The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
David Destroys the Amalekites
1 Samuel 30:7–20 — David Destroys the Amalekites. 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.
7Then David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, “Bring me the ephod.” So Abiathar brought it to him,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yō·mer ’el- ’eḇ·yā·ṯār hak·kō·hên ben- ’ă·ḥî·me·leḵ hag·gî·šāh- nā lî hā·’ê·p̄ōḏ ’eḇ·yā·ṯār ’eṯ- way·yag·gêš hā·’ê·p̄ōḏ ’el- dā·wiḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-said David unto-Abiathar the-priest, son-of-Ahimelech: “Bring-near, I-pray-thee, to-me the-ephod.” And-brought-near Abiathar the-ephod unto-David.
Where the English smooths the original
Looking only to Jehovah for aid, David sends for Abiathar , who seems to have remained constantly with him, and bids him consult Jehovah by the Urim.
Bring hither the ephod — And put it on thyself, that thou mayest inquire of God according to his ordinance. David was sensible of his former error, in neglecting to ask counsel of God by the ephod, when he came to Achish, and when he went out with Achish to the battle; and his necessity now brings him to his duty, and his duty meets with success.
The plain meaning, however, of the frequent references tells us in some way or other the Divine will was made known through the agency of the mysterious Urim and Thummim.Ellicott is arguing against the commentators of his own century who preferred to empty the Urim of any objective function; Barnes, quoted alongside, represents the position Ellicott is resisting. Both are in this brief, and the FSSB lets the disagreement stand.
The answers were evidently given by the Word of the Lord in the mouth of the high priest
8and David inquired of the LORD: “Should I pursue these raiders? Will I overtake them?” “Pursue them,” the LORD replied, “for you will surely overtake them and rescue the captives.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yiš·’al Yah·weh lê·mōr ’er·dōp̄ ’a·ḥă·rê haz·zeh hag·gə·ḏūḏ- ha·’aś·śi·ḡen·nū rə·ḏōp̄ kî- way·yō·mer lōw haś·śêḡ taś·śîḡ wə·haṣ·ṣêl taṣ·ṣîl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-inquired David in-YHWH, saying: “Shall-I-pursue after this the-raiding-band? Shall-I-overtake-it?” And-he-said to-him: “Pursue! for overtaking thou-shalt-overtake, and delivering thou-shalt-deliver.”
Where the English smooths the original
He answered — Before God answered more slowly and gradually, 1 Samuel 23:11-12 ; but now he answers speedily, and fully at once, because the business required haste. So gracious is our God, that he considers even the degree of our necessities, and accommodates himself to them.Poole's note on this verse is almost word-for-word the same; Benson (1810s) is drawing on Poole (1685). The FSSB cites Benson here and Poole elsewhere rather than presenting a borrowed sentence twice as independent testimony.
for thou shall surely overtake them; which is an answer to the second question, and a full one, giving full assurance of overtaking; to which is added more than what was inquired about
Though God seem to leave us for a time, yet if we trust in him, we will be sure to find comfort.
9So David and his six hundred men went to the Brook of Besor, where some stayed behind
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yê·leḵ dā·wiḏ hū wə·šêš- mê·’ō·wṯ ’îš ’ă·šer ’it·tōw way·yā·ḇō·’ū ‘aḏ- na·ḥal hab·bə·śō·wr wə·han·nō·w·ṯā·rîm ‘ā·mā·ḏū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-went David, he and-six-hundred men who [were] with-him, and-they-came as-far-as the-wadi of-Besor; and-the-ones-left-over stood.
Where the English smooths the original
these were probably the old band of veteran soldiers, whose speed and endurance he could depend upon—men tried, no doubt, by many a weary night march, by many a rough, wild piece of work.
The Heb. word is nachal , which means a ravine , or torrent-bed , with a stream at the bottom.
Those that were left to look after the stuff, 1 Samuel 30:24 ; who were so tired, that they were not able to march any further.
10because two hundred men were too exhausted to cross the brook. But David and four hundred men continued in pursuit.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ă·šer way·ya·‘am·ḏū mā·ṯa·yim ’îš pig·gə·rū mê·‘ă·ḇōr ’eṯ- na·ḥal hab·bə·śō·wr dā·wiḏ hū wə·’ar·ba‘- mê·’ō·wṯ ’îš way·yir·dōp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-pursued David, he and-four-hundred men; and-stood two-hundred men who were-too-spent to-cross-over the-wadi of-Besor.
Where the English smooths the original
A verb found only here and in 1 Samuel 30:21 , connected with a substantive meaning a corpse; as we should say, they were dead-beat
Four hundred men; a small number for such an attempt; but David was strong in faith, giving God the glory of his power and faithfulness.
it was doubtless a trial of his faith, with these to pursue an enemy, whose numbers he knew not, which must greatly exceed his
11Now his men found an Egyptian in the field and brought him to David. They gave the man water to drink and food to eat—
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yim·ṣə·’ū ’îš- miṣ·rî baś·śā·ḏeh way·yiq·ḥū ’ō·ṯōw ’el- dā·wiḏ way·yit·tə·nū- lōw mā·yim way·yaš·qu·hū le·ḥem way·yō·ḵal
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-found a-man, an-Egyptian, in-the-field, and-they-took him unto David; and-they-gave to-him bread and-he-ate, and-they-made-him-drink water.
Where the English smooths the original
But a purchased or captured slave must look to himself; for, if feeble or sick, his master will leave him to perish rather than encumber himself with any additional burden.JFB generalises from nineteenth-century observation of Near Eastern slaveholding to explain the Amalekite's act. The generalisation is theirs; the text says only that the master left him.
God by his providence both provides for the needs of the poor stranger, and made him a guide to David to accomplish his enterprise.
had he been an Amalekite, and not an Egyptian, they might not have relieved or spared him, but must have destroyed him at once
12a piece of a fig cake and two clusters of raisins. So he ate and was revived, for he had not had any food or water for three days and three nights.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yit·tə·nū- lōw p̄e·laḥ də·ḇê·lāh ū·šə·nê ṣim·mu·qîm way·yō·ḵal wat·tā·šāḇ rū·ḥōw ’ê·lāw kî lō- ’ā·ḵal le·ḥem wə·lō- šā·ṯāh ma·yim šə·lō·šāh yā·mîm ū·šə·lō·šāh lê·lō·wṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-gave to-him a-slice of-fig-cake and-two raisin-cakes; and-he-ate, and-returned his-spirit unto-him — for not had-he-eaten bread and-not had-he-drunk water, three days and-three nights.
Where the English smooths the original
whereupon his spirit of life returned (i.e., he came to himself again), as he had neither eaten bread nor drunk water for three days.
The cruelty of the Amalekites to their slaves was the cause of their ultimate discomfiture, for with the very considerable start they already had, if David had not been quite certain, through the information of the Egyptian, of their route, the pursuit would have been utterly hopeless.
Which is to be understood synecdochically of one whole day, and part of two others, as the same phrase is taken Matthew 12:40Poole reads the “three days and three nights” inclusively, as the Jewish idiom requires, and cites Matthew 12:40 to establish the usage. That is a lexical argument about Hebrew reckoning, not a typological claim about this Egyptian; the FSSB keeps the two apart.
13Then David asked him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” “I am an Egyptian,” he replied, “the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me three days ago when I fell ill.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḏā·wiḏ way·yō·mer lōw lə·mî- ’at·tāh wə·’ê miz·zeh ’āt·tāh ’ā·nō·ḵî miṣ·rî way·yō·mer na·‘ar ‘e·ḇeḏ ‘ă·mā·lê·qî lə·’îš ’ă·ḏō·nî way·ya·‘az·ḇê·nî šə·lō·šāh hay·yō·wm kî ḥā·lî·ṯî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said to-him David: “To-whom [art] thou, and-where from [art] thou?” And-he-said: “A-lad, an-Egyptian [am] I, servant to-a-man, an-Amalekite; and-forsook-me my-master, for I-fell-sick today three [days].”
Where the English smooths the original
So that more than three days had elapsed since the sack of Ziklag, for they had gone at least one long day’s march before he was deserted.
As he was probably unarmed, and his garb that of a slave, David asks who is his owner and what his country.
So that there is no fighting against God, who can make the smallest accidents serviceable to the production of the greatest effects.
14We raided the Negev of the Cherethites, the territory of Judah, and the Negev of Caleb, and we burned down Ziklag.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ă·naḥ·nū pā·šaṭ·nū ne·ḡeḇ hak·kə·rê·ṯî wə·‘al- ’ă·šer lî·hū·ḏāh wə·‘al- ne·ḡeḇ kā·lêḇ wə·’eṯ- śā·rap̄·nū ḇā·’êš ṣiq·laḡ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
We — we-raided the-Negeb of-the-Cherethite, and-upon that-which [belongs] to-Judah, and-upon the-Negeb of-Caleb; and Ziklag we-burned with-fire.
Where the English smooths the original
denotes those tribes of the Philistines who dwelt in the south-west of Canaan, and is used by Ezekiel and Zephaniah as synonymous with Philistim.K&D goes on in the same entry to reject the Crete derivation as “without sufficient foundation,” directly contradicting Ellicott on this verse. Both stand in the brief.
It would seem from this that the Cherethites and Philistines were two kindred and associated tribes, like Angles and Saxons, who took possession of the seacoast of Palestine.
This act, which closed the reign of Amalek, was intended as a piece of stern revenge for the late incursion of David into their country, and for the cruelties practised on the captives.Ellicott's “closed the reign of Amalek” overstates the case — Amalekites appear again in the narrative — and the revenge motive he assigns is reconstruction, not something the Egyptian says.
15“Will you lead me to these raiders?” David asked. And the man replied, “Swear to me by God that you will not kill me or deliver me into the hand of my master, and I will lead you to them.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hă·ṯō·w·ri·ḏê·nî ’el- haz·zeh hag·gə·ḏūḏ dā·wiḏ way·yō·mer ’ê·lāw way·yō·mer hiš·šā·ḇə·‘āh lî ḇê·lō·hîm ’im- tə·mî·ṯê·nî wə·’im- tas·gi·rê·nî bə·yaḏ- ’ă·ḏō·nî wə·’ō·w·riḏ·ḵā ’el- hag·gə·ḏūḏ haz·zeh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said unto-him David: “Wilt-thou-bring-me-down unto this raiding-band?” And-he-said: “Swear to-me by-God, [that] if thou-kill-me or-if thou-shut-me-up into-the-hand of-my-master — and-I-will-bring-thee-down unto this raiding-band.”
Where the English smooths the original
The oath was to be by “Elohim,” not by Jehovah, of whom the Egyptian knew nothing.
Whether there was still among these idolatrous tribes a lingering belief in one God, or this Egyptian wished to bind David by the God whom the Hebrews worshipped, the solemn sanction of an oath was mutually recognized.
it being one of the unscrupulous customs of ancient warfare to put deserters, persons forced to act as guides, and even noncombatants, to death to save trouble
16So he led David down, and there were the Amalekites spread out over all the land, eating, drinking, and celebrating the great amount of plunder they had taken from the land of the Philistines and the land of Judah.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yō·ri·ḏê·hū wə·hin·nêh nə·ṭu·šîm ‘al- pə·nê ḵāl hā·’ā·reṣ ’ō·ḵə·lîm wə·šō·ṯîm wə·ḥō·ḡə·ḡîm bə·ḵōl hag·gā·ḏō·wl ’ă·šer haš·šā·lāl lā·qə·ḥū mê·’e·reṣ pə·liš·tîm ū·mê·’e·reṣ yə·hū·ḏāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-brought-him-down, and-behold! [they were] flung-out over the-face of-all the-land, eating and-drinking and-keeping-festival over all the-great spoil which they-had-taken from-the-land of-the-Philistines and-from-the-land of-Judah.
Where the English smooths the original
We have here a vivid picture of the wild license which these barbarians allowed themselves, now that they were secure, as they thought, from all pursuit.
Sinners are nearest to ruin, when they cry, Peace and safety, and put the evil day far from them.
The word literally means keeping festival ; but though they had solemn dances at festivals, yet, as is the case with our word feasting , good eating was probably the uppermost idea
17And David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day. Not a man escaped, except four hundred young men who fled, riding off on camels.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yak·kêm mê·han·ne·šep̄ wə·‘aḏ- hā·‘e·reḇ lə·mā·ḥo·rā·ṯām wə·lō- ’îš nim·laṭ mê·hem kî ’im- ’ar·ba‘ mê·’ō·wṯ na·‘ar ’îš- ’ă·šer- way·yā·nu·sū rā·ḵə·ḇū ‘al- hag·gə·mal·lîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-smote-them David from the-twilight and-unto the-evening of-their-morrow; and-not escaped of-them a-man, except four-hundred young-men who rode upon the-camels and-fled.
Where the English smooths the original
Nesheph signifies the evening twilight here, not the dawn, - a meaning which is not even sustained by Job 7:4
the word signifies both the morning and evening twilight. But the latter seems here intended, partly because their eating, and drinking, and dancing was more customary and proper work for the evening than for the morning; and partly because the evening was more convenient for David, that the fewness of his forces might not be discovered by the day-light.
David thus arrived at night, and finding his enemies eating and drinking, put off his attack until the morning dawn or twilight, when they would be still sleeping after their debauch.Ellicott here follows Bishop Hervey against Keil, whose opposite ruling is quoted above on the same verse. The reconstruction of a dawn attack is an inference from the ambiguous noun, not a datum of the text.
The battle can scarcely have lasted two whole days. If the reading is right, the phrase the evening towards the morrow may denote the evening with which the next day commenced, Jewish days being reckoned from sunset to sunset, so that the fight lasted from early dawn till past sunset.
18So David recovered everything the Amalekites had taken, including his two wives.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ ’êṯ way·yaṣ·ṣêl kāl- ’ă·šer ‘ă·mā·lêq wə·’eṯ- lā·qə·ḥū dā·wiḏ hiṣ·ṣîl šə·tê nā·šāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-delivered David all that Amalek had-taken; and his-two wives David delivered.
Where the English smooths the original
Different renderings of the same Heb. word, used also in 1 Samuel 30:8 . Rescue is the best equivalent.
and David rescued his two wives; which is particularly observed, because a special concern of his.
Through this victory David rescued all that the Amalekites had taken, his two wives, and all the children great and small; also the booty that they had taken with them, so that nothing was missing.
19Nothing was missing, young or old, son or daughter, or any of the plunder the Amalekites had taken. David brought everything back.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·lō ne‘·dar- lā·hem min- haq·qā·ṭōn wə·‘aḏ- hag·gā·ḏō·wl wə·‘aḏ- bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ kāl- ’ă·šer ū·miš·šā·lāl wə·‘aḏ lā·qə·ḥū lā·hem dā·wiḏ hak·kōl hê·šîḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-not was-missing to-them from the-small and-unto the-great, and-unto sons and-daughters, and-from-spoil and-unto all that they-had-taken for-themselves: the-whole David brought-back.
Where the English smooths the original
Not any of the least or youngest, nor any of them that were grown up; for as these were not slain but carried captive, so they were brought back, and not one missing
The spoil was recovered, and brought off; nothing was lost, but a great deal gained.
which the Amalekites had taken for themselves. They carried off the women and children alive to use or sell for slaves.
20And he took all the flocks and herds, which his men drove ahead of the other livestock, calling out, “This is David’s plunder!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ ’eṯ- way·yiq·qaḥ kāl- haṣ·ṣōn wə·hab·bā·qār nā·hă·ḡū lip̄·nê ham·miq·neh ha·hū way·yō·mə·rū zeh dā·wiḏ šə·lal
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-took David all the-flock and-the-herd; they-drove [them] before that livestock, and-they-said: “This is David's spoil.”
Where the English smooths the original
This verse as it stands admits of no satisfactory explanation. It is best to follow the Vulgate, with which the Sept. in the main agrees, and read, And he took all the flocks and the herds, and drave them before him: and they said, This is David’s spoil: i.e. he not only recovered his own property, but took a rich booty besides, which his men drove off with shouts of triumph. The number of places to which he sent presents ( 1 Samuel 30:26-31 ) shews how large it must have been.
In order to obtain any meaning whatever from this literal rendering of the words, we must understand by the sheep and oxen those which belonged to the Amalekites, and the flocks taken from them as booty
the soldiers, who lately were so incensed against David, that they spake of stoning him; now upon this success magnify him, and triumphantly celebrate his praise; and say concerning this spoil, David purchased it by his valour and conduct, and he may dispose of it as he pleaseth.
This was his share as captain of the band (compare Judges 8:24-26 ). All the other plunder of the camp - arms, ornaments, jewels, money, clothes, camels, accoutrements, and so on - was divided among the little army. David's motive in choosing the sheep and oxen for himself was to make presents to his friends in Judah
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 chapter's turn is a verb: וַיִּשְׁאַ֨ל (shâʼal, H7592), he inquired. Benson and Poole — Benson visibly following Poole's 1685 wording — say the same thing in nearly the same sentence: “David was sensible of his former error, in neglecting to ask counsel of God by the ephod, when he came to Achish, and when he went out with Achish to the battle.” Ellicott presses it harder, saying of the Philistine sojourn that “David seems to have determined upon that step entirely of himself,” with “one unbroken series of sin and calamity” following. Pulpit sets the scene in one line against its foil: “Looking only to Jehovah for aid, David sends for Abiathar… and bids him consult Jehovah by the Urim.” The foil is Saul at Endor, who inquired and got nothing (1 Samuel 28:6), and Pulpit names the contrast directly. ⚙ What the Hebrew adds to all of this is the doubled infinitive of v. 8 — haśśêg taśśîg, wᵉhaṣṣêl taṣṣîl — and the fact, which Gill alone presses, that the second half of the answer is more than David asked. He asked two questions; he got three answers. The third, nâtsal, has no object attached to it in the Hebrew at all. Whether the answer came through stones or through the priest's mouth is disputed in this very brief: Ellicott defends “the plain meaning… of the frequent references,” Barnes holds that “the answers were evidently given by the Word of the Lord in the mouth of the high priest.” The FSSB records both and settles neither.
Two hundred of six hundred stop at a nachal. Cambridge supplies the geography — “a ravine, or torrent-bed, with a stream at the bottom” — and admits the wadi “has not been identified with certainty,” a caution Barnes, JFB, Ellicott and K&D each soften in different directions toward the Wady Sheriah or Wady Gaza. The verb for their condition, פִּגְּר֔וּ (pâgar, H6296), exists in Scripture only here and at v. 21. Cambridge again: “connected with a substantive meaning a corpse; as we should say, they were dead-beat.” Gill says they “looked like a corpse, as the word signifies”; K&D reaches for the Syriac. ⚙ Note what the narrator does not say. He does not call them cowards, and he does not call it disobedience. He uses a passive participle for them in v. 9 — hannôtārîm, “the ones left over” — and then a verb built on the word for a carcass. Poole and Gill both convert the arithmetic into faith: “a small number for such an attempt; but David was strong in faith, giving God the glory of his power and faithfulness” (Poole), and Gill's observation that the four hundred who escape on camels in v. 17 exactly equal David's remaining force. Henry is the one voice in this brief that takes the pastoral line rather than the apologetic one: David “would by no means urge them beyond their strength.”
Five verses and the pursuit stops for one starving foreigner. The order of the clauses is the argument: found, took, gave bread, he ate, made him drink — and only then, in v. 13, asked. Nobody interrogates him until he can answer. Geneva reads providence in it: “God by his providence both provides for the needs of the poor stranger, and made him a guide to David to accomplish his enterprise.” Ellicott turns the same fact against Amalek: “The cruelty of the Amalekites to their slaves was the cause of their ultimate discomfiture.” Cambridge quotes Patrick to the same effect — “this inhumanity cost them dear.” Henry, characteristically, makes it a rule: “Those are unworthy the name of true Israelites, who shut up their compassion from persons in distress.” ⚙ The Hebrew's own contribution is two-fold. First, the ration: פֶ֨לַח דְּבֵלָ֜ה and צִמֻּקִים֙ — a slice of fig-cake and raisin-cakes, the second word occurring in just four verses of Scripture and in three of them handed to David or his house. Second, the restoration: וַתָּ֥שָׁב רוּח֖וֹ אֵלָ֑יו, “and his spirit returned to him,” K&D's “he came to himself again.” Then the man, who has nothing, negotiates — and gets a sworn oath from the commander of the force that has him. Ellicott catches the precision of it: “The oath was to be by ‘Elohim,’ not by Jehovah, of whom the Egyptian knew nothing.” JFB is less certain whether that reflects the slave's theology or David's accommodation. Pulpit explains why the two conditions were worth demanding: killing guides and deserters “to save trouble” was ordinary practice.
The word the English renders “celebrating” or “dancing” is וְחֹ֣גְגִ֔ים (châgag, H2287) — the verb of keeping a ḥag, a pilgrimage feast. Pulpit weighs it honestly: “The word literally means keeping festival… good eating was probably the uppermost idea.” Cambridge simply offers “Or, feasting.” Before that word stands נְטֻשִׁ֖ים (nâṭash, H5203), a passive participle: they are flung out over the face of the whole land. Ellicott paints the scene — “a vivid picture of the wild license which these barbarians allowed themselves, now that they were secure, as they thought, from all pursuit” — and Poole notes the strategic reason for their confidence: both armies were engaged elsewhere, and David, they assumed, with them. Henry compresses it to an epigram: “Sinners are nearest to ruin, when they cry, Peace and safety, and put the evil day far from them.” ⚙ The narrator's irony is structural and lexical at once. Amalek keeps festival over plunder, using the verb of Israel's own pilgrim feasts; and the timing word that follows, מֵהַנֶּ֥שֶׁף (nesheph, H5399), is genuinely ambiguous — it means twilight of either end of the day. The commentators split in this very brief: K&D flatly rules “Nesheph signifies the evening twilight here, not the dawn”; Poole agrees; Ellicott sides with Bishop Hervey for the morning twilight and reconstructs a dawn attack on sleeping men; Cambridge rebuilds the whole engagement around an inclusive Jewish day. The FSSB will not adjudicate what five named scholars could not.
Verse 18 reports the oracle's word fulfilled in the oracle's own root: וַיַּצֵּ֣ל and הִצִּ֥יל, both nâtsal (H5337), the verb doubled for certainty back in v. 8. Cambridge is the voice that sees it: “recovered … rescued] Different renderings of the same Heb. word, used also in 1 Samuel 30:8. Rescue is the best equivalent.” Verse 19 then sweeps the ledger with a merism — from small to great, sons and daughters, spoil and all — and closes with a different root, shûwb in the Hiphil: David caused the whole to return. Gill: “not one missing.” Henry: “nothing was lost, but a great deal gained.” Verse 20 is the unit's one genuinely hard sentence. Cambridge declares it “admits of no satisfactory explanation” and follows the Vulgate; K&D calls it obscure, works through the literal rendering, and only then concedes that emending liphnê to liphnâw with the Vulgate and Luther may be necessary; Ellicott insists the italicised “which” of the A.V. is what wrecked the sense; Pulpit says the verse is “really free from difficulty” once that word is removed. Barnes reads the flocks as David's captain's share, on the analogy of Judges 8:24–26, and notes his motive was the gifts of vv. 26–31. Poole and Gill both hear the closing shout as an acclamation: “the soldiers, who lately were so incensed against David, that they spake of stoning him; now upon this success magnify him.”
⚙ This is the FSSB's own fallible reading, offered under Sola Scriptura to be tested against the text. The chapter is built on a single exchange: a man who asks, and a man who is asked about. In v. 13 David puts to the Egyptian the question לְֽמִי־אַ֔תָּה — “to whom dost thou belong?” It is the only time in the unit anyone's ownership is raised, and it comes one verse after David has himself asked shâʼal of the LORD and been told what to do. Between those two questions the narrative places its real hinge. Amalek had a man and discarded him; David found the discarded man and fed him before he used him. The verb Amalek's master gets is ʻâzab (H5800), forsake. The verbs David's men get are nâthan, give, and shâqâh in the causative — they poured the water into him. And the whole promised deliverance, the doubled haṣṣêl taṣṣîl of v. 8 with no object attached, arrives by the mouth of a slave whom the enemy had written off as not worth a camel's space. The oracle said you shall surely deliver; the means of deliverance was a man nobody had delivered. ⚙ There is a second, quieter claim the chapter makes, and the FSSB states it as a reading and not as a fact of the text: the two hundred at Besor and the one Egyptian in the field are the same problem seen from either side. One group is pâgar, spent to the point of a carcass; one man is châlâh, worn out and left in a field. Amalek's answer to exhaustion is the roadside. David's answer, once at the wadi and once in the field, is to carry it — and then in vv. 21–25, past the edge of this unit, to legislate it. Under-claiming where the brief is silent: the text never says David fed the Egyptian out of principle, and never draws the parallel we have just drawn. It only arranges the events in that order.
The oracle promised deliverance with no object named; the object turned out to be a man the enemy had already thrown away.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Three names hold this verse to 1 Samuel 23:6: אֶבְיָתָ֤ר (ʼEbyâthâr, H54), אֲחִימֶ֔לֶךְ (ʼĂchîymelek, H288), and הָאֵפֹ֑ד (ʼêphôwd, H646). The Verifier confirms all three as shared lexemes. At Keilah Abiathar had come down to David with an ephod in his hand — the one object salvaged from Saul's slaughter of the priests at Nob. Barnes makes the continuity explicit: “Abiathar had continued to abide with David, ever since he joined him at Keilah.” Gill presses the providence harder, observing that had Abiathar and the ephod been left at Ziklag they would have been carried off with everyone else. K&D cross-refers the same text. ⚙ The recorded link is lexical and narrative, not a quotation: the writer of Samuel is resuming a thread he laid down seven chapters earlier, and doing it with the same three words.
1 Samuel 23:6
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H54 ʼEbyâthâr (in 28 vv), H288 ʼĂchîymelek (in 16 vv), H646 ʼêphôwd (in 39 vv) — three relatively rare lexemes, two of them proper names, co-occurring in both verses. This is a verbal (lexical) repetition within one author's narrative, not a quotation of one text by another; the tier is claimed on the rarity of the shared lexemes only.
צִמֻּקִים֙ (tsammûwq, H6778) occurs in four verses of the entire Hebrew Bible, and the Verifier finds three of them here: Abigail's provision that turns David back from bloodshed (1 Samuel 25:18), Ziba's provision on the flight from Absalom (2 Samuel 16:1), and the stores the tribes bring when they make David king at Hebron (1 Chronicles 12:40). In each the raisin-cakes are paired with לֶ֙חֶם֙ and, in two of them, with pressed figs. K&D and Cambridge both cross-refer this verse to 1 Samuel 25:18 on the fig-cake. ⚙ The same two-item field ration appears at the mercy that saves David from a massacre of his own making, at the rescue that hands him a victory, at his flight from his son, and at his coronation. The FSSB claims no typology here — only that the Hebrew has one word for this food and spends it almost entirely on David.
1 Samuel 25:18 · 2 Samuel 16:1 · 1 Chronicles 12:40
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H6778 tsammûwq (in 4 vv — rare) plus H3899 lechem (in 277 vv) across all three refs; H1690 dᵉbêlâh also shared with 1 Samuel 25:18. The rare lexeme carries the tier. No text quotes another; the link is verbal repetition of an uncommon noun.
דְּבֵלָ֜ה (dᵉbêlâh, H1690) appears in five verses. Two of the others are the same event told twice: Isaiah tells Hezekiah's servants to take a cake of figs and lay it on the boil, “and he recovered” (Isaiah 38:21; 2 Kings 20:7). Here a slice of the same pressed cake is put into a man three days without bread or water, and his spirit returned to him. ⚙ The FSSB deliberately declines the verbal tier for this pair despite the rarity of the shared lexeme. Nothing is quoted; the shared word is a foodstuff, and pressed figs were the ordinary preserved provision of the region. What is genuinely shared is a pattern — a dying man, a common thing applied, life returning — and a pattern is all we will claim.
Isaiah 38:21 · 2 Kings 20:7
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H1690 dᵉbêlâh (in 5 vv — rare). The lexeme's rarity would permit a verbal tier, but the FSSB downgrades: the shared word is a common commodity and neither text cites the other. Recorded as a motif link with a confirmed lexical basis.
The Egyptian's report names הַכְּרֵתִ֛י (Kᵉrêthîy, H3774), a lexeme found in only nine verses. The Verifier links this verse to 2 Samuel 20:7 and 1 Kings 1:38, where the Cherethites are David's own bodyguard under Benaiah and the escort at Solomon's anointing. K&D identifies them with the Kᵉrêthîm of Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5 and treats the name as synonymous with Philistines; Barnes proposes two kindred tribes “like Angles and Saxons”; Cambridge and Ellicott both note the possible tie to Crete, and K&D judges that derivation “without sufficient foundation.” Pulpit and Ellicott both connect David's later guard to his residence at Ziklag. ⚙ The narrative arc the shared lexeme exposes: the southern people whose territory is being plundered in this verse become, within a generation, the men standing between David's successor and a coup.
2 Samuel 20:7 · 1 Kings 1:38
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H3774 Kᵉrêthîy (in 9 vv — rare); 2 Samuel 20:7 also shares H7291 râdaph (in 135 vv) and 1 Kings 1:38 shares H3381 yârad (in 345 vv). The tier rests on the rare gentilic alone; the connection between the passages is narrative development, not citation.
Only two verses in Scripture carry פִּגְּר֔וּ (pâgar, H6296) — v. 10 and v. 21, where the same two hundred come out to meet the returning column and David must defend their share. Matthew Henry reads the fracture at Besor christologically and cites Paul: “The Son of David thus considers the frames of his followers, who are not all alike strong and vigorous in their spiritual pursuits and conflicts; but, where we are weak, there he is kind; nay more, there he is strong, 2Co 12:9,10.” ⚙ The FSSB records this as Henry's link and tiers it carefully. It is cross-Testament, Greek to Hebrew, so no shared Strong's number is possible and none is claimed; 2 Corinthians does not cite 1 Samuel, and 1 Samuel 30 is not read as weakness-made-strong anywhere in the New Testament. What is shared is a pattern of a leader's treatment of exhausted followers, and the attribution belongs to Henry, not to the apostle.
1 Samuel 30:21 · 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
basis: Within the Hebrew, Verifier: 1 Samuel 30:21 shares H5066 nâgash (in 112 vv), H7592 shâʼal (in 157 vv) and H5158 nachal (in 123 vv) with this unit, and the hapax-pair H6296 pâgar occurs only at 30:10 and 30:21 — a confirmed intra-unit verbal link. The 2 Corinthians leg is cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew), so shared Strong's numbers are impossible by construction; it is included on the authority of Matthew Henry's stated reading and tiered structural, never verbal.
Verse 18 names the enemy in the singular — עֲמָלֵ֑ק (ʻĂmâlêq, H6002), the nation, not the raiding party. The Verifier confirms that lexeme shared with 1 Samuel 15:3, Samuel's charge to Saul to strike Amalek and devote it, together with אִשָּׁה (ʼishshâh, H802) — the women who are named in the ban there and who are the recovered captives here. ⚙ The reading the FSSB offers, and offers as a reading: the reason there is an Amalekite force burning Ziklag and dragging David's household into the Negeb is that the ban of 1 Samuel 15 was not executed. Saul's disobedience cost him the kingdom in ch. 15; in ch. 30 it costs the man who will replace him his city, and the recovery of what Saul's mercy left alive is accomplished on the same day Saul dies on Gilboa. No commentator in this brief draws that line — Gill's nearest approach is his note at v. 11 citing Deuteronomy 25:19 to explain why an Egyptian could be fed where an Amalekite could not. The FSSB also records a negative result: asked to pair this unit with Exodus 17:13, the battle at Rephidim, the Verifier found no shared original-language lexeme and returned “flagged — verify source.” That older link, real as it may be thematically, is therefore not asserted here.
1 Samuel 15:3
basis: Verifier (pair check, run for this unit): shared Hebrew lexemes H6002 ʻĂmâlêq (in 37 vv) and H802 ʼishshâh (in 686 vv). Neither is rare enough to carry a verbal tier and neither text quotes the other, so the link is recorded as the shared national adversary and the shared category of captive women — a pattern link with a confirmed lexical basis. The Verifier returned no shared lexeme for Exodus 17:13, and that leg is deliberately omitted from refs.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
David as a type of the coming king is an ancient and widely-held reading, and the commentators in this brief work within it as a matter of course. Matthew Henry applies it to this specific scene: “David, in tenderness to his men, would by no means urge them beyond their strength. The Son of David thus considers the frames of his followers, who are not all alike strong and vigorous in their spiritual pursuits and conflicts.” ⚙ The FSSB marks the division of labour honestly. The type — David as the anointed but not-yet-enthroned king whose reign prefigures Christ's — is the common inheritance of the church. The particular application, that the two hundred pâgar men at Besor prefigure the weak among Christ's followers, is Henry's, and the FSSB has found no earlier attestation for it in this brief. What the text itself supplies is only the fact: David did not drive them, he left them the baggage, and in vv. 21–25 he made their share law.
1 Samuel 30:10 · 1 Samuel 30:21 · 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
Verse 19 is a merism sealed by a negative: וְלֹ֣א נֶעְדַּר־ — ʻădar (H5737) in the Nifal, nothing was missing — from the small to the great, sons and daughters, spoil and all; and then הֵשִׁ֥יב, the Hiphil of shûwb: David caused the whole of it to return. Gill: “not one missing.” Henry: “nothing was lost, but a great deal gained.” K&D: “so that nothing was missing.” The verb of the victory itself, twice in v. 18, is nâtsal — the same root the oracle had doubled in v. 8 before a single step was taken. ⚙ The FSSB offers this reading and marks it novel: the shape of the account is promise given without an itemised object, pursuit undertaken with a diminished force, and a recovery in which the ledger closes at zero loss. The FSSB has found no patristic or Reformation attestation in this brief for reading v. 19 against the Shepherd's “of all that he has given me I should lose none.” It is offered to be tested, and the reader should weigh that the two texts share no vocabulary, stand in different languages, and that neither the Gospel nor any commentator here draws the line.
1 Samuel 30:18-19 · John 6:39 · John 18:9
The turn of the chapter runs through a man with no name, no nation of his own in the story's terms, no property and no master willing to feed him. His own report is my master forsook me (ʻâzab, H5800). He is fed before he is questioned; he extracts an oath from the man who holds him; and he becomes the road to the enemy camp. Poole: “there is no fighting against God, who can make the smallest accidents serviceable to the production of the greatest effects.” Geneva: God “made him a guide to David to accomplish his enterprise.” Gill: he was “left to be the instrument of the just ruin of his master.” Ellicott states the mechanism from Amalek's side — their cruelty to their slaves “was the cause of their ultimate discomfiture.” ⚙ The FSSB's figural extension, marked novel: the pattern of a despised and abandoned man becoming the means of the promised deliverance is a shape the New Testament claims for Christ in the language of Psalm 118's rejected stone, and it is the shape of this chapter. But the commentators in this brief name providence, not typology, and they are right not to press further than the text does. The Egyptian is not a figure of Christ in any voice recorded here. He is a reminder that the deliverance promised in v. 8 came by a channel David could not have inquired about.
1 Samuel 30:11-16
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 Hebrew of this unit is largely untroubled, with two exceptions the commentators themselves flag. (1) v. 9–10: K&D notes that וְהַנּֽוֹתָרִ֖ים עָמָֽדוּ anticipates v. 10 and reads as a circumstantial clause; Thenius proposed emending, and K&D refuses on the ground that the early versions all read the received text and paraphrased to make sense of it. The Vulgate paraphrases (“and certain tired ones stayed”) and the Syriac rewrites to “David left two hundred men” — both are already attempts to smooth the same difficulty. (2) v. 20: Cambridge judges the verse “admits of no satisfactory explanation” as it stands and follows the Vulgate and the main sense of the Septuagint; K&D works the literal Hebrew through first and only then allows that liphnê may need to become liphnâw with the Vulgate and Luther; Ellicott and Pulpit both blame the A.V.'s italicised “which” rather than the Hebrew. The FSSB's literal rendering keeps the received consonants and leaves the difficulty visible. Cambridge also records that Septuagint B omits the raisins at v. 12.
Disputed within the brief. The sense of מֵהַנֶּ֥שֶׁף (nesheph, v. 17) is genuinely contested among the named voices: K&D rules it evening twilight and denies that Job 7:4 supports the dawn sense; Poole agrees, on the practical ground that David would want darkness to hide the size of his force; Ellicott follows Bishop Hervey for the morning twilight; Gill lays out both traditions and notes Josephus for the morning; Cambridge reconstructs a dawn-to-dusk battle on an inclusive Jewish day. No resolution is offered here. The identification of the wadi Besor is likewise unsettled — Cambridge says it “has not been identified with certainty,” and the Wady Sheriah / Wady Gaza proposals in Barnes, JFB, Ellicott and K&D are conjecture resting on an unlocated Ziklag. The Cherethite–Crete derivation is asserted by Ellicott and floated by Barnes, Cambridge and Pulpit, and rejected by K&D as “without sufficient foundation.”
Sources and limits. Scripture text is BSB (CC0); interlinear surfaces, transliterations, parsings and Strong's numbers are from the Berean interlinear; all ✦ quotations are verbatim contiguous substrings of public-domain commentary, selected by anchor and copied by tooling, never retyped. Thread bases marked “Verifier” are computed shared-Strong's results with frequencies as given. Benson's note on v. 8 reproduces Poole's almost verbatim and is flagged in place, so that one seventeenth-century observation is not counted twice. Gill's inference at v. 11 that an Amalekite in the same condition would have had to be killed under Deuteronomy 25:19 is his deduction from the ban, not a statement of this text. Every ⚙ paragraph in this unit is machine synthesis and fallible; where it reaches beyond what the brief supplies — the Besor/Egyptian parallel in the sola reading, the John 6/18 resonance, the figural reading of the Egyptian — it says so and marks itself novel.
✦ = 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)