1 Samuel 27:1–12

Samuel 27:1–12

1BUT DAVID THOUGHT to himself, “One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand.”

2So David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maoch king of Gath. 3David and his men settled in Gath with Achish. Each man had his family with him, and David had his two wives: Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel, the widow of Nabal. 4When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him.

5Then David said to Achish, “If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in one of the country towns, that I may live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?”

6So on that day Achish gave him Ziklag, and it has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since. 7David lived in Philistine territory a year and four months.

8Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.

10When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.” 11He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so odious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant forever.”

Original Meaning

David Flees to Gath and Receives Ziklag (27:1–7)

THIS IS DAVID’S most desperate hour. He realizes his only lasting means of escaping Saul’s evil intentions is to go into exile in Philistia (27:1). David implied in his last dialogue with Saul that the king’s irrational pursuit would necessitate living beyond Saul’s reach in a land where Yahweh is not worshiped (26:19). He is being driven from Yahweh’s presence and forced to live where pagan gods are served. As David once fled from Gibeah and the royal court (19:18–24), now he is forced to flee from the desert recesses of southern Judah. This is David’s last resort, his only hope of survival.1

We have encountered Achish before (21:10–15).2 His city, Gath, is one of the five principal cities of the Philistines, governed in a so-called pentapolis. Each of these cities is ruled by a Philistine “lord” (seren, often simply “ruler” in the NIV) or (occasionally) “king” (cf. Achish in 27:2).3 Gath is an inland city, situated among the low-lying hills known as the Shephelah; it is the closest Philistine city to Judah in the east.4 David’s stratagem works. The narrator laconically notes that when Saul receives the news David is in Gath, he no longer searches for him.

It is not to David’s advantage to settle actually in the city of Gath. Since it is a “royal city,” meaning it is the seat of power for Achish, and since David is called “king of the land” of Judah by Achish’s own servants, it is only natural for David to need his own headquarters. As we will learn, David must operate somewhat independently of Achish’s close observation. It is also possible that Achish is more than happy to consign David and his six hundred men and their families to a less conspicuous location, thereby free from the burden of feeding and caring for them.

Achish has the authority to grant landed property.5 Though Ziklag was allocated to the tribe of Judah by Joshua, it was never successfully conquered (Josh. 15:31). It appears to be ideal for David’s purposes, though it is vulnerable to attack from marauders from the south, as we will see. In verse 6 the narrator gives a hint at the success with which David occupies Ziklag: “So on that day Achish gave him Ziklag, and it has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since.”

David’s Campaigns and His Deception of Achish (27:8–12)

Bridging Contexts

AS I NOTED in the introduction to this chapter, Saul is momentarily placed aside by the narrator. He has practically no role here. In the previous chapter, David and Saul parted ways for the last time. David has been forced to abandon all hopes of reconciliation and is now driven into the arms of Israel’s enemies. Samuel is absent as well, his death being recorded in 25:1. More strikingly, God is absent in this chapter, by which I mean God is not mentioned. The narrator uses neither the generic word “God” or his intimate personal name, “Yahweh.” David is alone! He and his family, along with six hundred loyal soldiers, have moved together to enemy territory. But the family and troops are all dependent on David. He must now lead on his own initiative alone. He has neither venerable prophet nor cherished crown prince (Jonathan) to guide him.11 Instead, David enters into a sort of filial relationship with Achish of Gath (who deduces, “he will be my servant forever,” 27:12).

God’s guidance. The absence of overt reference to God’s direction or guidance seems appropriate in a passage devoted to describing the way David negotiates his way through tricky circumstances, without the obvious assurance of God’s guidance. He must now move on faith, remembering past times of God’s faithfulness. As such, this text illustrates ways in which believers are often forced to make important decisions without the benefit of a specific word from God. At other times David has had the approved means of “inquiring of Yahweh” about important decisions. Earlier, for example, he was able to consult the priestly ephod with its Urim and Thummim to discern God’s will for him (see 23:1–6 and comments).12 Though these may have been available to David during his Philistine sojourn (as in 30:7–8), this text makes no mention of them. Instead, the chapter may be divided into three paragraphs illustrating the way David makes his decisions.

(1) Verses 1–4 portray David in deliberation, a sort of self-conversation in which he speaks to himself with the determination to take action. He concludes that the current crisis cannot continue and that the best thing he can do is flee from Judah altogether. Using his best judgment, David settles on doing what he thinks is logical. Though not stated by the narrator, we may assume from the characterization of David elsewhere that he takes action in the assumption that God will intervene on his behalf. Such a subtle narrative gives us insight into the divine-human interchange and the guidance of God.

We know from several other texts in the extended narrative that Yahweh was actively supporting David as Saul’s successor. Thus, it comes as no surprise that David’s actions, though taken on his own initiative, are effective. Here we are simply informed that his plan works: “When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him” (27:4). David is doing what seems logical, walking through the doors open to him. God honors what he does.

(2) In verses 5–7 a similar process seems to be at work. David decides to approach Achish about occupying Ziklag. He uses logic and diplomacy to persuade his host that he should be allowed to move to the country and live in another city. Again the narrator gives indirect indication that David’s stratagem works; note 27:6b: “[Ziklag] belonged to the kings of Judah ever since.” The city that should have been a possession of Israel from the beginning (Josh. 15:31) now goes into David’s hands and eventually becomes a royal city of Judah. Once again, God honors David’s decisions.

(3) Verses 8–12 relate David’s military campaigns during his Philistine sojourn. In this also David acts on his own God-given instincts. We may be tempted to label the events of this paragraph as “disreputable” and to deplore David’s use of deception in his dealings with Achish.13 But the text is not included as a means of critiquing David’s actions, no matter how questionable those actions seem to us today. Rather, in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion, the text celebrates the shrewdness of our protagonist and his ability to ingratiate himself to both his own people and to the Philistine overlord.

In fact, the Old Testament has other examples of justifiable deception (see 19:11–17, and our discussion there in the Bridging Contexts and Contemporary Significance sections; also 20:1–34). There are many occasions when the Bible actually honors those leading characters who are able to outwit their pagan foes (cf. the book of Judges). Here too the text reports David’s actions and, by implication, approves of his methods. We are told simply that David’s decisions work. Achish “trusts” David and believes they have formed a lasting political and martial relationship that will benefit them both (27:12).

There are many other examples of Old Testament characters who make decisions and take actions on their own, but who trust God through it all to guide their steps (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 37–50). Rarely do the saints of the Old Testament have direct confirmation of their actions, though they hold resolutely to the belief that God is involved. Such examples remind us to submit our entire decision-making process to God and trust him to enlighten our God-given reason and logic and to guide us in our important decisions in life.

Contemporary Significance

LOOKING FOR GOD’S GUIDANCE. Some time ago, I heard Dr. Susan Muto speak in a seminary chapel service on the mystery of the divine-guided life. She said, “God writes straight in crooked lines.”14 I do not know if I understood her comment precisely as she intended it. But it struck me as a good way to describe my own experience in Christian faith. Normally we only see the specific ways in which God has led us as we look back on it after the passage of time. Only then can we trace God’s special guidance, and do that through very crooked lines, meaning unexpected or even unwanted events. Yet through all of it, we can see that God has indeed written straight. What he writes, he writes well—just as Joseph looked back across time at the cruelty of his brothers and said, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20; cf. the New Testament equivalent in Rom. 8:28). Certainly the circuitous route Joseph took to lead Egypt in the famine would have appeared as if God writes straight, albeit in crooked lines.

Reflecting on the important decisions of life after the fact is easy. Making those decisions at the time, however, and determining the “right” decision can leave us with a most helpless feeling. David presents us here with an example of carefully making thoughtful decisions with the best critical faculties we have been given by God, while trusting him to guide us along the way. Here we find the principles of deliberation and consultation before taking decisive action, and these are steps that God often honors.

In my own experience, as with most others it seems, such guidance came at a pivotal juncture in my life. Months before I was to graduate from seminary, my wife and I faced an important decision that would clearly have implications for the shape and form of our future ministry together. I had planned for the pastoral ministry for four or five years. I had been ordained, and my denominational official was offering a church that looked exciting. Indeed, he believed it was an excellent beginning and claimed to be looking for the best ways to launch my career.

But in the closing semesters of my seminary training, I had felt interested in pursuing graduate studies in the field of Old Testament and Semitic languages. I had studied the various schools available and consulted with respected teachers in my seminary. We were left with these two choices: I could make application to the graduate school of my choice and wait to see if I would be accepted, or I could simply accept the denomination’s assignment and begin my pastoral ministry full time. After careful consideration, prayer, and consultation with my professors, I made application to the graduate school. The official of my denomination agreed to wait until we heard from the school before making a final decision.

For months we waited on the proverbial “pins and needles.” We were both excited about the church possibility and would have been quite happy to accept it. But the more we dreamed of graduate studies and a career in teaching, the more we both felt “led” in that direction. The question (as always) was, Is this what God wants for us? We were torn between the two and prayed for “guidance” to know what to do.

One day during this agonizing period, I realized that God was also working something new in my life spiritually. It was at this time of uncertainty, when my whole life seemed to hang in the balances, God spoke clearly—not about the specifics of whether I should go here or there, but about my willingness to do either. He was interested more in my availability than in my ability. He wanted me to seek first his will, not my own interest in what could satisfy my desires best. You may ask, But how do you know that is what God wanted? The answer is that he used the reason and clear logic of a particular prayer during a Eucharist service at the seminary. It was intended to commission graduating seniors and send them into the world for ministry. As part of the service, we read this prayer from John Wesley’s covenant-renewal service:15

I am no longer my own, but Thine. Put me to what Thou wilt, rank me with whom Thou wilt; put me to doing, put me to suffering; let me be employed for Thee or laid aside for Thee, exalted for Thee or brought low for Thee; let me be full, let me be empty; let me have all things, let me have nothing; I freely and heartily yield all things to Thy pleasure and disposal.

I realized slowly and painfully that I could not pray that prayer honestly. At various times in my young Christian experience, I had become too concerned about my own personal success, career, or attainment of academic status. I had not been concerned first and foremost about being employed for God or laid aside for God’s sake. I had not learned the freedom that comes from caring not whether I was exalted or humbled, full or empty, having all things or having nothing. I had not learned fully the joy of yielding to God’s good pleasure.

This text presents us with examples of David’s taking decisive action that affect the role he will play in God’s plans for the future. He bases his decisions on the logical and rational circumstances around him and appears to have simply trusted God to guide the process. Because we often lust for the tangible and the safety of the discernible, this type of trust is usually difficult for us. This type of trust can be illumined by one of my favorite quotes from Blaise Pascal: “Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.”16

As we negotiate our own way through life’s circumstances, it is our perception of those circumstances that often guides us in the decision-making process. But as believers, we understand there is a higher plane involved. Our faith helps us discern God’s guidance in and through the circumstances, and we understand that he can, and we are not surprised when he actually does, intervene to change the circumstances or alter our decisions.17

Original Meaning

David’s Campaigns and His Deception of Achish (27:8–12)

DAVID’S CUSTOM DURING THE SIXTEEN MONTHS he lives in Philistia (27:7) is to conduct raids against Judah’s desert neighbors, thereby providing a measure of security for his homeland. The Geshurites are inhabitants of the southern territory, north of the Egyptian border and south of the Philistine coastal plain.6 The Girzites are mentioned only here; their identity is disputed, though they appear also to have occupied territory between Philistia and Egypt.7

Saul himself had earlier conducted a campaign against the Amalekites (15:1–9, see comments). They were traditional enemies of Israel because of their vicious and unprovoked attack shortly after the Exodus (Ex. 17:8–16). Biblical tradition associates them initially with Edom, but they were nomadic or seminomadic and were evidently scattered across a vast territory of the ancient world.

These military successes on the geographical fringes of Judah would certainly endear David to the citizens of Judah. Later we learn that at times David even shares the booty of these campaigns with the cities of Judah (30:27–31). While living in Philistia on the run from King Saul, he has actually become a defender of Judahite causes. He is Judah’s protector against desert marauders. At the same time, by deceiving Achish, he is also able to endear himself to the Philistine king, leading him to think David is fighting Philistia’s enemies. David has it both ways: the inhabitants of Judah and the Philistine king love him.

Upon returning to King Achish, undoubtedly to share portions of the goods mentioned in verse 9, David reports on his campaigns. But he consistently deceives Achish about the targets of his raids. Instead of the enemies of Judah, David tells his host he is attacking the southern districts of Judah itself: the “Negev of Judah,” the “Negev of Jerahmeel,” or the “Negev of the Kenites” (27:10).8 The location of Jerahmeel was probably in Judah’s southeastern desert basin, south of Beersheba.9 The Kenites were a non-Israelite group frequently associated with the desert near Sinai but also located in the northeastern desert basin near Judah’s border with Edom.10

Achish believes David is raiding areas of southern Judah itself, when in reality he is assaulting enemies who are troublesome to Judah. The Philistine ruler naively believes David has burned his bridges, irreparably alienating himself from his own people. He accepts David’s word and assumes the citizens of Israel must hate him so much by now that David will have no choice but to remain loyal to his new Philistine colleague (27:12).

Throughout the books of Samuel, the Philistines are consistently treated with derision. In the Ark Narrative a sort of dour humor was used to ridicule their idolatry (4:1b–7:1). Later, in David’s first encounter with Achish, he outwitted him by feigning madness, and Achish appeared almost comical in the assertion that his city was so full of crazy men he had no use for any more (21:15). In this text, the reader is reassured of David’s uncompromising loyalty to his homeland of Judah. But above and beyond that, the repetition of the story must have brought pleasure to the ancient readers of this text as they picture David thrashing Israel’s enemies, all while Achish thinks David is actually double-crossing his own tribe. In keeping with the book’s treatment of the Philistines elsewhere, Achish is portrayed as gullible and easily outfoxed.

Bridging Contexts

Contemporary Significance