1 Samuel30:1–6

The raider raided — the same verb, both directions verbal / quotation — confirmed

At 1 Samuel 27:8 David פָּשַׁטs the Geshurites, the Gezrites and the Amalekites; here Amalek פָֽשְׁט֗וּs the Negev and Ziklag. Pulpit names the identity without hedging: “The word for invaded is the same as in 1 Samuel 27:8.” The Verifier independently records both the verb and the ethnic name as shared between the two verses. Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, JFB, Gill, Cambridge and K&D all read this chapter's raid as reprisal for that one. ⚙ We tier this as verbal because the link rests on a genuine, computed lexical identity — not because the narrator draws a moral from it; he does not.

1 Samuel 27:8

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6584 pâshaṭ (in 42 vv) and H6003 ʻĂmâlêqîy (in 12 vv) — a rare ethnic name plus the identical raid-verb; Pulpit independently names the same identity

The Egyptian's report gives back the words verbal / quotation — confirmed

Eight verses on, an abandoned Egyptian slave describes the raid in the narrator's own vocabulary: 1 Samuel 30:14 uses פָּשַׁט again of the Negev, names צִקְלַג again, and says it was שָׂרַףed with fire. Ellicott identifies him: “It was the Egyptian slave who had fallen sick, and, in consequence, had been deserted … who gave them the details, and told them the story of the invasion.” ⚙ The structural point is that the men who stood dumb before the ash in v. 3 — Ellicott: “not one … left to tell the story” — receive the story back from the mouth of the enemy's own discarded slave, in the narrator's exact three verbs.

1 Samuel 30:14

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6860 Tsiqlag (in 12 vv, rare), H6584 pâshaṭ (in 42 vv), H8313 sâraph (in 107 vv) — a rare proper noun with the two governing verbs repeated

Stones in Israel: the mob, the martyr, and the man in the middle structural / thematic — confirmed

לְסָקְל֔וֹ (çâqal, H5619) is the community's judicial killing, and the Verifier links this verse to 1 Kings 21:15 — Naboth stoned by the contrivance of a Jezreelite queen's letters, the same rare stoning-verb and the same Jezreel-word that names David's wife Ahinoam here. Cambridge points instead to the nearer pattern: “spake of stoning him ] Cp. Exodus 17:4; Numbers 14:10,” where it is Moses who stands before a people ready to stone their leader. Gill cites Numbers 14:10 as well. ⚙ We tier this structural, not verbal: the 1 Kings link is a real shared-lexeme coincidence but carries no quotation, and the Exodus and Numbers parallels rest on the commentators' own cross-referencing, not on any basis the Verifier computed. The pattern is the claim; the wording is not.

1 Kings 21:15 · Exodus 17:4 · Numbers 14:10

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H5619 çâqal (in 20 vv) and H3158 Yizrᵉʻêʼlîy (in 13 vv) for 1 Kings 21:15. The Exodus 17:4 and Numbers 14:10 refs carry NO Verifier basis — they are Cambridge's and Gill's own cross-references, recorded as such

Two wives from Carmel to Hebron structural / thematic — confirmed

The dual וּשְׁתֵּ֥י binds Ahinoam and Abigail as a set, and the Verifier tracks that set across the David narrative: 1 Samuel 25:3, 25:39 and 25:43 (the marriages), 27:3 (the flight to Gath), here (the captivity), and 2 Samuel 2:2 and 1 Chronicles 3:1, where the same two women go up with David to Hebron and he is made king. Gill supplies the continuity for this verse: “both these came with him to Gath, and were left at Ziklag when he went with Achish.” ⚙ The shared lexemes are personal names, so the link is one of shared cast, not of quotation. Its force is narrative: what is carried off in 30:5 is exactly what walks into the coronation city in 2 Samuel 2:2.

1 Samuel 25:43 · 1 Samuel 27:3 · 2 Samuel 2:2 · 1 Chronicles 3:1

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H26 ʼĂbîygayil (in 17 vv), H293 ʼĂchîynôʻam (in 7 vv, rare), H3158 Yizrᵉʻêʼlîy (in 13 vv), H5037 Nâbâl (in 18 vv) — all proper names, so shared cast rather than shared diction; no quotation claimed

“Be strong in the Lord” — the same handhold, the other Testament structural / thematic — confirmed

Cambridge glosses וַיִּתְחַזֵּ֣ק as “Strengthened himself” and sends the reader in two directions at once: back to 1 Samuel 23:16, where Jonathan “strengthened his hand in God,” and forward to Ephesians 6:10. Gill independently ends his note on this verse at the same place, quoting the Targum's “he strengthened himself in the Word of the Lord his God” and then naming Ephesians 6:10. ⚙ This link cannot be tiered verbal: Ephesians is Greek and 1 Samuel is Hebrew, so no shared Strong's number is possible in either direction, and the Verifier computed no basis for it. What can be recorded is that two independent public-domain commentators, working from the Hebrew, reached for the same apostolic imperative — the reflexive act of fastening oneself on God because one's own strength has run out.

1 Samuel 23:16 · Ephesians 6:10

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible, and the Verifier returned no basis. The recorded basis is that Cambridge and Gill each cite Ephesians 6:10 on this clause independently; 1 Samuel 23:16 shares the Hebrew root H2388 châzaq by Cambridge's citation, which the Verifier did not compute for this pair

Strengthened in the Word of the LORD his God ancient/widely-held

Gill closes his note on v. 6 by recording the Targum's rendering: “he strengthened himself in the Word of the Lord his God” — the Aramaic Memra — and Gill then reads that Word christologically, “in Christ the Word of God, and in the power of his might, and in the grace that is in him,” citing Ephesians 6:10. ⚙ We report this as what it is: an ancient Jewish paraphrase that Christian exegesis has long taken as a bridge, and a reading Gill makes explicitly. The Hebrew of v. 6 says only בַּיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהָֽיו, in YHWH his God; the Memra is the Targum's supplement, not the Masoretic text, and we do not claim otherwise.

Ephesians 6:10 · John 1:1

The anointed one his own people took up stones against novel

David is at this hour already anointed and not yet reigning, blamed by the people he leads for a loss he did not cause, and לְסָקְל֔וֹ — they speak of stoning him. Cambridge places him in a line with Moses (Exodus 17:4) and Gill with the congregation at Numbers 14:10: the mediator whom Israel would stone. ⚙ The pattern reaches its end in John 10:31 and 8:59, where the Jews “took up stones again to stone him,” and in Acts 7:58, where the stones fall on the first witness instead. Henry's observation makes the shape unmistakable without any of this: David “was brought thus low, only just before he was raised to the throne.” ⚙ Rejection by the people, then the throne, is a road the New Testament says its King walked; but the stoning-link itself is ours, drawn from the commentators' own Moses parallel, and we mark it novel rather than claiming the fathers for it.

John 10:31 · Acts 7:58 · Exodus 17:4

“My God” — the possessive David was the first to hold, and the last word from the cross novel

Maclaren's whole sermon hangs on the suffix in אֱלֹהָֽיו: he argues David was “the very first of all the ancient singers to grapple that thought that he stood in a personal, individual relation to God,” and that this is precisely what he laid hold of at Ziklag. ⚙ That same possessive, in the Psalms attributed to him, becomes Eli, Eli — and the Gospels put it in the mouth of David's son at the point where every other support had been burned away. The parallel is not a quotation of this verse and we do not tier it as one; it is a resonance between the grammar of David's worst hour and the grammar of the cross. Maclaren's historical claim about David's priority is his own and is disputable; the exegetical point does not depend on it.

Psalm 22:1 · Matthew 27:46