Verse 1. - Now it came to pass. During the last few days events had been crowding fast upon one another. Living as fugitives at Ziklag, in the land of the Philistines, David and his men, unfit for the peaceful occupations of agriculture, had been driven to seek their maintenance by raids upon the wild tribes in the desert. Of these the chief were the Amalekites, whose home was the bare region lying between the south of Judah and Egypt. We have ample proof that this race was utterly hostile to all order and quietness; it lived by the plunder of others, and, sheltering itself in the recesses of the wilderness, broke out thence on every opportunity to carry, ravage and ruin into all the neighbouring districts. The Amalekite was thus every man's enemy, and the object of universal dislike; and the cruelty which he habitually practised would justify to David's mind the barbarity with which he put to death all whom he found, man and woman alike. But his object was not justice. His cruelty was the result of selfish motives. For it was necessary for him to keep tidings of his real doings from the ears of Achish, who naturally would not approve of David's military activity. He very probably had put him there upon the borders to protect his realm from incursions; but David in the Amalekite war was the assailant, and was, moreover, practising his men for ulterior objects. Achish most probably received a share of the captured cattle; but his inquiries were met with an equivocation (1 Samuel 27:10-12), which made him suppose that David, with the usual bitterness of a renegade, had been harrying his own tribesmen. And the falsehood soon entangled David in most painful consequences; for Achish, nothing doubting of his fidelity, and of his bitter hatred of Saul. determined to take him with him in the grand army of the Philistines, which was slowly moving northward for the conquest of the land of Israel. David had God's promise of ultimate safety, and he ought not to have deserted his country. As a deserter to the Philistines, he had to descend to falsehood, and now treason seemed inevitable. His only choice lay between betraying his country or the king who had given him so hospitable a refuge. The jealousy, or rather the good sense, of the Philistine lords (1 Samuel 29:4) saved him from this dreadful alternative, and he was sent back, to his great joy, to Ziklag. But it was a dreadful sight which there met his view. With strange mismanagement, he had left no portion of his men to guard his little city, and the Amalekites had made reprisals. The news of the Philistine army upon its march upwards would be quickly carried through the desert, and the wild tribes would be sure to take the opportunity for gathering plunder far and wide. So undefended: was the whole country, that they met nowhere with resistance. And David saw, on his return, only the smoking ruins of the little city where for many months he had dwelt. His wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, the wives and children of his men, had all been carried away for the Egyptian slave market. So secure were the Amalekites, that they had no fear about encumbering their march with a vast multitude of children and cattle. And to add to his distress, his men, indignant, and not without reason, at David's want of precaution, were threatening to stone him as an alleviation for their distress. Never had David's fortunes fallen so low as at that moment; but quickly they were to rise again. By energetic action he not only recovered the spoil and the captives taken from Ziklag, but also won the immense wealth gathered by the Amalekites in a wide raid made at a time when there was no one to resist them. His own share of the spoil was so large that he was able to send valuable presents of sheep, oxen, and camels to his friends in Judaea, probably not without some prescience that the way to his return might be opened by the events of the war between the Philistines and Saul. The dangerous issues of that war could not be hidden from him; but he would find solace for his anxieties in the active work of restoring order at Ziklag, and in providing hasty shelter for the women and children whom he had brought back to their desolated homes. But his suspense did not last long. For when David had abode two days in Ziklag, news came which confirmed his worst fears. The battle had Been fought; Israel had been routed; and Saul and Jonathan, the friend who had been to him more than a brother, lay among the slain.

Verse 2. - On the third day. This means the third day after David's return with the spoil and captives recovered from the Amalekites. If we study the data, we find that David had marched with Achish as far as Aphek in the plain of Jezreel (1 Samuel 29:1), opposite to which, on the rising ground near Gilboa, Saul had posted his army. A march of three days had brought him back to Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1), and after the shortest possible delay he had started in pursuit of the Amalekites. The rapidity of his movements is proved by so large a proportion of his hardy men falling out of the ranks at the brook Besor; but nevertheless some time must have been lost at Ziklag in discovering the greatness of their disaster, in searching for any who might possibly have escaped, in getting food, and in mustering again together for the pursuit. Near the brook they seem to have found the Egyptian slave who became their guide, and who had been abandoned three days before David found him. It follows, therefore, that the Amalekites were then three days' march in advance, and however rapidly the pursuit was urged on, we cannot allow less than five days for it, and one for the battle (vers. 12, 13, 17). The march homeward would take a longer time, as David was now encumbered with flocks and herds, women and children. If it took eight days, the time occupied in it by the Amalekites, the whole period that had elapsed since David was sent away from Aphek by the Philistine lords would be eighteen or nineteen days; and it is thus evident that the Amalekites were plundering Ziklag at the very time when he was being dismissed, half angry, half rejoicing, at the slight put upon him, but little thinking of the sad need there was for his presence elsewhere. Now, the messenger from Gilboa, if an active runner, weald easily traverse in two days the distance which David and his men had travelled in three. And thus it follows that the battle at Gilboa was fought on the very day of David's happy return from the pursuit, and about nineteen days after the review at Aphek. If the word "tomorrow" in 1 Samuel 28:19 seems to imply a more rapid march of events, we must remember that the meaning of the word in Hebrew is more indefinite than with us (comp. Genesis 30:33; Exodus 13:14). With his clothes rent, and earth upon his head. Though the Amalekite came out of the camp, yet we are not to suppose that he had been one of the combatants. Every army is followed by a vast number of vagabonds, intent upon gain, purchasing of the troops their booty, plundering wherever they have the chance, and carrying on a lucrative but illicit trade. He was more probably a sort of gipsy sutler than, as many suppose, the slave of some Israelite. He professes, however, to be upon Israel's side, and appears with the usual marks of sorrow. By so doing he hoped to commend himself to David, whom he knew to be too patriotic to rejoice at the defeat of his countrymen, though he doubted not that he would hear with joy of the death of so inveterate a personal enemy as Saul. On this account, and because the way would now stand open to David's ambition, he evidently felt sure of receiving a large guerdon for his news. There is, moreover, a further interest in his conduct; for it demonstrates the existence of a widespread popular feeling that David was destined to be Israel's king. It was this conviction which made him give David kingly honour; for he fell to the earth, and did obeisance. And all Israel, on the morrow after the defeat, would probably have done the same, but for David's own conduct. Israel was too high-spirited a nation to take at once for a king a man who had marched with their enemies to fight against them, even though they knew that the voice of prophecy had appointed him to inherit Saul's throne.

Verse 3. - Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. Non-combatants would hang about the army, watching, as soon as the battle had begun, the fortunes of the day, and immediately that they saw the impending defeat of their own side, would think chiefly of their personal safety. But for an active young man the opportunity would then have come for booty. The Philistines, in pursuit of the enemy, would soon leave the battlefield in their rear, and multitudes would quickly prowl about it to plunder the dead. While so busied, the Amalekite falsely represents himself as having come by chance upon the wounded, but still living, Saul.

Verse 6. - As I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa. The story of the Amalekite is at variance with the account of Saul's death given in the last chapter of the preceding book. There, sore pressed and wounded by archers, hopeless of escape, and unable to make any further resistance, in sore distress at the death of his sons and the loss of the battle, Saul and his armour bearer fall upon their own swords. Here, closely pursued by chariots and horsemen, the king is so utterly deserted by all his body guard that he cells to a vagabond prowling about for booty to slay him. Naturally, Ewald and his followers, who regard the books of the Bible as mere patchwork, find here the marks of different narrators, whose stories the compiler of the Book of Samuel pieced together without having the shrewdness to observe that they were utterly irreconcilable. Some modern commentators have, however, attempted to harmonize them with little success. Really, the story of the Amalekite is a most improbable fiction, and utterly untrue. He knew nothing as to the manner of Saul's death, but found the body, probably some time after the king had fallen; and he was able to strip it because the pursuing Philistines were hurrying forward to make their victory complete, without being aware of what was the crowning glory of their success. As the pursuit advanced it would soon become safe for the Amalekite and others like him to try and secure some of the booty before the Philistines returned. Archers shooting from a distance might easily so distress Saul as to make him despair of escape - and it appears from the first narrative that they had not recognized him; for Saul is afraid lest they should do so, and, having taken him alive, should "abuse," or make a mock of him. Here chariots and horsemen are in close pursuit, and the king faces them grimly; nevertheless, they allow a stranger, who would not have dared to mix himself up with the battle, to rob them of their prize. We may feel sure that it was not until the tide of battle had moved onward in pursuit that the Amalekite ventured upon the field to rob the dead. When so occupied he came upon a corpse, now for some brief space dead, and at once recognized the tall form of the king, whose identity was made more plain by the golden circlet upon his helmet. At Once he saw the chance of larger gains, and hastily tearing off the royal crown and the bracelet from the fallen monarch, without a thought of rescuing the remains from the indignities which the Philistines were sure to inflict upon them, he hurried away with his tidings. Of course, he knew nothing of David's recent conduct, nor that for some time he had accompanied the invading army, nor that Ziklag had just experienced rough treatment from his own countrymen. Still, if he had told the truth, he would have fared well; for he brought news of great importance. But truth was not a virtue much practised in those days, and, fancying that the treatment he had met with from Saul would fill David's heart with bitter rancour against him, the Amalekite invented this story of his having slain the king with his own hands, in the expectation that it would win for him a double reward.

Verse 9. - Anguish. This word, which occurs only in this place, comes from a root signifying to entwine or knot together. On this account Jewish commentators explain it of cramp, which often follows upon loss of blood; but it is equally possible that it means vertigo, or giddiness, when things seem to dance or interweave themselves together before the eyes. The next words signify, For yet is my life whole within me, and give the reason why Saul asked the Amalekite to slay him. The story is at least plausible. It represents the king as deserted by his army, even to the last man, and with the Philistine cavalry and chariots in close pursuit. He is not mortally wounded, but, as giddiness prevents his escape, there is danger of his falling alive into the enemy's hand; and as they would probably not have killed him, but carried him in triumph through their cities, the way would still have been blocked against David's succession. The fear of this indignity would account for Saul's earnest appeal to the Amalekite to slay him, and, so requested, it seemed right to put him to death, instead of trying to carry him off to a place of safety. But all this was merely to keep up appearances, and in his heart he doubted not that David would regard it as a signal service that his enemy was put out of the way.

Verse 10. - After that he was fallen; Hebrew, after his fall; that is, his defeat; for Saul was standing and supporting himself with his spear. The crown, probably, was a narrow band of gold encircling the royal helmet. Bracelet. We read of "bracelets" in Numbers 31:50, in the enumeration of the spoil taken from the Midianites, and there too apparently they were the ornaments of warriors. In the Assyrian monuments chiefs are generally represented with ornaments upon their wrists and arms (see Layard, 'Nineveh,' etc., pl. 18).

Verse 12. - They mourned, and wept, and fasted. The sight of Saul's royal insignia was clear proof of Israel's disaster; and this sorrow of David and his men shows how true their hearts were to their country, and how unbearable would have been their position had not the prudence of the Philistine lords extricated them from the difficulty in which they had been placed by David's want of faith. But David had other reasons besides patriotism for sorrow. Personally he had lost the truest of friends, and even Saul had a place in his heart for he would contrast with his terrible death the early glories of his reign, when all Israel honoured him as its deliverer from the crushing yoke of foreign bondage, and when David was himself one of the most trusty of his captains. Otto von Gerlach compares David thus weeping over the fall of his implacable enemy with David's Son weeping over Jerusalem, the city whose inhabitants were his bitter foes, and who not only sought his death, but delivered him up to the Romans, to be scourged and spitefully intreated, and slain upon the cross.

Verse 15. - Go near, and fall upon him. This was no hasty sentence, for they had "fasted until even." And before pronouncing it David asks, "Whence art thou?" that is, he makes more full inquiry into his condition and previous doings. He knew that he was an Amalekite, and most probably had seen clearly enough that his whole story was false; but before deciding upon his fate, he desired fuller information as to the man's previous life. His question elicits from him that he was a subject of Saul. For the word "stranger" means a settler, who had withdrawn from his own country and joined himself to Israel. Moreover, it was the Amalekite's father who had done this, and probably he was one of many, who, finding their old nomad life too dangerous, had sought a home in the southern districts of Judah; but when the war broke out, the old instinct of these Bedaween made them follow the army for pilfer and trade in spoil. But as the son of a settler, the Amalekite owed by birth allegiance to Saul, and, should the occasion arise, was bound to render him loyal aid. Now, according to his own account, he had found Saul in no immediate danger of death, "for his life was still whole within him." Escape was at least possible with the Amalekite's aid, but he is eager to hill him. And David's question, "How wast thou not afraid...to destroy the Lord's anointed?" virtually means, "How wast thou not afraid to kill thy own king?" The Lord, that is, Jehovah, was no name of power to any outside the covenant people, nor in settling in Judea did the Amalekites accept the national religion. But the words would show even to a stranger that Saul was Israel's lawful and consecrated king. Commentators, with strange perverseness, have found in these words an outbreak of selfishness on David's part, and have supposed that he wished to guard his own person against future treason by making a wholesome example. But this is both to misunderstand the examination of the culprit summed up in vers. 13, 14, and also to put aside all account of the deep and agonizing sorrow which was rending David's heart. What would have been an Englishman's feelings if news had come that we had lost, for instance, the battle of Waterloo, and if the fugitive who brought the information had said that he had killed the wounded commander-in-chief? In David's case, besides deep distress at the disaster which had befallen his country, there was personal grief for the death of Jonathan and of Saul's other sons, who were David's brothers-in-law; and the words really prove his loyalty to Saul himself. He was still Jehovah's anointed, whatever his conduct might have been; and we have found David on previous occasions actuated by the same generous respect for duty when clearly it was contrary to his own interests (see, for instance, 1 Samuel 26:9). David put the wretch justly to death for meanly murdering one whom he might possibly have saved. And the man's very purpose was to suggest to David, in a covert way, that escape really was possible, but that he had made all things sure, and so deserved a large reward. As a matter of fact, he had not killed Saul, but had invented the story because, judging David by his own immoral standard, he had supposed that he would regard the crime as a valuable service.

Verse 17. - David lamented with this lamentation. The Hebrew word for "lamentation" is kinah, a technical term for an elegy or poem commemorative of the dead. Thus Jeremiah wrote a kinah in memory of King Josiah (2 Chronicles 35:25); and there is little doubt that the "lamentations" there spoken of were a collection of dirges, in which probably this ode written by David held an honoured place. In 2 Samuel 3:33, 34 we have a short kinah in Abner's honour, which possibly formed part of a longer poem, of which those two verses only are quoted as sufficing to prove, not only David's innocence, but also his indignation at Joab's foul deed. In both these places we have remains of David's secular poetry, and find it marked by the same strong emotion and the same sublimity of thought as distinguish his psalms. We observe also the nobleness of David's nature in his total silence concerning himself, and his generous eulogy, not of Jonathan only, but also of Saul. The mean envy and the implacable jealousy of the latter are no more remembered, and he sees in him, not the personal foe, but the brave king who has fallen in his country's cause.

Verse 18. - Also he bade them teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow. The old view is that given by the inserted words, and is well put by Ephrem Syrus in his commentary upon the passage. He says that, as Israel's defeat at Gilboa was the presage of a long struggle, and as the Philistines had gained the victory there by their skill in archery, David used his utmost authority with his own tribe to get them to practise this art for their protection in future wars. This explanation would be plausible were it not that we have reason for believing that the Israelites were already skilful in the use both of the sling and the bow, in both of which the Benjamites especially excelled (1 Chronicles 12:2). The modern view is that given in the Revised Version, where the inserted words are "the song of" the bow. "The Bow" is thus the name of the elegy, taken from the allusion to Jonathan's skill in the use of that weapon (ver. 22; comp. 1 Samuel 18:4; 1 Samuel 20:36); and the meaning is that David made his own tribesmen, who were probably ill disposed to Saul and his family, learn this dirge, not so much for its preservation, as to make them give the fallen king due honour. Similarly Exodus 3. is called "The Bush" in Mark 12:26. The book of Jasher. See on this book Joshua 10:13, where the Syriac Version calls it "The Book of Canticles," and understands by it a collection of national ballads commemorative of the brave deeds of Israelite heroes. Jasher literally means "upright," and the Book of Jasher would be equivalent to "Hero book," the Hebrews always looking to the moral rather than the physical prowess of their great men.

Verse 19. - The beauty of Israel. The word zebi means both "beauty" and also "the gazelle." Ewald takes it in the second sense, and explains it of Jonathan. "everywhere the first in courage, in activity, and speed; slender also and of well-made figure, and whose personal beauty and swiftness of foot in attack or retreat gained for him among the troops the name of 'the gazelle.' The Syriac Version also translates 'gazelle,'" but Ephrem says that the whole Israelite nation is meant, the flower of whoso manhood lay slaughtered on Mount Gilboa. Which signification we take must really depend upon the meaning we attach to the words, "thy high place;" and these in the Authorized Version have nothing to refer to, and so become unmeaning. The Revised Version follows the Vulgate in taking Israel as a vocative, sad renders, "Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places." The sense would thus be that given by Ephrem, Israel's glory being its "mighty" men or heroes, its warriors slain upon Mount Gilboa with their king. But ver. 25 makes it plain that the "high places" are Jonathan's, and not those of the nation; and the more correct rendering is "O beauty [or, 'gazelle'] of Israel, slain upon thy high places! how are the heroes fallen!" Thus Jonathan is certainly meant, and the heroes are the young, prince and his father; and as the hunted antelope is said to return to its lair in the mountains, and there await its death, "gazelle" is probably the right rendering. In a dirge in honour of Saul and Jonathan we may be pretty sure that Jonathan would be referred to in its opening words, and the camp name of his friend would bring back to David's mind many a brave feat wrought together, and many a pleasant hour of companionship in past years.

Verse 20. - Gath... Askelon. By thus localizing the triumph, and bringing before the mind the thought of multitudes in these well-known places rejoicing with dance and song over the news of their victory, a more affecting picture is produced by the contrast with Israel's distress than could have been effected by mere generalizations. Probably, too, there was present in David's mind the remembrance of scenes which he had witnessed in these towns. In course of time, "Tell it not in Gath" became a proverb (Micah 1:10). The daughters. It is the custom in the East for the women to celebrate the prowess of the nation's warriors (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6; Psalm 68:11 Revised Version). Uncircumcised. For some unknown reason, this word is used as a term of reproach, especially of the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:6; 1 Samuel 17:26).

Verse 21. - Fields of offerings; Hebrew, fields of terumoth. The terumoth were heave offerings (Leviticus 7:14, 32), and the Vulgate, regarding these as thank offerings, translates, "Fields of firstfruits." The sense would thus be, "Fields of corn such as was used for heave offerings." Still, this gives us no suitable meaning; for Gilboa was not a place fit for the growth of corn; and Theodoret, in his version, has preserved a different reading, which is probably right, namely, "Ye fields and mountains of death." The shield...is vilely east away. This rendering contains a classical idea derived from the Greeks and Romans, among whom it was a disgrace for a soldier to return without his shield. But this imputes personal cowardice to Saul - a reproach which is entirely undeserved; for he did not east away his shield, but remained steadfast unto death. The right translation is, "For there the shield of heroes, yea, the shield of Saul, was defiled," stained, that is, with blood. We have no proof whatsoever that the Israelites had the same notion as the Greeks, and if they had, David would certainly not have put such a stigma upon the fallen king. [As though he had] not [been] anointed with oil. By rejecting the inserted words, we get the original, with all its simplicity, but with all its difficulty.

"There the shield of the heroes was defiled:
The shield of Saul not anointed with oil." The interpretation put upon these words in the Authorized Version is taken from the Vulgate, no mean authority, but it is one which cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew, where it is not Saul, but his shield, which is referred to. It was a Jewish custom to anoint the shield with oil before a battle (Isaiah 21:5), in order probably to make the missiles of the enemy glance off from it without injury. And bearing this in mind, David now contrasts the sad issue of the battle with the hopes with which the warrior had in old times gone forth to war. Then his shield glistened brightly; now it was defiled with blood. In the Revised Version the rendering, "vilely cast away," is retained, the Revisers not having perceived that "defiled," which they have placed in the margin, is absolutely required for the text by the contrast with "the shield not anointed with oil."

Verse 22. - From the blood of the slain. In old time, Saul and Jonathan had been victorious warriors, who had returned from the battlefield stained with the blood of their enemies: from this battle they return no more, and their weapons have lost their old renown.

Verse 23. - Lovely and pleasant. The words of the Authorized Version contain a beautiful antithesis, which, however, does not exist in the Hebrew, which celebrates the close union of father and son in life as well as in death.

"Saul and Jonathan, the lovely and pleasant,
Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided." Notwithstanding Saul's rash vow, Jonathan had ever been his father's faithful friend and companion, nor had his affection for David made him untrue to the ties of natural affection. And David generously commends his friend for thus acting.

Verse 24. - Ye daughters of Israel. In old time, the women of Israel had celebrated Saul's triumphs (ver. 20), but now it is their sad office to bewail his death. And a touching reason is given for their sorrow. During Saul's reign the condition of the women had greatly improved. When a nation is in the miserable plight described in 1 Samuel 13:19-22, there is neither safety nor comfort for the weak; but when the strong arm of Saul had won freedom for Israel, the women were the first to reap the benefit, and "their scarlet clothing with delights," that is, their delightful or delicate clothing of bright colours and their golden ornaments, prove that the nation had made a great advance in prosperity and culture during the happier years of Saul's reign.

Verse 26. - Thy love to me was wonderful. Never was there a purer friendship than that of Jonathan for David. It began just after the combat with Goliath, when the young prince, instead of seeing in David a rival, who had equalled his own feat of valour, took him to his heart, put upon him his own robe and armour, and thus presented him to the army as his friend and brother. Nor did his father's hatred of David, nor the knowledge that David was to inherit the kingdom, interfere with his love. He remained a dutiful son to his father, and accepted his inferior position with magnanimity, without once seeing in David cause for blame; and it surpassed the love of women, because, to requite their devotion, they look for protection and homage, the more delightful because it is paid by the strong to the weak. But here the lives of the two friends could not combine in one happy fusion of mutual union. Their hearts were bound together, but a hard fate, of which they were fully aware, made the ruin of the one the certain result of the happiness of the other. Nevertheless, Jonathan, with everything to lose, and David with everything to gain, remained true and loyal friends.

Verse 27. - How are the mighty fallen! This lament, which occurs three times, is the central thought of the elegy. Glorious and noble in their pest lives, the heroes had now fallen, not as Wolfe fell at Quebec, with the shout of victory in his ears, but in the lost battle. And David seeks relief for his distress in dwelling upon the sad contrast between the splendid victories which Saul had won for Israel when first chosen to be king, and the terrible defeat by which life and kingdom had now been lost.