The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
David, Nabal, and Abigail
1 Samuel 25:2–17 — David, Nabal, and Abigail. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
2Now there was a man in Maon whose business was in Carmel. He was a very wealthy man with a thousand goats and three thousand sheep, which he was shearing in Carmel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’îš bə·mā·‘ō·wn ū·ma·‘ă·śê·hū ḇak·kar·mel mə·’ōḏ wə·lōw gā·ḏō·wl wə·hā·’îš wə·’e·lep̄ ‘iz·zîm šə·lō·šeṯ- ’ă·lā·p̄îm ṣōn way·hî biḡ·zōz ’eṯ- ṣō·nōw bak·kar·mel
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-a-man in-Maon, and-his-doing in-the-Karmel; and-the-man great exceedingly. And-to-him flock three-thousands, and-a-thousand goats. And-he-was in-the-shearing of his-flock in-the-Karmel.”
Where the English smooths the original
The tradition even has preserved to us the exact number of his flocks, probably to enhance the churlishness of his reply to David
His name was Nabal (i.e., fool): this was hardly his proper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly.
He is described as very great because of his wealth arising from his large flocks of sheep and goats, which fed upon the pasture land which forms the elevated plateau of Carmel, where he was shearing his sheep, usually a time of lavish hospitality
3His name was Nabal, and his wife’s name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but her husband, a Calebite, was harsh and evil in his dealings.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’îš wə·šêm nā·ḇāl ’iš·tōw wə·šêm ’ă·ḇi·ḡā·yil ṭō·w·ḇaṯ- śe·ḵel wî·p̄aṯ tō·’ar wə·hā·’iš·šāh wə·hā·’îš ḵə·lib·bō qā·šeh wə·ra‘ ma·‘ă·lā·lîm wə·hū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-the-name of-the-man Nabal, and-the-name of-his-wife Abigail. And-the-woman good-of-insight and-beautiful-of-form; but-the-man hard and-evil-of-deeds — and-he a-Calebite.”
Where the English smooths the original
The word “Nabal” means “fool,” connected with naval, to fade away. The name was probably a nickname given him on account of his well-known stubborn folly.
she was not only of a good understanding in things natural, civil, and domestic, but in things spiritual, as her speech to David shows
She, with her bright understanding and beautiful person (the Hebrew word takes in much more than the countenance; see 1 Samuel 16:18 , where it is rendered comely person ), is in contrast with the coarse, churlish man who was her husband.
He was of the house of Caleb — This is added to aggravate his crime, that he was a degenerate branch of that noble stock of CalebBenson (with Poole in nearly identical words) reads the Calebite descent as an aggravation rather than an honour. Note that the reading itself rests on the Qere — see the note at word 12.
4While David was in the wilderness, he heard that Nabal was shearing sheep.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ bam·miḏ·bār way·yiš·ma‘ kî- nā·ḇāl ’eṯ- ḡō·zêz ṣō·nōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-David heard in-the-wilderness that-shearing [is] Nabal his-flock.”
Where the English smooths the original
Nabal’s conduct appears to have been more than churlish and foolish, for David, according to the showing of Nabal’s own shepherds, had on many occasions been of substantial service to them as they tended their flocks in exposed and dangerous localities.
David and his men lurked in these deserts, associating with the herdsmen and shepherds of Nabal and others and doing them good offices, probably in return for information and supplies obtained through them.JFB is candid that the arrangement ran both ways — protection given, information and supplies received. The honesty helps: the narrative is not claiming David was disinterested.
In the wilderness of Paran, where he was, and a wilderness it was to him, being in want of food
5So David sent ten young men and instructed them, “Go up to Nabal at Carmel. Greet him in my name
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yiš·laḥ ‘ă·śā·rāh nə·‘ā·rîm way·yō·mer dā·wiḏ lan·nə·‘ā·rîm ‘ă·lū ū·ḇā·ṯem ’el- nā·ḇāl ḵar·me·lāh ū·šə·’el·tem- lōw lə·šā·lō·wm ḇiš·mî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-sent David ten young-men; and-David said to-the-young-men: ‘Go-up to-the-Karmel, and-come unto Nabal, and-ask him for-peace in-my-name.’”
Where the English smooths the original
6and say to him, ‘Long life to you, and peace to you and to your house and to all that belongs to you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wa·’ă·mar·tem kōh le·ḥāy šā·lō·wm wə·’at·tāh ū·ḇê·ṯə·ḵā šā·lō·wm wə·ḵōl ’ă·šer- lə·ḵā šā·lō·wm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-you-shall-say thus: ‘To-life! And-you — peace, and-your-house — peace, and-all that-is-to-you — peace.’”
Where the English smooths the original
Considerable diversity of opinion exists as to the meaning of the Hebrew original here, lechai.
The word לחי is obscure, and was interpreted by the early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures.
The meaning of the single Heb. word thus rendered is exceedingly obscure. It seems best to explain it as an exclamation, “Hail!” literally, “For life!”
7Now I hear that it is time for shearing. When your shepherds were with us, we did not harass them, and nothing of theirs was missing the whole time they were in Carmel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘at·tāh šā·ma‘·tî kî ḡō·zə·zîm lāḵ ‘at·tāh hā·rō·‘îm ’ă·šer- lə·ḵā hā·yū ‘im·mā·nū lō heḵ·lam·nūm wə·lō- mə·’ū·māh lā·hem nip̄·qaḏ kāl- yə·mê hĕ·yō·w·ṯām bak·kar·mel
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-now I-have-heard that shearers are-to-you. Now, the-shepherds who-are-to-you were with-us; we-did-not put-them-to-shame, and-nothing was-missed by-them all-the-days of-their-being in-the-Karmel.”
Where the English smooths the original
These words doubtless refer to the protection which David’s armed band had afforded to the herdsmen against the frequent raids of the neighbouring people—the Philistines and other more savage and unscrupulous tribes who dwelt on the borders of Palestine.
David’s message was not a demand for black-mail. He had done Nabal real service, by protecting his flocks from roving marauders, and he was entitled to recompence.Cambridge is answering a charge modern readers do raise — that this is protection money. The defence is worth weighing, but it is a defence, and JFB at v. 4 concedes David’s men also received supplies in return.
nor did they suffer any of the Arabs, that dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, to rob them, who lived upon plunder
8Ask your young men, and they will tell you. So let my young men find favor with you, for we have come on the day of a feast. Please give whatever you can spare to your servants and to your son David.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·’al ’eṯ- nə·‘ā·re·ḵā wə·yag·gî·ḏū lāḵ han·nə·‘ā·rîm wə·yim·ṣə·’ū ḥên bə·‘ê·ne·ḵā kî- bā·nū ‘al- yō·wm ṭō·wḇ nā ’êṯ tə·nāh- ’ă·šer tim·ṣā yā·ḏə·ḵā la·‘ă·ḇā·ḏe·ḵā ū·lə·ḇin·ḵā lə·ḏā·wiḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“Ask your-young-men and-they-will-tell you; and-let-the-young-men find-favor in-your-eyes, for upon a-good day we-have-come. Give, please, what your-hand finds, to-your-servants and-to-your-son David.”
Where the English smooths the original
To thy son; so he calls himself, to show that respect and affection which he bore to Nabal, as being elder and wealthier than himself
Give, I pray, what thy hand findeth (i.e., as much as thou canst) to thy servant, and to thy son David." With the expression "thy son" David claims Nabal's fatherly goodwill.
Most obliging words, and full of respect, mixed with strong arguments; and they did not desire delicacies, but any thing that was at hand which he could spare.
9When David’s young men arrived, they relayed all these words to Nabal on behalf of David. Then they waited.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḏā·wiḏ na·‘ă·rê way·yā·ḇō·’ū way·ḏab·bə·rū kə·ḵāl- hā·’êl·leh bə·šêm had·də·ḇā·rîm ’el- nā·ḇāl dā·wiḏ way·yā·nū·ḥū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-came the-young-men of-David, and-they-spoke unto Nabal according-to-all these words in-the-name of-David; and-they-rested.”
Where the English smooths the original
And ceased. —Better rendered, and they sat down. The Hebrew word here has been variously translated. Bunsen suggests, “and they waited modestly for an answer;” the Vulg., followed by some scholars, has “and they were silent.”
David's messengers delivered their message to Nabal, ויּנוּחוּ, "and sat down," sc., awaiting the fulfilment of their request.
they delivered their message punctually and exactly, in the very words, or however according to the purport of them
10But Nabal asked them, “Who is David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants these days are breaking away from their masters.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·ya·‘an nā·ḇāl ’eṯ- way·yō·mer ‘aḇ·ḏê ḏā·wiḏ mî ḏā·wiḏ ū·mî ḇen- yi·šāy rab·bū ‘ă·ḇā·ḏîm hay·yō·wm ham·miṯ·pā·rə·ṣîm ’îš mip·pə·nê ’ă·ḏō·nāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-answered Nabal the-servants of-David and-said: ‘Who [is] David? And-who [is] the-son of-Jesse? Today are-many the-servants breaking-themselves-away, each-man from-before his-master.’”
Where the English smooths the original
This evident insult indicates that Nabal was of the faction of Saul at this time—was reckoned among those who hated David.Ellicott's political reconstruction — that Nabal was a partisan of Saul — is an inference offered to explain David's disproportionate anger, not something the text states. It is persuasive and it is a hypothesis.
Thus, in order to justify his own covetousness, he set down David as a vagrant who had run away from his master.
Their protection creates a claim for some kind of tribute, in the shape of supplies of food and necessaries, which is usually given with great good will and gratitude; but when withheld, is enforced as a right. Nabal's refusal, therefore, was a violation of the established usages of the place.
Thus the covetous wretches instead of relieving the needs of God's children, reviled their persons and condemned their cause.The Geneva note reads Nabal as a type of the persecuting rich rather than as an individual; the Reformers' polemical edge is part of the quotation and should be weighed as such.
11Why should I take my bread and water and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give them to these men whose origin I do not know?”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·lā·qaḥ·tî ’eṯ- laḥ·mî wə·’eṯ- mê·may wə·’êṯ ṭiḇ·ḥā·ṯî ’ă·šer ṭā·ḇaḥ·tî lə·ḡō·zə·zāy wə·nā·ṯat·tî la·’ă·nā·šîm ’ê miz·zeh hêm·māh ’ă·šer lō yā·ḏa‘·tî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-shall-I-take my-bread and-my-waters and-my-slaughter which I-have-slaughtered for-my-shearers, and-give [it] to-men whom I-do-not know from-where they [are]?”
Where the English smooths the original
In other words, “Shall I give largesse to the enemies of my king—to a band of rebel freebooters?”
Nabal insists much on the property he had in the provisions of his table. May he not do what he will with his own? We mistake, if we think we are absolute lords of what we have, and may do what we please with it. No; we are but stewards, and must use it as we are directed
The mention of water indicates a country where water was scarce (compare Joshua 15:19 )
12So David’s men turned around and went back, and they relayed to him all these words.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḏā·wiḏ na·‘ă·rê- way·ya·hap̄·ḵū lə·ḏar·kām way·yā·šu·ḇū way·yā·ḇō·’ū way·yag·gi·ḏū lōw kə·ḵōl hā·’êl·leh had·də·ḇā·rîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-overturned the-young-men of-David to-their-way; and-they-returned and-came, and-they-told him according-to-all these words.”
Where the English smooths the original
Is this thy voice, O David? Has he been so long in the school of affliction, where he should have learned patience, and yet is so passionate?
though they did not return railing for railing, they treated him with silent contempt
David's determination was fierce and violent. No doubt Nabal's insult irritated him, and possibly also the rude outlaws round him would have protested against any other course; but Nabal's words, rude though they were, would not justify David in the rough vengeance which he meditated.
13And David said to his men, “Strap on your swords!” So David and all his men strapped on their swords, and about four hundred men followed David, while two hundred stayed with the supplies.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yō·mer la·’ă·nā·šāw ’îš ’eṯ- ḥiḡ·rū ḥar·bōw dā·wiḏ ’eṯ- ḥar·bōw gam- ’îš ’eṯ- way·yaḥ·gə·rū ḥar·bōw way·yaḥ·gōr kə·’ar·ba‘ mê·’ō·wṯ ’îš way·ya·‘ă·lū ’a·ḥă·rê ḏā·wiḏ ū·mā·ṯa·yim yā·šə·ḇū ‘al- hak·kê·lîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-David said to-his-men: ‘Gird each-man his-sword!’ And-they-girded each-man his-sword, and-David also girded his-sword. And-there-went-up after David about-four-hundreds of-men, and-two-hundred sat by the-vessels.”
Where the English smooths the original
The formal preparation and the largeness of the force told off for the work showed how terribly David was in earnest, and how bent he was on wiping out the insult of Nabal in blood.
The churlish reply could not fail to excite his anger. He therefore commanded his people to gird on the sword, and started with 400 men to take vengeance upon Nabal, whilst 200 remained behind with the things.
and David also girded on his sword; in order to march at the head of them, fired with indignation at the affront given him
14Meanwhile, one of Nabal’s young men informed Nabal’s wife Abigail, “Look, David sent messengers from the wilderness to greet our master, but he screamed at them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’e·ḥāḏ na·‘ar- mê·han·nə·‘ā·rîm lê·mōr hig·gîḏ nā·ḇāl ’ê·šeṯ wə·la·’ă·ḇî·ḡa·yil hin·nêh dā·wiḏ šā·laḥ mal·’ā·ḵîm mê·ham·miḏ·bār lə·ḇā·rêḵ ’eṯ- ’ă·ḏō·nê·nū way·yā·‘aṭ bā·hem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-to-Abigail wife of-Nabal told one lad of-the-lads, saying: ‘Behold, David sent messengers from-the-wilderness to-bless our-master, and-he-swooped upon-them.’”
Where the English smooths the original
Abigail had, no doubt, often acted as peace-maker between her intemperate husband and his neighbours
Who can help admiring the wisdom and fidelity of this shepherd, who admonished his mistress of the danger her family was in
the allusion is to a ravenous bird, which will fly at persons when it apprehends its young in any danger.
But the Lord preserved him from this sin by the fact that, just at the right time, Abigail, the intelligent and pious wife of Nabal, heard of the affair, and was able to appease the wrath of David by her immediate and kindly interposition.K&D reads the whole episode providentially — the servant's initiative is, on his account, God preserving David from sin. That is a theological judgment laid over the narrative, which itself says nothing about the LORD until v. 32.
15Yet these men were very good to us. When we were in the field, we were not harassed, and nothing of ours went missing the whole time we lived among them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hā·’ă·nā·šîm mə·’ōḏ ṭō·ḇîm lā·nū bih·yō·w·ṯê·nū baś·śā·ḏeh wə·lō hā·ḵə·lam·nū wə·lō- mə·’ū·māh p̄ā·qaḏ·nū kāl- yə·mê hiṯ·hal·laḵ·nū ’it·tām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-the-men [were] good to-us exceedingly; and-we-were-not put-to-shame, and-we-missed nothing all-the-days we-went-about with-them, in-our-being in-the-field.”
Where the English smooths the original
occurring as it does in the heart of an episode most discreditable to David, it bears weighty testimony to the admirable discipline and the kind forethought of the son of Jesse
“Conversant” from Lat. conversari , to dwell or abide with, signifies “associated” or “living along with.”
and we were not hurt; neither by them nor others: neither missed we anything: of our flocks, or anything belonging to us; they neither robbed us themselves, nor suffered others to rob us
16They were a wall around us, both day and night, the whole time we were herding our sheep near them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·yū ḥō·w·māh ‘ā·lê·nū gam- yō·w·mām gam- lay·lāh kāl- yə·mê hĕ·yō·w·ṯê·nū rō·‘îm haṣ·ṣōn ‘im·mām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“A-wall they-were upon-us, both by-day and by-night, all-the-days of-our-being with-them shepherding the-flock.”
Where the English smooths the original
A wall - To protect them from the attacks of the Bedouins, etc. They had been as safe with David's men around them as if they had been dwelling in a walled town.
A wall, i.e. a defence against wild beasts, and robbers, and enemies.
all which showed how reasonable it was that Nabal should have used them well, and given them a portion of his entertainment at his sheep shearing; for had it not been for them, he would not have had so many sheep to shear as he had.
17Now consider carefully what you must do, because disaster looms over our master and all his household. For he is such a scoundrel that nobody can speak to him!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘at·tāh də·‘î ū·rə·’î mah- ta·‘ă·śî kî- hā·rā·‘āh ḵā·lə·ṯāh ’el- ’ă·ḏō·nê·nū wə·‘al kāl- bê·ṯōw wə·hū ben- bə·lî·ya·‘al mid·dab·bêr ’ê·lāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-now know and-see what you-will-do, for completed is the-evil against our-master and against all his-house; and-he [is] a-son-of-worthlessness, beyond-speaking to-him.”
Where the English smooths the original
Belial was not a proper name, though it subsequently came to be considered one. It signifies simply worthlessness; here a “son of Belial” is an expression for a bad, worthless fellow.
So wilful and obstinate that his servants dared not try to reason with him, but appealed to Abigail instead.
A man cannot speak to him, to wit, without hazard to himself, and therefore I acquaint thee rather than him with this matter.
that though he was so good and upright a man, yet when it should be told him how Nabal had treated him, he would be so provoked at it, that he would become and act like a son of Belial; storm and rage, and vow destruction to Nabal and his familyGill is here reporting the minority reading of Abarbinel and Kimchi — that the "son of Belial" clause describes what David would become on hearing the report — and he immediately rejects it: "but the first sense is best." The excerpt is a summary of a view Gill does not hold.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The narrator builds the man before he names him: a man in Maon, his מַעֲשֵׂהוּ (maʻăseh, “his doing”) in Carmel, and the man גָּדוֹל — great, exceedingly. Three thousand of the flock and a thousand goats. Only then: “and the name of the man was Nabal.” Cambridge states the equation without softening it — “The name means Fool. It is the word used in Psalm 14:1” — and K&D judges that “this was hardly his proper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly.” Ellicott derives it from nābēl, to fade away; Pulpit glosses it “flat,” “vapid.” Matthew Henry draws the moral the Hebrew has already drawn structurally: “Riches make men look great in the eye of the world; but to one that takes right views, Nabal looked very mean.”
Against him the verse sets his wife in perfect grammatical symmetry: good-of-insight (טוֹבַת־שֶׂכֶל) and beautiful-of-form, where he is hard (קָשֶׁה) and evil-of-deeds. Two construct chains each, one household, two opposite kinds of greatness. Gill insists Abigail’s understanding reached “things spiritual, as her speech to David shows”; Pulpit sets her “bright understanding and beautiful person… in contrast with the coarse, churlish man who was her husband.” ⚙ The narrator has not moralised once; he has only arranged words, and the arrangement is the verdict.
The verse’s last word is a textual knot the English cannot show. The written consonants (Chethibh) give כלבו, “according to his heart”; the read text (Qere) gives כלבי, “a Calebite” — and the Berean interlinear, tagging the word H3820 lêb, is following the Chethibh while BSB translates the Qere. K&D lays out both, and adds that the Septuagint, Josephus, the Syriac and the Arabic derive it from keleb, dog, and read “a dog-like man.” Cambridge refuses that: “The Sept. rendering ‘dog-like’… is not to be followed.” Pulpit judges the Qere “probably right.” Benson and Poole, taking the Calebite reading, agree it is stated “to aggravate his crime, that he was a degenerate branch of that noble stock of Caleb.”
David hears in the מִדְבָּר — a word Strong’s glosses first as pasture, not emptiness: the very grazing ground that fattened Nabal’s flock. He sends ten men, and Pulpit reads the number as expectation: “The large number, ten, also shows that he expected a liberal gift of food.” Gill reads it as courtesy: “such a number of them, he sent to show honour and reverence to Nabal.” The message itself is a small liturgy. Its first word, לֶחָי, defeats everyone: K&D calls it “obscure, and… interpreted by the early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures”; Ellicott catalogues the Vulgate’s “to my brother,” the Septuagint’s impossible “for seasons,” Luther’s “glück auf,” and Rashi and the Babylonian Talmud in support of a popular cry of congratulation; Cambridge settles on “an exclamation, ‘Hail!’ literally, ‘For life!’”; Barnes prefers “about (his) life.” Then shalom three times — to you, to your house, to all that is yours. Poole: “David’s prayer is very comprehensive, reaching to his soul, and body, and wife, and children, and servants, and all his estate.”
The claim that follows is stated in the language of honour, not of damage. הֶכְלַמְנוּם (kâlam, Hiphil) does not mean “we did not harass”; Pulpit gives it exactly — “Literally, ‘we caused them no shame.’” Then the two requests, both built on mâtsâʼ, to find: let them find grace in your eyes; give what your hand finds. K&D: “what thy hand findeth (i.e., as much as thou canst).” And the signature: “to your servants, and to your son David.” Poole notes David calls himself son “as being elder and wealthier than himself”; K&D, that by it “David claims Nabal’s fatherly goodwill.” Whether the whole arrangement was disinterested, the sources do not pretend. Cambridge defends it — “David’s message was not a demand for black-mail… he was entitled to recompence” — while JFB concedes that David’s men lurked in those deserts “doing them good offices, probably in return for information and supplies obtained through them,” and Ellicott admits “it is likely enough that some of these contributions were not always willingly made.”
The men deliver it in the Piel — formally, word for word, Gill says “punctually and exactly, in the very words” — and then the verse ends on וַיָּנוּחוּ, “and they rested.” K&D: “and sat down, sc., awaiting the fulfilment of their request,” rejecting the Vulgate’s siluerunt; Ellicott reports Bunsen’s “they waited modestly for an answer.” ⚙ It is the last still moment in the chapter, and the verb is the sabbath verb.
Nabal answers with two questions and a slander. Ellicott reads the slander politically: “This evident insult indicates that Nabal was of the faction of Saul at this time — was reckoned among those who hated David,” and argues that without this, “David’s wrath and determination to take such speedy and bloody vengeance on a mere selfish churl is inexplicable.” K&D puts it more simply: “in order to justify his own covetousness, he set down David as a vagrant who had run away from his master.” JFB, from the customs side, calls the refusal “a violation of the established usages of the place,” and Geneva turns it into a type: “Thus the covetous wretches instead of relieving the needs of God’s children, reviled their persons and condemned their cause.”
Verse 11 is a wall of possessives — my bread, my waters, my slaughter which I slaughtered for my shearers — and Henry catches the theology under the grammar: “We mistake, if we think we are absolute lords of what we have… No; we are but stewards.” Ellicott notes that the Septuagint, embarrassed by water, substituted wine, and defends the Hebrew as a mark of accuracy: “Water in many parts of the East is exceedingly precious” (compare Achsah’s request in Joshua 15:19, which Barnes and Cambridge cite too). The rare noun טִבְחָתִי (ṭibchâh, “my slaughtering”) stands with its own cognate verb — a lexeme found in only three verses of the Hebrew Bible, and its other homes are Psalm 44:22 and Jeremiah 12:3, where the slaughtered ones are the faithful.
Then the swords. Ellicott: “The formal preparation and the largeness of the force told off for the work showed how terribly David was in earnest, and how bent he was on wiping out the insult of Nabal in blood… David’s anger is quite to be accounted for, though not to be excused.” Henry is harsher and more searching: “Is this thy voice, O David? Has he been so long in the school of affliction, where he should have learned patience, and yet is so passionate?” K&D names it sin outright — “not right before God, but a sudden burst of sinful passion, which was unseemly in a servant of God.” ⚙ Observe the verb: the men who were told עֲלוּ, “go up,” to carry peace (v. 5) are the men who now וַיַּעֲלוּ, “went up,” behind a drawn sword (v. 13). One root, two errands. The narrator says nothing; the lexeme says it.
Rescue enters through the lowest door in the household. A naʻar — Pulpit: “a lad of the lads,” a term that “has no reference to age,” probably “some old and confidential servitor” — goes not to his master but to his mistress. Ellicott imagines the pattern behind it: “Abigail had, no doubt, often acted as peace-maker between her intemperate husband and his neighbours.” Benson admires the man himself: “Who can help admiring the wisdom and fidelity of this shepherd, who admonished his mistress of the danger her family was in.”
His report corrects the record twice. David had said, “to bless our master” — לְבָרֵךְ (bârak, Piel), which Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all note is literally “to bless,” not merely to greet. And Nabal וַיָּעַט — Barnes: “The marginal reading, ‘flew upon them,’ is nearer to the original”; Pulpit: “Literally, ‘flew upon them like a bird of prey’”; Gill: “the allusion is to a ravenous bird, which will fly at persons when it apprehends its young in any danger.” This verb, ʻîyṭ (H5860), occurs in only two verses of the Hebrew Bible, and the other is 1 Samuel 15:19, where Samuel asks Saul why he swooped on the spoil. K&D makes the cross-reference himself. The Verifier confirms the shared lexeme. ⚙ The rejected king and the doomed king share one rare verb, and it is the verb of a bird of prey falling on what it wants.
Then the testimony, which exceeds anything David claimed for himself. Ellicott: “occurring as it does in the heart of an episode most discreditable to David, it bears weighty testimony to the admirable discipline and the kind forethought of the son of Jesse.” The servant uses David’s own verb kâlam — but in the passive Hophal, from the protected side: we were not put to shame. And he adds the image David never used: חוֹמָה, a city wall. Barnes: “They had been as safe with David’s men around them as if they had been dwelling in a walled town.” Poole: “a defence against wild beasts, and robbers, and enemies.” Gill draws the unanswerable conclusion: “had it not been for them, he would not have had so many sheep to shear as he had.”
The servant ends with two feminine imperatives — דְּעִי וּרְאִי, “know and see” — and the flat report that כָלְתָה the evil, a verb (kâlâh) meaning completed, finished, determined. The disaster is not approaching; it is settled. And the reason he brings it to her is the last, devastating word on the master of the house: “he is a son of worthlessness, beyond speaking to him.” Cambridge: “So wilful and obstinate that his servants dared not try to reason with him, but appealed to Abigail instead.” Poole: “A man cannot speak to him, to wit, without hazard to himself, and therefore I acquaint thee rather than him.” Ellicott notes that Belial “was not a proper name, though it subsequently came to be considered one. It signifies simply worthlessness.”
⚙ This is the machine’s own fallible reading, under Sola Scriptura, offered to be tested against the text and rejected where it fails. The chapter is arranged as a trial of the question what makes a man great, and it hands down its verdict in nouns rather than in judgments. Nabal is גָּדוֹל, great; his name is Fool; his estate is counted in thousands and his character in two words. David is hungry in the pasture, signs himself your son, and asks for whatever a hand happens to find. Between them stand two witnesses who have no standing at all — a woman and a hired herdsman — and it is through those two that God preserves the anointed king from becoming a murderer. ⚙ We read the unit, therefore, as the Bible’s plainest anatomy of folly: folly is not stupidity but the refusal to recognise. Nabal’s sin is stated as two questions — “Who is David? Who is this son of Jesse?” — and one denial, “men whom I do not know whence they be.” He cannot see what protected him. His servants can: they name David’s men a wall, standing around a flock that was never theirs, by night and by day.
⚙ And the trial catches the hero too. Ellicott explains David’s rage politically, Henry rebukes it pastorally — “Is this thy voice, O David?” — and K&D calls it sin without qualification. Both things are true at once, and the text refuses to let the reader rest in either. The man who would not take Saul’s life when the LORD delivered it into his hand (1 Samuel 24) straps on a sword over an insult about bread. ⚙ What the unit shows, then, is not a good man and a bad man, but a wall and a fool — and a good man who very nearly stopped being a wall. The chapter’s rescue comes from outside David’s judgment altogether, and this unit stops one verse before we see who brings it. We are left standing exactly where the servant left Abigail: told the evil is already determined, and given two imperatives — know, and see.
Folly is not the failure to think; it is the refusal to recognise the wall that has been standing around you by night and by day. (⚙ This is the tool’s own line, not a verse of Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
When Nabal answers David’s embassy the narrator does not say he shouted. He says וַיָּ֥עַט בָּהֶֽם׃ (way·yā·‘aṭ, H5860 ʻîyṭ) — he swooped on them, as a raptor falls. Barnes notes the marginal reading “flew upon them” is “nearer to the original”; Pulpit gives “flew upon them like a bird of prey”; Gill explains “the allusion is to a ravenous bird, which will fly at persons when it apprehends its young in any danger.” The Verifier reports this lexeme in only two verses of the Hebrew Bible. The other is 1 Samuel 15:19, where Samuel confronts Saul: “Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop on the spoil?” K&D makes the connection independently, sending the reader to 1 Samuel 15:19 for the form. ⚙ Within a single book, then, the same rare verb names the moment a king seizes what is not his and forfeits his house, and the moment a rich fool seizes what he was given and forfeits his. Ten verses after our unit closes, Nabal’s heart dies within him and he becomes as a stone.
1 Samuel 15:19
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H5860 ʻîyṭ, attested in only 2 verses of the Hebrew Bible — a genuinely rare verbal link, independently flagged by K&D at this verse. No quotation is claimed in either direction; the tier rests on the rarity of the shared lexeme.
Nabal’s refusal turns on a rare noun: טִבְחָתִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר טָבַ֖חְתִּי (ṭiḇ·ḥā·ṯî ’ă·šer ṭā·ḇaḥ·tî, H2878 ṭibchâh with its cognate verb H2873 ṭâbach) — “my slaughtering which I have slaughtered for my shearers.” BSB smooths it to “the meat I have slaughtered.” The Verifier reports ṭibchâh in only three verses, and both of the others put the word in the mouth of the righteous under persecution: “we are counted as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalm 44:22), and Jeremiah’s “pull them out like sheep for the slaughter” (Jeremiah 12:3). Both share the second lexeme too — H6629 tsôʼn, the flock, twice in each verse. ⚙ The link is verbal and nothing more: Nabal is not quoting a psalm and the psalmist is not alluding to Nabal. But the coincidence of vocabulary is exact and worth seeing. The fool’s festival slaughter is named with the same rare word Scripture reserves for the killing of the faithful, and the flock he counts in thousands is named with the word that elsewhere means the people of God.
Psalm 44:22 · Jeremiah 12:3
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2878 ṭibchâh (in 3 vv — rare) and H6629 tsôʼn (in 247 vv, twice in each verse). The rare lexeme carries the tier; no quotation or literary dependence is claimed, and the thematic application is explicitly marked ⚙.
The unit opens by naming two places in one breath, and Joshua 15:55 names them in the same breath: “Maon, Carmel, Ziph, and Juttah,” in the hill-country allotment of Judah. Poole cites Joshua 15:55 to prove this is “not that Carmel in Issachar”; Gill sends the reader to the same verse twice; Cambridge: “These places are mentioned together in Joshua 15:55”; K&D and Ellicott concur, and Ellicott adds that the northern Mount Carmel is a different place entirely. JFB supplies the topography: “about a mile from it is Tell Main, the hillock on which stood ancient Maon.” ⚙ The register matters for more than geography. Joshua 15 is the record of what Caleb’s people were given — and the man who holds Carmel in this chapter is, on the Qere, a Calebite. The inheritance is intact; the inheritor is not.
Joshua 15:55
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H3760 Karmel (in 21 vv) and H4584 Mâʻôwn (in 6 vv). Both are proper nouns, so although Mâʻôwn is rare the link is a shared geographic register rather than a verbal allusion or quotation — deliberately tiered structural rather than verbal.
The name planted in v. 3 is not left for the reader to work out. Within the same chapter Abigail will say it aloud — “as his name is, so is he: Nabal is his name, and folly is with him” (25:25) — and the chapter will end by burying him (25:36-38) and by David blessing the LORD for keeping his own hand clean (25:39). The Verifier links our unit to all of these by the shared proper name H5037 Nâbâl (18 verses in the whole Hebrew Bible, the great majority of them here) together with H26 ʼĂbîygayil. ⚙ The point of the thread is compositional: 1 Samuel 25 is built as a single argument about a name, and our unit is only its first half. Everything the unit withholds — the intervention, the folly explained, the death, the vindication — is inside the same chapter, tied to it by the two names.
1 Samuel 25:25 · 1 Samuel 25:36 · 1 Samuel 25:38 · 1 Samuel 25:39
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H5037 Nâbâl (in 18 vv) and H26 ʼĂbîygayil (in 17 vv). Both are personal names recurring inside one narrative unit, so this is compositional continuity, not a verbal allusion — tiered structural rather than verbal despite the low frequency counts.
Cambridge states it without hedging: the name “means Fool. It is the word used in Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 30:22.” Pulpit agrees — Nabal is “the word rendered fool in Psalm 14:1; literally, ‘flat,’ ‘vapid.’” ⚙ We record the link but downgrade its basis honestly: the Verifier did not return Psalm 14:1 as a candidate, because the proper name in 1 Samuel 25 is lexicon entry H5037 while the adjective in Psalm 14:1 is a different Strong’s entry (H5036). So there is no machine-confirmed shared lexeme here — only the judgment of the commentators that the words are one word, and the plain observation that the psalm’s fool denies God while this fool denies the LORD’s anointed and then dies of his own heart. That is a real resonance and a weak proof, and it should be held as the second thing and not the first.
Psalm 14:1 · Proverbs 30:22
basis: No Verifier-computed shared lexeme: the name here is H5037 Nâbâl, the Psalm 14:1 noun is a distinct Strong's entry, and Psalm 14:1 was not among the Verifier's candidates. The link rests entirely on the lexical judgment of Cambridge and Pulpit that the two are the same word. Flagged so a reader can check the lexicography rather than take the identification from us.
A wealthy man, a harvest brought in, a feast prepared, a stock of goods called mine five times over, and a sudden death: that is 1 Samuel 25, and it is also Luke 12:16-21. In the parable the man says “my fruits… my barns… my goods… my soul,” and God says, “Fool, this night your soul is required of you.” ⚙ We tier this deliberately low. It is a cross-Testament pair, so no shared Strong’s lexeme is even possible between a Hebrew narrative and a Greek parable, and the Verifier offers no basis. Luke does not cite 1 Samuel, no New Testament writer connects them, and the Greek word in the parable (aphrōn) is not the Septuagint’s rendering of Nabal’s name. What can honestly be claimed is a shared narrative shape and a shared moral vocabulary of possessive pronouns — nothing more. The reader who wants a quotation will not find one here.
Luke 12:16-21
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew), so shared Strong's numbers are impossible by definition and none is claimed. The recorded basis is a structural one, verifiable by reading both passages: wealthy landholder, harvest festival, repeated first-person possessives over food and goods, refusal of a claim from outside, sudden death. No citation, allusion or verbal dependence is asserted.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The sharpest line in the unit is spoken by a hired man about people his master has just insulted: חוֹמָה הָיוּ עָלֵינוּ — “they were a wall upon us, both by day and by night.” Barnes: “They had been as safe with David’s men around them as if they had been dwelling in a walled town.” Gill draws the conclusion Nabal never drew: “had it not been for them, he would not have had so many sheep to shear as he had.” The fool’s exact words are “men whom I know not whence they be.” ⚙ The pattern — a guardian whose protection is enjoyed and whose person is unrecognised — is the pattern John’s prologue states of the Word: “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, but the world did not recognise Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him” (John 1:10-11). And the accounting runs in both directions: the King in Matthew 25 judges precisely by whether men gave bread and water to one they did not know they were serving — “I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat… I was a stranger and you did not take Me in.” Cambridge has already noticed that the Septuagint renders Nabal’s qâsheh (“hard”) with σκληρός, the very word the buried-talent servant uses of his master in Matthew 25:24, so the Greek Old Testament and that parable share a vocabulary of hardness. ⚙ We do not claim the evangelists had Nabal in view. We claim that 1 Samuel 25 sets out, in miniature, the shape of the refusal the gospels record, and that it should be read as preparation, not as prophecy.
John 1:10-11 · Matthew 25:41-45 · Matthew 25:24
Nabal’s two questions are not really questions: “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse?” Gill notices that the second gives away the first — “had he stopped at the first question, it might have gone so, but his second question betrays him, and plainly shows he did know him.” Ellicott reads it as a party slogan: Nabal “was reckoned among those who hated David,” and the phrase son of Jesse is the sneer Saul himself uses (1 Samuel 20:27). ⚙ That contemptuous title is the one the prophets take up and glorify: “a shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1), and Paul quotes it of the Gentiles’ hope — “the Root of Jesse will appear, One who will arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles will hope” (Romans 15:12). The messianic weight of the house of Jesse is ancient and widely held; what is ⚙ ours, and offered to be tested, is the observation that the gospels record the same dismissal in the same grammar, aimed at David’s greater Son — “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (Matthew 13:55) — and that Jesus turns it into the decisive question by asking the Pharisees, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?” (Matthew 22:42). ⚙ The fool’s question is the right question asked in contempt. It is answered by a cross.
Isaiah 11:1 · Romans 15:12 · Matthew 22:42 · Matthew 13:55
Three things are named and withheld in v. 11: לַחְמִי my bread, מֵימַי my waters, טִבְחָתִי my slaughtered flesh. Ellicott defends the mention of water as a mark of the record’s accuracy — “Water in many parts of the East is exceedingly precious” — and Barnes and Cambridge both send the reader to Achsah’s plea for springs in Joshua 15:19, from the same Calebite inheritance. Henry answers the possessives: “We mistake, if we think we are absolute lords of what we have… we are but stewards.” ⚙ Bread, water, flesh: the three nouns are the furniture of the Lord’s self-giving — “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35), “the water that I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), “the bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” (John 6:51). Here a rich man in Judah is asked for exactly these three by the LORD’s anointed on a feast day, and says no. ⚙ This reading is ours and is offered for testing: the words are common nouns, the Verifier confirms no link across Testaments, and nothing in the sourced commentary draws this line. What we do claim is that the refusal is legible — the man who would not give bread, water and flesh to the king in his poverty is the exact negative of the King who gives all three in His.
John 6:35 · John 6:51 · John 4:14
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. The unit carries one genuine textual crux and one probable one. (1) At 25:3 the last word is written כלבו and read כלבי. K&D, Ellicott, Pulpit and Cambridge all set the Qere (“a Calebite”) against the Chethibh (“according to his heart”), with the Septuagint, Josephus, the Syriac and the Arabic taking a third path from keleb, “dog.” BSB translates the Qere; the Berean interlinear tags the word H3820 lêb, which follows the Chethibh. Both are in our text and neither is resolved here. Every voice in this unit that argues from Nabal’s Calebite descent — Benson, Poole, Gill, JFB — is arguing from the Qere. (2) At 25:9 the Septuagint appears to have read wayyāqom (“and he sprang up”) where the Masoretic Text has וַיָּנוּחוּ (“and they rested”); K&D calls the Greek reading “a very appropriate sense” but cannot explain how the Hebrew would then have arisen. (3) At 25:11 the Septuagint reads “wine” for “water”; Ellicott calls this one of that version’s “countless alterations,” which is polemic, not evidence, though the Masoretic reading is the harder and better attested one.
Parse. At 25:7 the interlinear parses לָ֑ךְ as second person feminine singular inside a message addressed to a man, while the corresponding form at 25:8 (word 4) is parsed masculine. We have flagged the discrepancy in the divergences and deliberately offered no grammatical explanation for it, because we have no sourced one: nothing in the eleven commentators comments on it, and inventing a reason would be exactly the kind of fabrication this edition exists to refuse.
Sources. Eleven public-domain commentators are present in the brief for this unit, and all eleven are quoted somewhere in it. Coverage is uneven by verse, not by our choice: Poole has no entry at 25:5, 25:9, 25:12 or 25:15, and Cambridge and Pulpit are absent from several verses. Henry’s entries are the Concise Commentary and are blocked across 25:2-11 and 25:12-17, so the same text stands behind several verses; we have quoted it only twice to avoid a false impression of per-verse comment. Gill quotes the rabbinic tradition heavily — Ben Gersom, Kimchi, Jarchi, Abarbinel — and at 25:10 and 25:17 reports Abarbinel’s minority readings (that Nabal insulted only David’s men, not David; that “son of Belial” describes how David would become on hearing the report) before rejecting them; we have preserved the rejection alongside the report.
What is uncertain. The word לֶחָי at 25:6 has no agreed meaning; four of our sources give four different renderings, and K&D says plainly that the early translators guessed. Ellicott’s reconstruction of Nabal as a partisan of Saul — offered to explain David’s disproportionate rage — is an inference from v. 10, not a statement of the text, and we have attributed it to him rather than adopting it. The Christological readings marked “novel” above are the tool’s own and carry no attestation; they are printed to be tested and, if they fail, discarded. Every ⚙ paragraph in this unit is fallible; the Word of God in BSB and the named public-domain voices are not ours to revise.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)