Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.15UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.46UNLIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.56LIKELY
Sadness
0.26UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.57LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.41UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.8LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.58LIKELY
Extraversion
0.09UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.64LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.68LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Introduction:
In our last chapter, the prophet Samuel had died and was buried at his home in Ramah.
David was with his men, still hiding out from Saul and they were hungry.
He had previously guarded and protected a very wealthy man’s herdsmen and flocks from thieves and raiders.
Nabal was that man … a veritable king in his wealth.
He had land, flocks, and money … but, in the words of his own men, “He is such a scoundrel that one cannot speak to him.”
And when David asked for food for his men in return, Nabal refused to provide anything.
David was going to bring his men down upon Nabal and all he had to take revenge on him.
But Abigail, Nabal’s wife, was made aware of the situation and she intervened, taking food to David and his men, and stopping them before they attacked.
Abigail had some wise words for David, and he listened … and he recognized that she had prevented him from committing a great sin.
And instead of David taking revenge, the LORD took Nabal’s life.
And David and Abigail were married, which gave David all that had belonged to Nabal.
----
But perhaps more pertinent to tonight’s study are events that took place back in chapter 24 when David spared Saul’s life in a cave in En Gedi.
That’s because what we are about to study in chapter 26 sounds a lot like the events of chapter 24.
But it is not the same event.
What we are about to study may sound like a retelling of the account from chapter 24, but it is not.
There are differences in locations … chapter 24 was at a cave in En Gedi.
Here, we are at Saul’s camp near Hachilah.
The time of day is different … chapter 24 occurred during daylight hours and this chapter records events that happened in the evening.
There are also differences in activities between the 2 chapters … in Chapter 24, Saul came to the cave … here in Chapter 26, David went to the camp.
Also different are David’s responses.
David’s evidence is also different.
In Chapter 24, David cut off part of Saul’s robe.
In this Chapter, David takes Saul’s spear and water jug.
Also different are David’s words.
So, while the overarching idea of the chapters are similar, they are obviously separate occasions.
This second experience with Saul was certainly more daring on David’s part since he was actually in Saul’s camp.
David’s recent experience with Nabal and Abigail had reassured him of his future reign and had taught him a profitable lesson about revenge.
v1-4
The Ziphites, who had already betrayed David’s whereabouts to Saul (1 Sam.
23:19), and who would have brought about his downfall but for the Philistine raid that called for Saul’s intervention to the west, made another attempt to assist Saul.
All David’s movements were carefully monitored.
The Ziphites, had already betrayed David’s whereabouts to Saul a couple of times already.
One time was back in Chapter 23 when David was almost captured by Saul at a place called “The Rock.”
God had intervened with a Philistine raid that caused Saul to leave in order to handle.
All David’s movements were carefully monitored and it is likely that it was the Ziphites again who told Saul David was at En Gedi in chapter 24.
It was probably because of the loose lips of the Ziphites that Nabal was fearful when he found out his wife had aided David with food.
Like Nabal, the Ziphites were related to Caleb (), but being members of the tribe of Judah, they should have been loyal to David.
Hoping to gain the king’s approval, for a second time they betrayed David to Saul (; see ).
Saul had learned to appreciate David’s skill as a tactician, so he took his 3,000 soldiers to search for David in the wilderness.
But David was already far ahead of him, for his spies had located Saul’s camp, and David was safe in the desert.
The Lord kept David safe and delivered him whenever Saul was near.
“He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too strong for me” (, nkjv).
And now, we find again the Ziphites playing a role in betraying David.
I say “Betraying” because the Ziphites were Judahites … as was David.
As we noted before, it’s as if a pre-figuring of Christ’s own betraying him and handing him over to the ungodly.
Like Nabal, the Ziphites were related to Caleb.
The line of Caleb is recounted in :
Being members of the tribe of Judah, they should have been loyal to David.
but being members of the tribe of Judah, they should have been loyal to David.
Hoping to gain the king’s approval, for a second time they betrayed David to Saul (; see ).
Saul had learned to appreciate David’s skill as a tactician, so he took his 3,000 soldiers to search for David in the wilderness.
But David was already far ahead of him, for his spies had located Saul’s camp, and David was safe in the desert.
The Lord kept David safe and delivered him whenever Saul was near.
“He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too strong for me” (, nkjv).
Being members of the tribe of Judah, they should have been loyal to David.
Hoping to gain the king’s approval, for a second time they betrayed David to Saul (; see ).
Saul had learned to appreciate David’s skill as a tactician, so he took his 3,000 soldiers to search for David in the wilderness.
But David was already far ahead of him, for his spies had located Saul’s camp, and David was safe in the desert.
The Lord kept David safe and delivered him whenever Saul was near.
“He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too strong for me” (, nkjv).
But hoping to gain the king’s approval, for a 2nd or perhaps a 3rd time they betrayed David to Saul .
In , which David wrote when betrayed by the Ziphites, it reads:
Again we see a similarity between those who betrayed Jesus and these Judahites who are betraying David.
Not only were they of the same tribe, but they were seeking the favor of those in power by betraying him.
This is reminiscent of Caiaphas, High Priest in Jesus’ time.
Remember how the High Priest Caiaphas in was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.
Don’t read below:
John 11:
This was in response to the question of the council of the Pharisees who stated:
This was in response to the question of the council of the Pharisees who stated:
Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.
Jesus was turned over to Rome by His own people not just because of Jealousy, but also because they were seeking favors from Rome.
----
But, there is another similarity we should mention.
And this is something that we see in .
In , which David wrote when betrayed by the Ziphites, it reads:
The Ziphites were strangers not because they weren’t proper Israelites … they were descendants of Caleb.
David calls them strangers because they had turned their backs on him.
They were not godly nor were they concerned with the things of God.
If they were, they would have recognized David’s anointing from the LORD
How does this fit in with Caiaphas and Jesus?
Caiaphas was appointed High Priest by the Roman government about 12 years before Jesus was crucified.
He was not in office according to the dictate of the Scriptures … nor did he care that he was not.
Caiaphas, appointed High Priest by the Roman government about 12 years before Jesus was crucified (), was not in office according to the Scriptures.
This holiest of positions was to be held exclusively by the direct descendents of Aaron (; ), handed down to each male heir and to be held for the length of one’s natural life.
Israel and her religious leaders, with the exception of a small few, were not mindful of what scripture said about the Messiah … if so, they would not have betrayed Him.
The office of High Priest was to be held exclusively by the direct descendents of Aaron.
It was a position that was handed down to each male heir and to be held for the length of one’s natural life.
Aaron’s descendents had continued as High Priests for many generations, as the scriptures required, until about 175 years before the birth of Christ.
That is when Antiochus IV, a Syrian ruler, replaced them with a man of his own choosing who was not a descendent of Aaron.
Antiochus allowed a man to purchase the position of Kohen Gadol.
Antiochus allowed Menelaus, a Tobiad, to purchase the position of Kohen Gadol.
Following this initial break from the Scriptural requirements, other non-descendants of Aaron held the office of High Priest.
Likewise, when Herod came to power under the authority of Rome 37 years before the birth of Christ, he arbitrarily appointed any person he pleased to the position of High Priest.
Not only were priests no longer descendents of Aaron, they were no longer anointed with the holy oil described in the Laws of Moses.
Annas and then Caiaphas each became High Priests during this period.
So they were not from the line of Aaron nor were they anointed for the office of High Priest.
They were Israelites, but they were usurpers of the office of High Priest.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9