1. the Philistines gathered all their camps at Aphek. The “all” stresses that this is a massing of the entire Philistine army, not merely a division or two, for a decisive confrontation with the Israelites. As Robert Polzin notes, the first major clash with the Philistines in 1 Samuel began with the Philistines’ camping at Aphek (4:1b), so the mention of their encampment here at the same site creates a kind of symmetrical frame for the book. Aphek is roughly forty miles south of Jezreel, not far from Philistine territory, and would have served as a general staging ground. The Philistine army then advances northward to camp at Shunem (28:4), just opposite Saul’s forces at the spring of Jezreel and near Mount Gilboa.

2. David and his men were advancing at the rear with Achish. Given David’s double role as Achish’s vassal and as his special bodyguard, his position in battle should have been alongside Achish. Until this mention of David, we might have imagined that the report of the deployment of forces was a direct continuation of the account of Saul’s seance at Ein-Dor on the night before the battle. Now it rapidly becomes clear that the narrative has again switched tracks from Saul to David, suspending the fulfillment of Saul’s dire fate in order to follow the movement of his successor, who approaches the very same battlefield as part of the enemy forces, only to be turned away. The switch in narrative focus also involves backtracking in time: we left Saul in the dark of the night (also a symbolic darkness for him); the deployment of armies and the Philistine dialogues take place on the previous day; David’s early departure, “just when it is brightening” (an antithesis to Saul in the dark, as J. P. Fokkelman notes), will be on the morning of the battle.

3. the Philistine captains. These are the military commanders, sarim, and they should not be thought of as synonymous with the overlords (seranim) of the five Philistine cities. It is the military men who, understandably, fear a serious security risk in the presence of a Hebrew contingent in their ranks.

Who are these Hebrews? The Hebrew is literally “What are these Hebrews?,” which many translations interpret as “What are these Hebrews doing here?” Again, “Hebrews” is the term used by foreigners for the Israelites.

David, servant of Saul king of Israel. Achish means to stress that Saul’s former courtier and commander has defected to the Philistine side, but his choice of words inadvertently reminds the Philistine captains that David may still be loyal to Saul.

these many days or years. Some scholars suspect that these two terms reflect a conflated text, and that one should simply read “these many days.” It could, however, make sense for Achish to be a little vague about the time and to exaggerate it in order to emphasize David’s loyalty—in fact, David has been with him one year and two months.

fell in with me. Kyle McCarter Jr. proposes that the verb has the sense of “to defect.”

4. would it not be with the heads of our men? They actually use a euphemism, “the heads of these men,” in order to avoid pronouncing a terrible fate on themselves. Perhaps another euphemism is involved, through upward displacement, since in chapter 18 it was a different part of the anatomy of the slain Philistines that David brought back to Saul.

6. As the LORD lives. It is curious that a Philistine should be swearing by the LORD, unless, as has been argued, he is leaning over backward to adopt David’s perspective.

you are upright. In fact, David has been lying to Achish about the object of his raids (27:8–11).

good in my eyes . . . I have found no evil in you. This entire exchange turns on the neat antithesis between good and evil, rather like the exchange between Saul and David outside the cave near Ein-Gedi. Achish will go on to say, quite extravagantly, that David is “as good in my eyes as a messenger of God” (verse 9). The reader, however, may well wonder whether David is in fact so unambiguously good.

in the eyes of the Philistine overlords you are not good. Some scholars, following the Septuagint, read here “you are good,” contending that Achish claims a difference of opinion between the overlords and the captains. It makes better sense simply to assume that he is referring the negative view of David to the highest echelon of authority, though in fact the complaint came from the field commanders.

8. what have I done . . . that I should not . . . do battle with the enemies of my lord the king? Continuing to play the role of the perfect Philistine vassal, David protests his eagerness to fight the Israelites, although in point of fact he must be immensely relieved to escape from the intolerable position of battling against his own people. As several interpreters have noticed, the words he archly chooses have a double edge because “my lord the king” could be a covert reference to Saul, in which case the “enemies” would be the armies of Achish and his confederates. Whether David, lacking this providential way out, would really have pitted himself against his own people is another imponderable in the character of this elusive figure.

from the day I appeared in your presence. The idiomatic force of the phrase is “from the day I entered your service.” Achish had simply said, “from the day you came to me.”

10. you and the servants of your lord. The translation follows the reading in the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text, a little less coherently, lacks “you.”

11. to Philistine country. They are in fact headed to the place Achish has “set aside” for them at the eastern border of Philistine country—the town of Ziklag. Disaster awaits them there.