In 1 Samuel 25, David sends ten of his men to request food from Nabal to feed six hundred men for two reasons: (1) it was a festive time of sheep-shearing in Nabal’s household, and (2) David’s men have been protecting Nabal’s shepherds and animals in the wilderness (25:4–9).¹Shearing sheep is a “good day” (יוֹם טוֹב) or a season of celebration as described in 1 Samuel 25:8. Ronald F. Youngblood, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in 1 Samuel–2 Kings, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, revised ed., EBC 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 243. Yet Nabal responds severely, insulting David and refusing to provide food and water. With no hesitation, David retaliates, calling 400 men to take their swords and kill the entire household of Nabal (25:22, 34).

First Samuel 25 is sandwiched by two narratives in which David spares Saul’s life (cf. 1 Samuel 24 and 26), so readers may wonder whether the Lord’s anointed acts rashly as he prepares to attack Nabal and his entire household. Granted, Nabal was a harsh and evil man, but is a refusal to provide a meal for visitors not Nabal’s prerogative? Was Nabal’s reasoning not legitimate? He said, ““Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?” (1 Sam 25:11). How can one explain David’s rash and violent reaction against Nabal and his household?

1. Main Views on 1 Samuel 25

One view explains that David was running a protection racket. David promised not to harm Nabal in exchange for protection money. Baruch Halpern posits that

David himself soon succumbs to the outlaw ethic of his subordinates. 1 Sam. 25 finds him extorting payment from Nabal of Carmel, a gentleman in the wilderness of Judah. David is working a protection racket. His claim is that he has refrained from preying on Nabal’s sheep. Nabal refuses to pay, and David angrily disclaims his intention to kill Nabal. This view reads more into the text than what was written there.²Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 21–22. He further comments, “David plies the ‘protection’ racket and demands premiums from Nabal of Carmel for his vigilance with Nabal’s shepherds and flocks. This is where he acquires Abigail, his second wife, who shares the name of his own sister” (p. 284).

A slightly different view suggests that Nabal cheated David of his wages. In turn, David plans to kill Nabal and his entire household. According to Firth, “David’s claim is that the service he rendered is worthy of payment, perhaps as something for which Nabal should have prepared.” Bergen proposes that Nabal was “withholding due payment for services.” This explanation addresses David’s rashness for vengeance and Abigail’s sense of urgency. Nabal has done wrong by not providing proper wages for David’s protective services. Several indications, however, point to the fact that no prior agreement existed for David to provide protection for Nabal’s shepherds and animals. First, David sent an envoy to ask for provision because there was a feast at Nabal’s house, implying that he would not have asked on an ordinary day. Second, David’s men had to explain to Nabal what they had done on his behalf. Such an explanation would not be necessary if Nabal had already hired David to protect his men. Lastly, Nabal claimed not to know who David was, which would be unlikely if a prior arrangement had taken place. What David was expecting from Nabal was evident in his soliloquy: “Surely in vain have I guarded all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that belonged to him, and he has returned me evil for good” (25:21). David felt that his kind gesture was not reciprocated, not that he was cheated of his wages.

The third and most prominent view explains that Nabal’s insults provoked David to overreact and plan a violent massacre against an entire household. In David’s mind the harshness and rudeness of Nabal deserved death for his entire household. Tsumura suggests that David was indeed wrong for reacting too strongly against Nabal. He observes,

This is probably David’s overreaction toward Nabal. In 1 Sam. 24:7, when he had an opportunity to take revenge against Saul, David avoided appealing to a human method and entrusted the matter to God’s hand. Now, however, he seems to have lost control over his feelings and behavior. Even David needs God’s gracious intervention on such occasions. God sent Abigail to him at the right time.³David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 585.

Tsumura’s answer is not necessarily wrong; David uncharacteristically acted rashly (20:33–34). Gehrke adds that “Nabal’s response is marked not only by base ingratitude and brutal insults, but more important, by a complete lack of understanding for David’s position and destiny.”⁴Ralph David Gehrke, 1–2 Samuel, Concordia (London: Concordia, 1968), 195. Certainly, Abigail prevented David from committing bloodshed by taking vengeance in his own hand. Seeking vengeance, however, implies that he was greatly wronged by Nabal. Was Nabal’s insult and refusal to give food such a great wrong that it provoked David to kill an entire household? Furthermore, why did Nabal’s servant and Abigail expect David to return with a vengeance? Abigail knew that Nabal’s household was in trouble because with haste and a sense of urgency she gathered food, met David, and apologized for Nabal’s response (25:25–28). But how did she know that David would come back?

The first two views attempt to make David’s plans for massacre more justifiable than an overreaction to a fool’s insults, but these views have details that appear to be inconsistent with the biblical text. While the final view seems to take the biblical text straightforwardly—that David simply overreacted against Nabal—a few questions from the narrative remain unanswered.

Perhaps David’s violent reaction can be explained in another way. An often-overlooked factor in interpreting 1 Samuel 25 lies in an understanding of the Ancient Near East (ANE) practice of hospitality. This practice is assumed in the text and made sense for an original reader. This paper demonstrates that an acquaintance with the hospitality code of the ANE aids in understanding the events in 1 Samuel 25. The approach in this study is in two stages. Part 1 analyzes the hospitality code in the ANE, demonstrating its basic practices. Part 2, then, demonstrates how the ANE hospitality code provides the fitting historical context to understand 1 Samuel 25.

2. Part 1: An Analysis of the ANE Hospitality Code

In the ANE, hospitality was a common practice, and it was essential for survival. Travelers in the Middle East relied on hospitality among locals for food, water, and lodging as they journeyed through the desert and arid land. Three main sources provide key insight on the ANE hospitality code. First, literature from the ANE provides stories, poems, and epics that include typical scenes of hospitality, reflecting their own culture.⁵For example, one of the tablets in the Archives Royale de Mari (ARM) provides a few details of guest-host relationships. It tells of an episode in which Ibni-Addu, a friend of King Zimri-Lim of Mari, learns about a spy in the palace while being a guest of Kunnam in Šubbat-Enlil. Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 295. Mari, a city on the west bank of the Euphrates River, was destroyed by King Hammurabi (or Hammurapi) of Babylon in 1760–1757 BC. In 1933, Bedouin found antiquities at Mari to the French colonial government of Syria. Between 1933–1938, archaeologist André Parrot excavated 15,000 tablets mostly at the royal palace of Mari. These tablets are known as Archives Royal de Mari or ARM. Second, social anthropologists who study Mediterranean culture attest to the nonwestern-like hospitality practiced in the Near East. Speaking about the Al Murrah, a Bedouin tribe, sociologist Edward Cole observes, “The household in Al Murrah culture and society is especially associated with three aspects of their life—hospitality, herding, and the special domain of Al Murrah women. Generous hospitality is one of the strongest of Al Murrah values.”⁶Donald Powell Cole, Nomads of the Nomads: The Al Murrah Bedouin of the Empty Quarter (Arlington Heights, IL: Davidson, 1988), 67.

Third, the most overlooked source for the hospitality code in the ANE is the Bible as a historical document. The Old Testament Scripture records extant writings of narratives, laws, and poems that reflect the culture of the ANE. Several passages depict hospitality as it was practiced in the ANE, including, but not limited to: Abraham’s hospitality to the angels (Gen 18); Lot’s hospitality to the men who warned him about Sodom’s imminent destruction (Gen 19); hospitality laws regarding relations with foreigners in the Torah (Deut 10:17–19); the hospitality of the father-in-law towards the Levite (Judg 19:3–10) and of the old man in Gibeah towards the same Levite (19:16–26); the hospitality of the prophet towards the man of God (1 Kgs 13:11–23); the hospitality of a widow of Zarephath towards Elijah (1 Kgs 17); and the hospitality of the Shunamite woman towards Elisha (2 Kgs 4:8–10).

While not all hospitality practices in the ANE are identical between tribes and people groups, enough similarity can be observed that they are pertinent to understanding the narrative in 1 Samuel 25. Using these sources, this paper seeks to answer two key questions.⁷For further discussion on ANE hospitality protocol, see Victor H. Matthews, “Herem versus Hospitality in the Story of Rahab,” in The Genre of Biblical Commentary Essays in Honor of John E. Hartley on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, ed. Timothy D. Finlay and William Yarchin (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 217–21. See also Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Isarel: 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 82–87. First, what is the relationship of the host to his guest? Second, what happens when hospitality is not extended by the host or is refused by the guest?

2.1. The Relationship of the Host to the Guest

Hospitality was a cultural expectation in the ANE. Hospitality could be initiated by either the host or the guest, depending on who spoke first.⁸For a comprehensive treatment on the initiation of hospitality using speech act theory, see Rebecca Abts Wright, “Establishing Hospitality in the Old Testament: Testing the Tool of Linguistic Pragmatics” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1989), 112–47. In Genesis 18, Abraham, the host, offered hospitality, while in 1 Kings 17:11–12, Elijah asked for hospitality. When the act of hospitality is received, either the guest or the host typically bows down and greets the other with a blessing.⁹“When a guest is received into an Oriental home, bowing between the guests and host is quite apt to take place. In Western lands such bowing would be of the head only, but in the East there is a more expressive custom of saluting with the head erect and the body a little inclined forward, by raising the hand to the heart, mouth, and forehead.” Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody, 1953), 72–73. When a host extends hospitality to his guests, he is expected to greet his guests, wash their feet, and pour oil on their heads. An Egyptian proverb written in a manuscript from 1200 BC says, “Do not neglect a stranger with your oil jar, that it [income] be doubled before your brethren.”¹⁰A proverb found in chapter 28 of Instruction of Amenemope. See Bill T. Arnold and Bryan Beyer, eds., “Instruction of Amenemope,” in Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study, Encounter Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 189.

The host’s obligation includes providing meals and lodging to wandering sojourners. Genesis 18:3–8 captures Abraham’s sense of urgency in preparing a meal for his guests:

He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way–now that you have come to your servant.” “Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.” So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.” Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree. (Gen 18:3–8, emphasis mine)

Depending on their economic status, hosts may provide lavish preparations for their guests. Such extravagance is expected in an honor-shame culture where honor is highly esteemed above all else.¹¹For further discussion on how the eastern honor-shame culture differs from the western right/wrong culture, see David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kingship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution, JSOT 346 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); and Brandon J. O’Brien and E. Randolph Richards, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 113–36. The grander the accommodation, the more honor the host receives. In The Banquet of Ashurnasirpal II, for example, an inscription records a grand celebration by Ashurnasirpal II, the high priest of Calah. The Assyrian high priest received 69,574 guests from various places and from all walks of life. The end of the inscription describes the host’s pride in satisfying his guests: “I (furthermore) provided them with the means to clean and anoint themselves. I did them due honors and sent them back, healthy and happy, to their own countries.”¹²James B. Pritchard, ed., “The Banquet of Ashurnarsipal II,” ANET 560.

In the ANE, an extension of hospitality is expected even more from men of high stature. Malina and Powell explain that for strangers “it was imperative that they be under the protection of a patron, a host, who was an established community member.”¹³Malina, Bruce J., and Mark Allan Powell, “Hospitality,” in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, ed. Mark Allan Powell, revised ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 395. In fact, such practice continues even to the mid-twentieth century in Mediterranean culture prior. This is observable in isolated and primitive nomadic tribes where culture runs deep and outside influence is scarce, especially prior to the internet age. Ahmed Abou-Zeid observes that men with great wealth have a place of prominence and political power in a society. They are often invited to settle disputes among the people in the civilization.¹⁴Ahmed Abou-Zeid, “Honour and Shame among the Bedouins of Egypt,” in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. John G. Peristiany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 250. Bruce Malina Men with such prominence, however, are also responsible for practicing hospitality. Ahmed further states that a wealthy and prominent person

is also likely to offer hospitality to others, thus rallying adherents and clients both round himself and round his kin-group. It is a fact that generosity and hospitality have always been accorded a supreme value in Bedouin society and many persons have established their fame and prestige, and consequently those of their respective groups, by lavish generosity and nothing less than reckless hospitality.¹⁵Abou-Zeid, “Honour and Shame,” 250.

Not only are wealthy people placed into positions of power, but political leaders are also expected to be rich so that they are able to honorably perform their duties of hospitality. One social anthropologist makes this observation regarding the role of a Shaikh, a tribal leader in a Middle Eastern community:

Each bait [extended family] and ‘aila [clan] has its Shaikh, chosen for his age and wisdom or for his prowess, though the Shaikship is generally hereditary in certain families. A Shaikh receives obedience and respect from his dependants [sic] but ought to be rich because the demands of hospitality are considerable.¹⁶E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Sanusi of Cyrenaica (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 60. Emphasis mine.

Hospitality is expected to be extended to wandering nomads and even more so towards those who have provided benefit to the host in any way. In the Stories of Aqhat, a metalworker, Kothar-wa-hasis, made a bow and arrow for a present to the young man, Aqhat. When Danil, Aqhat’s father, saw Kothar-wa-hasis coming towards their house, he called his wife Danatiya, “Prepare a lamb from the flock. Cook Kothar-wa-hasis his favorite meal. Kothar-wa-hasis is hungry. The master craftsman wants something to eat.”¹⁷Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, eds., “Stories of Aqhat,” in Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, rev. and exp. (New York: Paulist, 1997), 69–70. The expectation of hospitality is intensified with familiar guests where benefits are reciprocated. The special treatment Kothar-wa-hasis receives from Danil and Danatiya was a social expectation.

2.2. Hospitality or Hostility

What happens when hospitality is not extended to guests? Or what if a guest rejects the hospitality offered by a host? When the hospitality code is broken, it signifies hostility. When a host denies hospitality, he declares war against the guest. Conversely, by refusing hospitality from a host, a guest presents himself as hostile to the community. Matthews and Benjamin observe that “hospitality in the world of the Bible was more than simply an amenity for travelers. It was a village’s most important form of foreign policy. Villages used hospitality to determine whether strangers were friends or enemies.”¹⁸Matthews and Benjamin, “Stories of Aqhat,” 82. See also Michael Herzfeld, “As in Your Own House: Hospitality, Ethnography, and the Stereotype of Mediterranean Society,” in Honour and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. David D. Gilmore (Washington: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 75–81. According to Matthews, one of the seven codes of conduct defining hospitality in the ANE is that a stranger must be transformed from being a potential threat to becoming an ally by the offer of hospitality.¹⁹Victor H. Matthews, “Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4,” BTB 21.1 (1991): 13–15. See also Matthews, “Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19,” BTB 22.4 (1992): 3–11; Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme, “Invitation to Murder: Hospitality and Violence in the Hebrew Bible,” ST – Nordic Journal of Theology 73.1 (2019): 89–108; and Nathan MacDonald, “Hospitality and Hostility: Reading Genesis 19 in Light of 2 Samuel 10,” in Universalism and Particularism at Sodom and Gomorrah: Essays in Memory of Ron Pirson, ed. D. Lipton (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2012), 185–95. In other words, hospitality neutralizes the hostile threat of a stranger in a new community. In Homer’s Odyssey, King Menelaus tells Telemachus that he condemns both hosts who urge guests to leave as being excessively hostile and hosts who are excessively hospitable, detaining guests against their will.²⁰Homer, The Odyssey 15:69–74.

Bratcher says that “a traveler would interpret a resident’s failure to provide food and amenities as a hostile act.”²¹Dennis Bratcher, “Travelers and Strangers: Hospitality in the Biblical World,” Christian Resource Institute: The Voice, 2018, https://www.crivoice.org/travelers.html He cites Judges 8:4–17 as a biblical example. Gideon and his three hundred men were exhausted but still pursuing the kings of Median, Zebah, and Zalmunna. When they crossed the Jordan, they asked the men of Succoth for bread, but they refused. And when Gideon reached Penuel and asked for bread, the men of Penuel refused as well. Gideon threatened both the men of Succoth and the men of Penuel.

Then Gideon replied, “Just for that, when the LORD has given Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, I will tear your flesh with desert thorns and briers.” From there he went up to Peniel and made the same request of them, but they answered as the men of Sukkoth had. So he said to the men of Peniel, “When I return in triumph, I will tear down this tower.” (Judg 8:7–9)

True to his word, after defeating the kings of Median, Gideon returned from the battle, learned the names of the elders of Succoth, and confronted them (Judg 9:15–17). One of the most despicable acts of betrayal in the ANE is when guests turn their back against a host (cf. Obad 7; Ps 41:9). Thus, in the ANE, a refusal of hospitality, by either the guest or the host, is an act of hostility.

In fact, in the ANE, even enemies can be received as guests. Describing one of the Bedouin tribes, Cole observes, “The greatest praise they bestow on a person is to say that he is a man who is generous and who kills an animal—whatever he has—for his guests. A guest is a sacred trust and is highly honored, even if he is from an enemy group.”²²Cole, Nomads of the Nomads, 67. By extending hospitality, a host turns a stranger into a guest in his home. The stranger no longer becomes a threat. The enemy is a friend, as long as he is entertained by the host.²³Some even suggest that not only does the stranger turn into a guest, but the guest turns to be the actual lord of the home. Wight asserts that “an Easter proverb runs thus: ‘The guest while in the house is its Lord.’ This is a true statement of the spirit of the hospitality of the East. One of the first greetings a Palestinian host will give his guest is to say, ‘Hadtha beitak,’ i.e., ‘This is your house.’ This saying is repeated many times. Thus the guest during his stay is master of the house. And whenever the guest asks a favor, in granting it the host will say, ‘You do me honor’” (Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, 77). This seems to be the case with Abraham’s hospitality towards the three strangers. In Genesis 18:3, Abraham said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.”

Not only is the stranger’s status changed, but the host becomes obligated to protect the guest from other threats, even from threats in the community. This is the case in Genesis 19 with Lot and his guests in Sodom. Lot was not willing for the men of the city to take his guests. He would rather give his daughters to the crowd instead. In Genesis 19, Lot was more protective of his honor as a host than of his own daughters.²⁴T. Desmond Alexander vindicates Peter calling Lot “righteous” despite the negative portrayal of Lot’s righteousness in the Genesis account (2 Pet 2:7–8). For Alexander, one of the signs of Lot’s righteousness is his hospitality. He cites 1 Clement 11:1, indicating that Lot was saved out of Sodom because of his hospitality and piety. See T. Desmond Alexander, “Lot’s Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness,” JBL 104 (1985): 289–91. When appealing to the mob, Lot appealed to the code of hospitality, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Gen 19:7–8, emphasis mine).²⁵A similar situation is found in Genesis 19 with the old man from Gibeah taking in the Levite as his guest. Drawing from the work of Ahmed Abou-Zeid, Persistiany observes,

One of the most important ways of displaying the honour of the beit is by granting the ‘right of refuge’, so that a man pursued by his enemies may find here asylum. By granting asylum a man publicizes his honour and that of his kinsmen. The highest grade of honour … is attained when the idea is realized at the expense of the performer himself. The best example of this is the obligation of honour to grant sanctuary to an enemy.²⁶John G. Peristiany, “Introduction,” in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. John G. Peristiany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 16.

By taking in a guest, the host obligates himself to protect the guest as part of his household.

3. Part 2: Reading 1 Samuel 25 with an ANE Lens

A more satisfying reason for David’s war-like response against Nabal is Nabal’s failure to uphold the hospitality code expected in an ANE culture. From the biblical text—without reconstructing the narrative—several clues demonstrate that Nabal and David fit the role of an ANE host and guest.

3.1. Nabal in the Role of a Host

The narrator of 1 Samuel 25 portrays Nabal as a suitable candidate for an ANE host. Several details in the text indicate that Nabal is capable of performing the role of a host. First, the narrator describes Nabal as a wealthy man. He is a businessman with 3,000 sheep and 1,000 goats (25:2). He has more than enough food to provide for his own household and for David’s men. Second, it was a feast day, a day of celebration (25:8).²⁷Literally, the phrase is a “good day” (יוֹם טוֹב), which is an idiom for celebration (cf. Esth 8:17; 9:19, 22). The shearing of sheep (or the shearing-festival) is a public feast in the agricultural regions of Palestine.²⁸Andrew Steinmann, 1 Samuel, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2016), 194. Thus, this is a time of excess food and drinking. Third, when Abigail gathered food for David, the text says that she did it with haste (מָהַר) and secretly—she did not tell her husband Nabal (25:18–19).²⁹The use of the same verb, מָהַר, implies that Abigail’s sense of urgency mirrors Abraham’s urgency for his guests in Genesis 18. There was so much food in Nabal’s household that gathering food with haste could take place discreetly; Abigail had to tell Nabal what took place the next day (25:37). The amount of food that Abigail gave to David and his six hundred men was small enough in comparison that the missing food was hardly noticeable. Lastly, towards the end of the feast, Nabal was drunk and he conducted the feast “like a feast of a king” (25:36).³⁰Ralph W. Klein observes that Nabal’s “gluttonous eating and drinking are in stark contrast with his denial of David’s request for provisions for his starving, thirsty band. Nabal feasted like a king but rejected the legitimate request of the future king.” Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 251. Hence, Nabal’s reasoning that his bread, water, and meat are sufficient only for his men is not legitimate. David was not asking too much when he asked for food for six hundred men. Surely, Nabal had more than enough food to provide for David and his men.

Furthermore, not only is Nabal capable of performing the role of a host, he is also obligated to be a host. There are at least three reasons indicated in the text. First, Nabal, as a wealthy businessman, is a tribal leader responsible for the practice of hospitality in the community.³¹Abou-Zeid observes that “the role which livestock plays in determining the political power of a person or group is shown in the fact that a wealthy man, i.e. a man with a large number of animals, is likely to be invited to look into disputes and adherents and clients both round himself and round his kin-group.” Abou-Zeid, “Honour and Shame among the Bedouins of Egypt,” 250. He is “the Calebite sheikh.”³²Steinmann, 1 Samuel, 194. This is an alternate spelling for “shaikh.” Second, Nabal is of the same tribe as David. There is a reason the narrator indicated that Nabal was Calebite (25:3), which is from the tribe of Judah. Nabal is David’s kin. This is evident in the young men’s speech to Nabal: “Please give whatever you have at hand to your servants and to your son David” (25:8). If hosts are obligated to extend hospitality to total strangers, how much more to those who are of the same tribe? The third reason is the benefit that Nabal received from David. One of the reasons Nabal can celebrate the shearing festival with his household is the fact that David and his men protected Nabal’s shepherds and sheep in the wilderness so that none of the sheep was missing (25:7).³³“The value of David’s protection is suggested by a previous narrative account, which noted that after the Philistines attacked nearby Keilah, they were in possession of livestock (23:5).” Bergen, 1 and 2 Samuel, 246. One of Nabal’s servants even testified about the protection David gave:

Yet the men were very good to us, and we suffered no harm, and we did not miss anything when we were in the fields, as long as we went with them. They were a wall to us both by night and by day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. (25:15–16)³⁴The fact that the servant testifies that David’s men were “very good to us” indicates that David’s protection was not a “protection racket.” (Contra Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature,” 19; and Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 21–22.

Ordinarily, it is in the culture of the ANE for anyone to extend hospitality within his economic means to any traveler. But the details in 1 Samuel 25 even heighten the obligation of Nabal—as a tribal leader, kinsman, and recipient of protection—to extend hospitality to David. Was refusing to provide a meal to David Nabal’s prerogative? According to the ANE culture, the answer is in the negative.

3.2. David in the Role of a Guest

The biblical narrative demonstrates that David was in the role of a guest throughout the account. David, with calculated diplomacy, sent his envoy to greet Nabal with a blessing characteristic of a guest requesting hospitality (25:5–6). In a polite way, appealing to the services they provided, David’s men asked for whatever Nabal desired to give. David’s request is nothing close to demanding a premium for providing services.³⁵Contra Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 284.

When Nabal refused to extend hospitality, David’s vengeful response was not surprising in the ANE culture. Nabal’s denial of David’s request was an act of hostility. This is hinted at in the text by the fact that one of Nabal’s young men felt the need to report the incident of his master’s misconduct to Abigail. He urges Abigail to do something about the situation and protect the household since “evil is determined against our master and against all his household” (25:17). How did the servant know that David planned to attack Nabal? David’s violent knee-jerk reaction was only known to David’s men after they reported Nabal’s denial of their request. Additionally, the young man was not the only one who feared David’s potential attack; the entire household of Nabal acknowledged this imminent danger. In verse 17, the servant comments that Nabal is “so ill-tempered that no one can even talk to him!” (NLT).³⁶Baldwin suggests that Nabal’s shepherds were in fear, “guessing David’s reaction to Nabal’s rebuff.” Joyce G. Baldwin, 1–2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 159. What the text implies is that the whole household knew that they were in danger, but none of them dared to rebuke their master Nabal. Furthermore, Abigail’s sense of urgency reveals that she was convinced of the threat to her household because of her husband’s misconduct (25:18). It is therefore safe to assume, grounded by the details of the text, that David’s hostile response to Nabal is a natural expectation based on the hospitality code culture of the day. This reaction is consistent with 2 Samuel 12:1–6, where Nathan told a parable of a host who stole another man’s sheep to offer to his guest in order to confront David for his sin with Bathsheba. David’s reaction against the host was a violent one. He swore an oath that the man would surely die and repay fourfold.³⁷Compare 1 Samuel 25:13, 21–22 with 2 Samuel 12:5–6.

Nabal is clearly the antagonist of the passage. He was culpable for his violation of the culture’s hospitality code and for insulting the Lord’s anointed. The point of view of the narrator attests to this. Beginning with the opening of the narrative, Nabal is already depicted negatively—he was “harsh and badly behaved” (25:3). The ending of the narrative confirms this. Abigail called him a wicked man and a fool and pointed out that his name literally means “fool.” After hearing Abigail’s hospitality towards David, Nabal had a stroke (25:37). Then the narrator explicitly reveals the divine viewpoint concerning Nabal’s inhospitality: “And about ten days later the LORD struck Nabal, and he died” (25:38).

4. Conclusion

Was David overreacting? An awareness of the hospitality code in the ANE helps us understand David’s response, not as an overreaction but as a natural reaction. David acted according to his culture’s norms and would have been considered righteous in killing Nabal. What Abigail protected David from was the killing of Nabal’s entire household, who did not deserve to die because of Nabal’s foolishness. Nabal’s death in the end shows judgment from God against Nabal for his lack of hospitality to God’s anointed.³⁸This was the opposite of what the priests of Nob did, who even gave David bread only meant for priests (1 Sam 21:1–9), which Jesus did not consider unlawful (Matt 12:1–4). Others, however, recognize that while David’s vengeful response was expected in the culture, it is not necessarily the right response. Reacting within the cultural norms of the day does not excuse David for his vengeful spirit. Bergen comments, “Nabal had violated the Torah … and wronged David. Nevertheless, the Torah reserved for the Lord alone the right to avenge wrong in this case (cf. Lev 19:18; Deut 24:15; 32:35).”³⁹Bergen, 1 and 2 Samuel, 250. Contra Hoffner, who argues that Nabal did not break any laws by his rudeness. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., 1 and 2 Samuel, EEC (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015), pp. 805.

Applying the cultural practice of hospitality to the interpretation of 1 Samuel 25 best explains the incidents that may seem strange and puzzling for a western, twenty-first-century reader. In the treatment of hospitality in 1 Samuel 25, the cultural background serves the details of the text instead of altering the text in order to accommodate the data found in the historical-cultural background. It illuminates the text. The biblical text continues to be the priority over the details provided by the cultural research. The greatest danger in the use of historical backgrounds is to force history, archaeology, or literature into the biblical text. Instead of illuminating the text, it eliminates the text.⁴⁰Proper use of historical background or cultural context “does not eliminate the text; it illuminates it.” Andrew David Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017), 163. If this danger is avoided, however, historical-cultural background provides valuable insight in discovering the meaning of the biblical text that benefits the church of Christ.⁴¹This article was first presented at the Bible Faculty Summit, 2021.

---