1 Samuel 26:17-20

David’s appeal to Saul 26:17-20

Evidently the realization that David or Abishai again could have killed him but did not, led Saul to respond to David tenderly, calling him his son (1 Samuel 26:17; cf. 1 Samuel 26:21; 1 Samuel 26:25). Indeed, David had behaved as a loyal son toward Saul. David, however, did not now address Saul as his father, as he had previously (cf. 1 Samuel 24:11). He had come to view Saul less affectionately since he continued to hound David without cause after repeated promises to stop doing so. Moreover Saul was no longer David’s father-in-law (cf. 1 Samuel 25:44).

David said that if violation of the Mosaic Law had prompted Saul to hunt him down, he was ready to offer the sacrifice the Law prescribed to atone for it (1 Samuel 26:19). However, if David’s enemies had stirred up Saul’s hostility without cause, David prayed that God would judge them for that. Saul’s attacks had resulted in David’s separation from the Lord’s inheritance (i.e., the blessings God had given Israel, especially rest in the Promised Land) since he had to live as a fugitive. David’s enemies had in effect encouraged him to abandon Yahweh by driving him out of his home territory (1 Samuel 26:19). [Note: On the possibility that God had incited Saul to seek David’s life, and the larger issue of God’s use of deception to judge sinners, see Chisholm, "Does God Deceive?" pp. 11-12, 19-21.] The common conception in the ancient Near East was that gods ruled areas. Evidently some people were saying that because David had departed from his area the Lord would not protect him. David appeared to be seeking the protection of other gods by living in areas that they supposedly controlled (e.g., Philistia and Moab). [Note: See Youngblood, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 84; and Daniel Isaac Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology.] This looked like David was violating the first commandment (Exodus 20:3). Nevertheless David wanted to live and die in the center of God’s will and presence (1 Samuel 26:20).

David again compared himself to a mere flea, essentially harmless but annoying to Saul (1 Samuel 26:20; cf. 1 Samuel 24:14). He was making a word play on Abner’s question, "Who are you who calls (Heb. qarata) to the king?" (1 Samuel 26:14) by referring to himself as a "partridge" (1 Samuel 26:20, Heb. haqqore, lit. caller-bird). The partridge darts from one bush to another when a hunter pursues it, as David had been doing, though it tires fairly quickly and then can be caught easily. [Note: Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," p. 771.] David’s point in comparing himself to a partridge and a flea was that Saul’s search for such an insignificant person as David was beneath the king’s dignity.