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 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 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 24:1-2; 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).
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.)