Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church, Manhattan, KS, 31 Oct. 2021
Read my translation: 20 They led them off in front of the livestock (after David had taken all the sheep and the cattle), and they said, “This is David’s plunder!” Then David went to the 200 men who had been too dead-tired to go on following David such that he had made them sit tight at Besor Creek, and they came out to call after David and to call after the people who were with him, and as David drew near to those people, he wished for peace to be theirs. But all the guys who were evil and ungodly among the men who had gone with David reacted and said, “Because they did not go with {us}, we will not give to them from the plunder which we made off with, except each man’s wife and his children, then let them lead them away and go. But David said, “Don’t act that way, my brothers, with what Yahweh has given to us, for He protected us and He gave that troop which had come against us into our control. And who is going to give heed to y’all about this matter? So, according to the share of the one who went down into the battle so also shall be the share of the one who sat tight at the baggage; they shall share it out equally.” And so it was from that day and onward. (Thus he put it into practice for a statute and for a judicial-precedent for Israel until this very day.) David then went to Ziqlag, and he sent some of the plunder to the elders of Judah {and} to his friends, saying, “Look, a blessing for y’all from the plunder of Yahweh’s enemies! It is for whoever is in the House of God and for whoever is in Ramoth Negev, and for whoever is in Jattir, and for whoever is in Aroer, and for whoever is in Siphmoth, and for whoever is in Eshtemoa, and for whoever is in Racal, and for whoever is in the towns of the Jerachmeelites, and for whoever is in the towns of the {Kenezites}, and for whoever is in Hormah and for whoever is in Bor-Ashan, and for whoever is in Athach, and for whoever is in Hebron, that is, for all the places where David conducted himself there – he and his men.”
As today’s story begins, David has just won a great battle over a large army of Midianite raiders, and he is gathering up the spoils of war from the Midianite camp.
The peoples of that area were known for their gold earrings and necklaces (Judges 8:24-26), so there was probably quite a bit of wealth captured in addition to the recovered family members.
Different people imagine the caravan in v.20 differently1, but my take is that it was the women and children and spoils from the previous verse that were “led off” on carts and beasts of burden driven by David’s men in the front, and then the livestock followed behind the caravan.
Literally, the Hebrew reads, “They led them away in front of this livestock…” Which begs the question, “Which livestock?” And I think the answer follows: “...The sheep and herds [which] David also took.”
Driving a herd of cattle in front of the caravan of people (as most English versions portray it) doesn’t seem practical (think about the manure that everybody would have to step through, for one thing, plus there’s the problem of wandering livestock sidetracking the entire caravan).
When they said, “This is David’s plunder,” I don’t think they are saying that just the sheep and cattle are David’s plunder (whereas the women and children and valuables are not), rather I think they are saying that all of the above is David’s plunder.
Now the question may be raised, “How could David take Amelekite plunder and cattle if Saul had been commanded in chapter 15 to destroy all the Amelekites’ stuff and take none of it home?” Puritan commentator Andrew Willett answered this well when he wrote, “[T]his prey which David took... was not [the Amalekites’] own cattle, but such as they had taken before from other cities of Judah beside Ziklag, and therefore David might lawfully recover them.”
As I studied this account, I was impressed by the many ways that David built community under God through his actions:
David demonstrated to the men left behind that they were still part of his community under God by going back to them and reuniting them with his army.
David’s band of 600 men had become divided after a third of them had collapsed during the chase before the battle. Rather than leaving them behind and despising the weak people in his company, David set out to re-integrate them into his community.
It is a common trend in church circles to prove that you are the true community of God by separating from other Christians and preaching against them and taking pride in our distinctions of doctrine and practice. There is certainly a place for taking uncompromising stands on God’s word when the crowd is following rank heresies, but too often Christians have cut loose from other Christians over things that are not important or clear-cut in Scripture.
For almost 2,000 years, Christians have had a variety of practices regarding things like which days to celebrate as holidays, what you should and shouldn’t eat, baptism methods, communion serving methods, decorations for meeting places, style of music, and leadership structure, and these varieties of practices exist among Bible-believing churches mostly because the Bible doesn’t give us clear-cut commands on exactly how all these things should be done. Rather than creating separate denominations for each of these extraBiblical distinctions and spending our ammunition shooting down the rest of Christendom for not agreeing with us, let’s work to express solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ!
I’m not saying you’re ever going to get every true Christian together in the same church, and I’m not saying that the church should be diluted by accepting unbiblical sects, but I’m saying, “Where’s your heart at?” Is factionalism what excites you, or is community under God where your heart is?
And the application is, “Is there anybody that you’ve left behind that God would have you reach back out to and welcome into community with you under God?”
David also demonstrated community under God by the way he greeted the 200 left behind.
There must have been some anxiety on the part of those 200 dropouts as they saw David’s convoy coming into view. Surely they knew enough of David’s band of malcontents to know that there might be some rough treatment in store for them for being such wimps and dead weight. David must have seen the anxiousness on their faces as they got up to greet him. What would he say?
Literally in Greek and Hebrew, “David... asked for peace to belong them.” These words were, of course, a traditional greeting, but if David spoke those words sincerely (“Peace to you”), that meant something,
just as surely as a thousand years later the Apostle Peter would write “to the elect pilgrims scattered at Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia... grace and peace be made full in y'all.” (1 Peter 1:1-2, NAW)
Upon rejoining the 200 men left behind at the Besor Ravine, David first asks how they are doing and wishes them well before saying anything of his conquest. What a great leader to think of the concerns of others first!
When you meet other people, is that what is on your heart? Can you cultivate a genuine interest in how they’re doing, and can you earnestly wish them to be blessed with God’s peace?
Contrast that with the words of the “evil” and “ungodly” sons of “Belial” – the “worthless” “troublemakers” who said, “You bunch of losers, just reclaim your wife and get out of here.” They were not willing to continue in community with the third of their troop that they had left behind. They wanted them to go away, but David was not willing to break with them. David wanted them to remain in community with them.
David’s words also demonstrate the Biblical principle of thinking the best of others.
David, in thinking the best of these 200 weak men, did not look upon them as disruptively crashing on the banks of the Besor to give him trouble, but rather as part of his common cause, who would have gone with him if they could, but, due to their inability, had to play a support role instead.
David could have had his historian write down anything he wanted about those 200 men. 1 Samuel 30 could have been a rant about 200 lazy men who deserted David at his hour of need and who deserved to be punished and sent away. But no, he (under the graces of the Holy Spirit) had the historian write down that the 200 men were “made to stay” at Besor to “guard” the bags and gear, putting them in the best light possible.
In 2 Corinthians 8, the Apostle Paul uses this same principle in corresponding with a church that had promised to make a contribution to the funds he was raising to help persecuted Christians in Jerusalem, but the Corinthians had failed to make good on their promise. They had donated nothing to the fund. Rather than assuming that they had ill will and were liars, Paul thinks the best of them and assumes they were still on board but had been hindered by adverse circumstances, so he wrote, “...a year ago [you] started not only to do this work but also to desire to do it. So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have… but... your abundance at the present time should supply their need...” And he sends Timothy to take up a collection. (2 Corinthians 8:10-14, ESV)
Can you imagine what would have happened if Paul had instead written to the Philippians, “Have nothing to do with those stingy, untrustworthy Corinthians. They said they would give to my poor fund, but they never did. I never want to see them again.”
1 Corinthians 13:7 says love “bears all things, believes all things, and hopes all things” – love thinks the best rather than the worst of others. Can you put that into practice?
David demonstrated community under God with the 200 left behind by sharing the plunder with them.
David may have taken cues from Abraham and Moses:
Abraham returned the spoils of Sodom to its rightful owners and took nothing of it (Gen. 14).
And Moses, after his victory over the Midianite coalition, instructed that the spoils of the war be divided half among the warriors who went out to battle and half among the rest of the people of Israel, and everyone was to give some of their windfall to the priests in thanks to God (Numbers 31).
Perhaps this event is what David was thinking about when he wrote Psalm 68:12 “Kings of armies flee, they flee, And she who remains at home divides the spoil.” (KJV)
And, by the way, the note in 1 Samuel 30:25 that David’s policy of sharing the spoils of war with those who had not fought was carried on in history, is substantiated in the Apocrypha, 900 years after David, where we read of Judas Maccabeus beating off an army of 20,000 Roman soldiers with an army of only 6,000 Jews – with the help of the LORD. 2 Maccabees 8:28 recounts of the Jewish soldiers that, “when they had given part of the spoils to the maimed, and the widows, and orphans, the residue they divided among themselves and their servants.” (Brenton) Sharing the wealth after a victory was a wise community-building policy, worthy of continuing through time and worthy of us putting into practice ourselves.
The stingy attitude of the bad-hearted warriors when they were rolling in vast, unexpected wealth, is called “evil” and “ungodly” because that’s the truth. Matthew Henry commented in his prosaic way, “Awhile ago they would gladly have given half their own to recover the other half, yet now that they have all their own they are not content unless they can have their brethren's too... Very barbar[ic this was] to their brethren... to give them their wives and children, and not their estates… to give them the mouths without the meat.”
May God preserve us from being in as desperate a condition as David was, having to literally fight a war to get his family back, but when God blesses you with a windfall, is your first thought to hoard it all for yourself, or do you consider, “Who can I share some of this with, to build community under God?”
The tithe is a simple and basic way to share abundance. “Let me give God the first 10% of this money!”
The church is the obvious place to give this, although my wife and I have instituted a policy that with unexpected windfalls, we look for God to direct us to a special recipient. It may be a missionary we want to support but didn’t have in the budget that year.
Another way to share bounty is to invite neighbors over for a picnic and put money toward good food and comfortable lawn furniture and fun entertainment. Make ‘em want to come back! Build community under God.
Now note that the evil and ungodly men said, “We will not give them any of the spoil that we recovered…” What’s wrong with that statement?
The "evil and worthless" men in David's army robbed God of glory by claiming that they had recovered the spoils all by themselves. David, ever sensitive to God’s glory, quickly reminds the men that it was not because of the military might of the 400 men that they won, but it was because of GOD. Therefore God rightly owns the loot.
Community without God is not healthy community; David is quick to keep his community under God.
David said, “Don’t act that way, my brothers, with what Yahweh has given to us, for He protected us, and He gave that troop which had come against us into our control...”
Here is the antidote to greed and selfishness. If we see that everything we have is not actually ours but God’s, it completely changes our attitude.
If we look at wealth as something we gained by our own power, then we see it as essentially ours, and our role becomes that of guardians of what is ours, keeping other people from getting it and consuming it for ourselves.
But if we see everything as gifts from God, then we see it as essentially God’s, and our role becomes that of servants of God who steward His wealth and spend it on what He wants with the same generosity with which God gave it to us.
Note that even then, David is encouraging community by calling these wicked and ungodly men “brothers.” Andrew Willett commented on this: “David calleth them brethren, either in respect of their nation, and country, being all of Israel, or because they were all of one profession and religion: and though they were now evil disposed, yet he persuaded himself, that they might come to be of a better mind: whereby we are taught not to be out of hope of any, but that they may be otherwise minded. And by this friendly, and loving compellation, he... might more easily win them, unto that which was honest and reasonable... Thus Stephen in Acts 7:2 calleth the obstinate Jews ‘brethren.’ ... not so much consider[ing]; what they were in the present state, but what, by God's grace, they might be.”
Note the difference in attitude towards what to do with extra wealth:
The Amalekites just wanted to use the extra gains on partying and using it all for themselves.
But David was thinking in terms of how to use all that wealth to glorify God and build up the kingdom of God.
Which describes your attitude toward wealth?
Now David did a shrewd thing. Rather than being caught by the Philistines or Israelites with plunder from their cities....
Likely much of what he sent them was stuff that had been stolen from them previously by the Amalekites; we know that the Jerechmeelites and Kenites and the places of the Negev were close to where the Amalekites roamed.
Now, the Amalekites had also raided Calebite settlements in the Negev, which may have included the town of Ziph which had been so hostile to David, but it’s interesting that Ziph was not included on the list of recipients here.
Note also that this wealth was not sent to King Saul to distribute as he saw fit among everyone in the entire country (as the Socialists and Communists would have us do), rather, it was given to the elders of certain towns.
Remember that these towns were not cities with millions of people but more like neighborhoods with only several dozen houses. These local elders would know personally what had been stolen from the people in their village by the Amalekites. They would know personally who needed financial help, and they would be trusted to handle the wealth appropriately.
There was also a plurality of elders in each town, so the power and wealth were not concentrated in only one elder’s control, there were multiple elders to hold each other accountable.
David sent some of the plunder from the Amalekites to 13 locations3, all of them in Judah.
The list starts with Bethel, and, although the consensus among commentators is that this is not the Bethel further north in Benjamin, but rather some place in Judea, there are various opinions as to whether it was:
some town in southern Judea that has been lost to knowledge, (which the Latin and most English versions and NICOT seem to indicate)
or whether it was Bethuel, a town in Judea where part of the tribe of Simeon had relocated (Which the Soncino Jewish commentary and the Christian Keil & Delitzsch commentary advocated for),
or whether it was not a place name after all but intended to be translated “the House of God,” indicating where the ark was kept in Kiriath Jearim in Judah (which was the position of the Puritan commentators Andrew Willett, Matthew Henry, and John Gill).
I’m inclined toward the “house of God” position because it makes sense to me that David would have given his first gift to God (and this is the first location on the list), and also because the word “Beth-el” is known to have been used before in 1 Samuel 7:16 and 10:3 to denote the “house of God” in Kiriath Jearim.
And as might be expected with the translation of a list of place names into different languages over thousands of years, there are different traditions in the spellings of the names of some of these towns, but the variants don’t change the basic idea of blessing a handful of towns in Judea that had been friendly to David.
This gift came with a message. It’s hard to tell whether the message was to end with v.26, like the NIV and ESV punctuated it, or whether the message to the elders was intended to run on to the end of the chapter and include the list of recipients, as the KJV and NASB punctuate it. I’m inclined toward the latter because:
The last verb in this chapter is in v.26, so if the last five verses aren’t part of the message, then they are hanging without a subject or a verb to give them context.
I also think that telling the elders of each city about who else was getting reimbursed would add to a sense of community throughout the towns of Judah,
and, it would also provide an accountability mechanism, for if the message includes the list of all the recipients, then, if any messengers were to try to abscond with the wealth intended for a particular township, the elders of a dozen other townships could be marshaled to call the corrupt messenger down and get the booty into the proper hands.
David was really smart about avoiding corruption. Modern aid agencies could learn a thing or two from him!
Notice also whose name is in the message. Not David’s, but God’s. “This is spoil from Yahweh’s enemies.”
David wanted his LORD’s name exalted; that’s the name David wants His people to remember.
David also wanted to strengthen the faith of his friends by reminding them that the LORD’s enemies will not prevail. “Yahweh still executes justice on the earth and still looks out for His people. Here’s a gift taken from Yahweh’s enemies!”
Now, of course the elders of each town would say, “Hey, there’s got to be a story behind this! Come over for dinner and tell us everything!” And of course it would come out that David was still alive, still remembering his people with appreciation for the help they had given him in the past, and still whupping up on Israel’s enemies, and so this gift came from David.
Proverbs 18:16 tells us that “A man's gift makes room for him,” and David could well have also had in mind making room in the hearts of his people to want him to be their king soon. (Henry) This gift put him in the position of benefactor instead of being a mooch,” and I'm sure this went a long way toward winning their support when King Saul died.
This little story carries a surprising amount of application for us today. I found enough New Testament texts on these principles to preach for at least another 45 minutes, so let’s dig in! Just Kidding, but let me summarize what I found:
As we look at the contemporary scene, we see people in ditches on both sides of the road when it comes to community:
On the one extreme we see the Socialists (or Communists or Marxists, or whatever name they’re going by – it’s as old as the Tower of Babel), trying to create absolute community apart from God. This is an extreme because it goes beyond Biblical covenant-making under God and instead forces everyone to surrender all possessions to a centralized government and to put all their faith in that human government to take care of all their needs apart from God. Community without God is a vain hope that never has worked.
On the other extreme are those who are trying to be completely self-sufficient. They may be trying to be under God, but they’re doing it apart from community.
They are so afraid of other people letting them down that they are unwilling to depend on any one for anything.
They have their own well, generate their own power, grow all their own food, and homechurch in order to avoid community under God. (Now if you happen to do any of those things, but you are not doing it to avoid community under God, I’m not talking about you.) Maybe they are so self-sufficient that they don’t want God either.
Even in the best-case-scenario of Adam in the Garden of Eden before the corruption of sin, having God but no community was “not good.” We can’t thrive without community.
God’s word does not support either extreme. We need wisdom to find a healthy, Biblical balance, like David did.
If I could boil down Biblical principles of community under God to three points, here’s what I’d include:
Care for the poor and needy
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 "If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. (NKJV, cf. continuance of this principle in Prov. 14:21-34 & Ezekiel 16:49)
And when Peter, James, and John reviewed Paul at the beginning of his ministry, they said, “Remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10), which is why Paul wrote so much about his collection for the poor in 2 Corinthians.
A second aspect of community under God in the New Testament is the metaphor of considering ourselves to be part of a body with other Christians:
1 Corinthians 12:12-31a “...exactly as the body is a unit and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, thus also the Christ, for in one Spirit also we ourselves were all baptized into one body... For also the body is not one member but rather many... the eye is not able to say to the hand, ‘I don't have need of you,’ or again, the head to the feet, ‘I don't have need of y'all!’ But rather, to a great extent, the members of the body which seem weaker are rather necessary for existence... [T]he members should care the same for each other. Now, if one member suffers, all the members suffer together, or if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice together. Now, y'all are the body of Christ…” (NAW)
Romans 12:5 “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” (KJV, cf. Ephesians 4:3-4)
And a third aspect of community under God in the New Testament is that of drawing upon the power and fruits of the Holy Spirit to build and maintain community under God.
Galatians 5:13-16 “...through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! I say then: Walk in the Spirit…” (NKJV)
Colossians 3:12-15 “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body...” (NKJV, cf. Phil. 2 & 1 Thess. 5:14-15)
May God give us grace, like David, to reunite those who have been estranged, think the best and warmly greet fellow believers, see our blessings as gifts from God and ourselves as stewards of His resources, give generously in the name of our Lord, caring for the poor and needy, functioning in a united way as a body with other Christians, and drawing upon the power and fruits of the Holy Spirit to build and maintain community under God!
LXX |
Brenton |
DRB |
KJV |
NAW |
MT |
20
καὶ ἔλαβεν
Δαυιδ πάντα
τὰ ποίμνια καὶ
τὰ βουκόλια
[καὶ]
ἀπήγαγ |
20
And heB
took all the flocks, and the herds, [and]
X
led
them away
before
[the
spoils]:
and
|
20
And X
he took all the flocks and the herds, [and]
X
made
them go
before |
20 And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drave before those other cattle, and said, This is David's spoil. |
20 They led them off in front of the livestock (after David had taken all the sheep and the cattle), and they said, “This is David’s plunder!” |
20 וַיִּקַּח דָּוִד אֶת-כָּל-הַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר נָהֲגוּC לִפְנֵי הַמִּקְנֶה הַהוּא וַיֹּאמְרוּ זֶה שְׁלַל דָּוִד: |
21
καὶ παραγίνεται
Δαυιδ πρὸς τοὺς
διακοσίους
ἄνδρας τοὺς
ἐκλυθένταςD
τοῦ πορεύεσθαι
ὀπίσω Δαυιδ
καὶ ἐκάθισ |
21
And David comes to the two hundred men who were
|
21
And David came to the two hundred men, who, being
weary,
[had
stayed, and]
were not |
21 And David came to the two hundred men, which were so faint that they could not follow X David, whom they had made also to abideG at the brook Besor: and they went forth to meet David, and to meet the people that were with him: and when David came nearH to the people, he saluted them XI. |
21 Then David went to the 200 men who had been too dead-tired to go on following David such that he had made them sit tight at Besor Creek, and they came out to call after David and to call after the people who were with him, and as David drew near to those people, he wished for peace to be theirs. |
21 וַיָּבֹא דָוִד אֶל-מָאתַיִם הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר- פִּגְּרוּ מִלֶּכֶת אַחֲרֵי דָוִד וַיֹּשִׁיבֻם בְּנַחַל הַבְּשׂוֹר וַיֵּצְאוּ לִקְרַאת דָּוִד וְלִקְרַאת הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-אִתּוֹ וַיִּגַּשׁ דָּוִד אֶת- הָעָם וַיִּשְׁאַל לָהֶם לְשָׁלוֹם: ס |
22
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη
πᾶς ἀνὴρ λοιμὸςJ
καὶ πονηρὸς
τῶν ἀνδρῶν [τῶν
πολεμιστῶν]
τῶν πορευθέντων
μετὰ Δαυιδ καὶ
εἶπαν Ὅτι οὐ
κατεδίωξαν
μεθ᾿ |
22
Then every ill-disposed and bad
man [of
the soldiers]
who had gone with David, answered and said, Because they did not
pursue
[together]
with |
22
Then all the wicked and unjust
men, X
X that
had gone with David, answering, said: Because they came not with
|
22
Then answered all the wicked men and men
of Belial,L,
of those X
that went with David, and said, Because they went not with |
22 But all the guys who were evil and ungodly among the men who went with David reacted and said, “Because they did not go with {us}, we will not give to them from the plunder which we made off with, except each man’s wife and his children, then let them lead them away and go. |
22 וַיַּעַן כָּל- אִישׁ-רָע וּבְלִיַּעַלN מֵהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ עִם-דָּוִד וַיֹּאמְרוּ יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא-הָלְכוּ עִמִּיO לֹא-נִתֵּן לָהֶם מֵהַשָּׁלָל אֲשֶׁר הִצַּלְנוּ כִּי-אִם- אִישׁ אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו וְיִנְהֲגוּ וְיֵלֵכוּP: ס |
23
καὶ εἶπεν Δαυιδ
Οὐ ποιήσετε
οὕτως |
23
And David said, Ye shall not do so, |
23 But David said: You shall not do so, my brethren, with these things, which the Lord hath given us, X who hath kept us, and hath delivered the robbers that invaded us into our hand[s]: |
23 Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, XR who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand. |
23 But David said, “Don’t act that way, my brothers, with what Yahweh has given to us, for He protected us and He gave that troop which had come against us into our control. |
23 וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לֹא-תַעֲשׂוּ כֵן אֶחָי אֵתS אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן יְהוָה לָנוּ וַיִּשְׁמֹר אֹתָנוּ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת- הַגְּדוּד הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּיָדֵנוּT: |
24
καὶ τίς ὑπακούσεται
ὑμῶν τῶν λόγ |
24
And who will hearken to X
th |
24
And [no]
|
24 For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarriethUby the stuffV: they shall partW alike. |
24 And who is going to give heed to y’all about this matter? So, according to the share of the one who went down into the battle so also shall be the share of the one who sat tight at the baggage; they shall share it out equally.” |
24 Xוּמִי יִשְׁמַעY לָכֶם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי כְּחֵלֶק הַיֹּרֵד בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּכְחֵלֶק הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-הַכֵּלִים יַחְדָּו יַחֲלֹקוּ: ס |
25
καὶ ἐγενήθη
ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας
ἐκείνης καὶ
ἐπάνω καὶ |
25
And it came to pass from that day X
forward, that it |
25
And this hath been [done]
from that day [forward,]
and since
X
|
25
And it was so
from that day X
forward,
that he |
25 And so it was from that day and onward. (Thus he put it into practice for a statute and for a judicial-precedent for Israel until this very day.) |
25 וַיְהִי מֵהַיּוֹם הַהוּא וָמָעְלָהAB וַיְשִׂמֶהָ לְחֹקAC וּלְמִשְׁפָּט לְיִשְׂרָאֵלAD עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה: פ |
26 Καὶ ἦλθεν Δαυιδ εἰς Σεκελακ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις Ιουδα τῶν σκύλων [καὶ] τοῖς πλησίον αὐτοῦ λέγων Ἰδοὺ X X X ἀπὸ τῶν σκύλων τῶν ἐχθρῶν κυρίου· |
26 And David came to Sekelac, and sent of the spoils to the elders of Juda, [andAE] to his friends, saying, Behold X X XAF some of the spoils of the enemies of the Lord; |
26
Then David came to Siceleg, and sent [presents]
of the prey to the ancients of Juda, his neighbours, saying:
|
26 And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a presentAGfor you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD; |
26 David then went to Ziqlag, and he sent some of the plunder to the elders of Judah {and} to his friends, saying, “Look, a blessing for y’all from the plunder of Yahweh’s enemies! |
26 וַיָּבֹא דָוִד אֶל-צִקְלַג וַיְשַׁלַּח מֵהַשָּׁלָל לְזִקְנֵי יְהוּדָה לְרֵעֵהוּAH לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה לָכֶם בְּרָכָה מִשְּׁלַל אֹיְבֵי יְהוָה: |
27 τοῖς ἐν Βαιθσουρ καὶ τοῖς ἐν Ραμα νότουAI καὶ τοῖς ἐν Ιεθθορ |
27 to those in Baethsur, and to those in Rama of the south, and to those in Gethor. |
27 To them that were in Bethel, and that were in Ramoth to the south, and to them that were in Jether. |
27 To them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in southAJ Ramoth, and to them which were in Jattir, |
27 It is for whoever is in the house of God and for whoever is in Ramoth Negev, and for whoever is in Jattir, |
27 לַאֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית- אֵלAK וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּרָמוֹת-נֶגֶב וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּיַתִּר: |
28 καὶ τοῖς ἐν Αροηρ [καὶ τοῖς Αμμαδι] καὶ τοῖς ἐν Σαφι καὶ τοῖς ἐν Εσθιε [καὶ τοῖς ἐν Γεθ καὶ τοῖς ἐν Κιναν καὶ τοῖς ἐν Σαφεκ καὶ τοῖς ἐν Θιμαθ]AL |
28
And to those in Aroer, [and
to those |
28 And to them that were in Aroer, and X that were in Sephamoth, and X that were in Esthamo, |
28 And to them which were in Aroer, and to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa, |
28 and for whoever is in Aroer, and for whoever is in Siphmoth, and for whoever is in Eshtemoa, |
28 וְלַאֲשֶׁר בַּעֲרֹעֵר וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּשִׂפְמוֹת וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּאֶשְׁתְּמֹעַ: ס |
29
καὶ τοῖς ἐν
|
and
to those in |
29 And that were in Rachal, and X that were in the cities of Jerameel, and X that were in the cities of Ceni, |
29 And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites, |
29 and for whoever is in Racal, and for whoever is in the towns of the Jerachmeelites, and for whoever is in the towns of the {Kenezites}, |
29 וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּרָכָל וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּעָרֵי הַיְּרַחְמְאֵלִי וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּעָרֵי הַקֵּינִANי: |
30
καὶ τοῖς ἐν
|
30
and to those in |
30 And X that were in Arama, and X that were in the lakeAQ Asan, and X that were in Athach, |
30
And to them
which were
in Hormah, and to them
which were
in |
30 and for whoever is in Hormah and for whoever is in Bor-Ashan, and for whoever is in Athach, |
30 וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּחָרְמָה וְלַאֲשֶׁר ASבְּבוֹר-עָשָׁן וְלַאֲשֶׁר בַעֲתָךְ: |
31 καὶ τοῖς ἐν Χεβρων καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς τόπους, οὓς διῆλθεν Δαυιδ ἐκεῖ, αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτοῦ. |
31 and to those in Chebron, and to all the places which David and his men had passed through. |
31
And X
that
were in Hebron, and to |
31
And to them
which were
in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men
were
wont to |
31 and for whoever is in Hebron, that is, for all the places where David conducted himself there – he and his men.” |
31 וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּחֶבְרוֹן AUוּלְכָל- הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר- הִתְהַלֶּךְ-שָׁם דָּוִד הוּא וַאֲנָשָׁיו: פ |
1Willett disagreed, as did Henry (“This drove was put in the van of the triumph.”), Gill (and K&D )understood it to be saying “first went the spoil taken from other places, and then those taken from David and his men,” others were skeptical that there had been time for such a separation of David’s stuff from everybody else’s. Abarbinel supposed it meant merely that the oxen were led out first, and then the sheep followed.
2The wording of the text in the source manuscripts makes it a little unclear whether the elders were the same as the friends or whether they were two different groups.
3For some reason unknown to us, there are 4 more listed in the LXX.
AMy
original chart includes the NASB and NIV, but their copyright
restrictions have forced me to remove them from the
publicly-available edition of this chart. I have included the ESV in
footnotes when it employs a word not already used by the KJV, NASB,
or NIV. (NAW is my translation.) When a translation adds words not
in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use
of italics (or greyed-out text), I put the added words in [square
brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different
from all the other translations, I underline it. When a
version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs
too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far
from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout.
And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I
insert an X. (I also place an X at the end of a word if the original
word is plural but the English translation is singular.) I
occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between
the various editions and versions when there are more than two
different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea
Scroll containing 1 Samuel 30 is 4Q51Samuela, which
contains fragments of vs. 22-31 and which has been dated between
50-25 B.C. Where the DSS is legible and matches the MT, the MT is
colored purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX with omissions or
text not in the MT, I have highlighted
with yellow the LXX
and its translation into English, and, where I have accepted that
into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.
BDavid’s name is in the MT and in Rahlf’s compilation of the Septuagint but not in the Vulgate or the Vaticanus, thus the NIV omits it. Either way, there is no doubt that David should be the subject, so it makes no difference in meaning.
CThis is the same verb used in v.2 of the Amalekites “driving/leading off” the women and children. The MT spelling demands a plural subject whereas the LXX spelling demands a singular subject, but in neither Greek nor Hebrew is the subject explicitly stated. The NIV adds “David’s men” as a plural subject, and the ESV adds “the people” as a singular subject, both of which fit the story, even if they are additions. My interpretation is that it was the women and children and spoils from the previous verse that were “led off” on carts and beasts of burden driven by David’s men, and the livestock followed behind the caravan. Driving a herd of cattle in front of the caravan of people (as most English versions portray it) doesn’t seem practical. Making a parenthetical statement of David’s capture of the flocks and herds rather than making the flocks and herds the object of what was driven also makes better sense of the near demonstrative pronoun on the other side of the clause in both Hebrew and Greek. (Literally, the Hebrew reads, “They led them away in front of this livestock… [Which livestock?] The sheep and herds [which] David also took.”) Read this way, when they said “This is David’s plunder,” they are not saying that just the sheep and cattle are David’s plunder whereas the women and children and valuables are not, rather they are saying that all of the above is David’s plunder.
Dcf. later Greek versions: Aq. eptwmatisqhsan (“the seven-times worthless ones”) S. atonhsantaV (“those without endurance”), Q. aponarkhsantaV (“those who were averse”).
ESymmachus (and the Lucian Rescription) opted for the more periphrastic rendering hspasanto autouV (“he greeted them”), later adopted by recent English versions.
FRahlf’s Septuagint compilation follows the MT with “exhausted,” but the most-ancient Vaticanus Greek manuscript (which Brenton followed in his English translation) instead reads a word from v.9 “left behind” υπολειψθεντος.
GKJV follows the MT “abide/dwell” here, with a plural subject (forcing David’s 400 men to be the subject who caused the 200 men to “sit tight” at Besor), whereas NASB, NIV, and ESV borrow a different word from v.9 הַנּוֹתָרִים "left [behind]” and render it as though it were a Niphal Passive form (the 200 men were left behind by the 400 men) instead of the Hiphal Causative form in the MT. However, several Hebrew manuscripts as well as all the major ancient versions (LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, Targum) interpret the verb as having a singular subject. The consonants would be spelled the same either way, but it appears that late in the first millennium AD, Masoretic scribes inserted an unusual qibbutz vowel before the final mem, to turn the singular form into a plural form. The singular form would make David the subject who “caused to sit tight” the 200 at Besor.
HNASB, NIV = “approached”
ILiterally in Greek and Hebrew “asked to them/him to peace;” NASB, NIV, and ESV rejected both the LXX and MT to follow Symmachus with “greeted.”
JThe LXX word is the same for a “plague,” cf. synonyms from later Greek versions: Aq. apostathV (“apostate”), S. paranomoV (“lawless”).
Kcf. Aq. errusameqa (“we rushed upon”)
L“Belial” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Other versions translated: NASB = “worthless,” NIV = “troublemakers.”
MNASB, ESV = “except,” NIV = “however”
NTsumura noted that this is a hendiadys (“worthless and evil”).
OThe MT reads “with me,” but the LXX, several Hebrew manuscripts, Rabbinic literature, the Syriac, and the Vulgate read “with us.” This does not change the sense of the story though.
PThe end of this verse is illegible in the DSS, and the amount of space between the legible words could support the MT or the LXX. The NIV rightly translates the ambiguity of the Hebrew verb here, which could support either them wanting the 200 to “go” away from them (as the Vulgate, KJV, NASB, and ESV interpret it) or it could support them wanting the 200 to “go” and return home with them (as the LXX interpreted it). The former seems to fit the context better, though.
QThe insertion of a resh between the last two letters of the corresponding word in the MT would change the meaning from “my brothers” to “after,” so the LXX reading is not as different as it might seem in English.
RMost English versions ignored the conjunction here in both Hebrew and Greek, but it seems strategic to David’s point as a causal indicator. K&D translated it “since.”
SThe
DSS is illegible here, and the space between legible words could
support either the MT or the LXX.
As to whether this
is the preposition “with” or the sign of the direct
object, the spelling can be the same. Keil & Delitzsch opted for
the former, writing that it is “the sign of the accusative,
not the preposition,” but the Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible
Morphology and all the Eng. versions
render it with the preposition “with.” In the NICOT
commentary, Tsumura tried to say both were right, calling it “an
adverbial accusative ‘concerning with.’”
TAlthough the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate make “hands” plural, the spacing between legible parts of this verse in the DSS does not support the extra yod that it would take to make it plural, and it is singular in the MT.
UNASB, NIV, ESV = “stays/ed”
VNASB, ESV = “baggage,” NIV = “supplies”
WNASB, NIV, ESV = “share”
XTsumura (NICOT) explained this as a “Speaker-oriented ki, denoting the reason why I ask you this rhetorical question.”
YIn the Jewish Soncino commentary, Goldman noted, “David means that the decision by the warriors to retain all the spoil will be disputed by the rest of the band.” The LXX, on the other hand, explains it that they are below David in the chain of command, so they can’t make anybody obey their rule if David rules otherwise. Gill paraphrased, “No wise and just man will take on your side of the question.”
Zcf. Symmachus’ synonymous terms oron kai krisin (“limitation and judgment”)
AAESV = “rule”
ABcf. the only other instance of this phrase in 16:13b “... And the Spirit of Yahweh advanced on David from that day and onward….” (NAW)
ACThere are only 4 other instances in the OT of “put a statute”: Gen. 47:26, Job 38:10, Prov. 8:29, & Jer. 5:22, and only two of “put a statute and a judgment”: Exod. 15:25 & Josh. 24:25.
ADMultiple Hebrew manuscripts read with a beth (“in”) preposition instead of the lamed (“for”), and the Vulgate and one of the Targums seems to follow that tradition, but it doesn’t make a difference in meaning.
AESyriac and Old Latin manuscripts also insert a conjunction between “elders” and “friends” not in the MT. The space for extra wording in the DSS appears to support separating “elders” and “friends” as two different groups rather than the same group.
AFThe DSS, though partially obliterated, supports the MT with space in the right place for “for y’all” and with part of the word for “gift” visible, the former of which is omitted from the Vulgate, and both of which are omitted from the LXX. The context indicates both of these facts, however (i.e. that the portions of the spoil were “gifted,” and that it was gifted “to them” - the elders and friends) so this variant, while curious, still does not change the story.
AGNASB, ESV = “gift”
AHGreek, Latin, and Syriac manuscripts add a copula before this word. There is space in this illegible section of the DSS for about 7 more letters than the MT has at this point. Those seven extra letters would elaborate on the LXX insertion if they were the following underlined letters: ll?hm <hyrulw hdwhy מהשׁלל לזקני (“some of the plunder to the elders of Judah and some of the plunder to their friends”). Gill wrote that the elders and friends were the same persons.
AISymmachus rendered with a synonym for “south” meshmbrian.
AJThe Hebrew word for “south” is “negev/negeb,” and NASB, NIV, and ESV chose “Negev” to denote the particular place in the south of Judah called the Negev/Negeb.
AKThis section of the verse is illegible in the DSS, but the space between legible parts earlier and later in this verse leave room for 14 to 22 more characters and spaces. It has been suggested that the 14 Hebrew characters of “and to those in Beth Tsur” could be missing from the MT while the first phrase “and to those in Beth El” are missing in the LXX, a haplography which would be understandable due to the repetition of “and to those in,” but for such a careless error to have happened like that in two manuscripts is unexpected. The Vulgate supports the MT here. Another possibility for filling the space in the DSS might be one or two of the extra place names from the LXX in the following verse. I don’t think there is enough evidence to be certain what the original was.
ALThese extra locations are also in the Vaticanus, although it spells Κιναν, Κιμαθ, and Θιμαθ, Θημαθ, and Ιεραμηλι, Ιερεμεηλ.
AMIt seems the Septuagint got the letters mixed up and added an “m” to change the MT ברכל to בכרמל.
ANDSS insert a zayin here, and so does the LXX.
AOThe Vaticanus spells this Νομβε, and the Lucian Rescription spells it Νεγεβ. The DSS is illegible at this point.
APOnly the first letter in Hebrew would have to be changed from Cheth to Yod to change the name in the MT to the name in the LXX here. The DSS is not legible at this point.
AQThis could be a translation of the Hebrew “Bor” which means “pit” or “depression,” and so by extension perhaps “lake.”
ARMany Hebrew manuscripts (including the one used in the Soncino Commentaries) start this name with a coph (“C”), as do the Geneva Bible, Revised Version, NKJV, French (Louis Segond) and Spanish (LBLA). On the other hand, the BHS, the Wikisource Hebrew Bible, the E-Sword unpointed Tanach, and the Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible start it with a beth (“B”), as do the Greek, Latin, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, CEV, NET, and NLT. The Hebrew letters for C (כ) and B (ב) might have been confused because they look similar. The DSS is not legible at this point. At any rate, Willett equated this city with Hashan in the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 14.4) among the tribe of Judah.
ASGoldman noted that the majority of Hebrew editions start the town’s name with a coph rather than a beth.
ATNASB = “accustomed to go” (interpreting the Hitpael form in terms of customary action), NIV & ESV = “roamed”
AUTsumura translated this conjunction “that is,” calling it an “Explicative waw,” a statement of identity rather than of addition.