A verse by verse commentary on 1 Samuel 25 dealing with David, Nabal the fool, and his wife Abigail who became David's wife.

1. 1 SAMUEL 25 COMMENTARY
WRITTEN AND EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
Would you believe a story where 400 angry warriors are on the war path
determined to kill every male in a certain community, and where the leader has
vowed to do it before a day has passed, and one woman had the power to meet them
on that war path, talk them out of it, stop them, turn them around, and save all
those men? That is the story of this chapter, and never will you find a woman who
was a greater heroin in preventing a slaughter of innocent people.
This is one of the most unusual chapters in the life of David, because it is not one in
which he is the hero, for his behavior leaves much to be desired. He was about to
commit an unjust murder that would damage his career, and make him an object of
God's judgment rather than an object of his favor. But a woman came riding to his
rescue, and she becomes the only hero, or heroin of this chapter. As Constable says,
"God used a woman to avert a tragedy in Israel's history, again (cf. Judg. 4; 2 Sam.
14:2-20; 20:16-22)."
Ray Pritchard writes, "In our survey of the early years of David’s life, we have come
to a little-known episode that ought to be better known. The story of David and
Nabal and Abigail is riveting. It’s got it all. There is intrigue, injustice, conflict,
anger, revenge, attempted murder, an impassioned plea, sudden death, and
unexpected romance. All in the same chapter! It’s like an episode of Baywatch or All
My Children, except that this story is entirely true."
This chapter is the story of a woman who turned a major massacure into a
wonderful wedding. She stood between two angry men who were acting foolish, and
by her wisdom she saved them both, one only for a short time, but the other to reign
as king for many years.
David, Nabal and Abigail
1 Now Samuel died, and all Israel assembled and
mourned for him; and they buried him at his
home in Ramah.
1

2. 1. The death of Samuel was a major event in Israel, for he was the last of the judges,
and it touched the entire nation. Saying all Israel assembled may be an
exaggeration, for that would be a crowd beyond belief, but it means that all Israel
recognized and honored Samuel, and all were in mourning for the loss of this great
man. Two books of the Bible are named after this man, and he is on the honored list
of men of great faith in Heb. 11:32. He is one of the few great men of Israel who did
not stumble in his faith or in his deeds, for he was a loyal servant of God and his
people all the way to the grave. He never gave his worship to any idol as so many
did, and he never deceived or cheated any man. In the list of the really good guys of
the Bible he ranks right up near the top. People say nice things like this at the
funerals of people who are far from ideal, but in this case it is for real. Some
calculate that he lived ninety-eight years.
2. Clarke in his commentary cannot say enough good things about this man. He
wrote, "Samuel is supposed to have been the first who established academies or
schools for prophets, at least we do not hear of them before his time; and it is
granted that they continued till the Babylonish captivity. This was a wise institution,
and no doubt contributed much to the maintenance of pure religion, and the
prevention of idolatry among that people. Samuel reformed many abuses in the
Jewish state, and raised it to a pitch of political consequence to which it had been
long a stranger. He was very zealous for the honour of God, and supported the
rights of pure religion, of the king, and of the people, against all encroachments. He
was chief magistrate in Israel before the appointment of a king, and afterwards he
acted as prime minister to Saul, though without being chosen or formally appointed
to that station. Indeed, he seems on the whole to have been the civil and
ecclesiastical governor, Saul being little more than general of the Israelitish forces.
In his office of minister in the state, he gave the brightest example of zeal, diligence,
inflexible integrity, and uncorruptedness. He reproved both the people and the king
for their transgressions, with a boldness which nothing but his sense of the Divine
authority could inspire, and yet he tempered it with a sweetness which showed the
interest he felt in their welfare, and the deep and distressing concern he felt for their
back-slidings and infidelities.
He was incorrupt; he received no man's bribe; he had no pension from the state; he
enriched none of his relatives from the public purse; left no private debts to be
discharged by his country. He was among the Hebrews what Aristides is said to
have been among the Greeks, so poor at his death, though a minister of state, that he
did not leave property enough to bury him. Justice was by him duly and impartially
administered, and oppression and wrong had no existence. If there ever was a
heaven-born minister, it was Samuel; in whose public and private conduct there was
no blemish, and whose parallel cannot be found in the ancient or modern history of
any country in the universe."
3. Gill wrote, "....and buried him in his house at Ramah;
2

3. where he lived and died; not that he was buried in his house, properly so called, or
within the walls of that building wherein he dwelt; though the Greeks F13 and
Romans F14 used to bury in their own dwelling houses; hence sprung the idolatrous
worship of the Lares, or household gods; but not the Hebrews, which their laws
about uncleanness by graves would not admit of, see (Numbers 19:15,18) ; but the
meaning is, that they buried him in the place where his house was, as Ben Gersom
interprets it, at Ramah, in some field or garden belonging to it. The author of the
Cippi Hebraici says {o}, that here his father Elkanah, and his mother Hannah, and
her two sons, were buried in a vault shut up, with, monuments over it; and here,
some say F16, Samuel's bones remained, until removed by Arcadius the emperor
into Thrace; Benjamin of Tudela reports F17, that when the Christians took
Ramlah, which is Ramah, from the Mahometans, they found the grave of Samuel at
Ramah by a synagogue of the Jews, and they took him out of the grave, and carried
him to Shiloh, and there built a large temple, which is called the Samuel of Shiloh to
this day:"
4. BENSON, "1 Samuel 25:1. And Samuel died — According to the best
chronologers, he governed Israel after the death of Eli sixteen years or upward, and
lived about forty years after in the reign of Saul; and all the Israelites lamented
him — It is no wonder that so wise and holy a man, so righteous a ruler, so just a
judge, and so enlightened a prophet, should be uncommonly and universally
lamented; especially when the wisdom and equity of his government, compared with
Saul’s tyranny and extravagance, made his memory more dear and his loss more
regretted. “Those have hard hearts,” says Henry, “that can bury their faithful
ministers with dry eyes, and are not sensible of the loss of them who have prayed for
them, and taught them the way of the Lord.” And buried him in his house in
Ramah — Where, it is likely, there was a burying-place for his family in some part
of his garden, or some field adjacent. For they had then no public places of
interment. He was now attended by all Israel to his grave, and his remains, many
centuries after, were removed with incredible pomp, and almost one continued train
of attendants, from Ramah to Constantinople, by the Emperor Arcadius, A.D. 401.
BARNES, “In his house at Ramah - Probably in the court or garden
attached to his dwelling-house. (Compare 2Ch_33:20; 2Ki_21:18; Joh_
19:41.)
The wilderness of Paran - The Septuagint has the far more probable
reading “Maon.” The wilderness of Paran lay far off to the south, on the
borders of the wilderness of Sinai Num_10:12; 1Ki_11:18, whereas the
following verse 1Sa_25:2 shows that the scene is laid in the immediate
neighborhood of Maon. If, however, Paran be the true reading, we must
suppose that in a wide sense the wilderness of Paran extended all the way to
the wilderness of Beersheba, and eastward to the mountains of Judah
(marginal references).
HENRY, “We have here a short account of Samuel's death and burial. 1.
Though he was a great man, and one that was admirably well qualified for
3

4. public service, yet he spent the latter end of his days in retirement and
obscurity, not because he was superannuated (for he knew how to preside
in a college of the prophets, 1Sa_19:20), but because Israel had rejected
him, for which God thus justly chastised them, and because his desire was
to be quiet and to enjoy himself and his God in the exercises of devotion now
in his advanced years, and in this desire God graciously indulged him. Let
old people be willing to rest themselves, though it look like burying
themselves alive. 2. Though he was a firm friend to David, for which Saul
hated him, as also for dealing plainly with him, yet he died in peace even in
the worst of the days of the tyranny of Saul, who, he sometimes feared,
would kill him, 1Sa_16:2. Though Saul loved him not, yet he feared him, as
Herod did John, and feared the people, for all knew him to be a prophet.
Thus is Saul restrained from hurting him. 3. All Israel lamented him; and
they had reason, for they had all a loss in him. His personal merits
commanded this honour to be done him at his death. His former services to
the public, when he judged Israel, made this respect to his name and
memory a just debt; it would have been very ungrateful to have withheld it.
The sons of the prophets had lost the founder and president of their college,
and whatever weakened them was a public loss. But that was not all: Samuel
was a constant intercessor for Israel, prayed daily for them, Joh_12:23. If
he go, they part with the best friend they have. The loss is the more grievous
at this juncture when Saul has grown so outrageous and David is driven
from his country; never more need of Samuel than now, yet now he is
removed. We will hope that the Israelites lamented Samuel's death the
more bitterly because they remembered against themselves their own sin
and folly in rejecting him and desiring a king. Note, (1.) Those have hard
hearts who can bury their faithful ministers with dry eyes, who are not
sensible of the loss of those who have prayed for them and taught them the
way of the Lord. (2.) When God's providence removes our relations and
friends from us we ought to be humbled for our misconduct towards them
while they were with us. 4. They buried him, not in the school of the
prophets at Naioth, but in his own house (or perhaps in the garden
pertaining to it) at Ramah, where he was born. 5. David, thereupon, went
down to the wilderness of Paran, retiring perhaps to mourn the more
solemnly for the death of Samuel. Or, rather, because now that he had lost
so good a friend, who was (and he hoped would be) a great support to him,
he apprehended his danger to be greater than ever, and therefore withdrew
to a wilderness, out of the limits of the land of Israel; and now it was that he
dwelt in the tents of Kedar, Psa_120:5. In some parts of this wilderness of
Paran Israel wandered when they came out of Egypt. The place would bring
to mind God's care concerning them, and David might improve that for his
own encouragement, now in his wilderness-state.
JAMISON, “1Sa_25:1-9. Samuel dies.
Samuel died — After a long life of piety and public usefulness, he left
behind him a reputation which ranks him among the greatest of Scripture
worthies.
buried him in his house at Ramah — that is, his own mausoleum. The
4

5. Hebrews took as great care to provide sepulchers anciently as people do in
the East still, where every respectable family has its own house of the dead.
Often this is in a little detached garden, containing a small stone building
(where there is no rock), resembling a house, which is called the sepulcher
of the family - it has neither door nor window.
David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran — This removal
had probably no connection with the prophet’s death; but was probably
occasioned by the necessity of seeking provision for his numerous
followers.
the wilderness of Paran — stretching from Sinai to the borders of
Palestine in the southern territories of Judea. Like other wildernesses, it
presented large tracts of natural pasture, to which the people sent their
cattle at the grazing season, but where they were liable to constant and
heavy depredations by prowling Arabs. David and his men earned their
subsistence by making reprisals on the cattle of these freebooting
Ishmaelites; and, frequently for their useful services, they obtained
voluntary tokens of acknowledgment from the peaceful inhabitants.
K&D, “The death of Samuel is inserted here, because it occurred at that
time. The fact that all Israel assembled together to his burial, and lamented
him, i.e., mourned for him, was a sign that his labours as a prophet were
recognised by the whole nation as a blessing for Israel. Since the days of
Moses and Joshua, no man had arisen to whom the covenant nation owed so
much as to Samuel, who has been justly called the reformer and restorer of
the theocracy. They buried him “in his house at Ramah.” The expression
“his house” does not mean his burial-place or family tomb, nor his native
place, but the house in which he lived, with the court belonging to it, where
Samuel was placed in a tomb erected especially for him. After the death of
Samuel, David went down into the desert of Paran, i.e., into the northern
portion of the desert of Arabia, which stretches up to the mountains of
Judah (see at Num_10:12); most likely for no other reason than because he
could no longer find sufficient means of subsistence for himself and his six
hundred men in the desert of Judah.
BI, “And Samuel died, and all the Israelites were gathered together and
lamented him.
“When I die, will I be missed?”
“And Samuel died; and all Israel lamented him.” What an epitaph! What a
character to have deserved such an epitaph! The humblest mortal can so
live as to leave a gap when he goes—a fact we realise with difficulty, for we
say, “Oh! the great ones are missed, but I am poor and humble; my
attainments are so insignificant.” No life need be insignificant. “And Samuel
died; and all Israel lamented for him.” Some poor housewife in far
Beersheba, who had never been five miles from home, when the word
comes that Samuel is dead, she goes to the corner, lifts her apron to her
eyes and weeps. Such is the result of a good life. We do not know how far its
influence may travel. Are we not all of us largely influenced by men and
5

6. women whose faces we have never seen, whose voices we have never heard?
Do they not lead us, cheer us, inspire us on our way?
1. The self-forgetting life. We want to learn to do good quietly,
unostentatiously.
2. Joy in daily tasks.
3. Disinterested virtue. To live a good life in order to be missed, and
nothing more, is one thing. But to live it without any such intention is
another. Our virtue must be disinterested.
4. The life of service. So we speak of the useful life as the true one. The
ideal life is that of consecrated service. Is there anyone living in
loneliness who will say: “When I had not a friend in the world, when I
came up from come country place and went into a certain church, that
man befriended me?”
5. Active religion. “And Samuel died, and all Israel wept for him.” We,
too, must die. Will men weep for us? Will the world be sorry or will he
clap his hands? (Ebenezer Rees.)
Then David moved down into the Desert of
Maon.
1. Samuel was David's good friend, and he was the one who anointed him king in
the place of Saul, and he was one David could run to when Saul sought to kill him,
and now that he was gone it could be that Saul would make even greater efforts to
get rid of him, and so he moves down into a desert area, which was a good place of
hiding.
2. William Taylor wrote, "But his grief for the loss of Samuel, great as it was, could
not be allowed to interfere with the taking of those precautions which were needed
to insure his own safety. Accordingly, that he might keep out of the way of Saul, he
led his men to the wilderness of Paran. This name was given to the entire tract of
country south of Judah, extending from the Dead Sea to the peninsula of Sinai and
the desert of Egypt ; so that in its largest sense it included the deserts of Kadesh and
Sin. Nearly all the wanderings of the children of Israel were in the great and terrible
wilderness of Paran. But in the present narrative it seems to be restricted to the
most northerly portion of this desert, lying to the west of the lower part of the Dead
Sea, where the waste changes gradually into an uninhabited pasture-land, in which,
at least in
spring and autumn, many herds might feed."
6

7. COFFMAN, "Verse 1
DRASTIC CHANGES IN DAVID'S SITUATION
The changes referred to in our title of this chapter include (1) the death of the
prophet Samuel, David's truest friend and ally; (2) the increasing difficulty of
providing supplies for his growing band of followers; (3) the renewal of Saul's
efforts to hunt him down and kill him; (4) his withdrawal to the wilderness of
Paran; and (5) his acquisition of Nabal's estate through marriage to Abigail.
THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF SAMUEL
"Now Samuel died; and all Israel assembled and mourned for him, and they buried
him in his house at Ramah."
Critical scholars complain that this verse is an insertion by some later hand, but
there is no solid evidence whatever to back up such opinions. Keil remarked that,
"The death of Samuel is inserted here, because it occurred at that time."[1] Also,
present-day scholars of the highest rank confirm that understanding.
"Chronologically, Samuel died while David and his men were at Engedi,"[2] and
this accounts for the fact that, immediately, "David thought that he needed to move
farther to the southwest in the fear that Samuel's death might give Saul new
stimulus to try to get rid of him."[3]
"They buried him in his house at Ramah." The meaning of this is uncertain because
in 2 Chronicles 3:20, it is recorded that Manasseh was buried "in his house"; but
the parallel passage in 2 Kings 21:18, states that the burial was "in the garden of his
house." Furthermore, the burial of a dead body in Samuel's house would have made
the place ceremonially "unclean" in perpetuity. In the light of these reasons, we
believe that Samuel was buried in the garden or the courtyard of his residence.
1 Samuel 25:1-2
DAVID WITHDRAWS TO THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN
"Then David rose and went down to the wilderness of Paran. And there was a man
in Maon, whose business was in Carmel. The man was very rich. He had three
thousand sheep and a thousand goats. He was shearing his sheep in Carmel."
"To the wilderness of Paran" (1 Samuel 25:1b). "In a wide sense, the wilderness of
Paran extended all the way to the wilderness of Beersheba and eastward to the
mountains of Judah."[4] This makes it unnecessary to follow such renditions as
those of the Jerusalem Bible and the New International Version which render the
passage: "The wilderness of Maon." The wilderness of Maon was on the edge of the
much larger wilderness of Paran; and it should be noted that the text does not say
7

8. that David entered the wilderness of Paran, but that, "he went down to it." This he
did when he was in the wilderness of Maon. Since this smaller wilderness adjoined
the much larger wilderness of Paran, David was in a position to retreat farther out
of Saul's reach if necessary.
Nabal is introduced here, though not by name, as a very rich man whose residence
was in Carmel, but whose great flocks of sheep and goats were in the wilderness of
Maon. "Carmel is the modern Kermel, between Ziph and Maon."[5] Of course, this
is a different Carmel from Mount Carmel on the Mediterranean coast.
ELLICOTT, “Introduction
EXCURSUS J: ON THE ESPECIAL VALUE OF THE EPISODE OF ABIGAIL
AND NABAL (1 Samuel 25).
We perhaps ask, What were the reasons which induced the inspired compiler of
these records of the history of Israel, among the materials, no doubt, present in
abundance to his hand, to relate the especial episode contained in this chapter in
such detail of the life of David when chief of an outlaw band? The incidents seem at
first sight trivial, scarcely worthy the important place they occupy in the Book of
Samuel, and they certainly were not chosen with a view to exalt David’s character.
In a singularly vivid way, however, they picture the future king’s life during those
days of temptation and anxiety, and show how well he used his position to win the
affections of the people as chieftain of a powerful and somewhat reckless band. He
seems to have acted as the protector and generous helper of all scattered dwellers in
the southern part of Canaan. In a former chapter—in his rescue of the men of
Keilah—it was the corn growers; in this section it is a great sheep-master whose
herds and flocks he is represented as having long protected. The people during the
latter years of King Saul’s reign were terribly exposed, not only to the Philistine
encroachments, but also to the repeated and destructive forays of the powerful
nomadic tribes bordering on the “Land of Promise.” Another reason which seems to
have induced the selection of this episode of Nabal and Abigail is supplied by the
character of Abigail, who represents evidently a type of the Hebrew woman of the
higher classes of that period. The influence of the schools of the prophets instituted
by Samuel and of the prophetic order had already begun to be felt, and the result
was that a loftier tone of morality and nobler and higher views of life began to be
cultivated through the people. Abigail had doubtless learned her beautiful creed,
her implicit trust in the Eternal Friend of Israel, her clear perception of truth and
honour, from the Ramah schools of Samuel the seer.
But if we read carefully between the lines of the seemingly simple, almost childish,
story, there is yet another reason for its having been selected by the Divinely helped
compiler as a portion of the book which is to endure for ever. The question of the
future life—the life, after death has dissolved the union between soul and body—is
but little dwelt on in the earlier of the Divine records. God’s revelation here was
gradual. It is true that from the earliest chapters of Genesis the glorious hope of an
8

9. endless life with God casts its bright light upon the present dark and shadowed
existence; but still, comparatively little information seems to have been given even to
the patriarchs on this subject. It was there certainly; a glorious hereafter lay in the
far background of the present life, but no more seems to have been taught. In the
words of Abigail to David there is, however, an indication that already a distinct
advance had been made in Divine revelation on this subject. In the Notes on 1
Samuel 25:29 of this chapter, the bearing of Abigail’s words on the future of the
human soul and on the question of the eternal life are discussed. It is more than
strange how modern Christian commentators have missed the momentous teaching
of the words in question. They would have done wisely had they searched a little
among the great Hebrew commentators, who, as might be expected, in a passage
where their eyes were not blinded by any false national prejudices, have caught the
true meaning, and seen something of the extraordinary beauty of the teaching,
scarcely veiled by the homeliness of the imagery. The presence of this passage (in 1
Samuel 25:29) especially, I venture to think, influenced the compiler of the Books of
Samuel to insert the Nabal and Abigail episode in his history.
EXCURSUS K: ON THE WORK OF SAMUEL (1 Samuel 25).
After the death of Eli, the capture of the Ark, and the sack of Shiloh—the old
religious capital of the land, and the residence for many years of the high priest and
judge—the fortunes of Israel were at their lowest ebb. There was no Sanctuary, no
religious life among the people. The Law of Moses was, save by a few scattered
families, almost forgotten. Its precepts, as well as its moral ceremonies, were wholly
ignored, and with the religious life the national life was quickly dying altogether out
of Israel. It appeared to be the destiny of the people soon to be swallowed up among
the Philistines and other native peoples. From this abyss of degradation Samuel
raised the tribes. (1) He kept alive and fanned the dying spark of the old love of
Israel for their God. (2) Instead of restoring the fallen Sanctuary and the elaborate
system of ceremonial religion, he created the Prophetic Schools, whose work was to
teach Israel who and what they really were—the chosen people—and for what high
ends they had been so strangely favoured and assisted; and so he led the people
back to God. (3) As the old religious life was slowly awakened out of its deadly
torpor, the old national life seemed at the same time also to awaken. In Israel the
latter was necessarily inseparable from the former. Then Samuel gave them a king
to consolidate their national life, which had almost ceased to exist. The scattered
tribes, as they awoke to the knowledge of that mighty God who loved them so well,
were taught by the presence of a king that they were one nation, and that from Dan
to Beersheba they had one common interest, one common work. The restoration of
the Sanctuary and the ceremonial religion was also necessary, but it must be a later
work, and one which could only follow the national and religious restoration of
Samuel. This was accomplished by Samuel’s pupil, David.
Verse 1
(1) And Samuel died.—At this period—namely, about the time when Saul and
David met at En-gedi—died Samuel, full of years and honour—perhaps rather than
9

10. honours, for a long time the old prophet had lived apart from the court, and
alienated from the king he had chosen and anointed. Since Moses, none so great as
Samuel had arisen. Briefly to recapitulate his work: his influence had in great
measure restored the Law of Moses to the affections of the people. Before his time,
the words and traditions which the great lawgiver, amidst the supernatural terrors
of Sinai, had with some success impressed upon the great nomadic tribe of the Beni-
Israel were almost forgotten; and the people among whom, for a long period, no
really great leader had sprung up were becoming rapidly mixed up, and soon would
have been hardly distinguished from the warlike tribes of Canaan in the
neighbouring countries. But Samuel, aided by his great natural genius, but far more
by the Glorious Arm, on which he leaned with a changeless trust from childhood to
extreme old age, quickened into life again the dying traditions of the race, and
taught them who they—the down-trodden Israelites—really were—the chosen of
God. He restored the forgotten laws of Moses, by the keeping of which they once
became great and powerful, and by the creation of an earthly monarchy he welded
into one the separate interests of the twelve divisions of the race; so that from Dan to
Beersheba there was but one chief, one standard. But his greatest work was the
foundation of the Prophetic Schools, in which men were trained and educated
carefully, with the view of the pupils becoming in their turn the teachers and guides
of the people. (These schools, which exercised so great an influence upon the future
of Israel, and their especial character have been already discussed.)
And all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented him.—“When the hour
of his death came, we are told, with a peculiar emphasis of expression, that all the
Israelites—not one portion or fragment only, as might have been expected in that
time of division and confusion—were gathered together round him who had been
the father of all alike, and lamented him, and buried him, not in any sacred spot or
secluded sepulchre, but in the midst of the home which he had consecrated only by
his own long, unblemished career in his house at Ramah.”—Stanley, Jewish
Church, Lect. 18 Josephus makes especial mention of the public funeral honours
paid to the great prophet. “They wept for him a very great number of days, not
looking on it as a sorrow for the death of another man, but as that in which they
were all concerned. He was a righteous man, and gentle in his nature, and on that
account he was very dear to God.”—Antt. vi. 13, § 5. F. W. Krummacher beautifully
writes on this public lamentation. “It was as if from the noble star, as long as it
shone in the heaven of the Holy Land, though veiled by clouds, there streamed a
mild, beneficial light over all Israel; now the light was extinguished in Israel.” It is
probable by “in his house,” the court or garden attached to the prophet’s house is
signified. To have buried him literally in his house would have occasioned perpetual
ceremonial defilement. We read also of Manasseh the king being “buried in his own
house” (2 Chronicles 33:20), which is explained in 2 Kings 21:18 by the words, “in
the garden of his own house.” In modern times Samuel’s grave is pointed out in a
cave underneath the floor of the Mahommedan Mosque on Nebi Samuel, a lofty
peak above Gibeon, which still bears his honoured name. There is, however, a
tradition that his remains—or what purported to be his remains—were removed
with royal pomp from Ramah to Constantinople by the Emperor Arcadius, at the
10

11. beginning of the fifth century.
The wilderness of Paran.—The LXX. (Vatican) read “Maon” instead of “Paran,”
not conceiving it probable that the scene of David’s camp would be so far removed
from Maon and Carmel, the localities where the following events took place.
“Paran” is properly the south of the Arabian peninsula, west of Sinai; “but it seems
to have given its name to the vast extent of pasture and barren land now known as
the Desert of El Tih. Of this the wilderness of Judah and Beersheba would virtually
form part, without the borders being strictly defined. The LXX. emendation,
therefore, is quite unnecessary.—Dean Payne Smith.
2 A certain man in Maon, who had property there
at Carmel, was very wealthy. He had a thousand
goats and three thousand sheep, which he was
shearing in Carmel.
In contrast to Samuel who was a great man of God, yet never got rich, here we have
a man who was just the opposite, and yet he did get rich. His name was Nabal, and
he was the king of fools in the Bible. He was one of the worst men that we have on
record in God's Word, and yet he had every blessing that a man could ever dream of
having. He was rich in the wealth of the world, and on top of that he had one of the
most beautiful and intelligent wives in all the Bible. He had it all, and yet he was a
stupid and ornery man with not a drop of goodness in his mean heart. He is one of
the great paradoxes of life, for he was powerfully rich and yet pathetically poor at
the same time. He had the riches of wealth, but he lived in poverty of soul. He had
none of the riches that make a person attractive, such as goodness of character.
BARNES, “Carmel - Not Mount Carmel on the west of the plain of
Esdraelon, but the Carmel close to Maon (marginal references).
Shearing his sheep - Which was always a time of open-handed hospitality
among flock-masters Gen_38:12-13; 2Sa_13:23-24.
GILL, “And there was a man in Maon,.... A city of the tribe of Judah, from
whence the wilderness had its name before mentioned; of which place, see
11

12. Jos_15:55; though Ben Gersom takes it to signify a dwelling place; and that
this is observed to show, that he did not dwell in a city, but had his
habitation where his business lay, which was in Carmel, where his fields,
gardens, and vineyards were: wherefore it follows:
whose possessions were in Carmel; not Carmel in the tribe of Issachar, but
in the tribe of Judah, not far from Maon, and are mentioned together; see
Gill on Jos_15:55; his cattle were there, his sheep particularly, for they are
afterwards said to be shorn there; or "his work" (r); his agriculture, his
farming, where he was employed, or employed others in sowing seed, and
planting trees:
and the man was very great; in worldly substance, though not in natural
wisdom and knowledge, and especially in true religion and piety:
and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats; so the substance of
men in those times was generally described by the cattle they had, whether
of the herd or flock, in which it chiefly lay:
and he was shearing his sheep in Carmel; which was the custom in Judea
and Syria, and was a very ancient one, as early as the times of Judah, yea, of
Laban, see Gen_31:19; though the old Romans used to pluck off the wool
from the sheep's backs; hence a fleece of wool was called "vellus a
vellendo", from the plucking it off; and Pliny says (s), in his time, that sheep
were not shorn everywhere, but in some places the custom of plucking off
the wool continued; and who elsewhere observes (t), that the time of
shearing was in June or July, or thereabouts; at which times a feast was
made, and it is for the sake of that this is observed.
HENRY, “Here begins the story of Nabal.
I. A short account of him, who and what he was (1Sa_25:2, 1Sa_25:3), a man
wee should never have heard of if there had not happened some
communication between him and David. Observe, 1. His name: Nabal - a
fool; so it signifies. It was a wonder that his parents would give him that
name and an ill omen of what proved to be this character. Yet indeed we all
of us deserve to be so called when we come into the world, for man is born
like the wild ass's colt and foolishness is bound up in our hearts.
JAMISON, “in Carmel — now Kurmul. The district takes its name from
this town, now a mass of ruins; and about a mile from it is Tell Main, the
hillock on which stood ancient Maon.
the man was very great — His property consisted in cattle, and he was
considered wealthy, according to the ideas of that age.
K&D, “The following history of Nabal's folly, and of the wise and generous
behaviour of his pious and intelligent wife Abigail towards David, shows
how Jehovah watched over His servant David, and not only preserved him
from an act of passionate excitement, which might have endangered his
12

13. calling to be king of Israel, but turned the trouble into which he had been
brought into a source of prosperity and salvation.
1Sa_25:2-3
At Maon, i.e., Main or the mountains of Judah (see at Jos_15:55), there
lived a rich man (‫ֹול‬‫ד‬ָ‫,גּ‬ great through property and riches), who had his
establishment at Carmel. ‫ה‬ ֶ‫שׂ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ַ‫,מ‬ work, occupation, then establishment,
possessions (vid., Exo_23:15). Carmel is not the promontory of that name
(Thenius), but the present Kurmul on the mountains of Judah, scarcely half
an hour's journey to the north-west of Maon (see at Jos_15:55). This man
possessed three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and was at the
sheep-shearing at Carmel. 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. His wife Abigail was “of good understanding,” i.e.,
intelligent, “and of beautiful figure;” but the husband was “harsh and evil
in his doings.” He sprang from the family of Caleb. This is the rendering
adopted by the Chaldee and Vulgate, according to the Keri ‫י‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ָ‫.כּ‬ The
Chethibh is to be read ‫ֹו‬‫בּ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ָ‫,כּ‬ “according to his heart;” though the lxx (ἄνθρωπος
κυνικός) and Josephus, as well as the Arabic and Syriac, derive it from ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫,כּ‬
and understand it as referring to the dog-like, or shameless, character of
the man.
3 His name was Nabal and his wife's name was
Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful
woman, but her husband, a Calebite, was surly
and mean in his dealings.
If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all is a
common saying, but it does not always apply, for sometimes you have to put labels
on people who are conspicuous for their folly and meanness. The Bible tells it like it
is, and here is a case in point. Nabal was just not nice. His servant called him a fool,
and his wife called him a fool, and apparently his parents did the same, for his name
means fool. He may have been a cute little fool as a baby, but he grew up to be a full
grown ugly fool who takes the prize for being the most stupid man David ever came
across. One author adds this to his reputation: "The text informs us that he is a
13

14. harsh and evil man. The Hebrew word translated as harsh has a variety of meanings
including: churlish, cruel, grievous, hard (hearted), heavy, obstinate, rough, stiff
(necked), stubborn, and trouble. Are you starting to see the picture? This man was
rotten to the core! In vs. 17, his own household says, “he is such a worthless man
that no one can speak to him.”
Then to add to the insults, the man was a Calebite, and Caleb signifies dog, and the
Septuagint implies by it that Nabal was a man with a canine disposition. He was a
doggish man, and not a nice dog, but the kind that calls for a beware sign on the
fence holding him back from a vicious attack. Some render it, "he was snappish as a
dog." Roe says, "The word "dog," is Hebrew for the cur that roams the streets and
eats garbage; a vicious, ugly, mangy beast. Nabal is a capable mangy beast. He has
acted like it. He has proven it." Pink says, "He was a descendant of Caleb, which is
mentioned here as an aggravation of his wickedness: that he should be the
degenerate plant of so noble a vine." Nabal was not just a fool in the sense of being
brainless in the way he thought, but it means he was evil in his thinking and choices.
JON D. LEVENSON wrote, "The characterization of Nabal begins with his very
name, which is, in fact, a form of character assassination. The Hebrew word nâbâl,
often translated as "fool," designates not a harmless simpleton, but rather a vicious,
materialistic, and egocentric misfit." He was the kind of fool that Isaiah spoke of in
Isa. 32:5-7,
"5 No longer will the fool be called noble
nor the scoundrel be highly respected.
6 For the fool speaks folly,
his mind is busy with evil:
He practices ungodliness
and spreads error concerning the LORD;
the hungry he leaves empty
and from the thirsty he withholds water.
7 The scoundrel's methods are wicked,
he makes up evil schemes
to destroy the poor with lies,
even when the plea of the needy is just."
Henry wrote, "His family: He was of the house of Caleb, but was indeed of another
spirit. He inherited Caleb's estate; for Maon and Carmel lay near Hebron, which
was given to Caleb (Joshua 14:14,15:54,55), but he was far from inheriting his
virtues. He was a disgrace to his family, and then it was no honour to him.
Degeneranti genus opprobrium--A Good extraction is a reproach to him who
degenerates from it. The LXX., and some other ancient versions, read it
appellatively, not, He was a Calebite, but He was a dogged man, of a currish
disposition, surly and snappish, and always snarling. He was anthropos kynikos--a
man that was a cynic."
14

15. CLARKE, “The name of the man was Nabal - The word ‫נבל‬ nabal signifies to
be foolish, base, or villanous; and hence the Latin word nebulo, knave, is
supposed to be derived.
The name of his wife Abigail - The joy or exultation of my father. A woman
of sense and beauty, married to the boor mentioned above, probably
because he was rich. Many women have been thus sacrificed.
Of the house of Caleb - ‫כלבי‬ ‫והוא‬ vehu Chalibbi, “he was a Calebite.” But as the
word caleb signifies a dog, the Septuagint have understood it as implying a
man of a canine disposition, and translate it thus, και ὁ ανθρωπος κυνικος, he
was a doggish man. It is understood in the same way by the Syriac and
Arabic.
GILL, “Now the name of the man was Nabal,.... Which signifies a "fool"; one
would think his parents should not give him this name, though it is a name
proper enough to men in common; and Kimchi thinks this was a nickname,
which men gave him agreeably to his genius and conduct, and which is not
improbable:
and the name of his wife Abigail; which signifies "my father's joy", he
delighting in her for her wit and beauty, as follows:
and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful
countenance; she was not only of a good understanding in things natural,
civil, and domestic, but in things spiritual, as her speech to David shows,
and which, with her external form, completed her character, and greatly
recommended her; which is the character Aelianus (u) gives of Aspasia,
wise and fair:
but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; morose and ill natured in
the temper and disposition of his mind, and wicked in his conversation, and
fraudulent and oppressive in his dealings with men:
and he was of the house of Caleb; or he was a Calebite (w), a descendant of
that great and good man Caleb the son of Jephunneh; which was an
aggravation of his wickedness, that he should be the degenerate plant of
such a noble vine: some interpret it, he was as his heart, as his heart was
bad, so was he; some men, their outside is better than their inside; but this
man was no hypocrite, he was as bad outwardly as he was inwardly: the
word "Caleb" sometimes signifies a dog; hence the Septuagint version
renders it, a doggish man, a cynic; and to the same purpose are the Syriac
and Arabic versions; and so some Jewish writers interpret it; but the
Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, supply it as we do, that he was of the house or
family of Caleb, and so of the tribe of Judah, as David was.
JAMISON, “he was of the house of Caleb — of course, of the same tribe
15

16. with David himself; but many versions consider Caleb (“dog”) not as a
proper, but a common noun, and render it, “he was snappish as a dog.”
Talk about a mis-matched marriage, for she was everything he was not. He was a
fool, and that does not mean in Hebrew that he had a low IQ, but that he lacked the
skills necessary to get along with people, and to get them to like and appreciate
knowing him. Abigail was just that kind of person, for she could solve personal
problems and a crisis like we have in this chapter with her diplomacy and kindness.
She is liked from the moment she is met. So we have here the marriage of the jerk
and the jewel, the beauty and the beast. Constable wrote, "The contrast between
Nabal and Abigail could not be stronger. He was foolish; she was wise. He was evil;
she was good. He was repulsive; she was attractive. He was arrogant; she was
humble. He was ungodly; she was godly. He was antagonistic; she was peacemaking.
They were one of the mismatched odd couples of the books of Samuel along with
Hannah and Elkanah, and David and Michal. The rabbis considered Abigail one of
seven women in the Old Testament whom the Holy Spirit had graced unusually.
Someone else said, "We have the story of the princess who kissed the toad and he
stayed a toad." Another said, "A Proverbs 31 Woman Married to an April 1st
Man" If archaeologists could ever find Abigail's diary, they might find something
like this bedtime prayer for women.
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray for a man, who's not a creep.
One who's handsome, smart and strong,
One who will love me all day long.
One who thinks before he speaks,
When he promises to call, he won't wait weeks.
I pray that he is gainfully employed,
And when I spend his cash he won't be annoyed.
One who pulls out my chair & opens my door,
massages my back & begs to do more.
Oh! Send me a man who will make love to my mind.
Knows just what to say when I ask, "How big is my behind?
I pray that this man will love me to no end,
And will always and ever be my best friend.
And as I kneel and pray by my bed,
I look at the BoneHead you sent me instead!!!
Women don't make fools of men.
16

17. Most of them are the do-it-yourself types.
Amen Author unknown
2B. A woman was walking along the beach when she stumbled upon a Genie's lamp.
She picked it up and rubbed it, and lo-and-behold a Genie appeared.
The amazed woman asked if she got three wishes.
The Genie said, "Nope. . . due to inflation, constant downsizing, low wages in third-
world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So. . .
what'll it be?"
The woman didn't hesitate. She said,
"I want peace in the Middle East. See this map? I want these countries to stop
fighting with each other."
The Genie looked at the map and exclaimed, "Gadzooks,lady! These countries have
been at war for thousands of years. I'm good but not THAT good! I don't think it
can be done. Make another wish."
The woman thought for a minute and said, "Well, I've never been able to find the
right man. You know, one that's considerate and fun, likes to cook and helps with
the housecleaning, is good in bed and gets along with my family, doesn't watch
sports all the time,and is faithful. That's what I wish for, a good mate."
The Genie let out a long sigh and said,"Let me see that map again!"
3. It is guys like Nabal who give the male sex a bad reputation, and make male and
husband bashing so popular. It is guys like him who lend credibility to the bad
things that women say of men, such things as-
So many men - so little aspirin.
Women are born with something men will never possess: a clue!
What should you give a man who has everything?
A woman to show him how to work it.
What's the difference between Big Foot and an intelligent man?
Big Foot has been spotted several times.
Why are men like guns?
Keep one around long enough, and eventually you're going to want to shoot it.
The trouble with some women is that they get all excited about nothing and then
they marry him.
17

18. Victor yap has this valuable information compiled: "Nabal's wife, Abigail, was more
outstanding than other biblical beauties. She was one of the six Old Testament
beauties, along with Sarai (Gen 12:11), Rachel (Gen 29:17), Tamar (2 Sam 13:1,
14:27), Abishag (1 Kings 1:3) and Esther (Est 2:7), who was described as beautiful
in Hebrew with one exception: she was not just beauty, but beauty and brains.
Abigail is the only beauty in the Bible praised for her intelligence and beauty in the
same sentence or in one breath, and noted for her intelligence first and beauty
second. The Hebrew text extolled her for her good understanding. Not only was she
the first person in the Bible noted for her intelligence, she was the only known
individual with having good understanding in Hebrew (v 3), not just
understanding. She had something money cannot buy, makeup cannot provide, and
men cannot repress, and something more powerful than muscles, bodyguards, and
weapons to accompany her: brains. She was smart in the head, swift on her feet, and
sharp with her words."
How then did this prize of a woman ever wind up married to a rich jerk like Nabal?
The old commentator Trapp also asks, "But what meant her father to match her to
such an ill-conditioned churl? It is likely he married her to the wealth, not to the
man. Many a child is cast away upon riches." My own theory is that it was an
arranged marriage. Her parents saw that he was wealthy, and with little
understanding of how worthless wealth can be without love, they arranged for her
to marry him. She had little choice, and was stuck with him. She was a buried
treasure being wasted on the likes of him, and God in his providence saw a way to
rescue her and give her a life that she deserved with her beauty, intelligence, and
people skills. She had so much to thank God for in delivering her from a life of
bondage to a mean fool, and giving her the chance to serve as the wife of the king of
Israel. This was more than she was praying for, I am sure, but God thought she was
worth the bonus.
Pink sees a lesson here for parents to think about when they name a child. He
wrote, "What was in the heads of his parents to name a child fool? Come here you
little fool, or go out and play fool. Don’t you think this might have had some
influence on the way he grew up? Stupid names are a great affliction that parents
force upon innocent children. And so we have the folly of naming children
according to stupid whims of the parents." The world is full of innocent children
who have had foolish names branded on them for life, and it has led to much
embarrassment and teasing, and often leads to a loss of self esteem. How could it not
for a boy to be named fool? It was no doubt so cute and funny as a small boy, but
here we see the results. Someone wrote, "I Know of a woman who called her three
children Portia, Bentley and Mercedes... (girl-boy-girl)" Cute, but stupid.
Just in case you think that Nabal's parents were the only ones to do such a thing,
look at this:
Top 20 Most Unusual Celebrity Baby Names
18

19. 1. Audio Science. Parent: Shannyn Sossamon
2. Blue Angel. Parent: The Edge (from U2)
3. God’iss Love Stone. Parent: Lil’ Mo
4. Heavenly Hiraana Tiger Lily. Parent: Michael Hutchence and Paula Yates.
5. Jermajesty. Parent: Jermaine Jackson
6. Kal-el. Parent: Nicholas Cage.
(Kat-el is Superman’s birthname).
7. Memphis Eve. Parent: Bono (U2)
8. Messiah Ya’majesty. Parent: T.I. (Atlanta Rapper)
9. Moxie Crimefighter. Parent: Penn Gillette
10. O’shea. Parent: Ice Cube
11. O’shun. Parent: Tamika Scott (Xscape)
O’shitt. (Sooner or later, some celeb will use this for an unplanned kid).
12. Peaches Honeyblossom. Parent: Bob Geldoff
13. Pilot Inspektor. Parent: Jason Lee
(Gee, how can I really mess up my child without doing anything illegal? GOT IT!)
14. Poppy Honey. Parent: Jamie Oliver.
15. Reign Beau. Parent: Ving Rhames.
(I would make a joke here but Ving Rhames is a big dude. Great names, sir).
16. Seven Sirius. Parents: Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000) and Erykah Badu
17. Sy’rai. Parent: Brandy
18. Starlite Melody. Parent: Marisa Berenson
19. Spec Wildhorse (son) Parent: John Cougar Mellencamp
20. Missing
"Parents are increasingly opting for unusual names to allow their children to stand
out from the crowd. Ikea, Moet, Bambi and Skylark have all been registered in
Britain in the last 12 months." Recent studies show that parents are having regrets
about the name they chose for their child, and they are changing them, and
sometimes more than just once. This has a negative impact on a child's identity, but
parents are searching for just the very best name to assure their child will be a
success. Much wiser are those who give a child a normal name that is easy for
everyone to love.
William Taylor refers to Nabal as having "Scottish habits." This is funny, for he
was afraid to let go of a few pennies compared to his fortune to help hungry men
who were a blessing to him. He was a miser, and a stingy rich man, but why call him
one with Scottish habits. It is a play on the age long joke that Scots have a hard time
letting go of their pennies, or any other coin for that matter. It has become a major
source of humor, even though it is not funny when you are on David's side dealing
with such so called Scottish habits. Some example of Scottish stinginess are these:
"The Scots have an infallible cure for sea-sickness. They lean over the side of the
ship with a ten pence coin in their teeth."
19

20. "In some Scottish restaurants they heat the knives so you can't use too much
butter."
You should be careful about stereotyping the Scots as mean. There was a recent
letter to a newspaper from an Aberdonian which said "If you print any more jokes
about mean Scotsmen I shall stop borrowing your paper."
COFFMAN, "Verse 3
NABAL AND ABIGAIL ARE IDENTIFIED
"Now the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail. The woman
was of good understanding and beautiful, but the man was churlish and he was a
Calebite."
"Nabal" means "obstinate fool,"[6] and Abigail means, "the joy of her father."[7] It
seems most unlikely that any parent would have named a son "Nabal," and the
name may therefore be explained as an epithet assigned to him by his
contemporaries who so judged his character.
"He was a Calebite" The Calebites were attached to the tribe of Judah; and since
Judah would be the tribe most loyal to David, it was extremely important that David
should have been rescued in this chapter from his temptation to slaughter Nabal
and all his house. If David had indeed done such a thing, it could have alienated the
whole tribe of Judah. The big thing in this chapter is the manner in which God
saved David from that terrible mistake.
Nabal had evidently inherited the great estate of his ancestor Caleb, but he did not
inherit the type of character that belonged to his distinguished ancestor.
BI, “Now the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail.
Nabal, the churl
I. Nabal, the churl. What an apt thumbnail sketch is given of the whole race
of Nabals in the confidential remark passed between his servant and his
wife, “He is such a son of Belial that one cannot speak to him!”
1. He was very great. There are four kinds of greatness; young men,
choose the best for your life aim! It is little to be great in possessing;
better to be great in doing; better still to conceive and promulgate great
thoughts; but best to be great in character.
2. He was a fool, his wife said. He surely must have sat for the full length
portrait of the fool in our Lord’s parable, who thought his soul could take
its ease and be merry because a few big barns were full.
3. He was a man of Belial, his servant said. He seems to have had no
compunction for his churlish speeches: no idea of the consequences they
20

21. might involve. As soon as the words were spoken, they were forgotten;
and in the evening of the day on which they were spoken we find him in
his house, holding a feast, like the feast of a king, his heart merry with
wine, and altogether so stupid that his wife told him nothing less or
more till the morning light.
II. David, precipitate and passionate. One of the most characteristic
features in David’s temper and behaviour through all these weary years was
his self-control. But the rampart of self-restraint built by long habit went
down, like a neglected sea wall, before the sudden paroxysm of passion
which Nabal’s insulting words aroused. At this hour David was on the brink
of committing a crime which would east a dark shadow on all his after
years. In calmer, quieter, holier hours it would have been a grief to him.
From this shame, sorrow, and disgrace he was saved by that sweet and
noble woman, Abigail.
III. Abigail, the beautiful intercessor. She was a woman of good
understanding and of a beautiful countenance—a fit combination. Her
character had written its legend on her face. There are many beautiful
women wholly destitute of good understanding; just as birds of rarest
plumage are commonly deficient in the power of song. It is remarkable how
many Abigails get married to Nabals. God-fearing women, tender and gentle
in their sensibilities, high-minded and noble in their ideals, become tied in
an indissoluble union with men for whom they can have no true affinity,
even if they have not an unconquerable repugnance. To such an one there is
but one advice—You must stay where you are. The dissimilarity in taste and
temperament does not constitute a sufficient reason for leaving your
husband to drift. It may be that some day your opportunity will come, as it
came to Abigail. In the meantime do not allow your purer nature to be
bespotted or besmeared. Nabal’s servants knew the quality of their
mistress, and could trust her to act wisely in the emergency which was upon
them; so they told her all. She immediately grasped the situation,
despatched a small procession of provision bearers, along the way that
David must come, and followed them immediately on her ass. She met the
avenging warriors by the covert of the mountain, and the interview was as
creditable to her woman’s wit as to her grace of heart. Frank and noble as he
always was, he did not hesitate to acknowledge his deep indebtedness to this
lovely woman, and to see in her intercession the gracious arrest of God.
What a revelation this is of the ministries with which God seeks to avert us
from our evil ways! They are sometimes very subtle and slender, very small
and still. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
4 While David was in the desert, he heard that
Nabal was shearing sheep.
21

22. This is good news to David, for he was low on provisions for his 600 men, and this
was a time when there was great joy and generosity among sheep owners. The
shearing time was a time when it became festive, for many workers were needed and
so it was a time for partying as well as working. They were bringing in the harvest
of wool that was a majoy part of their riches, and so the owners were generous in
sharing with all who helped, but having aboundance of food supplied so all could
have a good time in feasting. David knew this was the best time to ask for provisions
from those he and his men protected from robbers who would deplete their profits
by stealing their sheep. Robbers knew the best time to steal sheep was when they
had a full body of wool, and so protection was worth a lot to the owners.
GILL, “And David heard in the wilderness,.... In the wilderness of Paran,
where he was, and a wilderness it was to him, being in want of food, as the
following relation shows:
that Nabal did shear his sheep; when there was generally good living, and so
a proper person, and a proper time, for David to apply for the relief of his
wants.
HENRY, “ David, it seems, was in such distress that he would be glad to be
beholden to him, and did in effect come a begging to his door. What little
reason have we to value the wealth of this world when so great a churl as
Nabal abounds and so great a saint as David suffers want! Once before we
had David begging his bread, but then it was of Ahimelech the high priest, to
whom one would not grudge to stoop. But to send a begging to Napal was
what such a spirit as David had could not admit without some reluctancy;
yet, if Providence bring him to these straits, he will not say that to beg he is
ashamed. Yet see Psa_37:25.
2. He chose a good time to send to Nabal, when he had many hands
employed about him in shearing his sheep, for whom he was to make a
plentiful entertainment, so that good cheer was stirring. Had he sent at
another time, Nabal would have pretended he had nothing to spare, but now
he could not have that excuse. It was usual to make feasts at their sheep-
shearings, as appears by Absalom's feast on that occasion (2Sa_13:24), for
wool was one of the staple commodities of Canaan.
JAMISON 4-9, “Nabal did shear his sheep, and David sent out ten young
men, etc. — 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.
Hence when Nabal held his annual sheep-shearing in Carmel, David felt
22

23. himself entitled to share in the festival and sent a message, recounting his
own services and asking for a present. “In all these particulars we were
deeply struck with the truth and strength of the biblical description of
manners and customs almost identically the same as they exist at the
present day. On such a festive occasion, near a town or village, even in our
own time, an Arab sheik of the neighboring desert would hardly fail to put
in a word either in person or by message; and his message, both in form and
substance, would be only a transcript of that of David” [Robinson].
K&D 4-8, “1Sa_25:4-8
When David heard in the desert (cf. 1Sa_25:1) that Nabal was shearing his
sheep, which was generally accompanied with a festal meal (see at Gen_
38:12), he sent ten young men up to Carmel to him, and bade them wish him
peace and prosperity in his name, and having reminded him of the friendly
services rendered to his shepherds, solicit a present for himself and his
people. ‫ֹום‬‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ֹו‬‫ל‬ ‫אַל‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ ask him after his welfare, i.e., greet him in a friendly
manner (cf. Exo_18:7). The word ‫י‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ל‬ is obscure, and was interpreted by the
early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures. The simplest
explanation is apparently in vitam, long life, understood as a wish in the
sense of “good fortune to you” (Luther, Maurer, etc.); although the word ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬
in the singular can only be shown to have the meaning life in connection
with the formula used in oaths, ָ‫ך‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫פ‬ַ‫נ‬ ‫י‬ ַ‫,ח‬ etc. But even if ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ must be taken as an
adjective, it is impossible to explain ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ל‬ in any other way than as an elliptical
exclamation meaning “good fortune to the living man.” For the idea that the
word is to be connected with ‫ם‬ ֶ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ֲ‫,א‬ “say to the living man,” i.e., to the man if
still alive, is overthrown by the fact that David had no doubt that Nabal was
still living. The words which follow are also to be understood as a wish,
“May thou and thy house, and all that is thine, be well!” After this
salutation they were to proceed with the object of their visit: “And now I
have heard that thou hast sheep-shearers. Now thy shepherds have been
with us; we have done them no harm (‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫,ה‬ as in Jdg_18:7 : on the form,
see Ges. §53, 3, Anm. 6), and nothing was missed by them so long as they
were in Carmel.” When living in the desert, David's men had associated
with the shepherds of Nabal, rendered them various services, and protected
them and their flocks against the southern inhabitants of the desert (the
Bedouin Arabs); in return for which they may have given them food and
information. Thus David proved himself a protector of his people even in
his banishment. ‫אוּ‬ ְ‫צ‬ ְ‫מ‬ִ‫י‬ְ‫,ו‬ “so may the young men (those sent by David) find
favour in thine eyes! for we have come to a good (i.e., a festive) day. 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. So far as the fact itself is concerned, “on such a festive
occasion near a town or village even in our own time, an Arab sheikh of the
neighbouring desert would hardly fail to put in a word either in person or
23

24. by message; and his message both in form and substance would be only the
transcript of that of David” (Robinson, Palestine, p. 201).
BI 4-13, “And David heard in the wilderness that Nabal did shear his sheep.
Nabal, the churl
David never made a wiser choice, and he never said a truer thing, than when
he exclaimed, “Let me fall now into the hand of the Lord (for His mercies
are great), and let me not fall into the hand of man.” The history of David’s
collision with Nabal furnishes us with a twofold confirmation of the truth of
David’s assertion and the wisdom of his decision. David, in a season of
feebleness, sought to rest himself upon Nabal’s gratitude, and he found that
be was trusting in the staff of a broken reed which pierced him. In his
necessity he made an appeal to Nabal’s generosity, and he found it was as
vain as trying to quench his thirst with the waters of Marah. On the other
hand, Nabal’s ingratitude and unkindness met with no charity at first on the
part of David. While Nabal was utterly destitute of brotherly kindness,
David failed for a time in the love which is not easily provoked. “Whether it
be for the relief of our necessities, or for the pardon of our transgressions,
let us fall now into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great.”
Everything around Nabal was calculated to make him a happy, thankful,
sweet-tempered, and kindhearted man. He had good blood in his veins; and
by the memories of his noble and godly ancestor he ought to have been
restrained from all that was mean and graceless. The inspired writer
alludes be his ancestry as if that increased the guilt of his conduct. “he was
of the house of Caleb;” but he was a bad branch growing out of a good stock,
for “he was churlish and evil in his doings.” Alas! he was neither the first
nor the last of those who have come into possession of many of the temporal
results of their fathers’ piety, but have shamefully repudiated the godliness
which brought the golden harvest. The Bible makes the nobleness of a man’s
ancestry one more reason why he should serve the Lord and cleave to Him
with full purpose of heart. The prophet Jeremiah went with words of sharp
rebuke and heavy condemnation to one who was proving himself a
degenerate son of a godly sire, “Did not thy father eat, and drink, and do
judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? But thine eyes and
thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for oppression, and for
violence, to do it.” Nabal had what many would deem a far more substantial
reason for personal goodness than the fact that he belonged to the house of
Caleb. The wealth which had come down to him had evidently been
increased by the Divine blessing on his own endeavours, and he stood forth
conspicuous above all his neighbours for the splendour and luxury with
which he could surround himself. “The man was very great,” but his
prosperity hardened his heart and filled his spirit with haughtiness. The
arrogance of spirit, and coarseness of speech, and niggardliness of heart,
which Nabal displayed, were unmistakable proofs that in his prosperity he
had forgotten the God to whom he was indebted for it. Hence that which
should have made his lowliness to grow and blossom like a lily of the valley,
did only serve to make his poisonous pride flourish like the deadly
nightshade, and that which should have filled him with grateful love to God
24

25. and generous love to men, only helped to increase his self-indulgence and
his self-idolatry. There was another reason why better things might have
been reasonably expected of Nabal. God had given him a true help-meet—a
woman who, if he had yielded to her influence, would have done much to lift
him out of his roughness and wickedness into refinement and godliness. It
is one of the marvels of human nature that some rough and selfish men can
live for year after year in fellowship with gentle and self-denying women,
and yet be no more impressed and improved by them than the dead heart of
Absalom was moved by the tears and wailings of his disconsolate father. If
such men die impenitent and unpardoned, surely for them condemnation
will be heavy and perdition will be deep! David was in danger of perishing
for lack of a little of that of which Nabal had such an abundance, and
therefore the appeal for relief was sent. Amongst the Jews, and other
Eastern peoples, the time of sheep shearing was commonly the season of
special liberality. Beside the force of good old customs, there was another
reason why on that particular day David’s solicitation was seasonable. It
was partly on the ground that his men had been guardians of the flocks that
David rested his appeal, and there could not be a better time for that appeal
than the season when the flocks were counted and the fleeces were
gathered. Many have thought that the prudence and policy of David’s
conduct, were more obvious than its dignity. Did he not in some measure
demean himself, they ask, by setting forth so fully the services he had
rendered? It is not usual, they say, be do a man a good turn, and then to go
and tell him all about it, and ask for some grateful recognition of it. Before
we blame David for being undignified, let us try to realize his position and
his temptations, he must have been in great straits, or he would never have
sent in such a way to a man like Nabal. There are people whom you cannot
fully know until you ask them for something. While no direct appeal is made
to their supposed benevolence, their real character is masked; but the
moment you press them to be generous, despite all their efforts to wear it
still, the severing drops off, and they stand forth in all their native
unsightliness. To what a revelation of Nabal’s heart the prayer of David led!
Nabal could not say it was the wrong day for charity, so he said this was a
wrong case. Such people are never destitute of reasons for not giving, and
are not ashamed to try and cover their niggardliness with excuses so flimsy
that even the sight of a bat would be strong enough to pierce them. If he had
been placed in circumstances like Abraham, and angels had come to partake
of his hospitality, he would probably have cried out, “Give my bread and
flesh to people with wings! What next, I wonder!” The provocation to David
must have been great, and we are more grieved than surprised that at once
his soul was all on fire with wrath. David forgot how much God had done for
Nabal, what ingratitude God had received at Nabal’s hand, and yet how
patiently God had borne with him for many years, and how lavishly God had
blessed him despite all his guiltiness. We might have hoped that, instead of
fostering human vengeance, David would have striven to imitate Divine
long-suffering; but, the wisest men are not always wise, and the best men
are not always consistent. The history shows, what is very credible, that
Nabal was a great coward as well as a coarse blusterer. When he heard of
David’s indignation “his heart died within him, and he became as a stone.”
25

26. It would seem as if the weight of his own craven fears helped to sink him
into the grave. Possibly his own cowardice was the instrument with which
the Lord smote him; and the terrors of his guilty spirit were the disease of
which he died. This much is certain, he perished for his sins. The very day
wherein he refused relief to those who had befriended him, “he held a feast
in his house like the feast of a king.” He was utterly wanting in meekness
and gentleness, courtesy and kindness. He would indulge himself even to
gluttony and drunkenness, and yet refused his bread to those who were
ready to perish. His name has become imperishable by being written in the
book which is to be translated into every tongue and read in every land; but
the immortality which Scripture has given him is an immortality of infamy.
(C. Vince.)
5 So he sent ten young men and said to them, "Go
up to Nabal at Carmel and greet him in my name.
David is really optimistic here, for he sends ten young men to carry all of the
provisions he expects to receive from Nabal. Little does he know that one was even
more than enough, for they were all going to come back empty handed.
COFFMAN, “DAVID REQUESTS PROVISIONS FROM NABAL
"David heard in the wilderness that Nabal was shearing his sheep, So David sent ten
young men; and David said to the young men, "Go up to Carmel, and go to Nabal,
and greet him in my name. And thus you shall salute him, `Peace be to you, and
peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have. I hear that you have
shearers; now your shepherds have been with us, and we did them no harm, and
they missed nothing, all the time they were in Carmel. Ask your young men, and
they will tell you. Therefore let my young men find favor in your eyes; for we come
on a feast day. Pray give whatever you have at hand to your servants and to your
son David.'"
To some people of our generation, it might appear that David's method of
supporting his small army was an illegal "protection racket." But the situation
mentioned here was not that at all. David's expectations of supplies from Nabal were
fully justified according to the customs and standards of that time and
circumstance. "Even Nabal's servants and his own wife felt that David was due
26

27. some compensation for the protection which he had provided for Nabal's flocks and
shepherds."[8]
"This type of `protection money' is regularly levied at the present day by the
Bedouins living on the borders of the desert and the cultivated land. In return for
gifts they guarantee the protection of life and property in those notoriously insecure
districts."[9]
Nabal's vast flocks of sheep and goats would doubtless have been confiscated by
roving bands of outlaws had it not been for David's protection. After all, we learned
in 1 Samuel 23 that such marauders even attacked walled towns (Keilah); and
without David's wall of protection around Nabal's flocks (1 Samuel 25:16), there can
be little doubt that Nabal's flocks would have been taken away from him. The man's
stupidity in failing to recognize this is amazing. The fact that David sent ten men to
bring back the gift indicates that he certainly expected Nabal to come through with
a very generous contribution.
GILL, “And David sent out ten young men,.... Such persons, and such a
number of them, he sent to show honour and reverence to Nabal:
and David said, unto the young men, get ye up to Carmel; which lay higher
than the wilderness, in which he was:
and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name; ask him of his peace and
welfare, as the Targum; wish all health and happiness in my name, present
my service and best respects to him.
HENRY 5-8, “ David ordered his men to deliver their message to him with
a great deal of courtesy and respect: “Go to Nabal, and greet him in my
name. Tell him I sent you to present my service to him, and to enquire how
he does and his family,” 1Sa_25:5. He puts words in their mouths (1Sa_
25:6): Thus shall you say to him that liveth; our translators add, in
prosperity, as if those live indeed that live as Nabal did, with abundance of
the wealth of this world about them; whereas, in truth, those that live in
pleasure are dead while they live, 1Ti_5:6. This was, methinks too high a
compliment to pass upon Nabal, to call him the man that liveth. David knew
better things, that in God's favour is life, not in the world's smiles; and by
the rough answer he was well enough served, for this too smooth address to
such a muck-worm. Yet his good wishes were very commendable. “Peace be
to thee, all good both to soul and body. Peace be to thy house and to all that
thou hast.” Tell him I am a hearty well-wisher to his health and prosperity.
He bids them call him his son David (1Sa_25:8), intimating that, for his age
and estate, David honoured him as a father, and therefore hoped to receive
some fatherly kindness from him.
4. He pleaded the kindness which Nabal's shepherds had received from
David and his men; and one good turn requires another. He appeals to
Nabal's own servants, and shows that when David's soldiers were quartered
among Nabal's shepherds, (1.) They did not hurt them themselves, did them
27

28. no injury, gave them no disturbance, were not a terror to them, nor took any
of the lambs out of the flock. Yet, considering the character of David's men,
men in distress, and debt, and discontented, and the scarcity of provisions
in his camp, it was not without a great deal of care and good management
that they were kept from plundering. (2.) They protected them from being
hurt by others. David himself does but intimate this, for he would not boast
of his good offices: Neither was there aught missing to them, 1Sa_25:7. But
Nabal's servants, to whom he appealed, went further (1Sa_25:16): They
were a wall unto us, both by night and day. David's soldiers were a guard
to Nabal's shepherds when the bands of the Philistines robbed the
threshing-floors (1Sa_23:1) and would have robbed the sheep-folds. From
those plunderers Nabal's flocks were protected by David's care, and
therefore he says, Let us find favour in thy eyes. Those that have shown
kindness may justly expect to receive kindness.
6 Say to him: 'Long life to you! Good health to
you and your household! And good health to all
that is yours!
What a paradox this greeting is with the soon reaction to his being rejected. Here he
wishes long life to Nabal, and a short time later he is putting on his sword to go and
end his life. Changes can happen quickly in life, for circumstances can change so
rapidly from what is hopeful to what is hopeless. David is being wise here as he
sends a greeting to wish Nabal the best in long life and health for all his household
and all his servants. He knows you have to be kind and diplomatic when you are
seeking a handout.
BARNES, “That liveth in prosperity - The Hebrew is obscure, and is
variously interpreted. The simplest rendering is, “And ye shall say thus
about (his) life,” i. e., with reference to his life, health, circumstances, etc.
CLARKE, “Peace be both to thee - This is the ancient form of sending
greetings to a friend: Peace to Thee, peace to thy Household, and peace to
all that Thou Hast. That is, May both thyself, thy family, and all that pertain
unto thee, be in continual prosperity!
28

29. Perhaps David, by this salutation, wished Nabal to understand that he had
acted so towards him and his property that nothing had been destroyed, and
that all had been protected; see 1Sa_25:15-17.
GILL, “And thus shall ye say to him that liveth in prosperity,.... That lives,
while others, as David and his men, might be rather said to starve than live;
they lived in great meanness, but he in great abundance, and therefore in a
capacity to give to others, and particularly to relieve them: or the sense is,
they should say to him, "thus" shall it be, or may it be "for life": for the time
of life, for the year to come; at this time next year, at next sheep shearing,
mayest thou be in as great prosperity then as now, and even all the days of
thy life:
peace be both to thee, and peace be to thine house, and peace be unto all
that thou hast; that is, all prosperity to thy person in soul and body, to thy
family, wife, children and servants, and let the same attend thy estate,
cattle, farms, fields, vineyards, and all that belong to thee; and wish for a
blessing on him, and his, and all that were his, or he had; a more extensive
one could not well be made.
7 " 'Now I hear that it is sheep-shearing time.
When your shepherds were with us, we did not
mistreat them, and the whole time they were at
Carmel nothing of theirs was missing.
David and his men were like body guards to his flocks and servants so that no one
could rob them of the sheep in the fields. His men are reporting all of the value that
David has provided to him by protecting his servants and flocks from robbers. He
has lost nothing this season because of them. If Nabal kept records he could look
and see that in previous seasons he had a ten to twenty percent loss because of
bedoin bandits who stole from his flocks. This should make him grateful for the
service David provided, and lead to a generous gift of food.
Clarke, "It is most evident that David had a claim upon Nabal, for very essential
services performed to his herdmen at Carmel. He not only did them no hurt, and
took none of their flocks for the supply of his necessities, but he protected them from
29

30. the rapacity of others; they were a WALL unto us, said Nabal's servants, both by
night and day. In those times, and to the present day, wandering hordes of Arabs,
under their several chiefs, think they have a right to exact contributions of
provisions. David had done nothing of this kind, but protected them against those
who would."
Constable, "David's armed followers had been patrolling the wilderness of Paran in
Judah where Nabal's shepherds had been tending his flocks. They had made that
area safe from raiding Amalekites, Philistines, and occasional wild animals that
might have harassed Nabal's shepherds. It was only common courtesy that wealthy
Nabal would have expressed his appreciation to David by providing some food for
David's men. Sheep shearing was a happy time for shepherds and usually involved
feasting (cf. 2 Sam. 13:23-24)."
BENSON, "1 Samuel 25:7-8. We hurt them not, &c. — This, considering the
licentiousness of soldiers, and the necessities David and his men were exposed to,
was no small favour, which Nabal was bound both in justice and gratitude, and
prudence, to requite. We come in a good day — That is, in a day of feasting and
rejoicing; when men are most cheerful and liberal; when thou mayest relieve us out
of thy abundance without damage to thyself; when thou art receiving the mercies of
God, and therefore obliged to pity and relieve distressed and indigent persons. Give,
I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thy hand — 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.
GILL, “And now I have heard that thou hast shearers,.... Men employed in
shearing his sheep, which was a time of feasting and gladness, and therefore
David sent his young men to him at this time with his compliments upon it;
and in order to obtain what he intended by this message to him, he observes
the favours he and his men had done to his servants, and the advantages
which they had received from them:
now thy shepherds which were with us; feeding their sheep near the
wilderness of Paran, which was not far from Carmel and Maon:
we hurt them not; by taking any of their sheep and lambs from them, or by
abusing, beating them, or giving them ill language; or "did not put them to
shame" (x), by denying them anything they asked of them, which was in
their power to grant, nor mocked and scoffed at them, and jeered them on
account of their occupation:
neither was there ought missing unto them; they did not steal a sheep or
lamb from them, as was common for soldiers to do; nor did they suffer any
of the Arabs, that dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, to rob them, who lived
upon plunder, or any of the wild beasts to hurt them, as much as in them
lay; so careful were they of them, and were a wall unto them by night and
day, as Nabal's servants owned, 1Sa_25:16; and this was the case:
30

31. all the while they were in Carmel; or in the fields, 1Sa_25:15; which were
joining to the wilderness of Paran.
8 Ask your own servants and they will tell you.
Therefore be favorable toward my young men,
since we come at a festive time. Please give your
servants and your son David whatever you can
find for them.' "
"Now it’s customary, as well as honorable in days of old, that when somebody
guarded your sheep for several weeks, when sheep-shearing time came you
compensated them. Now this wasn’t mandatory, but it was an ethical thing to do.
It’s kind of like our American custom of tipping when certain services are provided,
thus it was generally expected."He refers to himself as the son of Nabal, and
humbles himself before this wealthy man who could supply him with what he and
his men needed.
Guzik does an excellent job of showing just how right David was, and how valid was
his request. David is clearly blameless in his dealing with Nabal. He wrote, "To our
modern ears, it might sound like David was running some kind of “protection
racket,” but that wasn’t the case at all. He performed a worthy, valuable service for
Nabal, and expects to be compensated. In fact, David “bent over backwards” to do
all this right, and make the request right. A close look shows just how right David
did in all this.
b. David did right in this, because he waited until he heard that Nabal was shearing
his sheep. David protected Nabal’s shepherds and flocks for a long time, but did not
expect to be compensated until Nabal himself made his money at the “harvest” of
sheep shearing.
c. David did right in this, because he was very polite to Nabal. He did this through
messengers (David sent ten young men) so Nabal would not be intimidated. He sent
the messengers with a greeting full of warmth and kindness (Peace be to you), so
31

32. that Nabal would not give out of fear or intimidation.
d. David did right in this, because he carefully and patiently gave Nabal an
“itemized receipt” for services rendered (Your shepherds were with us . . . nor was
there anything missing . . . ask your young men, and they will tell you).
e. David did right in this, because he politely reminded Nabal of the traditions of
generosity surrounding harvest and sheep shearing time (For we come on a feast
day).
f. David did right in this, because he did not demand any specific payment from
Nabal, or set a price - he simply left it up to Nabal’s generosity (Please give whatever
comes to your hand). Then, David’s messengers simply waited for the reply.
Pink wrote, "The request to be presented before Nabal was one which the world
would call respectful and tactful. The salutation of peace bespoke David’s friendly
spirit. Reminder was given that, in the past, David had not only restrained his men
from molesting Nabal’s flocks, but had also protected them from the depredations of
invaders—compare verses 14-17. He might then have asked for a reward for his
services, but instead he only supplicates a favor. Surely Nabal would not refuse his
men a few victuals, for it was "a good day," a time when there was plenty to hand.
Finally David takes the place of a "son," hoping to receive some fatherly kindness
From him." " The appeal was suitably timed, courteously worded, and based upon
a weighty consideration. The request was presented not to a heathen, but to an
Israelite, to a member of his own tribe, to a descendant of Caleb; in short, to one
from whom he might reasonably expect a favorable response."
Henry wrote, " David, it seems, was in such distress that he would be glad to be
beholden to him, and did in effect come a begging to his door. What little reason
have we to value the wealth of this world when so great a churl as Nabal abounds
and so great a saint as David suffers want! Once before we had David begging his
bread, but then it was of Ahimelech the high priest, to whom one would not grudge
to stoop. But to send a begging to Nabal was what such a spirit as David had could
not admit without some reluctancy; yet, if Providence bring him to these straits, he
will not say that to beg he is ashamed. Yet see Psalms 37:25. "I have been young,
and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging
bread."
He pleaded the kindness which Nabal's shepherds had received from David and his
men; and one good turn requires another. He appeals to Nabal's own servants, and
shows that when David's soldiers were quartered among Nabal's shepherds, (1.)
They did not hurt them themselves, did them no injury, gave them no disturbance,
were not a terror to them, nor took any of the lambs out of the flock. Yet,
considering the character of David's men, men in distress, and debt, and
discontented, and the scarcity of provisions in his camp, it was not without a great
deal of care and good management that they were kept from plundering. (2.) They
protected them from being hurt by others. David himself does but intimate this, for
32

33. he would not boast of his good offices: Neither was there aught missing to them, 1
Samuel 25:7. But Nabal's servants, to whom he appealed, went further (1 Samuel
25:16): They were a wall unto us, both by night and day. David's soldiers were a
guard to Nabal's shepherds when the bands of the Philistines robbed the threshing-
floors (1 Samuel 23:1) and would have robbed the sheep-folds. From those
plunderers Nabal's flocks were protected by David's care, and therefore he says, Let
us find favour in thy eyes. Those that have shown kindness may justly expect to
receive kindness."
CLARKE, “Whatsoever cometh to thine hand - As thou art making a great
feast for thy servants, and I and my men, as having essentially served thee,
would naturally come in for a share were we present; send a portion by my
ten young men, for me and my men, that we also may rejoice with you.
Certainly this was a very reasonable and a very modest request. This mode
of address is not unfrequent among the Hindoos: “O father, fill the belly of
thy son; he is in distress.”
GILL, “Whatsoever cometh to thine hand - As thou art making a great
feast for thy servants, and I and my men, as having essentially served thee,
would naturally come in for a share were we present; send a portion by my
ten young men, for me and my men, that we also may rejoice with you.
Certainly this was a very reasonable and a very modest request. This mode
of address is not unfrequent among the Hindoos: “O father, fill the belly of
thy son; he is in distress.”
9 When David's men arrived, they gave Nabal
this message in David's name. Then they waited.
They waited with assurance that there was no reason to doubt Nabal would come
through with provisions for them, being filled with gratitude for their service that
made him richer than ever. They had no reason to be nervous, for what rich man
would not appreciate all they did for him?
COFFMAN, “NABAL'S OUTRAGEOUS TREATMENT REGARDING DAVID'S
REQUEST
"When David's young men came, they said all this to Nabal in the name of David;
33

34. and then they waited. And Nabal answered David's servants, "Who is David? Who
is the son of Jesse? There are many servants nowadays who are breaking away from
their masters. Shall I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have killed
for my shearers, and give it to men who come from I do not know where?" So
David's young men turned away, and came back and told him all this. And David
said to his men, "Every man gird on his sword"! And every man of them girded on
his sword; and David also girded on his own sword; and about four hundred men
went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage."
"Shall I take my bread and my water ...and give it ..." (1 Samuel 25:11)? Nabal's
mention of water in this verse does not please some critics who insist that the word
should be "wine." Based upon the Septuagint (LXX) rendition of the place, which is
followed by the Jerusalem Bible and the New International Version, H. P. Smith
changed the verse, making it read, "Must I take my bread and my wine ... etc."[10]
This is precisely the type of meddling with the text which this writer finds
frequently unacceptable. Yes, there's no doubt that Nabal had plenty of wine and
that he drank enough of it that it required a whole day and night for him to become
sober; and it is a fact that wine was usually used at such feasts instead of water. But
none of these things nullifies the message Nabal sent back to David, which, in effect,
declared that, he would not even give David and his men a drink of water, much less
any other things he mentioned. The text tells us what Nabal said, not what the
customary beverage was at such feasts.
"Every man gird on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). 1 Samuel 25:22, below, tells us
what David had in mind. He planned to murder Nabal and every male member of
his whole establishment. This contemplated action on David's part was sinful.
Henry pointed out that only a few days ago David had spared Saul's life. Saul was
David's bitterest enemy; from him David expected nothing except hatred, or even
death; and now, because of a few hard, ugly words, David felt that nothing but the
blood of a whole family must be shed to avenge the affront. "Lord, what is man?
What is in the best of them when God leaves them to themselves to try them"[11]
GILL, “And when David's young men came,.... To Carmel:
they spake to Nabal according to all those words in the name of David; they
delivered their message punctually and exactly, in the very words, or
however according to the purport of them, in David's name, as he enjoined
them:
and ceased: from speaking, waiting for Nabal's answer; or "they rested" (y),
from the fatigues of their journey; which they did not until they had
delivered their message to Nabal, and then they took the liberty to sit down
and rest themselves; but the former sense seems best, and is preferred by
Maimonides (z).
34

35. K&D, “1Sa_25:9
David's messengers delivered their message to Nabal, ‫נוּחוּ‬ָ‫יּ‬ַ‫,ו‬ “and sat
down,” sc., awaiting the fulfilment of their request. The rendering given by
the Chaldee (‫קוּ‬ ָ‫ס‬ ְ‫,פּ‬ cessaverunt loqui) and the Vulgate (siluerunt) is less
suitable, and cannot be philologically sustained. The Septuagint, on the
other hand, has καὶ ἀνεπήδησε, “and he (Nabal) sprang up,” as if the
translators had read ‫ם‬ ָ‫ק‬ָ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ (vid., lxx at 1Sa_20:34). This rendering, according
to which the word belongs to the following clause, gives a very appropriate
sense, if only, supposing that ‫ם‬ ָ‫ק‬ָ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ really did stand in the text, the origin and
general adoption of ‫נוּחוּ‬ָ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ could in any way be explained.
10 Nabal answered David's servants, "Who is this
David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants
are breaking away from their masters these days.
Brian Morgan wrote, "Nabal regards David's band of men as outlaws and
terrorists, and this proud businessman is not about to accede to their demands. His
question, "Who is David?" does not necessarily imply that he is unaware of who
David is (by now everyone knows about him), but that he considers him a nobody.
Nabal deals in big business; he has no time for beggars and gypsies."
What a shock this must have been to these men who had waited in anticipation of a
generous gift. Nabal reveals himself to be a self centered jerk by saying he knows
nothing about this David guy, and his father. He then reveals that he knows plenty,
for he says many servants are breaking away from their master these days, and this
shows that he knows David is running from Saul, who is still the king. Nabal is
stupid, but he still gets the news, and he knows he is dealing with an outlaw as far as
king Saul is concerned. Nabal is saying David is a nobody to me, and I will not give
him anything. He would give no help to those who gave him no hurt, and so they will
give him hurt for giving them no help. This is what he was asking for by his
insulting language.
Not everyone is aware that we do have a holiday for celebrating such characters as
35

36. Nabal. Deffinbaugh wrote about it, "An atheist complained to a Christian friend,
“Christians have their special holidays, such as Christmas and Easter; and Jews
celebrate their holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur; Muslims have their
holidays. EVERY religion has its holidays. But we atheists,” he said, “have no
recognized holidays. It’s an unfair discrimination.”
“What do you mean, atheists have no holidays,” his friend replied, “People have
been observing a special day in your honor for years.”
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” the atheist said, “When is this special day
honoring atheists?” “April first.”
There is a direct connection between ingratitude and being a fool. Paul points this
out in Romans 1:21, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . “
CLARKE, “Who is David? - Nabal’s answer shows the surliness of his
disposition. It was unjust to refuse so reasonable a request; and the manner
of the refusal was highly insulting. It is true what his own servants said of
him, He is such a son of Belial that one cannot speak to him, 1Sa_25:17.
GILL, “And Nabal answered David's servants, and said,.... In a very haughty
manner, in great wrath, just as churlish covetous persons do, when they do
not care to give what is asked of them:
who is David? and who is the son of Jesse; his two questions, which relate to
the same person, do not well agree together, since by both he would suggest
as if he knew not the person they came from, and whose name they made
use of: 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, though he
speaks with contempt of him, calling him "the son of Jesse", as Saul often
did, 1Sa_20:27. Abarbinel, of all interpreters, is of opinion only, that Nabal
did not say this disrespectfully of David, and to his dishonour; he knew he
was the Lord's anointed, and the king's son-in-law; but the sense, according
to him, is, "who is David? and who is the son of Jesse?" are they not one
man? but though he is the son of Jesse, and prides himself saying, I shall be
king, I should not regard that, but would send him corn, and bread, and
food, as much as is needful for his own use; but what can I do when there
are so many servants? for they are six hundred of them, and they are too
many to relieve:
there be many servants nowadays that break away every man from his
master; which words also the same writer thinks have no reference to
David, only to his men; but they seem plainly to strike at David himself, and
suggest that he had revolted from and rebelled against Saul his master, as
well as received and protected fugitives and renegades, such as fled from
their masters and from their creditors; see 1Sa_22:2.
36