Bible Commentaries

During David's absence the Amalekites had invaded the south country,smitten Ziklag and burnt it down, and carried off the women and childrenwhom they found there; whereat not only were David and his menplunged into great grief on their return upon the third day but Davidespecially was involved in very great trouble, inasmuch as the peoplewanted to stone him. But he strengthened himself in the Lord his God (1 Samuel 30:1-6).

1 Samuel 30:1-5

1 Samuel 30:1-4 form one period, which is expanded by the introductionof several circumstantial clauses. The apodosis to “It came to pass, when,”etc. (1 Samuel 30:1), does not follow till 1 Samuel 30:4, “Then David and the people,” etc. Butthis is formally attached to 1 Samuel 30:3, “so David and his men came,” with whichthe protasis commenced in 1 Samuel 30:1 is resumed in an altered form. “It came topass, when David and his men came to Ziklag … the Amalekites hadinvaded … and had carried off the wives … and had gone their way, and Davidand his men came into the town (for 'when David and his men came,' etc.),and behold it was burned … . Then David and the people with him lifted uptheir voice.” “On the third day:” after David's dismission by Achish, notafter David's departure from Ziklag. David had at any rate gone withAchish beyond Gath, and had not been sent back till the whole of theprinces of the Philistines had united their armies (1 Samuel 29:2.), so that hemust have been absent from Ziklag more than two days, or two days and ahalf. This is placed beyond all doubt by 1 Samuel 30:11., since the Amalekites arethere described as having gone off with their booty three days beforeDavid followed them, and therefore they had taken Ziklag and burned itthree days before David's return. These foes had therefore taken advantageof the absence of David and his warriors, to avenge themselves for David'sinvasions and plunderings (1 Samuel 27:8). Of those who were carried off,“the women” alone expressly mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:2, although the femalepopulation and all the children had been removed, as we may see from theexpression “small and great” (1 Samuel 30:3, 1 Samuel 30:6). The lxx were therefore correct,so far as the sense is concerned, in introducing the words καὶ πάντα before בּהּ עשׁר. “They had killed no one, but(only) carried away.” נהג, to carry away captive, as in Isaiah 20:4. Among those who had been carried off were David's two wives, Ahinoamand Abigail (vid., 1 Samuel 25:42-43; 1 Samuel 27:3).

1 Samuel 30:6-10

David was greatly distressed in consequence; “for the peoplethought ('said,' sc., in their hearts) to stone him,” because they sought theoccasion of their calamity in his connection with Achish, with which manyof his adherents may very probably have been dissatisfied. “For the soulof the whole people was embittered (i.e., all the people were embittered intheir souls) because of their sons and daughters,” who had been carriedaway into slavery. “But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God,”i.e., sought consolation and strength in prayer and believing confidence inthe Lord (1 Samuel 30:7.). This strength he manifested in the resolution to followthe foes and rescue their booty from them. To this end he had the ephodbrought by the high priest Abiathar (cf. 1 Samuel 23:9), and inquired bymeans of the Urim of the Lord, “Shall I pursue this troop? Shall I overtakeit?” These questions were answered in the affirmative; and the promisewas added, “and thou wilt rescue.” So David pursued the enemy with hissix hundred men as far as the brook Besor, where the rest, i.e., twohundred, remained standing (stayed behind). The words עמדוּ והנּותרים, which are appendedin the form of a circumstantial clause, are to be connected, so far as thefacts are concerned, with what follows: whilst the others remained behind,David pursued the enemy still farther with four hundred men. By theword הנּותרים the historian has somewhat anticipated thematter, and therefore regards it as necessary to define the expression stillfurther in 1 Samuel 30:10 . We are precluded from changing the text, as Theniussuggests, by the circumstance that all the early translators read it in thismanner, and have endeavoured to make the expression intelligible byparaphrasing it. These two hundred men were too tired to cross the brookand go any farther. (פּגר, which only occurs here and in 1 Samuel 30:21,signifies, in Syriac, to be weary or exhausted.) As Ziklag was burnt down,of course they found no provisions there, and were consequently obligedto set out in pursuit of the foe without being able to provide themselveswith the necessary supplies. The brook Besor is supposed to be the WadySheriah, which enters the sea below Ashkelon (see v. Raumer, Pal. p. 52).

On their further march they found an Egyptian lying exhausted upon thefield; and having brought him to David, they gave him food and drink,namely “a slice of fig-cake (cf. 1 Samuel 25:18), and raisin-cakes to eat;whereupon his spirit of life returned (i.e., he came to himself again), as hehad neither eaten bread nor drunk water for three days.”

When David asked him whence he had come (to whom, i.e., to whatpeople or tribe, dost thou belong?), the young man said that he was anEgyptian, and servant of an Amalekite, and that he had been left behind byhis master when he fell sick three days before (“to-day three,” sc., days):he also said, “We invaded the south of the Crethites, and what belongs toJudah, and the south of Caleb, and burned Ziklag with fire.” הכּרתי, identical with כּרתים (Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5), denotesthose tribes of the Philistines who dwelt in the south-west of Canaan, andis used by Ezekiel and Zephaniah as synonymous with Philistim. Theorigin of the name is involved in obscurity, as the explanation whichprevailed for a time, viz., that it was derived from Creta, is withoutsufficient foundation (vid., Stark, Gaza, pp. 66 and 99ff.). The Negeb“belonging to Judah” is the eastern portion of the Negeb. One part of itbelonged to the family of Caleb, and was called Caleb's Negeb (vid., 1 Samuel 25:3).

This Egyptian then conducted David, at his request, when he had swornthat he would neither kill him nor deliver him up to his master, down tothe hostile troops, who were spread over the whole land, eating, drinking,and making merry, on account of all the great booty which they hadbrought out of the land of the Philistines and Judah.

David surprised them in the midst of their security, and smote them fromthe evening twilight till the evening of the next day, so that no oneescaped, with the exception of four hundred young men, who fled uponcamels. Nesheph signifies the evening twilight here, not the dawn, - ameaning which is not even sustained by Job 7:4. The form מחרתם appears to be an adverbial formation, like יומם.

Through this victory David rescued all that the Amalekites had taken, histwo wives, and all the children great and small; also the booty that theyhad taken with them, so that nothing was missing.

1 Samuel 30:20 is obscure: “And David took all the sheep and the oxen: they drovethem before those cattle, and said, This is David's booty.” In order toobtain any meaning whatever from this literal rendering of the words, wemust understand by the sheep and oxen those which belonged to theAmalekites, and the flocks taken from them as booty; and by “thosecattle,” the cattle belonging to David and his men, which the Amalekiteshad driven away, and the Israelites had now recovered from them: so thatDavid had the sheep and oxen which he had taken from the Amalekites asbooty driven in front of the rest of the cattle which the Israelites hadrecovered; whereupon the drovers exclaimed, “This (the sheep and oxen) isDavid's booty.” It is true that there is nothing said in what goes beforeabout any booty that David had taken from the Amalekites, in addition towhat they had taken from the Israelites; but the fact that David had reallytaken such booty is perfectly obvious from 1 Samuel 30:26-31, where he is said tohave sent portions of the booty of the enemies of Jehovah to differentplaces in the land. If this explanation be not accepted, there is no othercourse open than to follow the Vulgate, alter לפני intoלפניו, and render the middle clause thus: “they drove thosecattle (viz., the sheep and oxen already mentioned) before him,” as Lutherhas done. But even in that case we could hardly understand anything elseby the sheep and oxen than the cattle belonging to the Amalekites, andtaken from them as booty.

When David came back to the two hundred men whom he had left by thebrook Besor (יושׁיבם, they made them sit, remain), they went tomeet him and his warriors, and were heartily greeted by David.

1 Samuel 30:22

Then all kinds of evil and worthless men of those who had gonewith David to the battle replied: “Because they have not gone with us (lit. with me, the person speaking), we will not give them any of the bootythat we have seized, except to every one his wife and his children: theymay lead them away, and go.”

1 Samuel 30:23-24

David opposed this selfish and envious proposal, saying,“Do not so, my brethren, with that (את, the sign of the accusative,not the preposition; see Ewald, §329, a.: lit. with regard to that) whichJehovah hath done to us, and He hath guarded us (since He hath guardedus), and given this troop which came upon us into our hand. And who willhearken to you in this matter? But (כּי, according to the negationinvolved in the question) as the portion of him that went into the battle, sobe the portion of him that stayed by the things; they shall share together.”הורד is a copyist's error for היּרד.

1 Samuel 30:25

So was it from that day and forward; and he (David) made it(this regulation as to the booty) “the law and right for Israel unto thisday.”

1 Samuel 30:26-29

When David returned to Ziklag, he sent portions of thebooty to the elders of Judah, to his friends, with this message: “Behold,here ye have a blessing of the booty of the enemies of Jehovah” (which wetook from the enemies of Jehovah); and this he did, according to 1 Samuel 30:31, toall the places in which he had wandered with his men, i.e., where he hadwandered about during his flight from Saul, and in which he had no doubtreceived assistance. Sending these gifts could not fail to make the elders ofthese cities well disposed towards him, and so to facilitate his recognitionas king after the death of Saul, which occurred immediately afterwards. Some of these places may have been plundered by the Amalekites, sincethey had invaded the Negeb of Judah (1 Samuel 30:14). The cities referred to wereBethel, - not the Bethel so often mentioned, the present Beitin, in the tribeof Benjamin, but Betheul (1 Chronicles 4:30) or Bethul, in the tribe of Simeon(Joshua 19:4), which Knobel supposes to be Elusa or el Khalasa (see at Joshua 15:30). The reading Βαιθσούρ in the lxx is a worthless conjecture. Ramah of thesouth, which was allotted to the tribe of Simeon, has not yet beendiscovered (see at Joshua 19:8). Jattir has been preserved in the ruins ofAttir, on the southern portion of the Mountains of Judah (see at Joshua 15:48). Aroër is still to be seen in ruins, viz., in the foundations of wallsbuilt in enormous stones in Wady Arara, where there are many cavities forholding water, about three hours E.S.E. of Bersaba, and twenty miles tothe south of Hebron (vid., Rob. Pal. ii. p. 620, and v. de Velde, Mem. p. 288). Siphmoth (or Shiphmoth, according to several MSS) is altogetherunknown. It may probably be referred to again in 1 Chronicles 27:27, whereZabdi is called the Shiphmite; but it is certainly not to be identified withSepham, on the north-east of the sea of Galilee (Numbers 34:10-11), asThenius supposes. Eshtemoa has been preserved in the village of Semua,with ancient ruins, on the south-western portion of the mountains ofJudah (see at Joshua 15:50). Racal is never mentioned again, and is entirelyunknown. The lxx have five different names instead of this, the lastbeing Carmel, into which Thenius proposes to alter Racal. But this canhardly be done with propriety, as the lxx also introduced the PhilistianGath, which certainly does not belong here; whilst in 1 Samuel 30:30 they havetotally different names, some of which are decidedly wrong. The cities ofthe Jerahmeelites and Kenites were situated in the Negeb of Judah (1 Samuel 27:10), but their names cannot be traced.

1 Samuel 30:30-31

Hormah in the Negeb (Joshua 15:30) is Zephath, the presentZepáta, on the western slope of the Rakhma plateau (see at Joshua 12:14). Cor-ashan, probably the same place as Ashan in the shephelah, upon theborder of the Negeb, has not yet been discovered (see at Joshua 15:42). Athach is only mentioned here, and quite unknown. According to Thenius,it is probably a mistaken spelling for Ether in the tribe of Simeon (Joshua 19:7; Joshua 15:43). Hebron, the present el Khulil, Abraham's city (see at Joshua 10:3; Genesis 23:17).