let us go.” <\/p>\n 1Sa 26:12<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> They departed with these trophies, without any one waking up and seeing them, because they were all asleep, as a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen upon them. stands for , “from the head of Saul,” with dropped. The expression “ a deep sleep of Jehovah<\/em>,” i.e., a deep sleep sent or inflicted by Jehovah, points to the fact that the Lord favoured David’s enterprise.<\/p>\n Saul Again Pursues David.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1056.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 1 And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is<\/I> before Jeshimon? 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<\/I> before Jeshimon, by the way. But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness. 4 David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very deed. 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.<\/P> 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, ch.<\/I><\/span> xxiii. 19<\/span>. 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, v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>. For aught we know, Saul would have continued in the same good mind that he was in (ch.<\/I><\/span> xxiv. 17<\/span>), 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 hid himself, v.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>. How soon do unsanctified hearts lose the good impressions which their convictions have made upon them and return with the dog to their vomit!<\/P> 2. 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<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>), 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<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 4<\/span>); 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, v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>. 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.<\/P> <\/p>\n First Samuel – Chapter 26<\/strong><\/p>\n David Again Spares Soul, vs. 1-12<\/strong><\/p>\n The Ziphites had an agreement with Saul <\/em>to spy on David and keep him informed of the fugitive’s whereabouts (1Sa 23:19<\/span> ff). Accordingly they now sent word to Saul at Gibeah that David had reappeared in their vicinity, in the hill of Hachilah, on the western edge of the wilderness of Jeshimon, later known as the wilderness of Judaea. This was east of the town of Ziph toward the Dead Sea.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Saul therefore again mustered his three thousand choice men and came to capture David. He camped his army in the hill, but David had withdrawn into the wilderness of Ziph, the western part of Jeshimon in the vicinity of Ziph. It appears that Saul was sending out search parties into the wilderness, and subsequently moved his entire army there. David was also alert, sending out spies who reported back to him that Saul had arrived in the same vicinity and made camp.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n David possessed some vantage point from which he could observe the activities of Saul’s camp undetected. There he saw the great army of Saul in repose, both Saul and his captain, Abner, asleep with the men lying around also sleeping. The trench was a kind of stockade, or earthworks, thrown up to provide protection for. Saul in event David and his men should attack. David called two of his bravest men and proposed a nocturnal visit to Saul’s camp. Ahimelech, the Hittite, is not further known. David had several Hittites in his service (see Uriah, e.g., 2Sa 11:1<\/span> ff). These were probably among the remnants of the Canaanites who survived the conquest of the land by Joshua, and they possibly had cause to oppose Saul who deprived many of them of privileges they had previously enjoyed (e.g., Gibeonites, 2Sa 21:1<\/span> ff).<\/p>\n Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, <\/em>David’s nephew and Joab’s brother agreed to go on this daring adventure with David. Abishai was the son of David’s sister, Zeruiah (1Ch 2:15-16<\/span>). He was brave, valiant, and staunchly loyal to David (see 2Sa 16:9-14<\/span>, e.g.). When they came to the camp they found Saul sleeping in the trench, Abner asleep nearby, and all the soldiers asleep around them. Saul’s spear was stuck in the ground at his bolster, and his water cruse lay nearby.<\/em><\/p>\n Abishai immediately surmised <\/em>that the Lord had created the situation so that David could speedily dispatch his enemy. He asked for permission to take the spear and strike it through the king’s heart. So confident was he that he would not need to make a second thrust. This revealed Abishai’s strong feeling against the king. Saul had made fugitives and criminals of them all, forcing them to forsake their homes and family life and to subsist on the land as best they could.<\/em><\/p>\n But David would not allow it. <\/em>He still looked on Saul as the king of Israel, who was anointed by direction of the Lord, and he should be left to his fate according to the will of the Lord. He would be smitten down by the Lord, would come to his day of death naturally, or go into battle and be killed in the Lord’s own time. But he asked Abishai to take the spear and the water cruse and depart from the camp with him, leaving the army unmolested further. No one saw the two men come into the camp or leave it. Not one of the soldiers, Saul’s elect, stirred or awoke from his sleep, for the Lord had caused them to fall into a deep sleep.<\/em><\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n The fact that the incidents related in this chapter agree in some points with those narrated in chapters 23; 24 has led Ewald, Thenius, and others to conclude that the historian has given two accounts of the same event. But a writer who could thus repeat himself in the general, while professing to give an account of events in their proper order, and at the same time could vary so much in detail, would be quite unworthy of confidence. And, as Keil shows, the details, after all, differ greatly. When David was betrayed the first time, he drew back into the desert of Maon before the advance of Saul, and, being completely surrounded upon one of the mountains there, was only saved from being taken prisoner by the advance of the Philistines. (1Sa. 23:25-28<\/span>.) But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of Hachilah, whilst David had secretly drawn back into the adjoining desert, from which he crept secretly into Sauls encampment. On the first occasion Saul entered a cave in the desert of Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior. The second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul, upon the hill of Hachilah. It is true that on both occasions Davids 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 lappel of Sauls coat, whereupon his conscience smote him. In the second instance, on the contrary, David called two of his heroes to go with him into the camp of his sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine 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 Sauls head. And, notwithstanding that the words of David and the 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 illusion that he was seeking his life. On the second he asked the king why he was pursuing him, and called upon him to desist. 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. The second time he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and would do David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail, but he neither shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of Davids ascending the throne, so that he was evidently much more hardened than before. As to the moral unlikelihood that Saul would have made a second attempt upon Davids life after being treated so generously by him, such conduct on his part seems quite in keeping with his vacillating character on other occasions. On this subject Ngelsbach remarks, That Saul marched against David a second time is easily explained, even although he was no moral monster (as Thenius affirms he must have been in such a case). His hatred to David was so deeply rooted that it could be only temporarily suppressed by that magnanimous deed, not extinguished. It is indeed plain, from Davids conduct after the first remonstrance with Saul, that he placed little or no reliance upon his professions of repentance.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 26:1<\/span>. Hill of Hachilah.<\/strong> See on 1Sa. 23:19<\/span>. Jamieson suggests that one reason for Davids returning to this locality might have been to be near Abigails possessions. Before Jeshimon.<\/strong> Jeshimon literally signifies the waste or wilderness; before<\/em> should be in the face of, or south of.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 26:2<\/span>. Three thousand chosen men.<\/strong> The permanent guard whose formation is mentioned in 1Sa. 13:2<\/span>. (Erdmann<\/em>.) Went down.<\/strong> Though Gibeah, as its name imports, stood on an elevated position, and the desert of Ziph may have been higher than Gibeah, it was still necessary to descend in leaving the latter place; hence Saul went down into the wilderness of Ziph. (Jamieson<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 26:3<\/span>. David abode in the wilderness.<\/strong> That is, he had withdrawn from the hill Hachilah (where the Ziphites reported him as being, and Saul sought first to attack him) farther into the wilderness, and was then on the highland (compare 1Sa. 26:6<\/span>, who will go down with me?), while Saul was encamped on the road to the plain (1Sa. 26:3<\/span>, by the way.) (Erdmann<\/em>.) He saw.<\/strong> Rather, he learned<\/em>, or perceived by the report<\/em> of his spies.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 26:5<\/span>. Abner.<\/strong> The Hebrew Ab<\/em> signifies father;<\/em> but the captain of Sauls host may have been so called in honour of some ancestor, without any reference to the meaning of the word. Another explanation has been suggested. In Abner there are two pure Gomeric roots, and ab<\/em> is the contrary of father, for it is expressly statedAbner<\/em>, son<\/strong> of Ner<\/em>, etc. The ab<\/em> is of course the ab<\/em> or ap<\/em> of the Appii<\/em> of Italy and of the Cymry of Britainson; Abner, son of strength; or in Latin, Appius Nero; and as we know that the Appii Claudii Nerones were a pure Umbrian family, we have in the centre of Palestine, B.C. 1000, and in the centre of Italy, B.C. at least 700, two Gomeric families of precisely the same name derived from their common family language (Japhetic) in the most natural way conceivable. It is utterly impossible that the Jewish writer, whoever he was, could have devised such a coincidence, or imagined its ethnological significance. He wrote down the simple fact. We know how to explain it, but this very knowledge is a confirmation of the prophetic utterance of Noah. (Gen. 9:27<\/span>.) (Vindication of the Mosaic Ethnology of Europe.) (Jamieson.)<\/em> Trench.<\/strong> Literally the place of wagons. (See on 1Sa. 17:20<\/span>)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 26:6<\/span>. Ahimelech the Hittite.<\/strong> This man is only mentioned here. The Hittites, a Canaanitish people, already settled around Hebron in Abrahams time (Gen. 15:21<\/span>), dwelt, after the return of the Israelites from Egypt, in the hill country of Judah with the Amorites, reaching as far north as towards Bethel (Jdg. 2:23<\/span>), subdued but not exterminated by the Israelites. A portion of them had maintained a certain independence (1Ki. 9:20<\/span>; 1Ki. 10:29<\/span>; 2Ki. 7:6<\/span>). (Erdmann<\/em>.) Uriah was also a Hittite. Abishai.<\/strong> The nephew of David (see 1Ch. 2:16<\/span>), and afterwards one of his famous generals (2Sa. 18:2<\/span>, etc.)<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>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 closest friends are aware, but they have shrunk from telling you.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>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 mans judgment.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>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?<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>Leave God to vindicate your good name. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n