The phrase “to the kings of Judah” identifies Ziklag as a royal holding of the Judean monarchy and locates the narrator’s explanatory notice in a period when the kingdom of Judah was recognized as distinct. The plural construct מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה (malkê yehûdâ, “kings of Judah”) is not a prediction that David alone would possess the town, but a retrospective description of its continuing relation to David’s royal dynasty. Achish’s grant to David thus becomes the historical explanation for Ziklag’s later status as crown property under the Judean kings. The expression עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (ʿad hayyôm hazzeh, “until this day”) is a conventional narrative formula marking the author’s own standpoint or that of a received source. Since the designation “kings of Judah” naturally reflects the divided monarchy, the notice is most readily understood as having been written, or at least preserved in its present form, after the separation of Judah from the northern kingdom. This does not require that the underlying events be fictitious or that the whole account be assigned to a late period; rather, the inspired historical narrative explains an earlier event by reference to a later, known political reality. The wording also distinguishes Ziklag’s status from a merely tribal allotment. Ziklag appears among the towns associated with Judah (Josh. 15:31) and Simeon within Judah’s territory (Josh. 19:5), yet 1 Samuel 27:6 emphasizes its subsequent royal possession. David’s acquisition of the town from Achish, though made while he lived as a Philistine vassal, is therefore presented as providentially significant: the place became attached not simply to David’s private household but to the Davidic rule over Judah.

The Hebrew text unambiguously says that the elders propose to fetch the ark “from Shiloh,” not “from him.” The phrase מִשִּׁלֹה (miššiloh) consists of the preposition מִן (min, “from”) joined to the place name שִׁלֹה (Šiloh). It identifies the ark’s present location and supplies the practical basis for the delegation described in v. 4: Israel sends to Shiloh and brings the ark into the military camp. The rendering “from him” does not represent the consonants or morphology of the Masoretic Text. Shiloh had functioned as Israel’s principal sanctuary in this period (1:3, 9; 3:21), and the ark was there in the care of Eli’s household (4:4). The elders’ proposal is therefore not that they will take the ark away from the LORD as though it were his personal possession, though it is indeed called “the ark of the covenant of the LORD.” Rather, they intend to transfer the visible covenant symbol from the sanctuary to the battlefield. The narrative’s criticism lies not in a mistaken geography but in their presumption that the ark’s physical presence could compel deliverance. Their words assign the saving action grammatically to the ark—“that it may come among us and save us” (וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ, Hiphil imperfect of יָשַׁע, yāšaʿ)—while the preceding question had correctly recognized that the LORD himself had struck Israel. The ensuing defeat demonstrates that the covenant God is not manipulable through the sacred object associated with his presence.

The Masoretic Text states that the LORD has become Saul’s adversary: וַיְהִי עָרֶךָ (wayhî ʿārekā), “and he has become your enemy.” The noun עָר (ʿār), here bearing the second masculine singular suffix, denotes an opponent or adversary. Its rarity has prompted uncertainty, but the immediate context strongly supports this sense. Saul seeks a word from Samuel because the LORD no longer answers him (28:6, 15); Samuel replies that such consultation is pointless precisely because the LORD has withdrawn from Saul and now stands judicially against him. The Greek version reads differently, rendering the final clause in a way that can be understood as “and is with your neighbor.” This may reflect a Hebrew reading such as רֵעֲךָ (rēaʿăkā, “your neighbor/companion”), and it anticipates the explicit identification of David as the recipient of Saul’s kingdom in v. 17. Yet the Greek reading also readily appears to be an interpretive or harmonizing expansion drawn from the following verse. The more difficult Masoretic reading should be retained: it is neither required by the immediate mention of David nor likely to have arisen from an attempt to simplify the text. To call the LORD Saul’s “enemy” does not attribute arbitrary hostility to God. The preceding perfect, סָר (sār, “has turned aside/withdrawn”), recalls the announced rejection of Saul’s dynasty and kingship because of his persistent disobedience (15:23, 26–28). The waw-consecutive form וַיְהִי (wayhî) presents the consequence of that withdrawal: the covenant Lord now opposes Saul’s rebellious rule rather than sustaining it. Samuel’s words therefore summarize the settled divine verdict already pronounced in the earlier narrative.

Saul’s address, “Listen, please, son of Ahitub” (šĕmaʿ-nāʾ ben-ʾAḥîṭûb), identifies Ahimelech by his priestly lineage rather than by his personal name. The narrative has already named him as Ahimelech son of Ahitub (21:1), and Saul plainly knows whom he is summoning. The expression therefore functions as a formal, somewhat distancing designation in a judicial setting: Saul calls forward the representative of a prominent priestly house to answer a charge. It need not imply that Saul has forgotten Ahimelech’s name, nor does it by itself establish contempt; yet the omission of the personal name fits the king’s treatment of him chiefly as the responsible head of the sanctuary at Nob. The genealogy is materially important to the narrative. Ahitub belonged to the line of Eli, and Ahimelech’s service at Nob places him within the established priesthood whose destruction Saul is about to command (22:16–19). Saul’s accusation in the following verse is thus not merely against an isolated individual who supplied David with bread and a sword, but against a priestly household allegedly implicated in treason. Ahimelech’s reply, “Here I am, my lord” (hinnenî ʾădōnî), preserves the expected posture of a royal subject before the anointed king. The phrase does not validate Saul’s charge or his later violence; rather, it heightens the tragedy that a faithful priest, addressing Saul with due public deference, is nevertheless judged by a king acting in fearful suspicion.

The phrase “he died with him” does not require that the armor-bearer died at precisely the same instant as Saul. The narrative sequence explicitly distinguishes the events: the armor-bearer saw that Saul “was dead” (מֵת, met, Qal perfect of מוּת, mut), then he fell on his own sword and died. The preposition עִם (‘im), with the pronominal suffix in עִמּוֹ (‘immo, “with him”), therefore denotes association in death—at Saul’s side, in the same defeat, and in continuing attachment to the king—rather than strict simultaneity. The particle גַּם (gam, “also”) strengthens the correspondence: as Saul fell upon his sword, so “he also” fell upon his sword. This is not merely a report of two battlefield deaths but a deliberately parallel description. The armor-bearer had refused Saul’s earlier command to kill him because of reverence for “the LORD’s anointed” (v. 4); after witnessing Saul’s death, he chooses a death patterned after Saul’s. His act is thus presented as the final expression of the servant’s identification with his master amid Israel’s catastrophic rout. At the same time, the wording confirms the narrator’s account that Saul had already died by his own hand, a point that governs the later, conflicting report of the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1.

David does not predict only an immediate, extraordinary divine killing of Saul; he places Saul’s removal wholly within the LORD’s sovereign disposal. The alternatives are deliberately comprehensive: the LORD may strike Saul directly, Saul’s “day” may arrive in ordinary death, or Saul may go down into battle and perish. In each case Saul’s death belongs to God’s judgment and timing rather than to David’s private action. This is the ground for David’s refusal in the preceding and following verses to put forth his hand against “the LORD’s anointed.” The first clause, יְהוָה יִגְּפֶנּוּ (YHWH yiggĕpennû), uses the Qal imperfect of נָגַף (nāgap), “strike,” with a third masculine singular object suffix, “him.” It can denote a decisive divine blow, including death, and thus envisions an act of judgment not mediated through David. By contrast, יוֹמוֹ יָבוֹא וָמֵת (“his day will come and he will die”) refers to the arrival of Saul’s appointed day, an idiom for the terminus of life. The final possibility, “he will go down in battle and perish,” employs יָרַד (yārad), commonly used of going down into the field of combat, and the Niphal of סָפָה (sāpâ), “be swept away, perish.” Saul’s eventual death in battle (1 Sam. 31:1–6) realizes the third stated alternative, though the narrative also consistently presents that event under the LORD’s judicial governance. The oath formula חַי־יְהוָה כִּי אִם (“as the LORD lives, surely/indeed”) gives the assertion solemn force. It is not chiefly a statement of uncertainty about whether Saul will fall, but a refusal to specify or seize the means by which the LORD will remove him. David recognizes Saul’s present rejection by God while still acknowledging that the kingship and the king’s life remain under God’s prerogative. The verse therefore distinguishes David’s divinely promised future accession from any authorization to procure it through regicide.

The final clause is best understood as the narrator’s disclosure of Saul’s private calculation, rather than as words spoken openly to David. Hebrew introduces it simply with וְשָׁאוּל אָמַר (wešaʾûl ʾāmar, “and Saul said”), without naming an addressee; yet אָמַר (ʾāmar) can introduce inward deliberation when the context requires it. The two jussives, אַל־תְּהִי יָדִי בוֹ (ʾal-tehî yādî bô, “let not my hand be against him”) and וּתְהִי־בוֹ יַד־פְּלִשְׁתִּים (ûtehî-bô yad-pelištîm, “but let the hand of the Philistines be against him”), express Saul’s concealed intention that David should perish through combat rather than by royal action. This narrative disclosure creates the sharp irony of Saul’s public speech. He invokes “the battles of the LORD” (milḥămôt YHWH), a phrase appropriate to Israel’s covenantal warfare and to the king’s calling, while privately treating those battles as a means of removing the LORD’s chosen servant. His demand that David prove himself “a son of valor for me” (ben-ḥayil lî) outwardly presents military service as loyal service to Saul; inwardly it is an attempt to expose David to fatal danger. The narrator thus distinguishes David’s legitimate participation in the LORD’s wars from Saul’s corrupt manipulation of those wars. Saul’s desire to avoid having “his hand” against David does not lessen his guilt: he deliberately seeks David’s death through the Philistines, anticipating the increasingly open hostility narrated in 1 Samuel 18:21 and 19:1.

The expression depicts Jonathan’s strenuous ascent of the narrow, precipitous pass, not a posture of humiliation or an animal-like crawl. The Hebrew says literally that he “went up upon his hands and upon his feet” (wayyaʿal … ʿal-yāḏāyw weʿal-raglāyw). In view of the two sharp crags named in vv. 4–5 and the Philistines’ summons to “come up” in v. 12, the phrase naturally indicates that Jonathan had to employ both hands and feet in climbing. It supplies the physical explanation for the armor-bearer’s position behind him: the ascent was so steep and exposed that the pair could approach only with difficulty, Jonathan leading and the bearer following with his equipment. The detail intensifies the improbability of the victory rather than merely furnishing local color. Jonathan and his companion do not launch a conventional attack from an advantageous position; they emerge at the top of the ascent before an enemy force after making themselves vulnerable in the climb. Yet the Philistines “fell before Jonathan” (wayyippĕlû lipnê yônātān), an idiom here referring to their being struck down in combat. The following participial clause, “his armor-bearer was killing after him” (wĕnōśēʾ-kēlāyw mĕmôtēt ʾaḥărāyw), portrays the bearer dispatching those whom Jonathan had overcome or wounded. The rare Polel participle mĕmôtēt, from mût, is intensive in force: he was putting them to death. Thus the difficult ascent and the coordinated action of the two men serve the theological assertion already made in v. 6: the Lord is not restrained from saving by many or by few.

The verse deliberately distinguishes Maon from Carmel: the man’s residence or clan association is in Maon, whereas his agricultural enterprise and the shearing of his flocks are in Carmel. These were neighboring Judean towns in the hill country, both named among the towns of Judah (Josh 15:55), not alternative designations for one place. The Carmel intended is therefore the town in southern Judah, not Mount Carmel in the north. The distinction supplies a concrete geographical setting for the ensuing narrative: David’s men were operating in the wilderness region adjoining the settled pastoral estates of Maon and Carmel. The phrase “his business was in Carmel” renders וּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַכַּרְמֶל (ûmaʿăśēhû bakkarmel). The noun מַעֲשֶׂה (maʿăśeh), literally “work” or “undertaking,” here denotes the man’s productive operations or estate, not merely his personal occupation in the abstract. The following specification—three thousand sheep, one thousand goats, and the ongoing shearing of his flock—defines that undertaking as a very substantial pastoral concern. The repeated notice that the shearing occurred “in Carmel” makes Carmel the operational center of his wealth, while Maon marks his home territory. This geographical and economic precision prepares for the significance of the shearing feast in the following account: Nabal’s resources were not remote or hypothetical, but visibly concentrated at Carmel at a season of harvest-like abundance.

The title “the LORD of hosts” (YHWH ṣĕbāʾôt) identifies Israel’s God as the sovereign commander of the heavenly armies, and its introduction here establishes that the God worshiped at the relatively unassuming sanctuary of Shiloh is Lord over all created powers. The noun ṣĕbāʾôt is the plural of ṣābāʾ, “army, host,” and stands in a genitival relationship to the divine name: not “the LORD who is hosts,” but “the LORD of the hosts.” Although “hosts” can include Israel’s military forces in some contexts, the title most naturally evokes the celestial armies under God’s command, including the heavenly beings and the ordered powers of heaven. It therefore emphasizes divine kingship, majesty, and unrivaled authority. This is the first occurrence of the title in the Samuel narrative, and its placement is programmatic. Elkanah’s yearly pilgrimage and sacrifices are directed not merely to the deity associated with a local shrine, but to the universal King whose rule is not contained by Shiloh. The ensuing narrative will display that sovereignty in unexpected ways: through Hannah’s barrenness and conception, through judgment upon Eli’s house, through the loss and recovery of the ark, and through the establishment of David’s kingdom. Hannah’s prayer in particular reflects the same theology of the Lord’s supreme rule over life, death, strength, and kingship (1 Sam 2:1–10). The mention of Hophni and Phinehas immediately after this title creates a deliberate contrast. They are indeed called “priests to the LORD” (kōhănîm laYHWH), an office that formally belongs to the covenantal worship at Shiloh; yet their later conduct demonstrates that official proximity to the sanctuary does not constitute fidelity to its Lord (1 Sam 2:12–17, 22–25). The title thus guards against identifying the Lord’s holiness or power with the moral condition of his priests. The Lord of hosts remains free and supreme to judge those who serve at his altar as well as to answer the humble worshiper who comes before him.

The quarter shekel is not presented as a fee by which Samuel’s revelation may be bought, but as the customary gift thought proper when seeking a recognized man of God. Saul had objected that they had no present to bring (v. 7), and the servant answers that he possesses a small piece of silver. The narrative therefore treats the silver as an answer to an etiquette problem, not as the price of access to occult knowledge. Samuel remains the Lord’s prophet, whose knowledge of the lost donkeys and whose announcement concerning Saul arise from divine disclosure (vv. 15–20), not from a commercial transaction. The servant says literally, “a quarter of a shekel of silver is found in my hand” (nimṣāʾ bĕyādî), employing the Niphal perfect of māṣāʾ, “to find,” for an item presently available. The expression rebaʿ sheqel keseph denotes one-fourth of a shekel by weight, a modest amount. The forms wĕnātattî, “I will give,” and wĕhiggîd, “and he will tell,” express the servant’s proposed course and expected result: the gift will be presented to the man of God, and he will disclose “our way” (darkēnû). In the immediate setting, “our way” means the course they should take in relation to the missing donkeys; Samuel’s answer will indeed address that practical concern (v. 20). The designation “man of God” (ʾîš hāʾĕlōhîm) distinguishes Samuel’s office from that of a paid diviner who could be manipulated for information. A gift could appropriately acknowledge the dignity of one through whom God was consulted, while the word received remained God’s free and sovereign utterance. The ensuing narrative confirms this distinction: Samuel neither negotiates nor emphasizes the silver, but speaks because the Lord had already revealed Saul’s coming and appointed him for Israel’s deliverance (vv. 15–17).

David’s remorse arises because cutting Saul’s robe was not a morally indifferent proof of access but an affront to the person and office of the Lord’s anointed king. The clause “David’s heart struck him” employs the Hiphil wayyiqtol of נכה (nakah), “to strike”: “his heart caused him pain” or “smote him.” In Hebrew idiom the heart is the center of moral judgment as well as thought and intention. David’s inward rebuke follows immediately upon his act, indicating that he recognizes the deed as having crossed a boundary even though he has not physically harmed Saul. The object cut was Saul’s כָּנָף (kanaph), literally “wing,” here the extremity or corner of his outer garment. Such a garment was closely associated with its wearer’s public dignity, and the royal robe especially could function as a symbol of kingship. The action therefore carried a potentially hostile symbolic force: David had demonstrated that he could dishonor Saul and take from him what belonged to his royal person. The following speech makes explicit the theological ground of David’s compunction: Saul remains “the anointed of the LORD” (v. 7 [Eng. v. 6]), and David will not stretch out his hand against him. Although the cutting is less than murder, it belongs to the same posture of presumptuous interference with the king whom the LORD had installed. The narrative thus distinguishes David’s conviction that Saul’s reign is under divine judgment from any claim that David may personally depose him by violence or contempt. Samuel had already announced the loss of Saul’s dynasty and the transfer of the kingdom (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:26–28), yet the actual removal of Saul remains the LORD’s prerogative. David’s conscience at the robe anticipates his refusal to kill Saul in the cave and establishes that his later appeal to the garment corner is evidence of innocence, not a trophy of political aggression.

Samuel’s words are a declarative assurance that his arrival is not an act of judgment against Bethlehem. The elders’ trembling (wayyeḥerdû, Qal wayyiqtol of ḥārad, “to tremble”) indicates alarm at the unexpected appearance of Israel’s leading prophet and judge, whose authority could entail public exposure of sin or the execution of divine judgment. The immediate narrative context heightens this concern: Samuel had only recently pronounced the Lord’s rejection of Saul and carried out judgment upon Agag (15:26–33). His presence in a small Judahite town could therefore not be treated as socially routine. The Hebrew שָׁלוֹם בּוֹאֶךָ (šālôm bôʾeḵā), literally, “peace [is] your coming,” is not itself an interrogative, though English versions sometimes frame the elders’ concern as the implied question, “Do you come peaceably?” Samuel’s answer assures them that the purpose of his coming is peaceful rather than punitive. This does not mean that the visit lacks solemnity: verse 5 immediately identifies a sacrifice and calls for consecration. Yet the sacrifice is the stated public occasion for Samuel’s visit, while the concealed divine purpose is the anointing of Jesse’s son. Thus Samuel truthfully allays the elders’ fear without disclosing the particular royal mission that, in view of Saul’s continuing reign, required discretion.

The narration presents a real and intensified divine self-manifestation, but it does not require the conclusion that Samuel beheld God in a circumscribed bodily form. Earlier calls had been heard without Samuel’s understanding their source (vv. 4–8); now Yahweh “came” (וַיָּבֹא, wayyābōʾ) and “stood” (וַיִּתְיַצַּב, wayyityyaṣṣab), then called Samuel’s name as before. The added verbs mark a climactic advance in the encounter: the God whose word had been rare in Israel personally establishes his presence before the boy whom he is appointing as prophet. The Hithpael of יצב (yāṣab), “to station oneself” or “take one’s stand,” portrays deliberate presence rather than mere arrival. The following reference to the revelation as a “vision” (מַרְאָה, marʾâ; v. 15) indicates that the event included more than an inward impression or an ordinary auditory experience. Yet the narrative supplies no physical description of Yahweh, nor does it identify a visible humanlike form. Biblical theophanic language regularly affirms God’s true disclosure while accommodating that disclosure to creaturely perception; it should not be pressed into a claim that the invisible God is materially bounded. The point of the wording is covenantal and prophetic: Yahweh himself, rather than an unidentified voice, confronts Samuel and commissions him with a word of judgment. Samuel’s answer, “Speak, for your servant is listening,” therefore acknowledges the speaker’s royal authority and his own status as the obedient recipient of divine revelation.

The six hundred shekels of iron describe Goliath's spearhead rather than the entire spear. The weight clause follows the construct expression lahebet hanito, "the blade of his spear," in which lahebet (from lahab, "flame," and hence a flashing blade) denotes the metal point or blade. The immediately following barzel, "iron," further identifies the weighed object as the iron weapon-head, not the wooden shaft previously compared with a weaver's beam. A shekel was a weight measure whose precise standard varied, but six hundred shekels would represent a massive spearhead, commonly estimated at roughly fifteen pounds (about seven kilograms) on the basis of the standard sanctuary shekel. The description is intentionally cumulative. The shaft is extraordinarily thick, the iron point is correspondingly formidable, and a shield-bearer walks before Goliath (the Qal participles nose', "bearing," and holek, "walking," portray his customary, advancing escort). The narrator does not merely supply military ornamentation; he establishes Goliath as an overwhelmingly equipped warrior whose weaponry and attendant protection magnify the human improbability of the coming contest. Yet the focus on iron and military scale also prepares for the reversal in which David, without Saul's armor or a conventional sword, defeats him by the Lord's deliverance (17:45

47, 50). The figure is best read as a deliberately imposing but narratively credible portrayal of a champion, rather than as a detached technical inventory or a claim that Goliath's entire spear weighed six hundred shekels.

Jonathan asks David to deal with him according to the covenant faithfulness that characterizes the LORD himself. The expression חֶסֶד יְהוָה (ḥesed YHWH), literally “steadfast love of the LORD,” does not reduce the request to ordinary personal affection. Although the construct relationship can be expressed in English either as “the LORD’s steadfast love” or “steadfast love shown for the LORD’s sake,” the immediate covenant setting indicates fidelity measured by and accountable to YHWH. Jonathan has already bound himself to David before the LORD (vv. 8, 16–17), and his appeal therefore asks David to maintain that sworn loyalty when David’s anticipated accession makes Jonathan and Saul’s house politically vulnerable. The noun חֶסֶד (ḥesed) denotes loyal, durable kindness within a binding relationship, especially where one party has the power either to preserve or to abandon the other. Jonathan’s words “if I am still alive” and “so that I may not die” disclose the concrete content of that loyalty: David must not treat Jonathan as a rival claimant or destroy him when the kingdom passes from Saul’s house. Verse 15 extends the same obligation to Jonathan’s descendants, confirming that this is a dynastic covenant rather than a request for momentary sympathy. The phrase also anticipates David’s later language in 2 Samuel 9:3, where he seeks someone from Saul’s house to whom he may show “the kindness of God” for Jonathan’s sake. David’s preservation of Mephibosheth is thus presented as the fulfillment of this covenantal ḥesed. Jonathan is not claiming that David can dispense the LORD’s saving mercy in a divine sense; rather, David’s pledged conduct toward Jonathan is to reflect the LORD’s own faithful covenant character and to be rendered under his covenantal authority.

The reference to the threshing floors identifies the Philistine assault as a harvest-time economic raid, not merely a military engagement against Keilah. The participle שֹׁסִים (šōsîm), from שָׁסָה (šāsâ, “to plunder, despoil”), portrays an ongoing act of seizure, while נִלְחָמִים (nilḥāmîm, Niphal participle of לָחַם, lāḥam) describes the Philistines as engaged in fighting at Keilah. Their objective was the grain that had already been gathered and was being processed, a concentrated and vulnerable food supply. The loss of the threshing floors would therefore threaten both the town’s immediate sustenance and its agricultural economy for the coming year. Keilah lay in the Shephelah of Judah, near territory in which Philistine forces could mount raids. The notice accordingly provides the concrete occasion for David’s intervention in the following verses: he is not summoned to pursue a private quarrel with Saul, but confronted with an enemy attack upon an Israelite town. The wording also sharpens the contrast developed in the chapter. While Saul treats David as an outlaw to be captured, David acts as the LORD’s appointed deliverer by seeking divine direction and rescuing Judeans from Philistine plunder (vv. 2–5). The mention of the threshing floors thus explains both the urgency of Keilah’s distress and the public, covenantal character of David’s action.

David entrusts the dispute to the LORD as the righteous arbiter and asks, above all, for his own vindication and deliverance rather than explicitly demanding Saul’s destruction. The concluding petition, “may he judge me from your hand,” employs שָׁפַט (šāpaṭ) with the preposition מִן (“from”), so that divine judgment has the practical result of rescuing David from Saul’s oppressive control. David refuses to seize that deliverance by killing the LORD’s anointed, placing both the adjudication of guilt and the outcome of the conflict in the LORD’s hands. The clause “may the LORD be judge” uses הָיָה (hāyâ), formally a waw-prefixed perfect, in a volitive context, followed by the jussives יֵרֶא (yērʾ, “may he see”) and יָרֵב (yārēb, “may he contend”). The language is forensic: the LORD is asked to judge “between me and you,” to see the true state of the matter, and to conduct David’s רִיב (rîb), his legal case or cause. The same God may be both judge and advocate because his advocacy consists in publicly upholding the righteous cause. Although such an appeal necessarily implies that Saul’s unjust pursuit will be exposed and answered, the verse does not formulate a personal curse against Saul. Its emphasis falls on David’s acquittal and liberation through the LORD’s righteous judgment.

The clause does not describe a further act of rebellion by the men against David; it explains the depth of their anguish over the loss of their families. The expression מָרָה נֶפֶשׁ (marah nephesh) denotes a soul made bitter or embittered. Thus, “the soul of all the people was bitter” is the appropriate sense, as reflected in translations that speak of grief, distress, or bitterness. The feminine singular verb מָרָה agrees with its singular feminine subject, נֶפֶשׁ (“soul,” here the inner life or whole person), while כָּל־הָעָם (“all the people”) qualifies that collective subject. Although the consonants may be associated with the root מָרָה (marah), “to rebel,” the immediate syntax and context favor the sense “to be bitter,” associated with the bitterness word-group (marar). The men are indeed turning against David in their proposal to stone him, but the following כִּי-clause identifies the cause of that murderous reaction: each man was embittered “over” (עַל, ʿal) his sons and daughters. The preposition does not mean that the men were hostile toward their children; it marks the occasion or object of grief. Verses 1–5 have established that the Amalekites carried the women and children away alive, but at this moment David and his men do not yet know their fate, and their loss produces overwhelming bitterness. The verse therefore distinguishes David's external crisis from its underlying human cause. The men’s grief, not a settled ideological revolt, erupts into hostility toward their leader. Against this background, the final clause is especially pointed: David “strengthened himself” (wayyitḥazzēq, Hithpael of ḥazaq) in “the LORD his God.” His confidence is not grounded in the stability of his followers, whose souls have become bitter, but in the covenant God whom he can still call his own.

The designation “the clan of the Matrites” identifies Saul as belonging to a particular Benjaminite kin-group, but it does not provide a fuller genealogy for that group. The narrative narrows the selection in successive stages: Benjamin is brought forward “by its clans” (לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו), the Matrite clan is taken, and then Saul son of Kish is taken. Thus Saul’s descent from Kish is not an alternative to his membership in the Matrite clan; Kish’s household belonged within that larger Benjaminite family division. The name “Matrite” (מַּטְרִי, matri) occurs only here and is best understood as a gentilic designation, probably derived from an otherwise unknown ancestor named Matri. Its singular form follows the construct noun “clan” (מִשְׁפַּחַת, mishpaḥat): “the clan of the Matrite.” Biblical genealogies often preserve only selected lines, especially those pertinent to later institutional or theological purposes, and the absence of Matri from extant genealogical lists does not create a contradiction. The immediate purpose is not to furnish Saul’s complete pedigree but to show that the divine selection, announced beforehand in 9:15–17 and disclosed publicly through the lot, reached Saul through recognizable covenantal and tribal structures. The repeated Niphal forms of לָכַד (lāḵad), “was taken,” stress that neither the tribe nor the clan nor Saul secured this status by self-assertion. They were singled out through the sacred procedure described in 10:19–20. Saul’s later identification as “son of Kish” supplies the household-level specificity required for the public recognition of Israel’s chosen king, while “Matrite” situates that household within Benjamin’s broader clan organization.