1Samuel 27

 

1Samuel 27:1–12

David Moves His Men to Gath


Outline of Chapter 27:

 

         vv.     1–4           David Moves his Crew to Gath

         vv.     5–7           David is Given Ziklag to Live In

         vv.     8–12         David Attacks Israel’s Enemies and Tells Achish He has Plundered Israel


Charts, Short Doctrines and Maps:

 

         v.       1              1Samuel 27 Summarized by Keil and Delitzsch

         v.       1              What Did Jesus Mean when He said, “Your Faith has made You Whole”?

         v.       2              What Has Changed Since David was in Gath in 1Samuel 21

         v.       2              What Has Not Changed Since David was in Gath in 1Samuel 21

         v.       3              Principles of Teaching and Presenting Scripture

         v        7              How Do We Know that David Is Not in God’s Geographical Will?

         v.       8              Biblical Criticism Applied to 1Samuel 27:8c

         v.      12              Is David In God’s Will or Not?


Doctrines Covered

Doctrines Alluded To

 

 

Kenites

 

Scriptural Excursions

 

1Chronicles 12:1–8

 


I ntroduction: In 1Sam. 27, David takes his 600 men and leaves Israel, moving to Gath, a Philistine city-state. He reasons that he will always be on the run from Saul in Israel and that he will never escape persecution there. Israel’s foreign policy, after seizing the Land of Promise, has been primarily one of defense. When the Philistines entered into Israel (or anyone else), Israel would act to expel them; however, very little was done in Israel in the realm of offensive action. This undoubtedly entered into David’s reasoning when it came to deciding what to do. If he moved into Philistia, as long as he could make peace with the Philistines, it was unlikely that Saul would pursue him there, an estimation which proved to be correct.


Let me give you a little more detail: Saul has been pursuing David since 1Sam. 19. David has lived as a fugitive with a small army for several years now (we do not know exactly how long). David decides that unless he leaves Israel, he is going to die by Saul’s hand; therefore, he chooses to return to Gath (v. 1). Although much of the book of Samuel is presented without specifically telling us, and what David did here was wrong; nevertheless, what David did here was wrong. He is not going to die by Saul’s hand. He is the next king of Israel—this has been clearly promised to him by God through Samuel—so David’s concern over his life at this point is wrong. Whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23b). Therefore, his decision to leave Israel for safety’s sake is wrong.


Application: I have noticed that many people spend a significant portion of their lives avoiding problems or running away from problems. They don’t get along with a co-worker or their boss, so they quit their job and find a new job; they have an argument with their spouse and decide it is time to walk away from this marriage, and they do. They get so sick and tired of a particular neighbor or a particular neighborhood association, so they move to a different neighborhood. There are times when you need to stay right where God put you and to deal with what God has for you there. Now, I am not saying that there are not times to move to a different job, to relocate, or even, on a rare occasion, to leave a spouse (for instance, if you are being physically abused). However, this does not mean that you ought to run away from every problem that you face. First of all, no matter where you live, no matter what you do, no matter who you spend time with, there will be problems—that is the nature of this life. As a mediocre observer of human behavior, I have often noticed that women will, at least as of late, find themselves in a rut or in a bad circumstance, and they will move or change jobs in order to solve the problem. I have worked for myself and I have worked for other people, and I have never had a job where there were no problems—in fact, I have never been in any job where there were not a handful of people who caused a great many problems where I worked (for me or for others). Now, in a perfect world, we might work at a job where everyone we meet takes the times to say 5 nice things to us every day; or, where we could just shoot those aforementioned handful of people at our present job; but that just isn’t going to happen. There is a time to move, there is a time to change circumstances; and often, God will prod you in that direction. However, David, in this chapter, has had his fill of Saul; and he figures, in human viewpoint, that if he simply leaves Israel, that his biggest problem, Saul, will be solved. However, all David is doing is, exchanging one set of problems for another set of problems. In fact, he is going from a place where he has great moral clarity (1Sam. 24 26) to a place where, no matter what choice David makes, there is tremendous moral ambiguity (1Sam. 29). You see, in order to solve his problem of being pursued by Saul, David is going to step outside the geographical will of God.


Application: When you are going to make a major change in your life, make certain that you are not simply stepping outside God’s geographical will. Obviously, your question is, how do I know? If you are unsure, that means either, you should not make the change, or, you do not have enough doctrine in your soul to make this decision. In the first case, you don’t make the change; in the second case, you learn enough doctrine to guide you in your life; and often God will take care of whatever changes need to be made.


Back to our narrative: David and his army of 600 men, along with their families, move to Gath, getting the okay from Achish, king of Gath. In fact, not only does Achish give David his royal okay but he also gives David a place to live (Ziklag, which is over 20 miles south of Gath—vv. 2–6). We will find out that this arrangement continued for nearly a year and a half (v. 7). Now David was not really a farming man; and he had his family and the families of his men to take care of. So, instead of ranching, trading or farming, David and his men raided the heathen of the land, killing every single man, woman and child, and took their possessions (vv. 8–9). Achish and David periodically met (or, Achish sent messengers to David). He knew that David was raiding various peoples in the south, so when he asks David about it, David claimed to be raiding the southern portions of Judah along with Judah’s allies (v. 10). Since David did not allow any of these people to live, there was no one to contradict him (v. 11—implying that Achish’s military intelligence was limited). Achish believed what David said and was confident that David would remain his servant forever, since he had made himself so odious to Israel (v. 12).


Although their writing can sometimes be rather dense, Keil and Delitzsch give us an excellent chapter summary:

1Samuel 27 Summarized by Keil and Delitzsch

In his despair of being able permanently to escape the plots of Saul in the land of Israel, David betook himself, with his attendants, to the neighbouring land of the Philistines, to king Achish of Gath, and received from him the town of Ziklag, which was assigned him at his own request as a dwelling-place (1Sam. 27:1-7). From this point he made attacks upon certain tribes on the southern frontier of Canaan which were hostile to Israel, but described them to Achish as attacks upon Judah and its dependencies, that he might still retain the protection of the Philistian chief (1Sam. 27:8-12). David had fled to Achish at Gath once before; but on that occasion he had been obliged to feign insanity in order to preserve his life, because he was recognised as the conqueror of Goliath. This act of David was not forgotten by the Philistines even now. But as David had been pursued by Saul for many years, Achish did not hesitate to give a place of refuge in his land to the fugitive who had been outlawed by the king of Israel, the arch-enemy of the Philistines, possibly with the hope that if a fresh war with Saul should break out, he should be able to reap some advantage from David's friendship.*

*Taken from Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament; from e-Sword; 1Sam. Introduction.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


What David had to do was to make peace with the king of Philistia, which he does rather handily in this chapter, due to some deception on his part. David’s behavior at this point is suspect. I must admit that, It was not clear to me at first whether Philistia is God’s geographical will for David. However, now that I have had time to let all of this settle in, it is clear that David is out of God’s geographical will (see v. 12, where we discuss, Is David in God’s Geographical Will?). When David attacked the various Gentiles in his periphery, it is not clear that he is doing this in response to mandates from God. In fact, David will not know God’s will until 1Sam. 30:8; this will be the first time God’s will is actually mentioned. Furthermore, David’s relationship with Achish will be built upon deception in this chapter. For all of these reasons, we can conclude that David is out of God’s geographical will and possibly out of fellowship as well.


This brings up an interesting question: can you be out of the geographical will of God and yet be in fellowship? Being spiritual, being in fellowship, walking in light as opposed to walking in darkness is an all or nothing proposition. There is none of this part spiritual part not. So, if you are out of God’s geographical will, does this exclude you from spirituality, and thus from the plan of God? Definitely not. We are going to make mistakes in our lives. This mistakes are going to wreak all kinds of havoc with our lives (and sometimes, just a little havoc). What these mistakes will do is, at times, take us out of God’s geographical will. If, for instance, it is God’s plan is for us to be in Little Rock, Arkansas, and we find ourselves in New Orleans, Louisiana instead, then are we out of fellowship until we move to Little Rock? No. We still get back into fellowship in the same way: we name our sins to God. All of our sins are completely forgiven, those which we are aware of and those which we did not realize that we committed. However, God does not looks down and say, “Too damn bad, Charlie Brown; you’re in the wrong place; no filling of the Spirit for you.” That is legalism. That goes against what we are taught in 1John 1:9. Therefore, even if we get out of God’s geographical will, which is going to probably involve getting out of fellowship as well, we can get back into fellowship no matter where we are. God’s plan picks up for us right then and there. Even though David is clearly out of God’s geographical will, which involves him being out of fellowship, he will be back in fellowship in 1Sam. 30:6, prior to returning to Israel.


Let’s think this through: we are in New Orleans, but it was God’s will for us to be in Little Rock. A legalist might tell you that you cannot be in fellowship until you hop in your car and drive to Little Rock. But, do you see the problem? You are working in the flesh in order to get back into fellowship. You are going through the steps of securing transportation out of New Orleans, where you are not in fellowship, to return to Little Rock, where you can then get back into fellowship. You are using the power of the flesh in order to go from point A to point B in order to be in God’s will. You do not accomplish anything of lasting spiritual value while in the flesh. Not ever! We have believers who have spent their entire lives out of fellowship. You can talk to believer after believer and they have no clue as to how they fall out of the fellowship and how they get back into fellowship. Footnote There are believers who do all kinds of works in the flesh—the give money to the church, they go to the mission field, they serve on the board of deacons, they pastor churches, they have evangelical ministries on television. Unless they are filled with the Holy Spirit, nothing that they do has any spiritual worth and it will be burned at the Judgment Seat of Christ (1Cor. 3:12–15). The foundation of all spiritual works is God’s grace, which is based upon the filling of the Holy Spirit. You may struggle and work and sweat to establish a mission somewhere and this may consume your entire life; but if you are not filled with God the Holy Spirit, then you are wasting your time. I have known Pentecostals whose ministry emphasizes the power of God the Holy Spirit; yet, most of them have no idea how to be filled with the Holy Spirit. They believe that if they get under a little psychological pressure from some other more advanced Pentecostals, and if they open up their mouth and try to let sounds come out without thinking about what these sounds should be, that this is indicates that they are being baptized and filled with God the Holy Spirit. It does not! Try to understand, if the most important post salvation thing for us to do is speak in tongues, don’t you think that Paul would have mandated that in his epistles? He does nothing of the kind, even in the only passage devoted to this, 1Cor. 14. Satan attacks in several ways: (1) he does whatever he can to keep us from the gospel. (2) However, since some people are going to go on positive volition toward Jesus Christ after reaching God consciousness, then Satan does not just throw up his hands and say, “Oh my; can’t do anything here.” Don’t be stupid. Satan is much more intelligent than any of us. He can think circles around you and around me. His next objective is to neutralize us as believers. If Satan can get huge groups of believers to spend the majority of their Christian lives out of fellowship, then he has accomplished plan B. Plan A: keep a person from believing in Jesus Christ: Plan B: keep a believer out of fellowship. There are entire denominations which are under Plan B. I have met many Pentecostals and many Catholics who I am convinced are believers in Jesus Christ. I am also convinced that they have no idea how to get in and out of fellowship with God. Catholics go the a priest (even though they themselves are priests) and they confess their sins (perhaps weekly, monthly, yearly) and the priest gives them some sort of human works to perform in order to get back into fellowship. Do you see the problems? They are confessing their sins to the wrong person (a priest rather than to God the Father); and they are performing works of the flesh in order to get back into fellowship (doing an act of penance, for instance). A believer who does this all of his life will never be filled with God the Holy Spirit (following the first time that he sins after salvation). Now let’s look at the charismatics. First of all, in their initial salvation, they are not really quite saved. They don’t have God the Holy Spirit. They might have to hang out with some other charismatics—you know, tarry after church or after a Bible study. These older charismatics will try a variety of methods to induce speaking in tongues. They will speak in tongues themselves; they will tell the uninitiated to lay down, lay back, lay their heads back, open up their mouths, and let whatever flow out. “Don’t think; just let the sounds come out.” They may lay a psychological trip on you: they are in the in-group; they speak with angelic tongues; you are in the out-group—you do not. There is only one way to move from the out-group to the in-group: speak with tongues. Once they have you speaking in tongues, then everything is as cool as Fonzie. From thereon in, when you are down, or you feel like things aren’t exactly right; then you just need to get with them and speak in tongues; or, perform good deeds with them. Again, a believer is completely and totally neutralized. He is filled with God the Holy Spirit at salvation; he loses this filling when he sins for the first time; and he never gets this back—he stays out of fellowship for the rest of his life (or as long as he hangs around with charismatics who think the key to spirituality is speaking in tongues).


Now, if you are a Catholic or a charismatic and you are reading this, I know what you are thinking: “This can’t be right—I’ve spent the past year (5 years, 20 years) in service to God. I have never confessed my sins directly to God. Are you telling me my Christian life has been for nothing? That can’t be!” I recall when I first heard about naming my sins to God in order to be in fellowship; this was a few months after I had become a Christian and, to me, what I had done in those few months was pretty good stuff—you see, I did not want to let go of my human good either. I did not want to let go of my works either. “I earned this! I’ve been doing stuff for God for these past several months—tell me I get some credit for it!” God does not work that way—it is His way, not ours. Salvation is clear and specific: you believe in Jesus Christ and you are saved. Being born into a religious family does not give you a relationship with God. Believing in Mohammed, Buddha, or Confucius does you no good; if you want a relationship with God, it is through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ only. “I am the way, the truth and the life—no man comes to the Father but by Me!” (John 14:6). For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5). So, I’m sorry—I’d love to tell you that all of your works are really appreciated by God—but, unless you were filled with God the Holy Spirit, all of your works mean nothing to God.


Since I am here, let me tell you Satan’s Plan C: a person becomes a believer and they know how to get back into fellowship. Then Satan (well, more likely those in his demon corps) does everything to appeal to the lust pattern of that person. The person lusts after money—put the promise of money just beyond his reach. Put the promise of money side-by-side spiritual compromise. The person lusts after power: offer him power, but make certain that there are moral compromises which must be made in order to attain it. The person lusts after sex: get him out of fellowship via pornography, advertisements, television, movies or by people he (or she) meets. Plan C calls for Satan to get you out of fellowship and keep you out of fellowship as long as possible. Do you remember that jackass who cut you off in traffic on your way to Bible class, and pissed you off to the max? You are going to sin; you are going to fail. There are times you may fail so badly that you doubt your own salvation; there are times you will fail so badly that you may become discouraged, despondent, ashamed. None of those emotions gets you back into fellowship. You might be the biggest Christian screw up on this planet—no problem; the filling of the Spirit comes with the naming of your sins to God. Your sins may be completely offensive to my sensitive nature. I might want you to confess your sins to God and cut off a finger to remind yourself about how much you offended me. Doesn’t matter what I want and it doesn’t matter how much you offended me. What matters is that you admit to God your sins. On the other side of the coin, some of the sins I commit might offend you as well. Let me tell you—your opinion of my sins means little or nothing. The only thing that is important is that I name my sins to God. That puts me back into fellowship—your feelings about my category of sins is irrelevant. Your feelings and my feelings about the sins of others is irrelevant with respect to their spiritual lives. The key to their spirituality is confessing their sins directly to God.


Second question: okay, we are out of God’s geographical will, and we rebound, Footnote putting us back into fellowship. Must we hop in our car and go to wherever God wants us to be? That is a maybe. God can pick up His plan for our lives at any point in any geographical location. So, there are times we would stay; and times that we would leave. There are certainly going to be situations where leaving is almost impossible to do. That is when we allow God to work all things together for good—including whatever boneheaded decisions led us to the wrong destination in the first place. David will get back into fellowship in 1Sam. 30:6—he does not have all of his soldiers mount up for a return to Israel. He remains in Philistia territory.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart Index


David Moves his Crew to Gath


Slavishly literal:

 

Moderately literal:

And so says David unto his heart, “Now I will be taken away a day one in a hand of Saul; nothing to me pleasant a delivery I am delivered in a land of Philistines. And has desisted from me Saul to seek me still in every border of Israel, and I have been delivered from his hand.”

1Samuel

27:1

So David said to himself [lit., to his (own) heart], “I will soon [lit., now] be taken away one day by the hand of Saul—[there is] nothing for me [here]—[it is] better that I certainly slip away [or, deliverer myself] to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will desist from me, from seeking me [lit., to seek me] still in every border of Israel; and I will be delivered from his hand.”

Later, David said to himself, “Eventually, Saul will capture me; and there is nothing here for me. It would be better for me to escape into the land of the Philistines—then Saul will stop seeking me everywhere in Israel, and I will be delivered from his hand.”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic Text                       And so says David unto his heart, “Now I will be taken away a day one in a hand of Saul; nothing to me pleasant a delivery I am delivered in a land of Philistines. And has desisted from me Saul to seek me still in every border of Israel, and I have been delivered from his hand.”

Peshitta                                  And David said in his heart, Now if I should fall some day into the hands of Saul, it would not be good for me, but it is better for me that I should escape to the land of the Philistines; and Saul will despair of seeking me any more in the territory of Israel; so I will escape out of his hands.

Septuagint                              And David said in his heart, “Now I will be one day delivered into the hands of Saul; and there is no good thing for me unless I should escape into the land of the Philistines, and Saul should cease from seeking me through every coast [or, border] of Israel. So I will escape out of his hand.

 

Significant Differences:                    No significant differences.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       [Saul went back home. David also left], but he thought to himself, "One of these days, Saul is going to kill me. The only way to escape from him is to go to Philistia. Then I'll be outside of Israel, and Saul will give up trying to catch me.

NJB                                        ‘One of these days,’ David thought, ‘I shall perish at the hand of Saul. The best thing that I can do is to get away into the country of the Philistines; then Saul will give up tracking me through the length and breadth of Israel and I shall be safe from him.’

NLT                                        But David kept thinking to himself, “Someday Saul is going to get me. The best thing for me to do is escape to the Philistines. Then Saul will stop hunting for me, and I will finally be safe.”


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         David said to himself, "One of these days Saul will sweep me away. The best thing for me to do is to make sure that I escape to Philistine territory. Then Saul will give up looking all over Israel for me, and I'll escape from him.”


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     David said to himself, "One of these days I'll be swept away by Saul. There is nothing better for me than to escape immediately to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will stop searching for me everywhere in Israel, and I'll escape from him.”

Young's Updated LT              And David says unto his heart, “Now am I consumed one day by the hand of Saul; there is nothing for me better than that I diligently escape unto the land of the Philistines, and Saul has been despairing of me—of seeking me any more in all the border of Israel, and I have escaped out of his hand.”


What is the gist of this verse? After thinking things over, David decides to semi-permanently elude Saul by moving into the Philistia territory.


1Samuel 27:1a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa or va (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

lêb (בֵל) [pronounced laybv]

heart, inner man, mind, will, thinking

masculine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #3820 BDB #524


Translation: So David said to himself [lit., to his (own) heart],... David thinks about his situation. It is clear that Saul will continue to pursue him (or, it at least appears that will be the case, despite what Saul says during times of repentance). Saul has sincerely regretted his aggressive acts against David on several occasions; and yet, he continued to pursue David. So David ponders this situation.


There is nothing wrong with thinking things through as a believer, and weighing your options. However, David has access to the Ephod of God (1Sam. 30:7). He could easily ask, “Should I stay in Judah, and continue to run from Saul or should I leave Judea and move to Philistia?” This is an option open to David, and he does not take it. Right away, this tells us that his final decision will be suspect.


Application: What about us? We don’t have the Ephod of God. We have no method by which we can ask God yes or no questions to determine what we should do. What we have is the entire Word of God. If you are a new believer, then you follow Paul’s advice and don’t make any major changes in your life (1Cor. 7:26–27). Get doctrine first, and then let God work out what is to follow. Let me see if I can make this more clear: if you do not have enough doctrine to make a decision to do this or that, and know it is the correct decision, then stay as you are until you have enough doctrine to make that decision. You have fallen in love, but you aren’t sure whether you should get married? If you don’t know for certain, stay single. You think you should change jobs or move to another city, but you are not sure if it is God’s will? Then don’t change; don’t move. Get enough doctrine to be able to make the decision. Matt. 6:33: But seek first God's Kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well. 1Cor. 7:26–27: I think that it is good therefore, because of the distress that is on us, that it is good for a man to be as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Don't seek to be freed. Are you free from a wife? Don't seek a wife.


Application: Okay, does this mean you cannot get married? The very fact that you would even ask that question tells me you do not have enough doctrine to get married. 1Cor. 7:28: But if you marry, you have not sinned. If a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have oppression in the flesh, and I want to spare you. The key is, wait until you have enough doctrine to know you are making the right decision. If you are unsure, then do not make such a life-changing decision. If you are a new Christian or a believer who has not been under good doctrinal teaching for very long (or, not at all), if you get married, if you move, if you decide to quit your job and take another job—and if you have any doubts about these decisions—then these bad decisions will haunt you for the rest of your life; particularly the marriage one. You cannot make a worse decision than marrying the wrong person.


1Samuel 27:1b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

׳attâh (ה ָ ַע) [pronounced ģaht-TAWH]

now, at this time, already

adverb of time

Strong’s #6258 BDB #773

çâphâh (ה ָפ ָס) [pronounced saw-PHAWH]

to be taken away, to be swept away, to perish; to hide away [in one’s house]

1st person singular, Niphal imperfect

Strong’s #5595 BDB #705

yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]

day; today (with a definite article)

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

echâd (ד ָח א) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]

one, first, certain, only; but it can also mean a composite unity

numeral

Strong's #259 BDB #25

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd]

hand

feminine singular construct

Strong's #3027 BDB #388

Shâûwl (לאָש) [pronounced shaw-OOL]

which is transliterated Saul; it means asked for

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #7586 BDB #982


Translation: ... “I will soon [lit., now] be taken away one day by the hand of Saul... In David’s thinking at this time, he believes that Saul will eventually capture him. Saul has attempted again and again to capture David; David here assumes that it is simply a matter of time.


At this time, we need to think this over. We cannot immediately condemn David and say, “God will make you king; so you have nothing to fear from Saul.” There is a reasonable trust in God and there is reasonable action. One who places such a huge emphasis on faith, I guess, would expect David to set up and lazy boy and a tv outside Saul’s palace and watch extreme sports all day long. Perhaps, he might additionally post a sign reading, “Bite me, Saul.” Some people would believe that such actions would reveal David’s great faith. However, this does not mean that David is demonstrating great faith. So, before we condemn David for being concerned about Saul, we should follow his thinking further. It is clear that, no matter where David goes to in Israel, Saul will come after him. Recall, David has delivered whole cities, and they have been willing to turn against him and turn him in to Saul. So, David’s estimation of his situation seems to be quite reasonable.


Application: You have an illness or you have been in an accident—is it a lack of faith if you go to the doctor’s? Of course not! Do not be an idiot. Just as it would have been stupid for David to set up a lazy boy outside of the palace of Saul and order ESPN to watch until Saul decides to try something, it is stupid for you to think that not going to the doctor exhibits great faith. It does not; if you do that, you are stupid, not great in faith.


Yes, I know about Jesus and healing thousands of people and that He often said, “Your faith has made you whole.” If you do not understand what is going on here, then you do not have enough doctrine to come in out of the rain. First of all, let us focus in on what is important: is it more important for you to alleviate some illness for 60 years or to spend eternity face to face with God? Your eternal relationship with God is 1,000,000 times more important than this or that infirmity. Therefore, when Jesus came in the flesh and spoke to man, what do you think the emphasis of His message would be on? Do you think He emphasized His healing powers or would He emphasize your eternal relationship with God? If you are not half an idiot, you know the answer to this. Let’s go back to the oft heard phrase, “Your faith has made you whole.” This phrase has a double meaning. It was issued to someone who had just been cured of an illness or an infirmity of some sort; but, more importantly, it indicated salvation and the means of salvation.


Let’s take this in points:

What Did Jesus Mean when He said, “Your Faith has made You Whole”?

1.      A person with an illness or infirmity approached Jesus.

2.      He or she would ask Jesus to heal them (or, one even grabbed the hem of His garment to be healed).

3.      This indicated that they had faith in Jesus. They believed that He would healed them.

4.      The end result of their faith was, their bodies were made whole.

5.      This same person died a year later, or ten years later or 50 years later, often of some physical infirmity.

6.      If this person believed in Jesus Christ, then they were saved and would spend eternity in fellowship with God.

7.      Their eternal state is 1,000,000 times more important than this illness or infirmity that they suffered from.

8.      When Jesus said, “Your faith has made you whole,” there was a two-fold meaning.

         a.      Jesus said this 5 times which are recorded: Matt. 9:22 Mark 5:34 10:52 Luke 8:48 17:19. Just as there were certain unrecorded miracles (John 21:25), there were probably many additional instances of Jesus saying this.

         b.      When a person believed that Jesus could heal them—at least, having enough faith to give Him a try—their faith resulted in their bodies becoming whole—their bodies were still subject to death; they would still die; their bodies were still subject to illness; they could still get sick—but, whatever they came to Jesus about was healed, generally instantly. Their faith made them whole, although the merit was not in their faith.

                  i.       You may go to a doctor to cure an illness; this may involve the doctor doing something or the prescription of medicine.

                  ii.      You have some kind of faith in this doctor or in the medicine.

                  iii.      If you are healed, it is not your faith which heals you, per se, but the merit is in the doctor, his training, and the medicine which he prescribed.

                  iv.     You could take this same faith to a doctor who missed the cause of your illness, and you are not cured.

                  v.      You could take this same faith to a quack who has not a clue in the medical realm, and you are not cured.

                  vi.     You could take this same faith to a faith-healer and walk away still sick.

                  vii.     The merit is not in your faith, but in the person in whom you place your faith.

         c.      Now, much more important than a physical healing is their faith—their faith in Jesus Christ—which made them whole. That is, they were regenerated and went from having a soul and a body to having a soul, a body and a spirit. They became whole. They had what Adam lost at the fall and what they did not have at birth—a human spirit. They had been made whole. Their nonmeritorious faith made them whole.

         d.      The prophets continually prophesied about things which had a two-fold fulfillment—often a near and a far fulfillment. Jesus continued this tradition.

         e.      Jesus taught in parables—there was the basic story and the basic plot which seemed to deal with day to day things, but it always had another meaning, a spiritual meaning. So Jesus often said one thing, but what was not immediately apparent was the second meaning, which was not always apprehended at first.

9.      Therefore, because Jesus often said things which meant one thing on the surface, but had a deeper meaning, then we should not suppose that His oft-repeated phrase, “Your faith has made you whole” referred only to the curing of a physical ailment.

10.    Man has 3 methods by which he can perceive things: faith, rationalism (or intellect) and empiricism (what he observes). The latter two systems of perception impute some merit to the man; however, faith imputes the merit to what is believed or who is believed.

11.    When you believe in Jesus Christ, the merit is in Him; not in yourself.

12.    Anyone can believe; anyone can have faith—even if it is faith which is as tiny as a mustard seed.

13.    At birth and as children, our primary source of information is our parents. They tell us this or that, and we believe them. The merit is with the parents. If you have good parents, then your parents train you properly from a very young age. They tell you the truth; they teach you morality; they teach you right and wrong. Their teaching has all the merit. If you as a child believe what they tell you, which is what happens most of the time, the child is not exhibiting some great merit for believing, because that is what children tend to do.

14.    Jesus also said, “You must become like these little children.” Did He mean we must decrease our chronological age somehow? No. Did He mean that we need to become sinless and innocent like these little children? No. All children are born with an old sin nature. All children sin. A child’s first word is mom; his second word is daddy; and his third word is no (and often an emphatic no!). So, are we to become like a child just beginning to utilize our old sin nature’s? Hell no! We are to function under the most basic system of perception, which a child utilizes the most—faith. The child hears what his parents tell him and he believes them. Personally, I believed in Santa Claus for a long time; and I had even developed some rational arguments as to why he must exist (I don’t recall the age; maybe 8?). I believed my parents. The merit (or lack of merit) was in the information which I believed.

15.    So, what is most important again? A cure of some infirmity or your eternal salvation?

16.    When Jesus said over and over again, “Your faith has made you whole” was He giving great emphasis to His healing power over the physical body or His healing power for fallen man? Of course, the message associated faith with Him and with being made whole, which is regeneration (the acquiring a human spirit so that you may enjoy fellowship with God, just as your soul allows you the ability to enjoy fellowship with man).

When you examine what Jesus said, and what He repeated, then it is important to ascertain just exactly what He meant.

By the way, let me add that the miracles which Jesus performed were spectacular and that He did not tell people, “You know what? You just do not have enough faith; I am not going to heal you. You cannot be healed until you acquire some more faith. Sorry, dude.” When Jesus healed a man, it had meaning; furthermore, this was a presentation of His credentials. We tend to think that the Bible is filled with miracles; that the Jew walked outside his house and saw a dozen miracles every day. That’s crap. The exodus generation saw a dozen or so great works and/or miracles. Those associated with Elisha saw a handful of miracles (I don’t know how many people actually observed more than 3 works at his hand). And Jesus performed so many miracles and works, that they could not all fit into a book (John 21:25).

When Jesus healed, this indicated that He was the Messiah come to Israel; and His many healings and miracles were unlike any which had ever been observed before in human history. However, the miracles were simply an indication of Who Jesus is—the miracles are not as important as the God-man who performed them.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


1Samuel 27:1c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

êyn (ןי̤א) [pronounced ān]

nothing, not, [is] not; not present, not ready; expresses non-existence, absence or non-possession; there is no [none, no one]

particle of negation; substantive of negation

Strong’s #369 BDB #34

lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional preposition with the 1st person singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510


Translation: ...[there is] nothing for me [here]... I must admit to not being completely satisfied with this translation; literally, this reads nothing to me. My guess is, there is nothing for David in Israel, in this circumstance of Saul coming out after him at any time. It is just not worth the headache. Taking this approach, remember that David’s parents are in Moab; we are not positive where his brothers are (possibly with him). Saul’s daughter Michal, David’s wife, had remarried (as had David). There is no city which is clamoring for David to move there. There is no group of people, apart from his 600 soldiers, who are willing to give David shelter and rest from Saul’s continual pursuit. Therefore, there is nothing in any part of Israel which holds David.


The alternate understanding is that these couple words to not stand by themselves but should be affixed to what follows: ...[there is] nothing better for me [than]... This understanding of the Hebrew would mean, David has no other reasonable alternative. The alternative to his staying in Israel is stated below.


1Samuel 27:1d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ţôwb (בט) [pronounced tohbv]

pleasant, pleasing, agreeable, good, better

masculine feminine singular adjective which acts like a substantive

Strong’s #2896 BDB #373

kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

mâlaţ (ט ַל ָמ) [pronounced maw-LAHT]

to be delivered; to deliver oneself, to escape, to slip away, to slip through [or past]; to go away in haste

Niphal infinitive absolute

Strong’s #4422 BDB #572

mâlaţ (ט ַל ָמ) [pronounced maw-LAHT]

to be delivered; to deliver oneself, to escape, to slip away, to slip through [or past]; to go away in haste

1st person singular [often a reflexive meaning in the] Niphal imperfect

Strong’s #4422 BDB #572

A Niphal infinitive absolute is a verb which can act like noun, a verb or an adverb. Generally it takes the place of a noun and serves to intensify meanings. When used as a complement of affirmation, it may be rendered surely, indeed; and when it is a complement of improbability and condition, we render it at all, freely, indeed. Footnote

Although the Niphal is generally a passive stem, it can be used as a reflexive in some instances, such as this one.

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

erets (ץ ר א) [pronounced EH-rets]

earth (all or a portion thereof), land

feminine singular construct

Strong's #776 BDB #75

Pelishetîy (י. ש ̣ל) [pronounced pe-lish-TEE]

transliterated Philistines

masculine plural gentilic adjective (acts like a proper noun)

Strong’s #6430 BDB #814


Translation: ...[it is] better that I certainly slip away [or, deliver myself] to the land of the Philistines.... David has determined that it will be better for him to be in the land of the Philistines. Now, at this point, I can see questioning David and his choice. The fact that he is not completely safe in Israel is clear; however, God has plans for David to rule over Israel. Therefore, how reasonable is it for David to go to a foreign country? At this point, I have personal questions about David’s choice here. Should David go to the land of an enemy? Isn’t it better for him to wait out Saul in secure areas in Israel? At this point, David is be straying from God’s geographical will.


This is the second time that David has gone to Philistia in order to escape Saul. The first time he went alone, back in 1Sam. 21. This is during his initial escape from Saul. Saul had sent soldiers to his house to pick him up and David first ran to Nob (which resulted in the priests of Nob being killed) and then to Gath (which probably initiated a Philistine movement against Israel, since their greatest warrior, David, was incapacitated).


By the way, when I criticize David’s choices, I don’t mean to set myself up as one who would have made the right choice. It should be clear that David was a great man of God. That he made some mistakes here and there does not take from his greatness. However, we need to examine his life and his decisions carefully, as they guide us in our lives today.

 

Wesley speaks to this verse as a mistake on David’s part: This was certainly a very great fault in David: for this [decision] proceeded from gross distrust of God's promise and providence; and that after such repeated demonstrations of God's peculiar care over him. He forsakes the place where God had settled him, 1Sam. 22:5, and given him both assurance and experience of his protection there. Footnote Clarke concurs, noting: This was a very hasty conclusion: God had so often interposed in behalf of his life, that he was authorized to believe the reverse. God had hitherto confounded all Saul’s stratagems, and it was not at all likely that he would now abandon him: there was now no additional reason why he should withdraw from David his helping hand. Footnote In fact, Clarke continues even more emphatically: There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blameable. David joins the enemies of his God and of his country, acts a most inhuman part against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretense of a Divine authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act; giving him to understand that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defense of this conduct of David; it is all bad, all defenseless; God vindicates him not. The inspired penman tells what he did, but passes no evaluation of his conduct; and it is false to say that, because these things are recorded, therefore they are approved. In all these transactions David was in no sense a man after God’s own heart. Footnote

 

And allow me to append the eloquent comments of Matthew Henry: He said to his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul. [David] represented to himself the restless rage and malice of Saul (who could not be wrought into a reconciliation) and the treachery of his own countrymen, witness that of the Ziphites, once and again; he looked upon his own forces, and observed how few they were, and that no recruits had come in to him for a great while, nor could he perceive that he got any ground; and hence, in a melancholy mood, he draws this dark conclusion: I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul. But, O you of little faith! Why do you doubt? Was he not anointed to be king? Did not that imply an assurance that he should be preserved to the kingdom? Though he had no reason to trust Saul's promises, had he not all the reason in the world to trust the promises of God? His experience of the particular care Providence took of him ought to have encouraged him. He that has delivered does and will. But unbelief is a sin that easily besets even good men. When without are fightings, within are fears, and it is a hard matter to get over them. Footnote


David has chosen to move into Philistine territory because they have been, historically, enemies of Israel. Therefore, Saul is unlikely to have any allies among them who will turn David in to him. Of course, you wonder—if these are historic enemies of Israel, aren’t they David’s enemies as well? Yes, they are. However, David has gone into Philistia once before and, despite his behavior, had somewhat of a connection with Achish, the king of Gath. Achish’s approach to David’s feigned insanity was one of humor and mercy, when he held all the cards. Therefore, David can see returning to him.


However, is this the right decision for David? No; the primary reason being, David has access to God’s will via the Ephod and he is not making use of that access.


Application: Have you ever had a decision to make and you are worried that the more you know about God’s Word, the less likely it is that you will choose to do what you want? Some people have difficult decisions to make and yet they do not go to God’s Word for guidance because they just are not really interested in what God has to say about the matter. David has put together a few logical thought points, but he does not integrate his thinking with God’s will. God’s will and guidance is never sought; therefore, it is likely that David’s decision will be a mistake.


Application: Don’t forget to use the right tool for the right job. Most people, when they are trying to make a tough decision, simply pray really hard and are sensitive to God’s will. Prayer is a fantastic weapon, but God is not going to tap you on the should during prayer and say, “You need to make a right turn up ahead.” God has given us a variety of tools for a variety of jobs. I can hammer a nail ineffectively with a screw driver and somewhat better with a pipe wrench. However, these are not the right tools for that job. Prayer is not the all-purpose tool. Prayer is not your Swiss army knife. Do you need guidance? God can do that. God is able to provide you guidance at the right time to make the right decision. But, just like everything else in life, you may not get it when you think you need it. When I first moved to Texas, I would have liked God to have dropped a million dollars into my lap. That would have been cool. Some of you probably give God the opportunity to do this almost every week when you buy a lottery ticket. However, right now, I really could care less whether God drops a million dollars into my lap or not. I have no interest in buying a lottery ticket; no interest in playing the slots; no interest in dropping my savings into a can’t miss leveraged investment; no interest in entering Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes. Right now, a million dollars dropped into my lap (or ten million dollars) would be more of a headache than a problem-solver. So, even though 25 years ago, I would have been cool with God dropping a million dollars into my lap, and even though that would have, in my thinking, solved many of my problems, God chose not to do that. Now, you think I’ve gone far afield of my point here, but I haven’t. God will drop the solution to your problems, to your questions into your lap at the right time. You may not get it today. In fact, the answer might even become moot at some point in the future. What should you do? Stay where you are, don’t make any major decisions, and take in doctrine. Learn God’s Word. Through God’s Word you will know God’s will for your life. It is a life-long process. You will not find out overnight, or after a week of concentrated study, the answers to all your questions or guidance with respect to every one of life’s decisions. You live your life one day at a time and you make decisions one at a time. God knows all about your life; He has intimate knowledge concerning each and every detail of your life. He knows when you should zig, and He knows when you should zag. Do you know what? He is going to make that known to you. Your life is not just some big guessing game and some days you are going to guess right and other days, not so right. The key is knowing Bible doctrine. You need to be spiritually mature for your decisions to having much meaning anyway.


Let me give you an illustration. You bring a baby into a plant where solid wood doors are made. Now, you might cause this baby to make a left turn when he needs to, or a right turn when he needs to, but, just how many doors will this child make? None! A child will not build one single door, even though they are standing (or crawling) through a plant which does nothing but. Now, let’s say this child becomes an adolescent, and you guide them one step at a time to make a door—well, then, they might be able to make that kind of a door again (and they might need some help the next time as well); and if it is typical for a man to oversee the building of 50 doors in a shift, this teen might build 5 (and he will need someone guiding him most of the way). Now, if you get an adult in there who has had training in the construction of all of these different doors and he is mature and willing to work, when you cut him lose in this factory, he will be able to build the typical 50 doors in a shift. Now, look at the illustration—you can give the baby all of the guidance you can think of, and get right there with the baby and guide him so he will crawl in the correct direction, but, at best, he might saw off his own hand. However, you take a person with some maturity and training, all you have to do is put him inside the factory, and he will know which way to go, he will know what to do, and he will know how to do it. Producing a door will be based upon his volition; for a child, they do not even have a clue; for an adult, they can produce.


So it is in the spiritual life. When you are first saved, you might want to know if you will make a right turn up ahead, or whether you should go straight ahead. Should you call into work sick and go the Starbucks and witness to everyone there? Should you do this or that? What is the Spirit telling you to do? You are the baby in the door factory. You have no training, no maturity, no nothing. What you do is going have a minimal impact on the business of manufacturing doors. You life is going to have minimal impact in the spiritual realm, no matter how sincere and gung ho you are. If you have maturity and training, then what you do in the door factory will have meaning and you will produce. If you have maturity and spiritual training, then, first of all, you will not obsess about stupid things (should I turn right or go straight ahead?) and, secondly, you will actually amass some spiritual producing.


Let me add one more thing: spiritual production is not based upon physical maturity. You might be a Christian since 30 years ago, but this does not mean that you are able to produce one iota of divine good. If you do not have spiritual maturity, your chronological years are meaningless. A person who has been a believer for 5 years can be lightyears ahead of someone who has been a believer for 50 years. The believer of 50 years can still be the baby aimlessly crawling around in the door factory. The key is, spiritual maturity; not the mere amassing of years.


Application: Now, I have talked about having the right tools for the right job; therefore, let me give you your hammer, saw and screwdriver for the Christian life right here and right now; your most basic tool set. First, there is rebound. When you sin and get out of fellowship, then name your sin to God and get back into fellowship. No matter what you do in your life, no matter how badly you screw things up, this is your first tool to use after salvation. Secondly, you need God’s Word in your soul. You need to be under the teaching of a good and accurate pastor teacher. Once a week is not enough time to grow spiritually. Even 3 or 4 hours a week is not enough time to grow spiritually. You need doctrine each and every day to grow. Now, your church probably does not meet each and every day. Therefore, you will need additional teaching. What does your church offer? Do they have tapes or computer files of previous messages available to you (and they should be available to you, whether or not you have money)? Finally, prayer is a good tool as well; it is better to use it for thanksgiving than anything else; but certainly, you can use it to ask God for guidance. Just realize that He will probably guide you through His Word.


Let me give you a pet peeve of mine: prayer. Now, there is nothing wrong with legitimate prayer; do not misunderstand me in this. However, I cannot tell you how many people pray and pray and pray. I have unbelieving friends who would ask me to pray for them; and I suspect that they asked the same of other people of other faiths, just in case. But I digress. Here’s the problem that I have with most people who pray: these tend to be people who want to talk God’s ear off with their problems and troubles, but they are never willing to listen. Now, I don’t mean listen to that still, small voice within you; because most of the time, that is simply you telling you what you want to hear. But God has seen to it that you can hear His voice. You can have God talk to you. You can get God to help guide you in your decisions. How? Through God’s Word. God expresses Himself most eloquently in His Word. Now, I don’t mean pick up the Bible and simply start reading. It is too easy for the new believer to become confused, as the Bible is not always simple and easy to understand. God has designated certain men to be pastor teachers and, once and awhile, some of these men are able to teach and teach well. You might be surprised as to how willing God is to guide you. Personally, I began learning from R. B. Thieme Jr. about 30 years ago; and, even though I faced a few difficult decisions and even though I made a huge number of bad decisions; I need to tell you that there have been very few crossroads in my life which were difficult for me to determine if I should go left or right. This does not mean that I have not faced a huge number of decisions; I certainly have. But knowing what the right decision was has never been a difficult thing for me. Yes, I pray; but I am also willing to listen. Imagine if you took a course in Differential Equations how much you would learn if you walked into class everyday and talked nonstop. How much would you learn? How much would you get out of that class? Okay, now imagine if you talked to God everyday nonstop; how much guidance are you going to get? You have to be willing to listen. If you are not taking in God’s Word on a daily basis, you can pray and pray and pray, and then pray some more; and your life is still going to be a mess. As the oft-repeated saying goes, God gave you two ears, but only one mouth. That should guide you when it comes to how much you should listen versus how much you should talk. The spiritual application is, you might want to spend an hour in Bible class for every 30 minutes you pray.


1Samuel 27:1e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

yâash (ש-אָי) [pronounced yaw-AHSH]

to desist [from a person or thing]; to be void of hope, to be without hope; to be in vain

3rd person masculine singular, Niphal perfect

Strong’s #2976 BDB #384

min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than, greater than

preposition of separation with the 1st person singular suffix

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

Shâûwl (לאָש) [pronounced shaw-OOL]

which is transliterated Saul; it means asked for

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #7586 BDB #982


Translation: Then Saul will desist from me,... What Saul will do is part of David’s reasoning. David assumes that Saul will desist from chasing him if he is in a foreign country. Saul will have no hope in capturing David; he will receive no cooperation with the Philistines. Saul is most concerned about his own life; if he wanders into a Philistine territory with his men, he is just as likely to get killed as anything else—and Saul is more concerned about his own skin than anything else. So, the idea of going to a foreign country is sound; David can expect to escape Saul’s continued pursuits in that way. Now, to some extent, David’s reasoning is sound. Saul will stop chasing after David (1Sam. 27:4). However, just because David is correct on one or two points does not mean that he is making the correct decision here.


Application: Maybe you have prayed earnestly for guidance and maybe a few things point you in the direction of X instead of Y. This is still not enough reason to go that route instead. There are good reasons why David should leave Judea and move to Philistia. He is certain that Saul will stop chasing him if he does. However, this does not mean that David should go to Philistia.


1Samuel 27:1f

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional preposition with the 1st person singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

bâqash (שַקָ) [pronounced baw-KAHSH]

to seek, to search, to desire, to strive after, to attempt to get, to require, to demand, to ask, to seek with desire and diligence

Piel infinitive construct with the 1st person singular suffix

Strong’s #1245 BDB #134

׳ôwd (דע) [pronounced ģohd]

still, yet, again, besides, in addition to, even yet

adverb

Strong’s #5750 BDB #728


Translation: ...from seeking me [lit., to seek me] still... David assumes that Saul will stop seeking him out if he goes to a foreign country. His reasoning was covered in the previous paragraph. In this, David is correct. If he is in Philistia, Saul will cease pursuing him.


Application: This is something everyone needs to know: do not do something simply because it makes your life easier. That is not enough of a reason. Do not quit your job simply because your boss is an ass and an arrogant jerk. Do not quit your job simply because there are idiots who work there who do not like you. It appears to David that if he moved to Philistia, he is going to solve the Saul problem. However, all David is going to do is to trade one set of problems for a whole other set of problems. Do you see how that works? David will solve the Saul problem; in fact, he will never be troubled by Saul again. However, David is going to force himself into a life of deceit. David is going to be involved in questionable practices and decisions. In fact, David is going to get so far out of whack that he will eventually offer himself and his men to Achish as soldiers to fight against his mother country, Israel. Do you see how far off-kilter David will become? This is all because he will make a decision which is supposed to simplify his life. And note very carefully: David has completely understood and properly evaluated this decision from his own human wisdom. He is not wrong about Saul. Saul would probably at a future date pursue him again. He is not wrong about his move; Saul would not chase David into Philistia. David’s reasons, from a human viewpoint position, are correct and well-reasoned. The problem is, his decision is wrong.


Application: For whatever reason, I have observed this behavior in women more than men. They know that there is something wrong with their life, so they change something. They move, they change jobs, they get a makeover. There is something wrong, they know it, and so they try to fix it. The problem is, they try to fix it in the human realm. You are going to have problems in this life; you are going to have tribulations in this life; you are going to face injustices in this life. You cannot get away from any of this, no matter how many times you move, no matter how many times you change jobs or boyfriends. Here is how you deal with this: when God wants you to move, you move; when God wants you to change jobs, then you change jobs; when God says it is time to dump the present boyfriend, then you dump him. It is not rocket science. How do you make these determinations? You spend as much time as possible being filled with God the Holy Spirit; and you take in God’s Word. Here’s the real deal: most people only say they want God’s guidance—some might even think that is what they want—but the fact of the matter is, they really want to do what they want to do, and then they want God to overrule the problems which they will encounter because of their own hardheadedness.


1Samuel 27:1g

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

kôl (לֹ) [pronounced kohl]

every, each, all of, all; any of

masculine singular construct not followed by a definite article

Strong’s #3605 BDB #481

gebûl (לב׃) [pronounced geb-VOOL]

border, boundary, territory

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #1366 BDB #147

Yiserâêl (לֵאָר ׃̣י) [pronounced yis-raw-ALE]

transliterated Israel

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #3478 BDB #975


Translation: ...in every border of Israel;... This continues David’s reasoning—if he is not inside Israel, then it is less likely that Saul will pursue him. People that David has delivered have turned David in to Saul. No matter where David goes in Israel, there are going to be those who are allied with Saul (or will want whatever influence that Saul gives them). So, David has determined that no matter where he goes, Saul may still be told where David is from other Israelites. However, it is less likely that someone from another country will go to Saul to turn David in. There is no reward for a foreigner to do this and they could be risking their lives to turn David in. So, David would definitely be safer, with regards to Saul, if he is in Philistia.


1Samuel 27:1h

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

mâlaţ (ט ַל ָמ) [pronounced maw-LAHT]

to be delivered; to deliver oneself, to escape, to slip away, to slip through [or past]; to go away in haste

1st person singular [often a reflexive meaning in the] Niphal imperfect

Strong’s #4422 BDB #572

min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than, greater than

preposition of separation with the 1st person singular suffix

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd]

hand

feminine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #3027 BDB #388


Translation: ...and I will be delivered from his hand.” This is David’s solution. He will go into Philistia, and be assured of escaping Saul’s long arm. Whether David is geographically in God’s will when he moves to Philistia is still up for discussion; however, his reasoning is sound. Saul will not pursue him into a foreign country—especially not the land of the Philistines.

 

Matthew Henry tells us: David was a man after God's own heart, and yet he had his faults, which are recorded, not for our imitation, but for our admonition. Footnote


Application: Let’s get one thing straight here: you are not to read a Bible passage and then imitate everything that you find in that passage. Don’t be a blithering idiot! There are times when this is pretty obvious: e.g., David having sex with Bathsheba and then killing her husband. Only the most psycho believer could read that and decide that is God’s will for his life. But, realize this is also true when the Apostles elected a 12th Apostle in Acts 1; this is also true when the Apostles spoke in foreign languages throughout the book of Acts; this is also true when Jesus completely healed various people of all manner of diseases. You must rightly divide the Word of Truth. Some of the things which the Apostles did, we will imitate; some of the things which they did, we will not. It is not a matter of simply what is sin and what is not; but what is God’s plan for our lives. So, how can you, a believer, pick up the Bible, read through the book of Acts, and know what to do? Let me be frank with you: if you are a young believer, you cannot read through the book of Acts and determine what you should and should not do. This is why God has given us pastor teachers. It is the job of a pastor teacher to examine the Scriptures as a whole, guided by God the Holy Spirit, and present the mandates of God in an organized fashion to us. Some of you, for instance, will be mandated in your lives to become pastor teachers; others to become missionaries. None of you are mandated to speak in gibberish. A young believer cannot determine God’s path for his life on his own. A young believer cannot pick up a Bible, open it to any miscellaneous chapter and read it and fully understand it. Therefore, we don’t read this chapter and decide, “Hey, we are really getting persecuted here; we need to move (to a new job, a new city, a new country). That is what David did and David is a man of God.” It is the job of a pastor to guide you in your life through his teaching of God’s Word and to guide you away from making boneheaded decisions.


Application: It is not up to the pastor to make any of your decisions for you, by the way. There is no way a group of deacons should follow you around and make your decisions for you. Let’s say a pastor put one of the deacons on you to shadow you, to keep you from doing that which is wrong—would that make everything better because you would certainly be sinning less? No. In fact, hell no. God gave us volition and expects us to use it. Being intimidated from committing a sin means little or nothing. You are paying attention to the wrong thing. They key is, the filling of God the Holy Spirit. The key is, from your own free will, you name your sins to God when you sin. The key is, you do not give in to sin from your own free will; not because you are intimidated. Footnote


It is interesting that David has made this decision in particular. Philistia is not his only option. His parents are being guarded in Moab by an ally there. Moving to Moab is an option. However, David does not explore that option. Again, the problem is, David has access to God’s guidance and he does not use it.


Application: You do not have access to the Ephod of God, but you do have access to God’s Word. There are now more resources on God’s Word than ever before. There are a dozen outstanding teachers who have provided their teaching on the internet. I should have a list of them on my links page. If you desire to know God’s truth, God will see that you have that opportunity.


And so arises David and so he goes over—he and six hundreds of a man who [are] with him—unto Achish ben Maoch, king of Gath.

1Samuel

27:2

David then arose and he went over—he and his 600 men who are with him—to Achish son of Maoch, king of Gath.

Then David rose up, he and his 600 men, and they went to Achish son of Maoch, king of Gath.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic Text                       And so arises David and so he goes over—he and six hundreds of a man who [are] with him—unto Achish ben Maoch, king of Gath.

Peshitta                                  So David arose and went over, he and the 600 men who were with him, to Achish, the son of Maachah, king of Gath.

Septuagint                              So David arose, and the 600 men that were with him, and he went to Anchus, son of Ammach, king of Gath.

 

Significant differences:           None.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       David and his six hundred men went across the border to stay in Gath with King Achish the son of Maoch. His men brought their families with them. David brought his wife Ahinoam whose hometown was Jezreel, and he also brought his wife Abigail who had been married to Nabal from Carmel. [vv. 2–3 are combined].

NLT                                        So David took his six hundred men and their families and went to live at Gath under the protection of King Achish.

REB                                       So David and his six hundred men set out and crossed the frontier to Achish son of Maoch, king of Gath.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         So David went with his 600 men to King Achish of Gath, Moach's son.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     So David set out with his 600 men and went to Achish son of Maoch, the king of Gath.

Young's Updated LT              And David rises, and passes over, he and six hundred men who are with him, unto Achish son of Maoch king of Gath;...


What is the gist of this verse? David chooses to take his men to Achish, the king of Gath.


1Samuel 27:2a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

qûwm (םק) [pronounced koom]

to stand, to rise up, to establish, to establish a vow, to cause a vow to stand, to confirm or to fulfill a vow

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #6965 BDB #877

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187


Translation: David then arose... David has reasoned within himself as to what he was going to do; and then he acts. We often find this verb used when someone is going to act on their volition.


1Samuel 27:2b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

׳âbar (ר ַב ָע) [pronounced ģawb-VAHR]

to pass over, to pass through, to pass on, to pass, to go over

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #5674 BDB #716

hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]

he, it

3rd person masculine singular, personal pronoun

Strong’s #1931 BDB #214

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

shêsh (ש̤ש) [pronounced shaysh]

six

masculine form of numeral

Strong’s #8337 BDB #995

mêâh (ה ָא ֵמ) [pronounced may-AW]

hundreds

feminine plural numeral; construct form

Strong’s #3967 BDB #547

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun

Strong's #376 BDB #35

ăsher (רשֲא) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

׳îm (ם̣ע) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by, near

preposition of nearness and vicinity with the 1st person singular suffix

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767


Translation: ...and he went over—he and his 600 men who are with him... David no doubt explained his reasoning to his men. Probably he thought through this, as we find in v. 1, presented his reasoning to his top generals, and the explanation trickled down to his men.


1Samuel 27:2c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37

bên (ן ֵ) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

Mâ׳ôk (ךֹעָמ) [pronounced maw-ĢOHK]

oppressed, oppressor; and is transliterated Maoch

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #4582 BDB #590

meleke ( ל מ) [pronounced MEH-lek]

king, ruler, prince

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #4428 BDB #572

Gath (ת ַ) [pronounced gahth]

wine-press and is transliterated Gath

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1661 BDB #387


Translation: ...to Achish son of Maoch, king of Gath. David chooses to go to Achish. Achish is the king of one of the Philistine cities—the city of Gath.


We find Achish mentioned in 1Sam. 21 27–29 1Kings 2 Footnote and Psalm 34. Footnote David first went to Achish to escape Saul, and when he realized his precarious situation, he feigned insanity in order to escape (1Sam. 21). The way that Achish dealt with the situation was interesting; he used humor and revealed no vindictiveness (David had been a traditional enemy to the Philistines). This may not seem like much of a recommendation; however, look at some of the radical Arab leaders today—I write this at a time when Iraqis are killing other Iraqis because they want to vote in an election. This is obviously not a group of people who are known for being reasonable—at least their fringe element. So, after thinking things over, David decides to return to Achish (who is much more stable and much more trustworthy than Saul).


Now, I want you to note...

What Has Changed Since David was in Gath in 1Samuel 21

1Samuel 21

1Samuel 27

David was alone.

David was with 600 soldiers and their families.

David acted and spoke irrationally and realized that he was in a precarious position with Achish.

David spoke very rationally and had specific requests of Achish.

David slobbered and behaved in a crazy manner.

David requested that Achish give him a place of his own to live.

David was helpless before Achish.

David was with a small army. Although they could probably not defeat Achish and his army, they would have been formidable opponents.

David had no plan; he was simply running from Saul.

David had a very specific plan (I am speculating at this point, but I believe that I am correct in this assumption).

David needed to have Achish act mercifully towards him.

David killed entire villages of heathen without showing any mercy.

David was known as a great warrior of Israel. That he had a falling out with Saul was unknown at this time.

David’s falling out with Saul was apparently known to Achish (although this knowledge was not universal—1Sam. 29:4–5).

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

Next, I want you to note...

What Has Not Changed Since David was in Gath in 1Samuel 21

1.      David is out of fellowship.

2.      David is out of God’s geographical will.

3.      David is appealing to an unbelieving heathen.


Maoch, the father of Achish, is only mentioned in this passage. However, Achish is called the son of Maachah in 1Kings 2:39; these nouns are close, but not so close that there could have been an error made by the copyist. The first two consonants are the same; Maoch (Strong’s #4582) ends with a kaph (ך) and Maachah (Strong’s #4601) ends with a kaph (כ) Footnote and a taw (ת) (or, a hê—ה). Maachah could be the feminine of Maoch. One could be the short version of the other. Because the passage referred to is 40 years later and because we are not positive about the relationship between Maoch and Maachah, we do not even know if this is the same Achish in 1Kings 2:39.


We have no idea how all of this transpired—that is, did David just show up at the doorstep of Achish? Did Achish issue David an invitation, knowing of his troubles, causing David to think the thoughts of v. 1? We can only speculate at this point. The result, in any case, is that David and his men went to Gath.


And so dwells David with Achish in Gath—he and his men, a man and his house, David and a pair of his wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail woman of Nabal the Carmelitess.

1Samuel

27:3

So David lived with Achish in Gath, he and his men, each man [lit., a man] and his household, David and his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail, widow [lit., wife] of Nabal, the Carmelitess.

After that, David and his men lived with Achish in Gath—every man with his own household. David had his two wives, Ahinom the Jezreelitess and Abigail, the Carmelitess, the widow of Nabal.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so dwells David with Achish in Gath—he and his men, a man and his house, David and a pair of his wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail woman of Nabal the Carmelitess.

Peshitta                                  And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men and the household of David and his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife.

Septuagint                              And David dwelt with Anchus, he and his men, each with his family; and David and both his wives, Achinaam the Jezraelitess, and Abigaia the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

 

Significant differences:           None.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       David and his six hundred men went across the border to stay in Gath with King Achish the son of Maoch. His men brought their families with them. David brought his wife Ahinoam whose hometown was Jezreel, and he also brought his wife Abigail who had been married to Nabal from Carmel. [vv. 2–3].

NLT                                        David brought his two wives along with him—Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal’s widow.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         David and his men stayed with Achish in Gath. Each one had his family, and David had his two wives, Ahinoam from Jezreel and Abigail (who had been Nabal's wife) from Carmel.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

ESV                                       And David lived with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal's widow.

Young's Updated LT              ...and David dwells with Achish in Gath, he and his men, each one with his household, even David and his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail wife of Nabal the Carmelitess.


What is the gist of this verse? David and his men moved to the Gath area; and brought with them their families. David still has his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail.


1Samuel 27:3a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

to remain, to stay, to inhabit, to sit, to dwell

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

׳îm (ם̣ע) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by, near

preposition of nearness

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

Gath (ת ַ) [pronounced gahth]

wine-press and is transliterated Gath

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1661 BDB #387


Translation: So David lived with Achish in Gath,... David and his men moved to an area near Gath. He did not actually live in Gath with Achish.


Allow me a diversion at this point: here we have a good, non-emotional way to approach proof-texting and allowing context and other verses to tells us exactly what is going on. In this portion of v. 3, it sounds as if David has moved into Achish’s palace and is bunking with him. If we were to look at this portion of the verse, a pastor could look his congregation in the eyes and say, “Now, here it is, in your own Bible, in whatever translation you use: ‘David and Achish are roommates.’ ” As we proceed in this verse, and in the next, it will become clear that David and Achish are not roommates. However, if you examine this portion of the verse, and ignore all else in the context, that is the conclusion that someone could force you to. Now, whether David is bunking with Achish or not has no emotional affect upon you in any way—this is not an issue that you care about one way or the other. You are not going to get your theological feathers in a huff, because we land on one side or the other of this simple issue. Therefore, you can look at this portion of v. 3, factor in to the rest of v. 3 and what follows, and come to the conclusion that David did not actually room with Achish. David and his men and their respective households did not move in with Achish. This becomes clear with the context. If your pastor simply gives you doctrines and proof texts, and does not exegete entire books, then there is a problem. If you, as a pastor, will not teach whole books of Scripture; but you teach doctrines and principles and quote proof texts, you are doing a disservice to your congregation even if your doctrines are accurate.


For these reasons, we should cover a few principles of teaching:

Principles of Teaching and Presenting Scripture

1.      A pastor must not exclusively teach principles, offering up proof texts to support these principles.

2.      A pastor who uses proof texting will state a principle and then offer up various passages which appear to be in agreement with this principle. I have read some books and essays where the texts even read out of context had little to do with the teacher’s point of view.

3.      A pastor must carefully exegete entire books of the Bible, without glossing over bothersome texts.

4.      A pastor must look at every verse of every chapter and present it in its literary and historical context.

5.      It is much more difficult for a pastor to teach false doctrine if he teaches the entirety of the Bible.

6.      For example, if one teaches the entire book of 1Corinthians, it is less likely that a pastor will lead all his congregation into speaking in tongues; it is less likely that, even if the pastor attempts to do that, there will not be this insanity of everyone babbling nonsense all at the same time. Scripture keeps us from falling into these theological/behavioral traps.

7.      You, as a member of the congregation, will be able to tell, when a pastor teaches entire books, that there are verses which contradict the doctrine he has taught if there are problems with his doctrine. The examples will be glaring.

8.      The key is, do you choose what you have been taught throughout your life or do you believe the Word of God.

9.      The key is, do you choose what your experience tells you or do you believe the Word of God.

10.    You can prove anything using the Bible and carefully choosing proof texts to support your position. It does not matter what theological position that you hold: hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, covenant theology, modern healing, modern speaking in tongues—you can take any one of these issues and either prove it or show that it is false—simply by proof texting.

11.    Now, here is where you do not go overboard: just because a pastor teaches doctrines and principles and quotes Scripture in order to prove his position, that does not mean he is an apostate pastor. There are many times when a principle of Scripture must be clarified, categorized, and justified.

12.    All denominations and cults are a result of proof texting. A person or persons takes theological positions, backs them up, and later, this all gets organized into a group of theological positions which then becomes the essential doctrine for a denomination or a cult.

13.    This does not mean that every denomination is wrong. The conservative Baptists, apart from a few minor problems, for instance, are very accurate in their teaching. The problem is this: a young man goes to a Baptist theological seminary, learns Baptist doctrines taught with proof texting, and he is less likely to properly present Scripture, verse by verse, paragraph by paragraph.

14.    Do not forget that we are in a spiritual war. Satan will do everything possible to corrupt good Bible teaching. Satan is much more brilliant than we are and he knows Scripture better than you and I do. He can examine a situation and offer up several Bible verses which improperly deal with that situation; and he can do this faster than we can even imagine.

15.    Therefore, even when an excellent system of doctrine is put together, when it becomes a large movement, then Satan does whatever he can to neutralize that movement. I have been in many Baptist churches. I have seen one Baptist church which had not even a clue as to how great God’s grace is; they had no clue as to how corrupt we are. Essentially, they taught the same lies that the Catholic church has taught for centuries, about infused grace. They were unable to accept that a person could be a believer and act like an unbeliever. The entire book of 1Corinthians is directed toward a church filled with believers who acted like unbelievers. That is the thrust of that epistle.

16.    I have been to another Baptist church where the pastor was open-minded, willing to examine other points of view, and was fairly accurate on all counts—but he rarely taught Scripture book by book and verse by verse. My point is, a pastor can teach relatively accurate doctrine, and not exegete any books—however, most often, the doctrine is inaccurate.

17.    The power of the Word of God is that it is the Word of God.

18.    A pastor should never question the power of the Word of God.

19.    A pastor should teach God’s Word and allow God’s Word to work within his flock.

20.    It is not the pastor’s job (or the job of the deacons) to follow errant members of the congregation around and embarrass them into not sinning overtly. There is a limited place for personal contact and confrontation, but generally speaking, this is when the behavior of a congregational member has an adverse affect on the other sheep.

21.    It is the pastor’s job to teach God’s Word and let God’s Word do the job in the hearts of his congregation.

22.    It is the job of the deacons to take care of whatever administrative things must be done in order to allow the pastor to study and teach.

23.    Since the most important thing a pastor can do is teach God’s Word, he must not allow himself to be sidetracked by other issues or other duties.

24.    A pastor must be able to delegate authority and responsibilities.

25.    Just because someone screws up to whom authority or responsibility has been assigned, does not mean the pastor needs to fire him or her and then take over the position himself. It may not even be appropriate to fire someone who has failed miserably.

26.    A pastor’s job is primarily to lead his flock, not to do administrative work. A pastor leads his flock by teaching the Word of God, book by book, chapter by chapter, line by line.

27.    Therefore, a pastor should not blow a gasket because someone under him screws up, is subversive, or drops the ball.

28.    Again, we are in an unseen conflict and a pastor who does a good job should expect attacks from all sides.

29.    To sum up, because I realize I have gone off on several tangents: the most important part of our spiritual growth is to learn the Word of God. It is the pastor’s job to teach the Word of God. If a pastor only teaches principles, using proof texts, and does not teach entire books, verse by verse (and sometimes even, word by word), then that pastor is not doing his job. Similarly, a pastor delegates responsibilities to allow him the time to study and teach the Word of God. A pastor should not become confused, upset, disoriented or frustrated just because those who have the responsibility below him screw up. In fact, a pastor might want to question what is going on if he experiences no problems, no opposition, and no screw-ups.

Now, you may wonder, how did we get here? Simple, we took a simple issue, an issue about which no one is too emotional, where David actually lived. We saw that if we look only at v. 3a, it sounds as if David bunked with Achish, king of Gath. Now, as we read further, we find that is not the case. There are no contradictions per se; the idea is, we cannot take a portion of Scripture out of context, and make some point using just that portion of Scripture. At that point, I got side-tracked, but reasonably so, with a couple of issues which face the pastor-teacher.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


Okay, now the idea is, David will live in the same general area as Achish, although that is not clear by this portion of Scripture—in fact, that will not be clear until we get a few more verses into this chapter. However, what appears to be the case is, David lived in Gath for awhile with Achish (meaning in the same city); and later, Achish gives him a city to live in.


1Samuel 27:3b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]

he, it

3rd person masculine singular, personal pronoun

Strong’s #1931 BDB #214

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

men; inhabitants, citizens; companions, soldiers, companions

masculine plural noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #376 BDB #35


Translation: ...he and his men,... David traveled with his soldiers and he took care of them as a leader should. David did not simply say, “Hey guys, things are a little too worrisome for me here in Judah; I think I am going to split for awhile. My best to you and yours. Maybe we will hook up again sometime.” David took his men with him and he took responsibility for them.


I should point out that this is David’s behavior even though he is out of God’s geographical will when he moved to Gath. Just because David does one thing dreadfully wrong (which is going to lead to a series of wrong moves on David’s part), does not mean that every single decision that David makes and everything that he does will be wrong. David should be taking care of his men. However, taking them to Gath is not the way to do it.


1Samuel 27:3c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun

Strong's #376 BDB #35

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

bayith (ת̣י ַ) [pronounced BAH-yith]

house, household, habitation as well as inward

masculine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #1004 BDB #108


Translation: ...each man [lit., a man] and his household,... Now, these were not simply a band of nomad soldiers, but these were normal men who had wives and children. David nowhere discouraged his men from leading semi-normal lives, given the circumstances.


Now, don’t get weird on me and decide this means a soldier should travel with his family. A soldier goes into battle to protect his wife and children; to protect his extended family; to protect his homeland—he does not go into the service to place them in harm’s way. Furthermore, this is more than a band of soldiers. David has essentially adopted this itinerant band of misfits who allied themselves with him. David properly sees to their needs and guides them. Part of this involved the fact that some had wives and children and some probably acquired them along the way, as David had. David, as a leader, took responsibility for all of them—his men, their wives and their children.


In case you need an analogous situation, there are some men in the armed forces, who are stationed in areas where there is no war. They might be moved to this base or that; and, in many cases, at least with the officers, the families move with them. This is what is happening here. There are companies which may find it necessary to move their employees around to other cities. If the company assists them in moving their entire family and settling the entire family, then that company is acting as David does here.


Allow me a tangent here: there are “spiritual” organizations out there which encourage their members not to marry—monks and nuns, for instance. All of this is based upon Paul talking about his lack of a wife. One comment or two, made as an aside by Paul, which should not have given birth to huge marriage-less organizations. This is an extreme example of proof-texting. In the Aaronic priesthood, in the early church, and in David’s small, mobile army, no suggestion of complete celibacy (and I mean in terms of no marriage) is ever found in Scripture. It is a complete perversion of Paul’s message.


1Samuel 27:3d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

shetayîm (ם ̣י ַ ׃ש) [pronounced sheTAH-yim]

two, two of, a pair of, a duo of

feminine numeral construct

Strong’s #8147 BDB #1040

îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]

woman, wife

feminine plural noun and 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #802 BDB #61


Translation: ...David and his two wives,... We have already talked about David and his small collection of wives. In 1Sam. 25, we saw how David met Abigail.


1Samuel 27:3e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ăchîynô׳am (ם -עֹני.ח ֲא) [pronounced uh-khee-NOH-ģam]

my brother is delight, and is transliterated Ahinoam

proper noun

Strong’s #293 BDB #27

Yizere׳êlîyth (תי.ל̤ערז̣י) [pronounced yize-re-ģay-TEETH]

God will sow; that which God planted; it is transliterated Jezreelitess

gentilic adjective; feminine form; with the definite article

Strong’s #3159 BDB #283


Translation: ...Ahinoam the Jezreelitess... We discussed the very little that we know about Ahinoam back in 1Sam. 25:43, which is not much. She apparently produced David’s firstborn and we know more about him (Amnon) than we do about his mother.


1Samuel 27:3f

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ăbîygayil (ל̣י-גי.בֲא) [pronounced ab-vee-GAH-yil]

my father is joy (or, joyous); or my father’s joy; and is transliterated Abigail

feminine singular proper noun

Strong’s #26 BDB #4

îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]

woman, wife

feminine singular construct

Strong's #802 BDB #61

Nâbâl (לָבָנ) [pronounced naw-BAWL]

foolish, stupid; impious, wicked; and is transliterated Nabal

masculine singular proper noun

Strong’s #5037 BDB #615

karemelîyth (תי.למר-) [pronounced kare-mel-EETH]

garden, plantation and is transliterated Carmelitess

gentilic adjective; feminine form; with the definite article

Strong’s #3761 BDB #502

This is masculine in the Septuagint and the Vulgate.


Translation: ...and Abigail, widow [lit., wife] of Nabal, the Carmelitess. We found out a lot about Abigail back in 1Sam. 25, but what we get out of this portion of the verse is a little about Hebrew grammar. I have served this portion of v. 3 up to you in the order that it is found in the Hebrew, for a particular reason: Carmelitess refers back to Abigail; it cannot refer to Nabal, as Carmelitess is a feminine gentilic adjective. This tells us that we do not find relationships only side-by-side. Therefore, we have to be extremely careful when we deal with genealogies. That is, if we examine Bob, son of Burt, brother of Barney; it may take some further examination in order to determine if Barney is Bob’s brother or Bob’s uncle. Properly speaking, in proper English, Barney would be Bob’s uncle; the problem is, not everyone writes in proper English (including those who speak English).


If you will recall, back in 1Sam. 25:43, I mentioned, it is difficult to determine, simply from this passage, whether Jezreel is a place or a people. Carmel is a place; given the way it is found here, and given the obvious parallelism with Jezreel, we may reasonably conclude that Jezreel is a place as well (rather than a people). This will become even more clear when we get to 1Sam. 29:1.


And so it was made known to Saul that had fled David [to] Gath and he did not add again to seek him.

1Samuel

27:4

When [lit., and so] it was made known to Saul that David had fled [to] Gath, he no longer sought after him [lit., he did not add again to seek him].

When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer sought after him.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so it was made known to Saul that had fled David [to] Gath and he did not add again to seek him.

Septuagint                              And it was told Saul that David had fled to Geth; and he no longer sought after him.

 

Significant differences:           None.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       When Saul found out that David had run off to Gath, he stopped trying to catch him.

NLT                                        Word soon reached Saul that David had fled to Gath, so he stopped hunting for him.

TEV                                        When Saul heard that David had fled to Gath, he gave up trying to find him.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he didn't search for him anymore.

JPS (Tanakh)                         And when Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he did not pursue him any more.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     When it was reported to Saul that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him.

MKJV                                     And Saul was told that David had fled to Gath. And he never again looked for him.

Young's Updated LT              And it is declared to Saul that David has fled to Gath, and he has not added any more to seek him.


What is the gist of this verse? When Saul finds out that David is in Gath, he no longer attempts to find him.


1Samuel 27:4a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

nâgad (ד ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAHD]

to be made conspicuous, to be made known, to be expounded, to be explained, to be declared, to be informed

3rd person masculine singular, Hophal imperfect

Strong's #5046 BDB #616

Although Owen lists this as the 2nd person masculine singular, that is a typo; it is the 3rd person masculine singular and the Hophal is the passive of the Hiphil. This information is made known to Saul; he is the recipient of this information.

lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

Shâûwl (לאָש) [pronounced shaw-OOL]

which is transliterated Saul; it means asked for

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #7586 BDB #982

kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

bârach (ח -רָ) [pronounced baw-RAHKH]

to go through, to flee

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #1272 BDB #137

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

Gath (ת ַ) [pronounced gahth]

wine-press and is transliterated Gath

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1661 BDB #387


Translation: When [lit., and so] it was made known to Saul that David had fled [to] Gath,... There was always someone out there willing to report David’s movement to Saul. It may have been immediately, and David may have put out the word where he was going to (although he has no reason to do so). However, given that Saul had several times in the past told of David’s whereabouts, then it is logical for others to tell Saul when David leaves the country.


It appears that there was always a battle between the Israelites and the Philistines, and that each pushed against the borders of the other. Given this fact, and the fact that there were few roads and few passageways during this time period, it is reasonable that no one had to actually follow David to Gath in order to confirm this. When they saw the direction that David was heading, and where he was, and only thing logically before him was the city-state of Gath.


Gill suggests Footnote that Saul had spies out there watching David, determining his movements, and then sending the information back to Saul. This is not exactly the case. First of all, in their last meeting, Saul left David more or less with his tail between his legs, as David could have killed him but did not (see 1Sam. 26:24–25). So Saul had not turned around and established a spy unit already. In fact, he never needed to do that. There were always people in David’s general area who were more than willing to reveal to Saul David’s movements (see 1Sam. 23:11–12 24:1 26:1).


1Samuel 27:4b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lô (אֹל or אל) [pronounced low]

not, no

negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation

Strong’s #3808 BDB #518

yâçaph (ף ַס ָי) [pronounced yaw-SAHPH]

to add, to augment, to increase, to multiply; to add to do = to do again

3rd person masculine singular, Hiphil perfect

Strong's #3254 BDB #414

׳ôwd (דע) [pronounced ģohd]

still, yet, again, besides, in addition to, even yet

adverb

Strong’s #5750 BDB #728

lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

bâqash (שַקָ) [pronounced baw-KAHSH]

to seek, to search, to desire, to strive after, to attempt to get, to require, to demand, to ask, to seek with desire and diligence

Piel infinitive construct with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1245 BDB #134


Translation: ...he no longer sought after him [lit., he did not add again to seek him]. Although Saul seemed generally brave with respect to the Philistines (with the exception of the Goliath incident), there is little which cause us to think that Saul pressed against the Philistines to take territory from them (unless this was originally Israelite territory). So, going into a Philistine city to seek after a man with a small crack force was just not a good choice for Saul. He had what he wanted; David was as good as dead. There was the added bonus, in Saul’s twisted mind, that the Philistines might actually kill David.


Wesley suggests Footnote that Saul was done chasing after David, given his final remarks of sincere repentance in 1Sam. 26:24–25. Saul had, in the past, on several occasions, seen the error of his ways and regretted his actions and his evil thoughts (1Sam. 19:6–7 24:16–22). However, he still, after a few months went by, would get freaked out about David and pursue David once again (1Sam. 23:24–24 24:1–2 26:2). Therefore, there is no reason that we should assume that Saul’s repentance would have been permanent. There are a lot of churches who put a premium on emotions and do what they can to make Christians have a cathartic experience in church or at an evangelistic meeting. If they can get the backslided Christian to come forward with tears in his eyes over his sinful rebellion against God, vowing to turn to God and to never sin again, they feel like they have done a great service to that person. Saul would have been right up front every time, his eyes filled with tears, his voice choked with emotion, confessing to all that his pursuit of David was wrong. And, the next day, he’d gather up 3000 of his crack soldiers and go pursue David.


Application: There are times that you will have a sincerely emotional response to this spiritual truth or that; or because you have been such a dog, and now you realize it. That is fine; and you may even feel better once you have let it all out. Just do not mistakenly think you have made a real breakthrough in your Christian life. The breakthrough will be when you make the decision day after day, sometimes minute after minute, to name your sins to God and to take in God’s Word. These decisions may or may not be emotional; but these decisions will be the ones which have the real impact on your Christian life.

 

Matthew Henry makes the very interesting observation: Notwithstanding the professions of repentance Saul had lately made, if he had had David in his reach, he would have aimed another blow. But, because Saul dares not to come where he is, he resolves to let him alone. Thus many seem to leave their sins, but really their sins leave them; they would persist in them if they could. Saul sought no more for him, contenting himself with his banishment, since he could not have his blood, and hoping, it may be (as he had done, 1Sam. 18:25), that he would, some time or other, fall by the hand of the Philistines; and, though he would rather have the pleasure of destroying him himself, yet, if they do it, he will be satisfied, so that it be done effectually. Footnote


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


David is Given Ziklag to Live In


And so says David unto Achish, “If please I have discovered grace in your [two] eyes, they will give to me a place in one of [the] cities of the land and I might dwell there; and to why dwells your servant in a city of the kingdom with you?”

1Samuel

27:5

David then said to Achish, “If perchance [lit., please] I have found grace in your eyes, [then let] them give me a place in one of the cities of the country that [lit., and] I might live there. For why [should] your servant live in the royal city with you?”

David then said to Achish, “If perchance I have found favor in your eyes, then please allow me to have a place in one of the cities in the outlying areas to live in. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so says David unto Achish, “If please I have discovered grace in your [two] eyes, they will give to me a place in one of [the] cities of the land and I might dwell there; and to why dwells your servant in a city of the kingdom with you?”

Peshitta                                  And David said to Achish, “If I have now found grace in your eyes, let the people give me a place in one of the towns in the desert, that I may live there; so that your servant may not dwell in the royal city with you.”

Septuagint                              And David said to Anchus, “If now your servant has found grace in your eyes, let them give me, I pray you, a place in one of the cities in the country, and I will live there; for why does your servant live with you in the city reigned over?”

 

Significant differences:           No significant differences.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       One day, David was talking with Achish and said, "If you are happy with me, then let me live in one of the towns in the countryside. I'm not important enough to live here with you in the royal city.”

The Message                         Then David said to Achish, "If it's agreeable to you, assign me a place in one of the rural villages. It doesn't seem right that I, your mere servant, should be taking up space in the royal city.”

NLT                                        One day David said to Achish, “If it is all right with you, we would rather live in one of the country towns instead of here in the royal city.”


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         David said to Achish, "If you will permit me, let me have a place in one of the outlying towns so that I can live there. Why should I live in the royal city with you?”

JPS (Tanakh)                         David said to Achish, “If you please, let a place be granted me in one of the country towns where I can live; why should your servant remain with you in the royal city?”


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     Now David said to Achish, "If I have found favor with you, let me be given a place in one of the outlying towns, so I can live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?”

MKJV                                     And David said to Achish, If I have now found grace in your eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country so that I may live there. For why should your servant live in the royal city with you?

Young's Updated LT              And David says unto Achish, “If, I pray you, I have found grace in your eyes, they give to me a place in one of the cities of the field, and I dwell there, yea, why does your servant dwell in the royal city with you?”


What is the gist of this verse? David asks for a separate place to live, apart from Achish in the royal city.


1Samuel 27:5a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37


Translation: David then said to Achish,... Now, in the CEV, it sounds as though David has been bunking with Achish, and, while the two are sitting on the front porch sipping beers, David suddenly speaks up to Achish, and asks him for a place of his own. However, it is also possible that David and his men went to Gath and that all of the men and their families actually stayed outside on the outskirts of Gath, while David with a very small delegation came to Achish and made this request. It is very likely that we are only seeing a portion of the request here. My take is, David first secured permission for himself and his men to live in Philistine territory, and then he suggests that they take up living outside of Gath. It is possible that David and his men did live for awhile in Gath (see v. 3a) or just outside of Gath before moving to Ziklag (which is coming up in v. 6).


1Samuel 27:5b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem]

if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though when (or, if followed by a perfect tense which refers to a past event)

primarily an hypothetical particle

Strong's #518 BDB #49

nâ (אָנ) [pronounced naw]

please, I pray you, I respectfully implore (ask, or request of) you, I urge you

particle of entreaty

Strong's #4994 BDB #609

mâtsâ (א ָצ ָמ) [pronounced maw-TSAW]

to attain to, to find, to detect, to happen upon, to come upon, to find unexpectedly, to discover

1st person singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #4672 BDB #592

chên (ן ̤ח) [pronounced khayn]

grace, favor, blessing

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #2580 BDB #336

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

׳ayin (ן̣יַע) [pronounced ĢAH-yin]

spring, literal eye(s), spiritual eyes, spring

feminine dual noun with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5869 (and #5871) BDB #744

lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to

directional preposition with the 1st person singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510


Translation: ...“If perchance [lit., please] I have found grace in your eyes,... David first asks Achish if he has found grace in the sight of Achish. This means that he is going to ask Achish a favor, and it is a favor which David really does not deserve. He is not going to Achish saying, “This is what you need to do for me; this is what I require and what I need.” Instead, David approaches Achish from the standpoint of asking him a favor.


1Samuel 27:5c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

nâthan (ן ַתָנ) [pronounced naw-THAHN]

to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set

3rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect

Strong's #5414 BDB #678

mâqôwm (םקָמ) [pronounced maw-KOHM]

place, situated; for a soldier, it may mean where he is stationed; for people in general, it would be their place of abode (which could be their house or their town)

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #4725 BDB #879

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

echâd (ד ָח א) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]

one, first, certain, only; but it can also mean a composite unity

numeral construct

Strong's #259 BDB #25

׳îyr (רי ̣ע) [pronounced ģeer]

encampment, city, town

feminine plural construct

Strong's #5892 BDB #746

sâdeh (ה∵דָ) [pronounced saw-DEH]

field, land, country, open field, open country

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong’s #7704 BDB #961


Translation: ...[then let] them give me a place in one of the cities of the country that... It is interesting the way that David phrases this. He does not ask Achish to give him a particular place; he asks Achish if some group of people might grant him a place to stay. David may or may not have a particular place in mind. The people who would give this to David would be citizens of Gath, living on the outskirts of Gath; and they would allow David and his men to live with them.


1Samuel 27:5d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

to remain, to stay, to inhabit, to sit, to dwell

1st person singular, Qal imperfect with the voluntary hê

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

The voluntative hê is alluded to in Owen’s, but I cannot find this terminology in any of my Hebrew grammar books, nor in ZPEB or any other Hebrew source. I am guessing that maybe this is related to the jussive. What we have is the letter hê as a suffix to the verb. The translators who do not acknowledge any sort of difference are The Amplified Bible, Keil and Delitzsch, KJV, Noyes—in fact, the only place where we find any sort of difference in translation is with The Emphasized Bible, with Owen, and, with, of all places, Today’s English Version. I am going to tentatively go with the idea of being compelled by oneself and use the words I must. Perhaps the verb would be accompanied by let or I could, I would or might.

shâm (ם ָש) [pronounced shawm]

there; at that time, then; therein, in that thing

adverb

Strong’s #8033 BDB #1027


Translation: ...[lit., and] I might live there.... As you see, I have a great deal of discussion on the voluntative hê above. The existence of this cannot be denied, as there is the actual letter hê added to the end of the verb. As I stated above, one way to render this would be with one of the helping verbs could, would or might. We could also render this, Let me live there.

 

Wesley suggests that David wanted to live in a different city so that his men would not be exposed to the idolatry of the Philistines (from that envy, and malice, which diversity of religion might have caused Footnote ). Gill makes a similar suggestion, and adds a few reasons for this: David's view in this might be partly to prevent the envy of the courtiers of Achish, who might think that David was too near the king, and might have too great an interest in him, and receive too many of his favours, and become his chief confidant and prime minister; and partly to preserve himself and people from all temptations to idolatry, and corruptions in religion; as also that ho might have an opportunity, without the knowledge of Achish, to fall upon the enemies of Israel. Footnote Henry makes some similar suggestions, saying that David knew what it was like to have the court of a high official envy him. Footnote


Quite frankly, I don’t know what David’s actual motivation is. I suspect that David, in his ride toward Gath, also was determining what he had planned to do while there. David has 600 men and their families to take care of; so he has to have more of a plan than, Let’s all just move to Gath. David will begin to raid the heathen who lived around southern Judah, and I suspect this was the plan he formulated when it came to determining how they would sustain themselves. For this kind of behavior, he might require a little distance from Gath—enough distance so that Achish knew sort of what David was doing, but not in any detail. Given David’s present spiritual condition (he is most certainly out of fellowship), I don’t believe that any spiritual notions came into play when first moving to Gath, and then suggesting that Achish give him his own city.

 

Barnes explains: David, with characteristic Oriental subtlety (compare 1Sam. 21:2), suggests as a reason for leaving Gath that his presence was burdensome and expensive to the king. His real motive was to be more out of the way of observation and control, so as to act the part of an enemy of Saul, without really lifting up his hand against him and his own countrymen of Israel. Footnote Let me add, this would also allow the raiding of various heathen groups in order to provide sustenance for his men, without being under the close scrutiny of the Philistines.


1Samuel 27:5e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

mâh (ה ָמ) [pronounced maw]

what, how, why

interrogative; exclamatory particle

Strong’s #4100 BDB #552

Lâmed + mâh can be rendered why, for what reason, to what purpose, for what purpose, indicating an interrogatory sentence.

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

to remain, to stay, to inhabit, to sit, to dwell

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

׳ebed (ד ב ע) [pronounced ĢEB-ved]

slave, servant

masculine singular noun with a 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5650 BDB #713

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

׳îyr (רי ̣ע) [pronounced ģeer]

encampment, city, town

feminine singular construct

Strong's #5892 BDB #746

mamelâkâh (ה ָכ ָל  ׃מ ַמ) [pronounced mahme-law-kaw]

kingdom, sovereignty, dominion, reign, dynasty; used to refer to both the royal dignity and to the country of a king

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong’s #4467 BDB #575

׳îm (ם̣ע) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by, near

preposition of nearness with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767


Translation: ...For why [should] your servant live in the royal city with you?” David has an army of 600 men who were loyal to him. They were Israelites, and not necessarily the most easy-going of the Israelites. Even though Achish very likely has a much larger standing army, having these two forces in the same city is a recipe for disaster. However, David does not present the situation to Achish in that way. My thinking is, David has not moved into Gath yet, but is moving there; he has his men and their families, and he wants to find a place to live peacefully among the Philistines. Most of David’s men are on the outskirts of town, camped out; while David and a small delegation meet with Achish.


Recall that David has been to Gath before and has been taken to Achish before. David was here before without the entourage and that he acted as though he were crazy before Achish, which likely caused Achish to attack the Jews, since he saw their greatest military leader as being incapacitated. As mentioned at the beginning of this verse, we do not know if this is the same man before whom David stood back in 1Sam. 21. I believe that it is, for two reasons: (1) very little time has passed between now and then; and (2) this Achish appears to be a fairly amiable person who lacks vindictiveness. He could have had David killed back in 1Sam. 21, but he chose not to. In fact, if you will recall, what he said was rather humorous. David was feigning madness before him, and Achish said to those who brought David to him, “I’m already surrounded by madmen; do you really think I need another one?” Having said one or two humorous things in my life, I realize that, sometimes you are willing to sacrifice some things in order to be humorous. Achish had a chance to deliver this line, which probably amused himself primarily, and then he allowed David to leave. It would have been incongruous to say something like this before David and then to order David’s execution. Secondly, David is Achish’s Israelite counterpart. What general does not have respect for the general of the opposing army; what grunt does not have respect for a grunt in his opposing army? Recall, Saul allowed Agag, the king of the Amalekites, to live. Saul did not simply pick out a couple of lower level soldiers to let live; he let his counterpart live. At that time when David appears mad before Achish, he was not a threat, in the eyes of Achish, and he was his counterpart—therefore, Achish spared him.


I should include the divine explanation as well. God had a purpose for David; David was going to lead the nation Israel to its greatest days (well, actually, to set Israel up to enjoy its greatest days under Solomon); therefore, God saw to it that David lived. In fact, in both of these very different circumstances, God will protect David. We do not know all of the factors involved; however, I have suggested several above. Obviously, the fact that there is a king like Achish ruling over Gath plays a significant part in all of this.


Now, it is a different situation. David is there with an army proposing to live in that general area. Since their meeting previously, David, sounding quite sane now, has done nothing against the army of Achish. David has protected some Israelite cities, which is to be expected; but David never made any attempts to take a Philistine city since their meeting. So Achish is weighing these things in his mind. He also knows about David and Saul and how they are on the outs. David has no doubt made that known to him in this conversation: “Look, I had to leave Israel, because every time I turned around, Saul was after me desiring to kill me.” Even though this is never stated in our context, it is reasonably something which David said to Achish.


We do not know an exact time frame for this, nor do we know if David actually lived for any amount of time in Gath, or on its outskirts. It is possible that David and his troops did spend some time in Gath, and then David went to Achish again, and asked for a city which was not near Gath. The other option is, David not only asked Achish for a place to stay, but, after granted that, then asked that he stay in a city other than Gath. This means that his men would have remained in Gath or on its outskirts for no more than a few days (the length of time of their arrival and then David’s meeting with Achish). There is no reason to suppose that this was a 10 minute meeting which Achish took in the middle of the day. There was probably a protocol that they observed and that there was even a meal involved. There are many times when Scripture gives us a few highlights of this incident or that, without giving us any details.


And so gives to him Achish in the day the that Ziklag (for so was Ziklag to kings of Judah as far as the day the this).

1Samuel

27:6

So Achish gave Ziklag to him in that day (therefore, Ziklag is [a possession] of the kings to Judah to this day).

So Achish gave Ziklag to David in that day (which is why Ziklag, a Philistine property, belongs to the royal Judæan family even to this day).


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so gives to him Achish in the day the that Ziklag (for so was Ziklag to kings of Judah as far as the day the this).

Septuagint                              And he gave him Sekelac in that day; therefore, Sekelac came into possession of the king of Judea to this day.

 

Significant differences:           None.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       Achish gave David the town of Ziklag that same day, and Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since.

The Message                         So Achish assigned him Ziklag. (This is how Ziklag got to be what it is now, a city of the kings of Judah.)

NAB                                       That same day Achish gave him Ziklag, which has, therefore, belonged to the kings of Judah up to the present time.

NJB                                        That very day Achish gave him Ziklag; and this is why Ziklag has been the property of the kings of Judah to the present day.

NLT                                        So Achish gave him the town of Ziklag (which still belongs to the kings of Judah to this day).


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         So Achish immediately gave him Ziklag. (This is why Ziklag still belongs to the kings of Judah today.)


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     That day Achish gave Ziklag to him, and it still belongs to the kings of Judah today.

Young's Updated LT              And Achish gives to him in that day Ziklag, therefore has Ziklag been to the kings of Judah till this day.


What is the gist of this verse? Achish gave Ziklag to David, and this city has been a possession of the Judæan kings until this time (the time of writing).


1Samuel 27:6a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

nâthan (ן ַתָנ) [pronounced naw-THAHN]

to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #5414 BDB #678

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]

day; today (with a definite article)

masculine singular noun with a definite article

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]

that

masculine singular, demonstrative pronoun (with a definite article)

Strong’s #1931 BDB #214

You will note that this is identical to the 3rd person masculine singular, personal pronoun.

êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

tsiqelag (ג-לק̣צ) [pronounced tzihke-LAHG]

transliterated Ziklag

Proper noun; location

Strong’s #6860 BDB #862


Translation: So Achish gave Ziklag to him in that day... As mentioned before, David has stood before Achish twice and is spared both times. In fact, in this situation, Achish essentially hands over a piece of real estate to David. We do not know much about Ziklag—that is, how many Philistines lived there, how they reacted when David moved in, etc.


Ziklag is even with the lower third of the Dead Sea, but much closer to the Mediterranean Sea. It is about midway on the diagonal line between Ashkelon and Beer-Sheba. It was originally Judæan property, gained by Joshua and first deeded over Judah and then to Simeon in the great land distribution (Joshua 15:31 19:5). Given the location of Ziklag and the nature of Philistine aggression, and this passage, we would expect this city to have fallen into Philistine possession. It is also possible that the Judæans never really took control of it; however, Judges 1:17–18 seems to imply that they did (Ziklag is not named specifically; but it would have been in that general area). No matter what the case, this city is under the control of Achish during this time period. Given the nature of the relationship between Israel and Philistia, it is reasonable to suppose that some border cities and territories changed hands one or more times.


It is interesting that Achish, king of Gath, would give this city to David, as Gath is about 22 miles (35 km) north-northwest of Ziklag. Gaza is closer (approximately 15 miles away), but there may have been no easy or direct route between the two. In any case, Ziklag was Achish’s to give. Since Ziklag is in the southern portion of Palestine, this made it open to attacks from other nomads from that general area, as we will see in 1Sam. 30. It is possible that Achish found it difficult to maintain this city under his control, being that it was so far away and subject to attacks from all manner of heathen (as we will find out in this chapter).


Given what we know about the location of some cities and who controlled which city, it is important to note that the ancient peoples of that day tended not to own large blocks of contiguous real estate, but rather cities, which may or may not be near one another. Philistine attacks against Israel tended to be right through the middle of Israel, and they tended to capture individual cities (e.g., Beth-shan) rather than huge tracts of land. Certainly, at various times, the Philistines controlled tracts of land, as did Israel; but there were also times when the Philistines might hold several cities which were right in the middle of Ephraim. Don’t forget that God chose to leave the heathen in several sections of Israel to discipline the Israelites (Judges 1:27–36 2:3, 19–23). What this means is, you may look on this map or that and see that Manasseh covered this specific range of contiguous land, and that God awarded them a specific set of cities; however, dotted throughout Manasseh would be cities which were controlled by various groups of Canaanites (e.g., Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor—Judges 1:27).


1Samuel 27:6b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

kên (ן ֵ) [pronounced kane]

so, thus; upright, honest; rightly, well; [it is] so, such, so constituted;

properly, an active participle; used primarily as an adverb

Strong's #3651 BDB #485

Together, the lâmed preposition and kên mean therefore, according to such conditions, that being so; certainly, truly.

hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

tsiqelag (ג-לק̣צ) [pronounced tzihke-LAHG]

transliterated Ziklag

Proper noun; location

Strong’s #6860 BDB #862

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

meleke ( ל מ) [pronounced MEH-lek]

king, ruler, prince

masculine plural construct

Strong’s #4428 BDB #572

Yehûwdâh (הָדהי) [pronounced yehoo-DAW]

possibly means to praise, to be praised; and is transliterated Judah

masculine proper noun/location

Strong’s #3063 BDB #397

׳ad (דַע) [pronounced ģahd]

as far as, even to, up to, until

preposition

Strong’s #5704 BDB #723

yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]

day; today (with a definite article)

masculine singular noun with a definite article

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

zeh (הז) [pronounced zeh]

here, this, thus

demonstrative adjective with a definite article

Strong’s #2088, 2090 (& 2063) BDB #260


Translation: ...(therefore, Ziklag is [a possession] of the kings to Judah to this day). It is clear in this context that Achish not only gives David carte blanc when it comes to Ziklag, but he apparently gave David authority in Ziklag as well—either that, or David assumed authority through living there. The reason we may assume this is, Ziklag becomes a possession of Israel’s. David did not later on come back and conquer this city. This phrase indicates that the act of Achish giving the city to David was more than simply saying, “Okay, no problem; you and your guys can hang out in this city.”


What we have here in this second half of v. 6 is known as a gloss. That is, an addition made not by the original writer of this portion of Scripture, but by a later copyist or editor. It would be most reasonable for this to be added at least a generation later, if not later than that. David would not write here, “The kings of Judah own Ziklag to this day” because there were no kings of Judah. It is even not likely that Solomon wrote this either, because he would have referred to this as a possession of Israel (the united kingdom) and not to a possession of the kings of Judah. The phrase the kings of Judah is more reasonably something which was added at least two or three kings into the divided kingdom. Barnes reasonably suggests: This phrase, coupled with the title the kings of Judah, implies that this was written after the revolt of Jeroboam, and before the Babylonian captivity. Footnote


This causes us to have several questions: (1) Is this a part of Scripture; that is, is this line, not written by the original author, also inspired by God the Holy Spirit? (2) What does this tell us about the composition of Scripture during the time of the Old Testament?


I would love to give you definitive answers to both of these questions; however, the best I can do is offer an educated guess or two. There is at least one chapter in 1Samuel which sounds like it was written by Jonathan (1Sam. 14); although most of this book (and Samuel) appear to be written by David. Furthermore, the first dozen or so chapters appear to be written by Samuel, for whom this book is named. We have seen this in the book of Genesis, which covers many generations of believers in the Age of Conscience (or the Age of the Gentiles). My personal guess is, there are historical records which are later assembled by an editor. I would not be surprised if David or Solomon did this; however it is also possible that someone a few generations later collected all of this. If such an editor did exists, several generations after David, then it would be reasonable that he inserted this comment.


Since the book of Samuel (one book in the Hebrew) covers pretty much David’s life, it is reasonable that David, the writer of many psalms, also collected this material himself and kept it with the other portions of Scripture (or others later added it to the existing portions of Scripture). Given that these ancient manuscripts were probably on rolls of velum, what Samuel wrote and what David wrote were probably on separate rolls. Given that there is no chapter which would easily end Samuel’s time and begin David’s, whenever they were assembled together, they remained as one unit.


I would think that a divinely inspired editor would reasonably had added this and other comments (which are actually very few); rather than a copyist. That is, a man moved by God the Holy Spirit, with access to these records, gathered, edited and finalized the book of Samuel. If not for this gloss, I would think that man would be Solomon (although that is not an impossibility). Other candidates might include Joash, Amaziah, Jotham or Hezekiah (or even Elijah). But, bear in mind, we are dealing with an editor or a copyist who would have added this information.


More importantly, I would personally guess that this is a part of Scripture that we can trust. That is, Achish giving this city to David did result in this city belonging to the kings of Judah thereafter is a fact that we could trust several generations into the kingly line of Judah.


What we have are two sets of books which cover the same history: Samuel/Kings and Chronicles. We also know that the original writings were done by Samuel, Gad and Nathan (although there is reason to believe that David and Jonathan had chronicled many incidents themselves). 1Chron. 29:29: Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the history of Samuel the seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gad the seer. At some point in time, at least two different editors either copied from these authors, and added a comment here and there. There are portions of Samuel and Chronicles which are almost identical, so it is reasonable that they either used the same source material or the book of Samuel was used as source material for the book of Chronicles. Now, this does not compromise the inspiration of Scripture in any way. Luke is an example of one who gathered a great deal of information from eyewitness accounts and some recorded documents and wrote the book of Luke and Acts based upon this information which he gathered. The fact that he gathered his information from many sources in no way compromises the inspiration of the book of Luke. That there were several authors of the book of Samuel, which was later edited into one book does not in any way take from its inspiration.


And so is a number of the days that dwelt David in a country of Philistines: days and four moons.

1Samuel

27:7

The number of days that David lived in the country of the Philistines was a year and four months.

David lived in the Philistia for a year and four months.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so is a number of the days that dwelt David in a country of Philistines: days and four moons.

Peshitta                                  And the time that David lived in the eland of the Philistines was a full year and four months.

Septuagint                              And the number of the days that David lived in the country of the Philistines was four months.

 

Significant differences:           The Latin and the Greek set this time period as being 4 months; the MT and the Aramaic have the time period as a year and 4 months (which seems more realistic, given the things which David does here). This would be a wonderful place for the Dead Sea Scrolls to weigh in; unfortunately, this verse is lacking in the Dead Sea Scrolls (as are many others). Footnote


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       David was in Philistia for a year and four months.

NJB                                        The time that David stayed in Philistine territory amounted to a year and four months.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         David stayed in Philistine territory for one year and four month.

JPS (Tanakh)                         The length of time that David lived in Philistine territory was a year and four months.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Updated Emphasized Bible    And the number of days that David dwelt in the country [lit., field, field-country] of the Philistines became a year and four months [lit., days and four months].

ESV                                       And the number of the days that David lived in the country of the Philistines was a year and four months.

Young's Updated LT              And the number of the days which David dwelt in the field of the Philistines is days and four months.

.


What is the gist of this verse? David lives in Philistine territory for almost a year and a half.


1Samuel 27:7

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

miçephâr (רָ ׃ס ̣מ) [pronounced mise-FAWR

number, counted, numerical total; a recounting, a narration

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #4557 BDB #708

yâmîym (םי.מָי) [pronounced yaw-MEEM]

days, time of life, lifetime; a specific time period, a year

masculine plural noun with a definite article

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

ăsher (רשֲא) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

to remain, to stay, to inhabit, to sit, to dwell

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

sâdeh (ה∵דָ) [pronounced saw-DEH]

field, land, country, open field, open country

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #7704 BDB #961

The Syriac codex reads land.

Although sâdeh specifically means field, here it is a synecdoche [pronounced syn-EK-doh-kee] for country or region. A synecdoche is where one thing stands for another similar thing. Bullinger, by the way, breaks synecdoches down into 4 categories and 20 subcategories. Footnote

Pelishetîy (י. ש ̣ל) [pronounced pe-lish-TEE]

transliterated Philistines

masculine plural gentilic adjective (acts like a proper noun)

Strong’s #6430 BDB #814

yâmîym (םי.מָי) [pronounced yaw-MEEM]

days, a set of days, time of life, lifetime; a specific time period, a year

masculine plural noun

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

That the plural of days often refers to a year can be seen in Lev. 25:29 1Sam. 1:3, 20 2:19.

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

The Latin and Greek lack ...days and...

arebâ׳âh (הָעָרַא) [pronounced ahre-baw-ĢAW]

four

feminine singular noun; numeral

Strong’s #702 BDB #916

chôdesh (ש∵דֹח) [pronounced KHOH-desh]

new moon, month

masculine plural noun

Strong’s #2320 BDB #294


Translation: The number of days that David lived in the country of the Philistines was a year and four months. It is interesting that we have to guess about the time frame of much of David’s life; however, here we are told exactly the amount of time that he lived in the country of the Philistines. Therefore, if you need to set your watches, that is the time period between now and 2Sam. 1.


As noted already, the Greek and Latin have this as only four months. According to Josephus, Samuel died four months before Saul, and this flight of David was after the death of Samuel, and when Saul died he left the land of the Philistines, and took the throne of Judah. Footnote Others have interpreted the Hebrew as meaning a few days (less than a month) and four months. It is possible for David to make three raids in that amount of time and for the events of the chapters to follow to fit into four months. A year and four months gives us a more leisurely pace for these events. Furthermore, 1Sam. 29:3 indicates that David had spent a greater amount of time with Achish than four months (So Achish said to the leaders of the Philistines, “[Is] not this David, a servant of Saul king of Israel, who has been here with me [for] days and [for] years and [yet] I have not found in him anything [negative] from the day he fell away until this day?”). Footnote


In either case, I find it interesting that David will become king over Israel shortly after spending at least four months out of God’s geographical will (as well as being out of fellowship for much of that time). Even though we as believers tend to hear the word grace, grace, grace, we still want to cling to legalism. We would rather that David earned this kingship. He’s outside of God’s geographical will; he is out of fellowship—we want to see some serious repentance on David’s part, and then maybe a year or so of being really good—then we don’t mind that he becomes king over Israel. That would be our thinking. Not God. God does not think in terms of legalism. Has David made mistakes? Absolutely. Will be make more mistakes? Some of the worst sins that we will find in Scripture will be committed by King David. Still, we are coming close to the time when God will make David king over all Israel, and realize that it is a matter of grace and not legalism.


Application: Know that in your life, you will fail. This does not mean that all of God’s gracious gifts will suddenly disappear. It does not mean that you will be passed by for promotion, prosperity, or whatever. God functions on the basis of grace. Now, bear in mind, David was disciplined here and almost shocked back into fellowship. However, he does not start from ground zero because of a few months (or a year and a half) of questionable behavior. God does not send him back to start over. So, yes, you will fail, and you will receive discipline. However, when you rebound, it is not like you will have to start from ground zero and build your spiritual life up again (unless you’ve been out of fellowship for years and years). This does not mean that God is going to take back from you every wonderful gift and blessing that He has already bestowed upon you. If that were true, I’d be sitting on a big pile of nothing right now.


Application: Knowing what you know, now, then also realize that what you have all around you right now is a matter of God’s grace. You did not earn it; God did not look down and say, “Hell, Charlie Brown is doing such a fine job, I’m going to send him a pile of money to sit on.” God blesses us far and above anything that we deserve. Look at the United States, for instance. If you have ever been to a foreign country, e.g., in South American or Asia, you will be amazed at their lack of material wealth. Our typical snot-nosed teenager has more in his room by way of material possessions than most extended families in Asia have. Now, he did not get these material blessings because he is great and they are not. God has blessed the United States greatly because the Word of God is being taught here and missionaries are being sent out from this country. A pitifully small percentage of churches are doing what they should be doing. So many of our churches fall down in the proper teaching of the gospel, the proper teaching of Bible doctrine, and they often send out missionaries who are dedicated but clueless. Yet, God still blesses us and blesses this nation. God works through the United States and works through the spiritual organizations here.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


Although I have from time to time mentioned this reason or that reason why we know that David is outside of God’s geographical will, we should examine this in points:

How Do We Know That David Is Not in God’s Geographical Will?

1.      God has already communicated to David to remain in the Judæan area; furthermore, God never rescinded this directive (1Sam. 22:5).

2.      David knew himself and proclaimed to Saul that it was wrong for others to stir Saul against him, to try to get him to move away from God’s inheritance (1Sam. 26:19).

3.      David moves to Gath in order to escape Saul (1Sam. 27:1).

4.      Although David was in a precarious situation, with Saul always after him, God saw to it that Saul could never capture David. 1Sam. 23:14, 27–28 26:1–25

5.      Although David had access to the Ephod of Jehovah in order to make decisions like this, he did not avail himself of the Ephod (1Sam. 23:6, 9 30:7).

6.      At no time did God ever come to David by prophet and tell him to move out of Israel.

7.      David will continually lie in order to maintain a relationship with Achish, king of Gath. 1Sam. 27:8–12

Don’t misunderstand me—I am not looking to rag on David or to make myself look good next to him (I can guarantee you that I don’t). I am just bound to as correctly as possible evaluate his motives and actions.


David will remain in Ziklag until the death of Saul when he wars against the Philistines (2Sam. 1:1 2:1–3).


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


David Attacks Israel's Enemies and Tells Achish He has Plundered Israel


And so goes up David and his men and so they spread out unto the Geshurite and the Gizrite and the Amalekite, for they [are] dwellers of the land which [is] from long duration your coming in of Shur and as far as a land of Egypt.

1Samuel

27:8

Then David and his men went up and they plundered the Geshurites, the Gizrites and the Amalekites, for they have lived in the land from ancient times, from [lit., your coming] Shur as far as the land of Egypt.

Then David and his men went out and plundered the Geshurites, the Gizrites and the Amalekites, for these have occupied the land from antiquity, from Shur as far as the territories of Egypt.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And David and his men went up, and pillaged Gessuri, and Gerzi, and the Amalecites: for these were of old the inhabitants of the countries, as men go to Sur, even to the land of Egypt.

Masoretic text                        And so goes up David and his men and so they spread out unto the Geshurite and the Gizrite and the Amalekite, for they [are] dwellers of the land which [is] from long duration your coming in of Shur and as far as a land of Egypt.

Peshitta                                  And David and his men went up and made raids upon the Geshurites and the Gadolites and the Amalekites; for these nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, and they raided Geshur as far as the land of Egypt.

Septuagint                              And David and his men went up, and made an attack on all the Gesirites and on the Amalekites; and behold, the land was inhabited—even the land from Gelampsur—by those who come from the fortified cities even to the land of Egypt.

 

Significant differences:           There is a 3rd group of peoples attacked by David in the Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic; the Latin and Hebrew appear to agree on this group; the Aramaic seems to list a different group of heathen. They are lacking in the Greek altogether. The Latin and the Hebrew seem to agree in the second portion of this verse as well; however, the Peshitta and the LXX seem to have a slightly different take on this.

 

I really would not expect to be able to determine the best rendering for this verse. The Masoretic text appears to be fine and suitable, and will go with that; however, I would not stake my theological reputation upon it being the accurate text. Since David tells Achish a few verses later that he has made raids against three groups of peoples, then one might want to see three groups of people in this verse (which would make it more likely that one would add an extra group rather than remove a group). The text for the book of Samuel could also have been damaged to the point that this middle group was unreadable; so the LXX did not include it (better manuscripts than they used could have certainly existed at that time). So you see, making a determination as to which text is the most accurate is pretty much impossible here. On the other hand, the difference in the two texts is not anything which is going to create a serious theological issue.

 

If you will look back at the Peshitta text, note that these raids are occurring from Geshur to the land of Egypt; since David is attacking Geshurites, this would make sense. For questionable text—text which might be partially unreadable at this point, we might also expect the translators of the Peshitta to take this approach as their best guess. I have no such explanation for the LXX text at this point.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       The Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites lived in the area from Telam to Shur and on as far as Egypt, and David often attacked their towns.

The Message                         From time to time David and his men raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites—these people were longtime inhabitants of the land stretching toward Shur and on to Egypt.

NJB                                        David and his men went out on raids against the Geshurites, Girzites and amalekites, for these are the tribes inhabiting the region which, from Telam, goes in the direction of Shur, as far as Egypt.

NLT                                        David and his men spent their time raiding the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites—people who had lived near Shur, along the road to Egypt, since ancient times.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         Then David and his men went to raid the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. (They lived in the territory which extends from Telaim to Shur and Egypt.)

JPS (Tanakh)                         David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Gizrites, and the Amalekites—who were the inhabitants of the region of Olam [The Septuagint reads Telam (compare Telaim in 1Sam. 15:4 and Telem in Joshua 15:24)].


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

The Amplified Bible                Now David and his men went up and made attacks on the Geshurites, Girzites, and amalekites [enemies of Israel Joshua had railed to exterminate]. for from of old those nations inhabited the land, as one goes to Shur, even to the land of Egypt. [Deut. 25:19 Joshua 13:1, 2, 13.]

Updated Emphasized Bible    And David and his men went up, and made a raid against the Geshurites and the Gizrites [so read; written “Girzites”] and the Amalekites, —for ║they║ were the inhabitants of the land who had been from age-past times, as you enter Shur, even as far as he land of Egypt.

HCSB                                     David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. From ancient times they had been the inhabitants of the region through Shur as far as the land of Egypt.

NRSV                                     Now David and his men went up and made raids on the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the amalekites; for these were the landed settlements from Telam [compare Greek 1Sam. 15:4; Hebrew from of old whom] on the way to Shur and on to the land of Egypt.

Young's Updated LT              And David goes up and his men, and they push unto the Geshurite, and the Gerizite, and the Amalekite, (for they are inhabitants of the land from of old), as you comes in to Shur and unto the land of Egypt.


What is the gist of this verse? David and his men raided nearby heathen tribes on the southern frontier of Judah going almost all the way to Egypt.


1Samuel 27:8a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

׳âlâh (ה ָל ָע) [pronounced ģaw-LAWH]

to go up, to ascend, to rise, to climb

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #5927 BDB #748

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

men; inhabitants, citizens; companions, soldiers, companions

masculine plural noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #376 BDB #35


Translation: Then David and his men went up... David has under his command 600 men and their families. They cannot very well just sit there and do nothing. They have to eat. I suppose one approach is, they could farm. My guess is, Achish probably did not give them prime farm land to live on. So, they had to support themselves in one way or another and these men are warriors, for the most part. Therefore, support themselves essentially boiled down to raiding camps of heathen.


Robert Gordon, who is generally an excellent exegete, tells us that David is simply preparing things for when he becomes king over Judah. Footnote I believe that as we study this narrative from here until David strengthens himself in God (1Sam. 30:6), it will be clear that he is not only out of God’s geographical will, but out of fellowship as well. David’s purpose has nothing to do with removing the people who are enemies of God (such a thing is never stated in this chapter); only the fact that David and his men plundered these groups of people for their possessions. Again, we have a real logistical problem of 600 men and their families living in a new land, without much by way of resources. Nothing is ever said of them farming or raising herds of animals; they made money the old fashioned way—they stole it.


1Samuel 27:8b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

pâshaţ (טַשָ) [pronounced paw-SHAHT]

to spread out; to strip, to plunder, to unclothe; to flay, to remove the skin; in war, it is used to indicate a vicious attack, along the lines of flaying the skin off an animal

3rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #6584 BDB #832

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

Geshûwrîy (י .רש) [pronounced geh-shoo-REE]

bridges, land of bridges; is transliterated Geshurite

gentilic adjective with the definite article

Strong’s #1651 BDB #177


Translation: ...and they plundered the Geshurites,... We may find this barbaric, but what David was doing may have been legitimate. Does this mean that you can park yourself in a neighborhood and go about plundering your neighbors? No. However, God had given Israel the command to cleanse the land of these other inhabitants. We do not have such a mandate today. We do not get to go out and attack the variety of neighbors around us that we do not like. We do not have that sort of a mandate from God. Only the Jews had that mandate, and it was given at a specific time and place.


On the other hand, this does not mean that David was completely right in what he is doing. There appears to be no divine guidance at all in any of David’s actions. We will not really hear of God until 1Sam. 30. So David may be rationalizing his attacks against these heathen to himself and his men. My thinking is, David is out of fellowship—therefore, whether this is God’s will or not to remove these heathen is really not the issue—David being out of fellowship is the issue. It is the classic example of doing a right thing in a wrong way (assuming that the destruction of these heathen is right). A right thing done in a wrong way is wrong. Everything about David’s behavior in this chapter and chapter 29 indicates that he is out of fellowship and functioning on the basis of human viewpoint.


Furthermore, even though God told the Israelites to plunder the Land of Promise of to remove from it the heathen who lived within it, He also instructed Joshua that, when he came to a city, to offer that city peace first, through an allegiance to Israel and, apparently, to the God of Israel. The reputation of the Israelites was well known at that time (even during this narrative) and what God had done for them in Egypt was known as well; so a city willing to bow to Israel without a fight would be acknowledging the power of the God of Israel.


I should establish a distinction: the Gershurites are one of the main branches of the tribe of Levi (see Gen. 46:11). The Geshurites here are a heathen tribe of peoples, who appear to have established areas on both sides of the Dead Sea. Whether these are the same people or two completely different groups is not told to us specifically, but I think we can safely assume that David is not plundering Levites.


There is the one group, which are found on the east side of the Jordan, north of the Dead Sea, who are mentioned in Deut. 3:14 Joshua 12:5 13:11 2Sam. 13:37–38 14:23, 32 15:8 1Chron. 3:2. However, there is also the group who are mentioned here and in Joshua 13:2. It is possible that these are offshoots of the established nation east of the Jordan. If these are a separate people, then we know almost nothing about them. All we know from Joshua 13:1–3 is that there was still land given to Israel from God which Israel had not taken, and this included territories occupied by the Geshurites and the Philistines.

 

Barnes tells us: The Geshurites bordered upon the Philistines, and lived in the mountainous district which terminates the desert on the northeast. They were a different tribe, or, at least, a different branch of it, from the Geshurites who lived on the northeast border of Bashan, and were Aramæans (2Sam. 15:8). Footnote


1Samuel 27:8c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

Girezîy (י.זר̣) [pronounced gire-ZEE]

a land eaten off, naked, barren; transliterated Gezerite, Gezrite; Girzite; Gizrite, Girizite

gentilic adjective with the definite article

Strong’s #1511 (from #1507) BDB #173

Although the Masoretic text reads Girzite, the alternate reading is Gizrite.

This is the peoples which are in question—that is, we do not find them in the Peshitta (they are called the Gadolites there) and they are missing altogether from the Septuagint.


Translation: ...the Gizrites... The Gizrites are found only here. It is thought that this refers to those from the city Gezer, Gezer is one of the cities which Joshua conquered (Joshua 10:33–35 12:12). Actually, Horam, the king of Gezer, brought a force up against Joshua in support of Achish, and Joshua killed Horam and all those with him. Gezer was not a southern city of Judah, but it was in Ephraim (Joshua 15:3); indicating that the survivors (assuming that we are speaking of the same people) moved to southern Judah or outside of Judah. Some remained in Gezer as slaves to the Israelites (Joshua 16:10 Judges 1:29). We will cover more about this city when we get to Kings 9. However, suffice it to say that these men either escaped Gezer (they are here in a completely different geographical area) or are unrelated to Gezer. Keil and Delitzsch indicate that these people could not be those who inhabited Gezer, but they give no reason for their opinion. Footnote


It is also suggested that these people are somehow attached to Mount Gerizim. Physically, they are a long ways from Mount Gerizim, which is in central Israel (however, given that Israel took over this particular area, it would not be unheard of for a small people like this to move to an area outside of Israel’s radar). Although ZPEB suggests Footnote that this fits in much better with the history and geography of this verse, I don’t see how. If they left the general area of Mount Gerizim and moved southward to a more inhospitable land, we don’t know about it from Scripture.


Again, this is the tribe whose identity is in question in the other ancient translations. They are not found at all in the Greek and they are called the Gadolites in the Aramaic.

Biblical Criticism Applied to 1Samuel 27:8c

Evidence Which Favors the MT Reading

Evidence Which Does not Favor the MT Reading

When comparing the MT to manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is remarkable as to how few passages actually disagree, even though there is a 1000 year interval between these manuscripts.

Since David says that he raided three groups of people down in v. 10, it would be reasonable to add in a 3rd group of people into this verse to balance things out.

Even though the Masoretic text is 8th century a.d. at the earliest, there is every reason to believe that the transmission of text was accurate. These men treated the text with great reverence and did not simply change this verse or not to make things come out even. We have several more obvious instances of places where a scribe would be more inclined to change the text, but did not.

The LXX, based upon manuscripts from approximately 600–300 b.c.

This is in agreement with the Latin text.

The MT text reading, which is what we find above, is not found in the LXX.

The Gizrites may be connected to Gezer; and even if not, there is no reason to expect that we have already heard the name of every single heathen group around Israel. Furthermore, the Gadolites of the Aramaic text are not found anywhere else either.

These Gizrites are not found anywhere else in Scripture.

If a scribe was going to add in a group of people, then why not add in a group which we had heard from before?

A scribe could have added a made-up group of people here without causing us great historical problems.

The missing text in the LXX could point to a partially damaged manuscript that the LXX was based upon. Rather than make something up, the translators just left this out.

It is just as likely this group of people was not found in the very old text used by the translators of the LXX.

As you see, even with all the evidence before us, it is difficult to make a dogmatic call. Luckily, no matter which side you take, if either, the problem with the text here has no affect on any major or minor theological doctrine.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


1Samuel 27:8d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

׳ămâlêqîy (י.ק̤לָמֲע) [pronounced ģuh-maw-lay-KEE]

transliterated Amalekite

proper noun gentis with the definite article

Strong’s #6003 BDB #766


Translation: ...and the Amalekites,... We have already seen the Amalekites earlier in the book of Samuel. Saul was supposed to destroy all of them and everything that they owned. His soldiers were not supposed to pick through their possessions; they were not to save any of their livestock; and they were to kill every man, woman and child. However, under Saul’s leadership, the Israelites did not do this. Therefore, there were pockets of Amalekites spread throughout Israel. As far as we know, David did not have such a personal order from God. That is, he was not mandated by God to destroy every last Amalekite. Apparently, Haman, from the book of Esther, is descended from another branch of Amalekites who escaped both David and Saul’s attacks (Saul’s soldiers were so busy poking through their stuff, that many Amalekites were able to escape Saul’s attack).


Now, certainly one could argue that God called for the complete and total destruction of all the Amalekites by Saul, and that Saul lost his kingdom over this issue. However, also recognize that David’s motivation is not one of obeying God but this was his chosen way to provide for his soldiers—pillage those groups around southern Israel. God does not enter into David’s thinking until 1Sam. 30. Any attempt to justify David’s actions would simply be a rationalization. It would be an attempt to impute to David motives that he does not have; and a mandate from God which was never given to him. We will find a clear indication in 1Sam. 30 that David and his men receive discipline from God for their behavior. Furthermore, it is clear in that chapter that David at that time turns to God.


1Samuel 27:8e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

hênnâh (הָ ֵה) [pronounced hayn-nawh]

they, those; these [with the definite article]

3rd person feminine plural personal pronoun

Strong’s #2007 BDB #241

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

those inhabiting, those staying, those dwelling in, the inhabitants of, the ones dwelling in, dwellers of, those sitting [here], the ones sitting

feminine plural construct, Qal active participle

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

erets (ץ ר א) [pronounced EH-rets]

earth (all or a portion thereof), land

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #776 BDB #75

ăsher (רשֲא) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than, greater than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

׳ôwlâm (םָלע) [pronounced ģo-LAWM]

properly what is hidden [time]; of [in] times past, from ancient time, old, antiquity, long duration, forever, perpetuity; for future time, futurity; of the world, worldly

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #5769 BDB #761


Translation: ...for they have lived in the land from ancient times,... What we have here are three sets of people who live just outside the borders of Philistia, just outside the borders of Israel; and who have lived in this general area for a very long period of time. ׳ôwlâm refers to as far back as anyone can remember; actually, it is a word which refers to a time frame farther back than anyone else remembers. It refers to time periods which are hidden, which, to us would be prior to records being kept (the past) or prior to its occurrence (future).


It is interesting that two of these groups of people, the Gizrites and the Geshurites, are not really named very often in Scripture, and also that they are found in the southern regions named here. However, the Jews in general did not force their way down into the southern regions outside of Judah, nor did they push westward against the Philistines. Nevertheless, these three sets of people had lived in this region for a long time (we were already aware of the Amalekites living down there). We do not know if David was securing the borders for when he became king of Israel or if he was simply feeding off these peoples. His reasoning is not given to us, and, given that he is outside of God’s geographical will, we don’t know for a certainty how he is doing spiritually (although, it seems mostly likely that he is out of fellowship). In any case, he will lie to Achish about what he is doing.


1Samuel 27:8f

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

bôw (א) [pronounced boh]

to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter

Qal infinitive construct with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

shûwr (רש) [pronounced sher]

wall, fortress and is transliterated Shur

proper noun, location

Strong’s #7793 BDB #1004

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

׳ad (דַע) [pronounced ģahd]

as far as, even to, up to, until

preposition

Strong’s #5704 BDB #723

erets (ץ ר א) [pronounced EH-rets]

earth (all or a portion thereof), land

feminine singular construct

Strong's #776 BDB #75

mitzerayim (ם̣י-רצ̣מ) [pronounced mits-RAH-yim]

Egypt, Egyptians

proper noun

Strong’s #4714 BDB #595


Translation: ...from [lit., your coming] Shur as far as the land of Egypt. This sets up the general boundaries of these three peoples. The Hebrew is interestingly informal at this point. It switches to the second person, which is a direct reference to the reader. If you, the reader, entered into Shur and then traveled south, southwest to the land of Egypt; this is where these people lived.


The region of Shur is bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt, the wilderness of Paran, and southern Judah. There is a road or a trail running through the middle of this from Israel to Egypt. It is very likely that David just moved along this road and raided those groups who were nearby.


Although the text is significantly different in the LXX at this point and slightly different in the Peshitta, I do not feel a need to examine this as carefully as we did in v. 8c; I think we’ve had enough textual criticism for one verse. Keil and Delitzsch discuss this at some length, but I cannot find one of the words they claim is here (רשע) either in the Tanakh or in Owen’s text (another word which they mention I can find in my Tanakh, but not in The Aleppo text or in Owen’s text: םלשמ). 1Sam. 15:7 has a very similar phrase, which does not necessarily support this as the better reading, as problems with the text could have caused a copyist to steal the phrasing from that passage. To be frank with you, this is a bigger mess here than I feel I can straighten out (or anyone else for that matter); and I am going with the MT simply because that is the easy (and reasonably logical) way out.


I cannot say definitively that David was doing the right thing in these actions (and there are theologians who fall on both sides of this issue here). Footnote God had told Saul to destroy all of the Amalekites, so killing them might be seen as an extension of God’s order to Saul (whether David actually knew about this order or not is unknown to us). We know very little about the other groups. In any case, these all appear to be outside of the land of Israel, strictly speaking. They were on the outskirts, in Shur, rather than in southern Judah. So, David was not ridding Israel of indigenous groups of people. Was there a potential threat of these people in the future? Possibly; however, they appear to be smaller, nomadic groups. We have no indication that God ordered David to do any of this (realize there is little or no direct communication between God and David). So, again, whether David was justified in these attacks or not is unknown to us. However, we are certain that David is outside of God’s geographical will (see How Do We Know that David Is Not in God’s Geographical Will?) and we are reasonably certain that he is out of fellowship as well (we will discuss this in great detail in Is David In God’s Will or Not? at the end of this chapter).


And so strikes David the land and he does not keep alive a man and a woman and he has taken away sheep and cattle and donkeys and camels and clothes. And so he returns and so he comes in unto Achish,...

1Samuel

27:9

David struck the land and he does not leave men or women alive. He took away [their] sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels and clothing. Then, he returned and came into to Achish,...

David struck the land and he did not keep any men or women alive. He took away their sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels and clothing. Then, when he returned, he went to Achish,...


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Masoretic text                        And so strikes David the land and he does not keep alive a man and a woman and he has taken away sheep and cattle and donkeys and camels and clothes. And so he returns and so he comes in unto Achish,...

Septuagint                              And he struck the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive; and they took flocks and herds and asses and camels and rainment; and they returned and came to Anchus.

 

Significant differences:           None.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       Whenever David and his men attacked a town, they took the sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, and the clothing, and killed everyone who lived there. After he returned from a raid, David always went to see Achish,...

NAB                                       In attacking the land David would not leave a man or woman alive, but would carry off sheep, oxen, asses, camels, and clothes. On his return he brought these to Achish,...

NLT                                        David didn’t leave on person alive in the villages he attacked. He took the sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, and clothing before returning home to see King Achish.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         Whenever David attacked the territory, he left no man or woman alive. He also took sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, and clothing and returned to Achish.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

HCSB                                     Whenever David attacked the land, he did not leave a single person alive, either man or woman, but he took flocks, herds, donkeys, camels, and clothing. Then he came back to Achish,...

Young's Updated LT              And David has struck the land, and does not keep alive man and woman, and has taken sheep, and oxen, and asses, and camels, and garments, and turns back, and comes in unto Achish.


What is the gist of this verse? David left no man or woman alive in these raiding parties. He took all of their livestock and clothing and returned to Achish. .


1Samuel 27:9a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

nâkâh (ה ָכ ָנ) [pronounced naw-KAWH]

to smite, to assault, to hit, to strike, to strike [something or someone] down, to defeat

3rd person masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect

Strong #5221 BDB #645

êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

erets (ץ ר א) [pronounced EH-rets]

earth (all or a portion thereof), land

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #776 BDB #75


Translation: David strikes the land... You may or may not recall the concept of manifest destiny, but when we came to America, and began to move westward, we assumed that it was our right to take all of the land from the east to the west coast. This particular doctrine is questionable when applied to the United States; however, during the time of David, God had clearly given the Israelites the land and had expected them to take it from the heathen who occupied it. So, an argument could be made that David legitimately plundered the heathen in the land of Israel (or, actually, bordering the land of Israel).


However, on the flip side of the coin, these peoples were actually on the border or outside Israel, posed no imminent threat. Furthermore, there was no divine mandate given to David to attack and devastate these peoples. Consideration must also be given to motivation. Not only is God never mentioned during this time period, but there is no mention of these killings being done for the betterment of Israel. David had 600 men and their families to care for—his occupation of choice was a raider—he plundered these peoples for their supplies and killed each and every one of them to prevent them from telling the Philistines what he is up to. Bear in mind that David could have farmed. He could have raised sheep and cattle. In my own thinking, I suppose that David did rationalize these actions to himself and possibly to his men as doing God’s will—but he will lie about these things which he is doing. If you lie about what you are doing, then it is highly unlikely that you are in God’s will.


1Samuel 27:9b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lô (אֹל or אל) [pronounced low]

not, no

negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation

Strong’s #3808 BDB #518

châyâh (הָיָח) [pronounced khaw-YAW]

to cause to live, to make alive; to keep alive; to call back to life; to restore life

3rd person masculine singular, Piel imperfect

Strong's #2421 & #2425 BDB #310

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun

Strong's #376 BDB #35

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]

woman, wife

feminine singular noun

Strong's #802 BDB #61


Translation: ...and he does not leave men or women alive. You will recall that God’s orders to Saul were to kill every man, woman and child; and to not leave anyone alive; and to destroy all of their things. Although David is not under this sort of mandate, he did kill all of these people. At that time period, a heathen people could have already allied themselves with Israel in one way or another, revealing their positive volition toward God; or they could remain in their darkness. Those who did not, chose darkness over light. Now, in general, we do not have the right to go out and plunder other nations. We do have the right to protect ourselves and we do have the mandate to evangelize other nations. You just have to differentiate between the time and place and properly apply what truth we have been given (which is considerable). In other words, if a nation does not respond to the gospel, it is not then our duty to wipe them off the face of the earth.


Speaking of the truth which has been given us—I have listened to teaching for about 30 years—verse by verse, chapter by chapter teaching—and I have heard about half of the Bible taught. I began in 1995 to exegete the Scriptures, and ten years later, I have been happy with my exegesis of one book, 1Samuel, which I have only properly exegeted about 2/3rds of the way. I have also exegeted from Genesis through Judges; however, I am less than happy with the results of that exegesis. If I remain alive to exegete the Old Testament, I will be surprised. If I live long enough to do that and to go back and redo these first few books, I will be even more surprised. My point is, no church should run out of material to teach. No one in their lifetime should run out of doctrine to learn. The more we know, the better we can apply God’s Word. What David is doing here is probably wrong; if we did the same thing, it would definitely be wrong.


1Samuel 27:9c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lâqach (חַקָל) [pronounced law-KAHKH]

to take, to take away, to take in marriage; to seize

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #3947 BDB #542

tsôn (ןאֹצ) [pronounced tzohn]

small cattle, sheep and goats, flock, flocks

feminine singular collective noun

Strong’s #6629 BDB #838

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

bâqâr (ר ָק ָ) [pronounced baw-KAWR]

ox, herd, cattle

masculine singular collective noun

Strong’s #1241 BDB #133

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

chămôwr (רמ ֲח) [pronounced khuh-MOHR]

ass, male donkey, he-ass

masculine plural noun

Strong’s #2543 BDB #331

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

gâmâl (לָמָ) [pronounced gaw-MAWL]

camel (this is obviously a transliteration)

masculine plural noun

Strong’s #1581 BDB #168

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

beged (ד∵ג∵) [pronounced BEH-ged]

treachery; garment, clothing

masculine plural noun

Strong’s #899 BDB #93


Translation: ...He took away [their] sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels and clothing. We have no idea as to what God planned here. We do not have any revealed communication between God and David concerning these raids. However, this appears to be David’s motivation in all of this. Nothing is said of fulfilling a mandate of God; nothing is said about God speaking to David. David is simply attacking these heathen groups, destroying them, and taking what they have. This is how he and his men support themselves, as barbaric as it may seem. Without clear mandates from God, what David is doing is quite questionable.


On the other hand, in war, taking plunder is legitimate. As I write this, we (the United States) are at war with Iraq. Should we plunder their oilfields? Probably. However, we seem to have a streamlined force of soldiers in Iraq, and it would make better sense to bring in another division or two and properly secure the oilfields and to protect the Iraqis who have chosen to ally themselves with us. The riches from the oil, if kept from falling into the hands of a few, could not only provide a great deal of prosperity for the people of Iraq, but provide some income for the companies which move to Iraq to exploit them. Furthermore, there should be some allowance for soldiers to profit to some extent. However, I am not running the war there and there are hundreds of ideas as to how we should proceed.


1Samuel 27:9d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

shûwb (בש) [pronounced shoobv]

to return, to turn, to turn back, to reminisce, to restore something, to bring back something, to revive, to recover something, to make restitution

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #7725 BDB #996


Translation: Then, he returned... David kept this place in Ziklag as his home base, and would send out raiding parties, much like the Philistines had done against Israel earlier (before Saul had become king). However, David would kill all of the heathen and then take their things and return to Ziklag.


1Samuel 27:9e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

bôw (א) [pronounced boh]

to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37


Translation: ...and came into to Achish,... Apparently, there was some deal which David struck with Achish to report in every now and again to tell him what was going on. It is possible that David himself initiated these talks, which would be prudent, given the uneasy relationship between Israelites and Philistines. In any case, we should not interpret this as meaning that David returned to Achish insofar as he returned to Ziklag, a property belonging to Achish. In the next verse, David is speaking directly with Achish, so we are speaking of a face to face meeting. This will be one factor in our determination of David’s rightness or wrongness with regards to his actions.


And so says Achish, “You [all] did not plunder the day” [or, in LXX: “Whom did you plunder today?”]


And so says David, “Against the negeb of Judah and against the negeb of the Jerahmeelite and unto a negeb of the Kenite.”

1Samuel

27:10

And Achish would ask, “Whom did you plunder today?” [or, in MT: “You did not plunder today (did you)?”]


And David would answer, “Against the south of Judah” or “Against the south of the Jerahmeelites” or “Upon the south of the Kenites.”

And whenever Achish would ask, “Whom did you plunder today?” David would answer, “We plundered the southern portion of Judah” or “the southern portion of the Jerahmeelites” or “the southern portion of the Kenites.”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And Achis said to him: “Against whom have you gone today?” David answered: “Against the south of Juda, and against the south of Jerameel, and against the south of Ceni.”

Masoretic Text                       And so says Achish, “You [all] did not plunder the day” [or, in LXX: “Whom did you plunder today?”] And so says David, “Against the negeb of Judah and against the negeb of the Jerahmeelite and unto a negeb of the Kenite.”.

Peshitta                                  And Achish said to David, “Where have you made a raid today?” And David said, “Against the south of Judah and against the south of Jerahmel and against the south of Kailah.”

Septuagint                              And Anchus said to David, “On whom have you made an attack today?” and David said to Anchus, “On the south of Judea, and on the south of Jesmega, and on the south of the Kenezite.”

 

Significant differences:           There is a negative found in the MT not found elsewhere. A change in the vowel point (which is not a part of the original text) results in a preposition, which can be translated against, on, upon. In that case, we would expect to find the relative pronoun (as we find in the Latin and Greek). Although this preposition is occasionally (but very rarely) rendered where, the Peshitta follows that understanding (or, possibly, this was the only way they could render this verse intelligibly). Interestingly enough, almost all that remains of this verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls is against. I am not aware of any English translations, apart from Keil and Delitzsch, which follow the Masoretic text at this point. There seems to be strong agreement that this is properly rendered against whom.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       ...who would ask, "Where did you attack today?" David would answer, "Oh, we attacked some desert town that belonged to the Judah tribe." Sometimes David would say, "Oh, we attacked a town in the desert where the Jerahmeel clan lives" or "We attacked a town in the desert where the Kenites live.”

The Message                                  Achish would ask, "And whom did you raid today?" David would tell him, "Oh, the Negev of Judah," or "The Negev of Jerahmeel," or "The Negev of the Kenites.”


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         Achish would ask, "Whom did you raid today?" And David would answer, "the Negev in Judah," or "the portion of the Negev where the descendants of Jerahmeel live," or "the portion of the Negev where the Kenites live.”

JPS (Tanakh)                         Achish would ask, “Where [as per some manuscripts and the Targum; the Septuagint and 4QSama read whom] did you raid today?” and David would reply, “The Negeb of Judah” or “the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites,” or “the Negeb of the Kenites.”


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

ESV                                       When Achish asked, "Where have you made a raid today?" David would say, "Against the Negeb of Judah," or, "Against the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites," or, "Against the Negeb of the Kenites.”

HCSB                                     who inquired, "Where did you raid today?" David replied, "The south country of Judah," "The south country of the Jerahmeelites," or "Against the south country of the Kenites.”

Keil and Delitzsch (updated)  “You have not made an invasion today, have you?” [only a portion of this verse is available in their commentary; but it was the only one which contained the negative; and they suggest that the interrogative hê was dropped out Footnote ].

Young's Updated LT              And Achish says, “Where have you pushed today?” and David says, “Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelite, and unto the south of the Kenite.”


What is the gist of this verse? Achish asked David whom he plundered, and David lied to him, saying that he attacked those in southern Judah, including the Jerahmeelites and the Kenites.


1Samuel 27:10a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37

al (ל-א) [pronounced al]

not; nothing; none

adverb of negation; conjunction of prohibiting, dehorting, deprecating, desire that something not be done

Strong’s #408 BDB #39.

This could have been the preposition....

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

The problem is, it lacks an object in the Hebrew. Once in a great while, this preposition is rendered where (Lev. 4:12 Jer. 40:4). The only difference between the preposition and the negation is the vowel point, something which was added a millennium after Scripture was first recorded.

pâshaţ (טַשָ) [pronounced paw-SHAHT]

to spread out; to strip, to plunder, to unclothe; to flay, to remove the skin; in war, it is used to indicate a vicious attack, along the lines of flaying the skin off an animal

2nd person masculine plural, Qal perfect

Strong’s #6584 BDB #832

The Masoretic, Aramaic and Syriac texts read where; the Septuagint, Vulgate and 4QSama read, against whom? This Hebrew text used by Owen reads, you have not raided today.

yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]

day; today (with a definite article)

masculine singular noun with a definite article

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398


Translation: And Achish would ask, “Whom did you plunder today?” [or, in MT: “You did not plunder today (did you)?”]... There is apparently a problem with the text here, but that does not really seem to do much damage to the meaning of the verse. In the MT used by Owen, it reads you have not raided today, [have you]? Other Hebrew texts, along with the Aramaic and Syriac texts, read where did you raid? The Septuagint, Vulgate and 4QSama read Against whom did you plunder? In all possible renderings, Achish knows that David has made a raid and wants some details. The Hebrew negative could have been a preposition; but it lacks an object (like a relative pronoun). And we must not forget that this as an interrogative could have been conveyed in the voice of Achish, and that what we have here is slightly improper Hebrew spoken by a Philistine; but the gist of this portion of v. 10 a question to David is that Achish is essentially inquiring about David’s raids.


Even though it appears as though Achish respects and possibly even likes David (and I don’t mean that he like likes David); he also keeps an eye on David. He pays attention to what David is doing. He knows that David and his men have to eat and he knows that they are fierce soldiers, as David has fought with these men against the Philistines back in 1Sam. 23. Therefore, when David makes a raid (which is going to be obvious when he and his men disappear and then return with things that they have gotten from this raid), Achish has men who will notice this and then tell him about it (I am assuming this, as Achish apparently knows that David has been making raids). Although it is not stated here, I suspect that Achish calls David in for a conference when this occurs (an alternative understanding is that David pops by the palace and checks in with Achish, either spur of the moment or according to an agreed upon schedule). It is possible that David and his men bring these things to Gath to trade for other supplies, and David drops by the palace to check in with Achish.


1Samuel 27:10b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ģahl ]

upon, beyond, on, against, above, over, by, beside

preposition of proximity

Strong’s #5921 BDB #752

negeb (ב ג נ) [pronounced ne-GHEBV]

south, south-country; often transliterated Negev or Negeb

masculine singular noun

Strong's #5045 BDB #616

Yehûwdâh (הָדהי) [pronounced yehoo-DAW]

possibly means to praise, to be praised; and is transliterated Judah

masculine proper noun/location

Strong’s #3063 BDB #397


Translation: And David would answer, “Against the south of Judah”... David has to be careful about his answers to Achish. He has been attacking heathen groups possibly whom God designated to be destroyed by Israel. However, David does not want to make it sound as though this is what he is doing. Therefore, on at least one occasion, he tells Achish that he has gone up against his own people. Actually, here he says that he has gone against the south of Judah, which implies that David fought against his fellow Jews, but there are other groups who live in that area. What David is doing is offering a version of the truth meant to mislead Achish. He is doing raids against those south of Judah; but he is not attacking Israelites. Footnote


We are going to actually observe a very interesting metamorphism in David. He gets out of God’s geographical will, and begins raiding nearby heathen groups. As we have discussed, this may or may not be legitimate. However, at least he is not attacking his own people, Israel. However, he lies to Achish about whom he has attacked, actually implying that he has attacked his own people. Then, in 1Sam. 29, David will attempt to join forces with Achish to go attack Israel. When we observe this arc of David’s behavior, I think we can reasonably say that he is out of God’s geographical will and out of God’s will in general.

 

Even Gill, who has been justifying David’s actions, ceases his justifications at this point, saying: although [this] not an outright lie, [it] was an equivocation, and made with a design to deceive; and was by no means agreeably to the character of David, nor to be defended nor imitated. Footnote Similarly, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: The deceit [which David] practiced upon his royal host and the indiscriminate slaughter [that he] committed, so that none should escape to tell the tale, [all] exhibit an unfavorable view of this part of David's history. Footnote In other words, there is no way that we may justify David’s behavior here. And, for good measure, let me add in Wesley’s comments at this point (who appropriated this statement from Matthew Henry): The fidelity of Achish to him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravates his sin in thus deceiving him, which David seems penitently to reflect on, when he prays, Remove from me the way of lying. Footnote

 

With respect to David's lying here to a man who trusts him, Torrey's book comments: From these, and similar passages, we may observe the strict impartiality of the Sacred Scriptures. They present us with the most faithful delineation of human nature; they exhibit the frailties of kings, priests, and prophets, with equal truth; and examples of vice and frailty, as well as of piety and virtue, are held up, that we may guard against the errors to which the best men are exposed. Footnote


1Samuel 27:10c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ģahl ]

upon, beyond, on, against, above, over, by, beside

preposition of proximity

Strong’s #5921 BDB #752

negeb (ב ג נ) [pronounced ne-GHEBV]

south, south-country; often transliterated Negev or Negeb

masculine singular noun

Strong's #5045 BDB #616

Yerachemeêlîy

(י.ל̤א מח-רי) [pronounced yer-akhe-meay-LEE]

may El [God] have compassion; whom God loves; and is transliterated Jerahmeelite

gentilic adjective with the definite article

Strong’s #3397 BDB #934


Translation: ...or “Against the south of the Jerahmeelites” ... I am assuming here that, the people against whom David fought were allies with the Philistines, with whom Philistia had non-aggression pacs signed, or at least people with whom Philistia was not at war. Therefore, David does not want Achish to think that he is attack Philistine allies. The Jerahmeelites are descendants of Judah and Jerahmeel was the brother of Caleb (1Chron. 2:9; Celubai = Caleb). However, this is not the famous Caleb, the brave and well-known sidekick of Joshua from Num. 13–14. This is Jerahmeel, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah. He would have been first or second generation Israelite born in Egypt, making him and his brother Caleb about 300 years older than the Caleb found in the book of Numbers. Jerahmeel is mentioned 6 times in 1Chron. 2, which indicates great prominence.


1Samuel 27:10d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

el (לא) [pronounced el]

unto, in, into, toward, to, regarding, against

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

negeb (ב ג נ) [pronounced ne-GHEBV]

south, south-country; often transliterated Negev or Negeb

masculine singular noun

Strong's #5045 BDB #616

qêynîy (י̣ני ֵק) [pronounced kay-NEE]

to acquire and is transliterated Kenite

gentilic adjective with the definite article

Strong’s #7017 BDB #884


Translation: ...or “Upon the south of the Kenites.” Mentioning the Kenites opens up a whole can of worms (not with David and Achish but with our understanding). The easiest way to dispense with this is say that Moses’ father-in-law was a Kenite (Judges 1:16) and that the Kenites had a close relationship, therefore, with the Jews (see 1Sam. 15:6, for instance). This oversimplifies the matter, and we covered the Doctrine of the Kenites back in Judges 1:16, if you want the more complex approach.


In general, David is making it seem as though he is attacking fellow Jews and those allied with the Jews, when, in fact, he is attacking those who are the enemies of Israel. Again, David’s actions are not what we would expect, and suggest that he is out of fellowship (we’ll discuss the pros and cons of this at the end of this chapter).

 

Edersheim writes: On every such occasion, as he returned laden with spoil, he took care to report himself at Gath, partly to disarm suspicion, and partly, no doubt, to secure the good will of Achish by giving him a large share of the booty. His reports may have been true to the letter—giving it a forced meaning—but they were certainly untrue in spirit. But David never brought captives with him to gath, who might have betrayed him, bu always destroyed all who had witnessed his attacks. Footnote Edersheim mentions something which we do not find in the text: that David no doubt gave a portion of his take to Achish, which would have been customary at that time.


And man and woman did not keep alive David to bring to Gath to say “Lest they make known against us, to say, ‘So has done David;’ and so his judgement all the days that he dwelt in a country of Philistines.”

1Samuel

27:11

And David did not keep alive men or women to bring to Gath, thinking [lit., to say], “So they will not make [this] known concerning us, saying, ‘So David has done and so [is] his justice all the days that he has lived in the land of the Philistines.’ ”

David did not allow any men or women to live during these raids—not even to bring to Gath, thinking, “If I allow any of them to live, they may make it know exactly what I am doing. They might say, “David has done these acts of violence against your allies and so has been his custom all the days of living in the land of the Philistines.’ ”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And David saved neither man nor woman, neither brought he any of them to Geth, saying: Lest they should speak against us. So did David, and such was his proceeding all the days that he dwelt in the country of the Philistines.

Masoretic Text                       And man and woman did not keep alive David to bring to Gath to say “Lest they make known against us, to say, ‘So has done David;’ and so his judgement all the days that he dwelt in a country of Philistines.”

Peshitta                                  And David spared neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, “Lest they should tell on us, saying, ‘Thus David has done.’” and such was his custom all the while he lived in the land of the Philistines.

Septuagint                              “And I have not saved man or woman alive ot bring them to Geth,” saying, “Lest they carry a report to Geth against us, saying, ‘These things David does.’ ” And this was his manner all the days that David lived in the country of the Philistines.

 

Significant differences:           The MT begins with David as the subject (as does the Peshitta and the Latin); in the LXX, this is in the 1st person, as if this were a quotation from David or a page out of his diary. Only the LXX specifically mentions carrying a report (which could be a paraphrase/misinterpretation rather than having a different Hebrew manuscript to work from). The KJV spoke of bringing tidings back to Gath; but in the Hebrew, the idea is that David does not keep any man or woman alive to bring back to Gath.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       That's why David killed everyone in the towns he attacked. He thought, "If I let any of them live, they might come to Gath and tell what I've really been doing." David made these raids all the time he was in Philistia.

The Message                                  He never left a single person alive lest one show up in Gath and report what David had really been doing. This is the way David operated all the time he lived in Philistine country.

NAB                                       But David would not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, fearing that they would betray him by saying, “This is what David did.” This was his custom as long as he lived in the country of the Philistines.

NJB                                        David spared neither man nor woman to bring back alive to Gath, ‘in case’, as he thought, ‘they inform on us and say, “David did such and such.” ’ This was the way David conducted his raids all the time he stayed in the Philistine territory.

NLT                                        No one was left alive to come to Gath and tell where he had really been. This happened again and again while he was living among the Philistines.

REB                                       He let neither man nor woman survive to be brought back to Gath, for fear that they might denounce him and his men for what they had done. This was his practice as long as he remained with the Philistines.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         He did not bring a single man or woman back to Gath alive. He thought, "They could tell Achish what I really did." This was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory.

JPS (Tanakh)                         David would leave no man or woman alive to be brought to Gath; for he thought, “They might tell about us: David did this.” Such was his practice as long as he stayed in the territory of the Philistines.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Updated Emphasized Bible    But David saved no man or woman alive to come to Gath, for he said,

“So they will not tell about us, saying,

So has David done and such [has been] his manner all the days that he has lived in the country of the Philistines.”

ESV                                       And David would leave neither man nor woman alive to bring news to Gath, thinking, “Lest they should tell about us and say, ‘So David has done.’ ” Such was his custom all the while he lived in the country of the Philistines.

HCSB                                              David did not let a man or woman live to be brought to Gath, for he said, "Or they will inform on us and say, 'This is what David did.'" This was David's custom during the whole time he stayed in the Philistine territory.

Young's Updated LT              Neither man nor woman does David keep alive, to bring in word to Gath, saying, “Lest they declare it against us, saying, Thus has David done, and thus is his custom all the days that he has dwelt in the fields of the Philistines.”


What is the gist of this verse? David did not allow any man or woman to live in these raids so that they would not come to Gath and tell what he and his men had been doing. He continued following this practice during all the time that he lived in Philistine territory.


1Samuel 27:11a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun

Strong's #376 BDB #35

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]

woman, wife

feminine singular noun

Strong's #802 BDB #61

lô (אֹל or אל) [pronounced low]

not, no

negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation

Strong’s #3808 BDB #518

châyâh (הָיָח) [pronounced khaw-YAW]

to cause to live, to make alive; to keep alive; to call back to life; to restore life

3rd person masculine singular, Piel imperfect

Strong's #2421 & #2425 BDB #310

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

bôw (א) [pronounced boh]

to take in, to bring, to come in with, to carry

Hiphil infinitive construct

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

Gath (ת ַ) [pronounced gahth]

wine-press and is transliterated Gath

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1661 BDB #387


Translation: And David did not keep alive men or women to bring to Gath,... When David raided a community, he killed every man and woman and child in that community. He did not bring any of them back with him to Gath (which is the general area where David was living—Ziklag is the more specific designation for where he lived). David did not bring any women back either—not as wives or as slaves.


We know what God has decreed against the people of the land; however, this is not the reason which is given for David’s behavior. Again, we have the problem of determining whether David is doing this in obedience to God or as a quick and dirty way to support his own troops, and all that we have in this chapter (and in 1Sam. 30) seems to point to the latter.


1Samuel 27:11b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

Qal infinitive construct

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

pen (ן∵) [pronounced pen]

lest, peradventure, or else, in order to prevent, or, so that [plus a negative]

conjunction

Strong's #6435 BDB #814

nâgad (ד ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAHD]

to make conspicuous, to make known, to expound, to explain, to declare, to inform, to confess, to make it pitifully obvious that

3rd person masculine plural, Hiphil imperfect

Strong's #5046 BDB #616

׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ģahl ]

upon, beyond, on, against, above, over; on the ground of, because of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, with, by, besides, in addition to, to, toward, together with, in the matter of, concerning, as regards to

preposition of proximity with the 1st person plural suffix

Strong’s #5921 BDB #752


Translation: ...thinking [lit., to say], “So they will not make [this] known concerning us,... David, even though he liked women and may have found several in these raids that he liked, would not ever bring anyone back to his camp, as he did not want his exact activities to be made known to Achish. So his reason for killing everyone was a selfish one. This protected him. This gives us a clue that perhaps David is not where he should be spiritually.


Before we move on, note what is said here—David’s thoughts are revealed. If his thoughts are revealed, this indicates that David is probably recording this incident. Sure, God the Holy Spirit can reveal to us the thoughts of others when writing inspired Scripture; however, why fight Davidian authorship? Much of the book of Samuel appears to be very personal about David—this would suggest that David authored much of this book (however, he probably only edited the first several chapters).


To be fair at this point, David could have actually uttered these words to his soldiers, to explain to them why they had to kill every man, woman and child of the camps they plundered. Although there is something to be said for blind obedience in a time of war; that does not mean that those doing the grunt work must be kept in the dark at all times.


1Samuel 27:11c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

Qal infinitive construct

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

kôh (הֹ) [pronounced koh]

so, thus, here, hence

adverb

Strong’s #3541 BDB #462

׳âsâh (הָָע) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187


Translation: ...saying, ‘So David has done;’... David is concerned that if he allows anyone to live, either as a slave or as a wife, at some point in time, they would tell others, “This is what David has been doing.” And then they would reveal the truth about David and his raids. So David was being dishonest with Achish and going out of his way to make certain that he was not found out.


1Samuel 27:11d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (ו) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

kôh (הֹ) [pronounced koh]

so, thus, here, hence

adverb

Strong’s #3541 BDB #462

mîshepâţ (ט ָ  ׃ש  ̣מ) [pronounced mishe-PAWT]

judgement, justice, a verdict rendered by a judge, a judicial decision, a judicial sentence, a verdict, the judgement of the court; the act of deciding a case, the place where a judgement is rendered

masculine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #4941 BDB #1048

kôl (לֹ) [pronounced kohl]

the whole, all of, the entirety of, all; can also be rendered any of

masculine singular construct followed by a definite article

Strong’s #3605 BDB #481

yâmîym (םי.מָי) [pronounced yaw-MEEM]

days, time of life, lifetime; a specific time period, a year

masculine plural noun with a definite article

Strong’s #3117 BDB #398

ăsher (רשֲא) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

yâshab (בַשָי) [pronounced yaw-SHAHBV]

to remain, to stay, to inhabit, to sit, to dwell

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #3427 BDB #442

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

sâdeh (ה∵דָ) [pronounced saw-DEH]

field, land, country, open field, open country

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #7704 BDB #961

Pelishetîy (י. ש ̣ל) [pronounced pe-lish-TEE]

transliterated Philistines

masculine plural gentilic adjective (acts like a proper noun)

Strong’s #6430 BDB #814


Translation: ...and so [is] his justice all the days that he has lived in the land of the Philistines.” It is interesting the word which is used here: it is David’s justice or judgment which is in view here. David is acting as judge, jury and executioner. Bear in mind, what David is looking to do is to provide for his troops.


Now note, there are two right things which are being done: David is seeing that his troops are provided for, which is what a good leader would do; and he is removing from the land the people whom God had ordered Moses and Joshua to remove. What is the problem? The problem is David’s motivation. He is not motivated by obeying God’s commands. He is motivated by the pressure of being a leader and providing for his own men. He is motivated to kill these people in order to protect himself. He knows that what he is doing is problematic because he lies to Achish about what he is doing.


Here is the key: you must do a right thing in a right way. You do not get to do a right thing in a wrong way. You don’t get to do a right thing with wrong motivation. This is apparently what is going on with David.


Application: You know there are rich and prosperous churches and yet, with all that, and with all their fanfare and attendance, they are a church which has no spiritual impact. Why? There are many members of their congregation who give to the church and yet they are out of fellowship. You can give a million dollars to a church and it means nothing apart from giving while in fellowship. That money is dead weight to the church. There is no divine good imputed to you, even if this is every last dime you could scrimp and save; and the money is no good to the church either. It is a right thing done in a wrong way (assuming that giving that amount was right).


And so believed Achish in David, to say, “Making odious he made [himself] odious in his people in Israel and he has been to me for a servant forever.”

1Samuel

27:12

So Achish believed in David, thinking [lit., saying], “David has definitely made [himself] odious with his people in Israel and has become [lit., was] to me a servant forever.”

Therefore, Achish believed David, thinking, “He has made himself odious to his own people in Israel and has therefore become my servant forever.”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And Achis believed David, saying: “He has done much harm to his people Israel: Therefore he shall be my servant forever.”

Masoretic text                        And so believed Achish in David, to say, “Making odious he made [himself] odious in his people in Israel and he has been to me for a servant forever.”

Peshitta                                  And Achish believed David, saying, “He has surely displeased his people Israel; therefore, he has become my servant forever.”

Septuagint                              So David had the full confidence of Anchus, saying, “He is thoroughly disgraced among his people in Israel, and he will be my servant forever.”

 

Significant differences:           There does appear to be a difference in the verb used by Achish in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the other ancient versions. Maybe the Vulgate and the Septuagint were attempting to convey the general idea rather than an exact translation. The Greek word used here means to dishonor, to make ashamed; to disfigure. The Greek verb and its morphology will be noted in the exegesis.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       But Achish trusted David and thought, "David's people must be furious with him. From now on he will have to take orders from me.”

The Message                         Achish came to trust David completely. He thought, "He's made himself so repugnant to his people that he'll be in my camp forever.”

NLT                                        Achish believed David and thought to himself, “By now the people of Israel must hate him bitterly. Now he will have to stay here and serve me forever!”


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

God’s Word                         And Achish believed David. Achish thought, "He has definitely made his own people in Israel despise him. He'll be my servant from now on.”

JPS (Tanakh)                                  Achish trusted David. He though: “He has aroused the wrath of his own people Israel, and os he will be my vassal forever.”


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

ESV                                       And Achish trusted David, thinking, "He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”

HCSB                                              So Achish trusted David, thinking, "Since he has made himself detestable to his people Israel, he will be my servant forever.”

Keil and Delitzsch (updated)  Achish believed David's words, and said [to himself], “He has made himself stinking [i.e., hated] among his own people, among Israel, and will be my servant [i.e., subject to me] forever.”

MKJV                                              And Achish believed David, saying, He has made himself to be hated among his people Israel, and has become my servant forever.

Young's Updated LT              And Achish believes in David, saying, “He has made himself utterly abhorred among his people, in Israel, and has been to me for a servant age-during.”


What is the gist of this verse? Achish completely trusted David on this, and reasoned that David had made himself so odious to his fellow Jews, that he must remain with Achish forever.


1Samuel 27:12a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

âman (ן ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MAHN]

 to stand firm, to believe, to trust, caused to believe

3rd person masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect

Strong's #539 BDB #52

âkîysh (שי.כָא) [pronounced aw-KEESH]

transliterated Achish

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #397 BDB #37

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187


Translation: So Achish believed in David, thinking [lit., saying],... Everything that David did and said caused Achish to believe that David had ruined any chance of returning to Israel. Recall, David was a minor hero in Israel (well, for awhile, a great hero in Israel). Saul’s attacks upon David and his insistence that David had betrayed him had caused some people to doubt David and to lower his approval rating.


I have seen this in my own life. I worked under several department heads. Their opinion of me affected the way the other math teachers perceived me. There was a core of maybe 10 teachers who were with us from year to year; under one math department head, some of them and many of the new teachers would come to me for help, for worksheets, to confer on this matter or that; and my opinion in meetings made a difference. Under two other department heads, only two people came to me consistently for worksheets and to talk; and my opinion usually resulted in department policy which was the complete opposite. Don’t get me wrong—I am not using this time to cry about it—I am simply explaining how David could go from national hero to a man that a few people admired, but a man that many people suspected as being seditious. There were probably a number of people who eventually had determined in their own minds that David was actively after Saul’s job. We may not understand that in a democratic society, thinking that such aspirations are fine and normal. However, in the ancient world, if you were after the king’s job, you were a traitor to your country.


In our day and age, the way the press perceives a president or a man in high office can result in a great swaying of public opinion one way or the other. For instance, I have a very positive and favorable opinion about a former member of President Bush’s cabinet, Colin Powell. However, I could not tell you a great accomplishment of his; I could not tell you how he stands on this or that issue—I simply have a favorable opinion of him. My guess is, that opinion has been shaped to some degree by the press. During this same time period, I have observed an almost irrational hatred of George W. Bush—not only have famous celebrities stated, “If he becomes president, I may have to leave this country” but my own mother said that as well. My mom never left the country and none of these hyper-dramatic celebrities have either (leave the country where they have made millions of dollars and enjoy a celebrity status? Yeah, that will happen). There are forces out there, primarily the press, which I believe has a great deal to do with shaping opinions. In the background, I have overheard an author speak of television’s effect in the 50's concerning certain people. When we look back, we can certainly say, “Oh, yeah; it is obvious that television played a major role in causing public opinion to be this way or that.” It is more difficult to admit, “Yeah, my opinion is strongly affected by television.” My point in all of this is, King Saul’s opinion of David affected the way the nation viewed David. Not everyone was completely on board with Saul; not everyone had been won over to his side completely; but his opinion was strong enough to cause David to leave Israel and strong enough to cause others to turn David in (as we have observed in previous chapters).

 

As I have mentioned previously, there is some debate among theologians as to whether David’s actions are righteous or not. I think you know where I stand on this issue. However, let me expose you to what Clarke said about two theologians who tried to justify David’s actions: This deception, which Dr. Delaney says “did harm to nobody, and to the account of which he is at an utter loss what degree of guilt to charge,” imposed upon Achish, had the most direct tendency to make him imagine himself secure, while in the utmost danger; and to have a faithful friend and able ally in David, while he was the veriest enemy he could possibly have. Shame on him who becomes the apologist of such conduct! As to Dr. Chandler, he should know that no lie is of the truth, and that all falsity is an abomination to the Lord. Footnote


1Samuel 27:12b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

Qal infinitive construct

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

bâash (ש-אָ) [pronounced baw-AHSH]

to make fetid; to become hateful [or, odious]; to stink, to emit [or, produce] a stench; to act wickedly and cause onself shame, to make oneself odious

Hiphil absolute construct

Strong’s #887 BDB #92

bâash (ש-אָ) [pronounced baw-AHSH]

to make fetid; to become hateful [or, odious]; to stink, to emit [or, produce] a stench; to act wickedly and cause onself shame, to make oneself odious

3rd person masculine singular, Hiphil perfect

Strong’s #887 BDB #92

We find this same verb used in Gen. 34:30 1Sam. 13:4.

aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι) [pronounced ai-SCHOO-noh-my]

to be disgraced; to be ashamed; to put to shame; to disgrace, to shame

3rd person singular, Perfect middle indicative

Strong’s #153

aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι) [pronounced ai-SCHOO-noh-my]

to be disgraced; to be ashamed; to put to shame; to disgrace, to shame

nominative singular, present middle participle

Strong’s #153

You will note that to cause oneself shame is one of the meanings of the Hebrew verb.

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

׳am (ם ַע) [pronounced ģahm]

people; race, tribe; family, relatives; citizens, common people; companions, servants; entire human race; herd [of animals]

masculine singular collective noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5971 BDB #766

be (׃) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

Yiserâêl (לֵאָר ׃̣י) [pronounced yis-raw-ALE]

transliterated Israel

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #3478 BDB #975


Translation: ...“David has definitely made [himself] odious with his people in Israel... We find the doubling of the Hebrew verb here, giving it great intensity. In the eyes of Achish, David, through these raids on Israel, has made himself odious to the people of Israel. David has not been raiding his own people, but this is what Achish thinks.


Here is a good question: how does the author of Scripture know that this is what Achish has said? The stock answer is always, this was revealed to him by God the Holy Spirit. I do believe completely in the inspiration of Scripture—that even the very words of Scripture are inspired by God. However, there is a human side to the Word of God just as there is the divine side. Giving the stock answer each and every time means that some percentage of Scripture just came to the author apart from any observation on his part. I don’t know that I buy into that, particularly given the intensely personal nature of some passages (my favorite example are the feelings of Jacob for Rachel express in Gen. 29:20, which feelings I believe were recorded by Jacob himself). In 1Sam. 29, the Philistine generals will make severe objections to David joining them to fight against Israel and Achish will defend David. Even though these words are not found in 1Sam. 28:3, 6; it is very likely that Achish, when speaking to these generals, made a statement very much like what we have here: “David has clearly made himself odious to his own people.” There are certainly other ways by which David could have become privy to this statement made by Achish; however, one example is all that is necessary to show that this information did not necessarily come to David in a vision or through automatic writing. Footnote


1Samuel 27:12c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]

and so, then

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition with the 1st person singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

lâmed (ל) (pronounced le)

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

׳ebed (ד ב ע) [pronounced ĢEB-ved]

slave, servant

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #5650 BDB #713

׳ôwlâm (םָלע) [pronounced ģo-LAWM]

properly what is hidden [time]; of [in] times past, from ancient time, old, antiquity, long duration, forever, perpetuity; for future time, futurity; of the world, worldly

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #5769 BDB #761


Translation: ...and has become [lit., was] to me a servant forever.” In the opinion of Achish, David had become so odious to his own people Israel that he would be Achish’s servant forever. For someone like Achish, outside of Israel, he is less likely to be affected by Saul’s propaganda.


Now, one of the things which we have spoken about, David being out of fellowship and doing things which were not right—this is not clearly taught to us in this chapter. Much of the narrative of the book of Samuel is very straightforward and non-judgmental. It does not appear as though the author has to stop every few minutes and say, “Hey, this was a bad thing that David did.” In fact, we can only get that through interpretation. David’s motivation is recorded (v. 11), which obviously gives us great insight into the rightness or wrongness of David’s actions. My interpretation has been that, David is out of God’s geographical will and he is also out of fellowship—therefore, we should expect for there to be negative consequences; we should expect negative consequences which are a direct result of what David has done in this chapter.


There are so many people who believe that some religious type or some religious organization somehow snuck their way into Scripture and changed it drastically to suit their own opinions and to promote this or that theological position. There are so many things which would have been changed or commented upon had this actually occurred. Whether David is doing right or wrong here is a matter of interpretation (although it does not require great insight to determine this); and anyone who had a David fixation (or a Moses fixation) would never have allowed some of these passages to see the light of day—assuming there was a person or a committee that changed Scripture. In all actuality, there is no evidence of these changes taking place, or we would have expected some of these things to be edited out, or for there to be commentary written about it. Were there people during the time of Scripture’s original recording who had strong theological positions? Hell, yes! The Jews wrote reams of theological commentary, to which they give great deference, but which is never placed on the same level as Scripture (the Talmud, for instance). We have strong legalism found in this document and we find the Jews in general leaning toward strong legalism—however, we do not find those leanings in Scripture. There is the opinion that some who thought the Levitical priesthood (a misnomer) was the greatest thing ever; however, during these 100 years or so, the priesthood is almost non-existent; and their impact is non-existent. No one came along and inserted tales of Paco the priest who did this or that great thing. In fact, through the period of the time of the judges down through the time of David, the priests occupied an extremely minor place in the history of Israel. If revisionists who revered the priesthood actually did exist, then what happened here? Why did they not revise history here? They did not revise history, because these Levitical revisionists did not exist. Now, one might argue, that is their plan; to be so subtle, so that we do not realize that they changed Scripture. That begs the question. On the one hand, the revisions of those who favor the priesthood is almost a given, because it is so obvious; and, on the other hand, their revisions are so subtle that we don’t see them. You can’t have it both ways. In fact, in all actuality, it is neither way. Were there various theological stripes throughout Israel’s history? Yes, of course. What did they do? They wrote additional writings; they wrote commentary; they wrote the Apocrypha; but, they did not make wholesale changes to Scripture. During the time of our Lord, the priesthood had become the epitome of evil; they did not need to change Scripture in order to justify their evil—they were able to perpetuate an extremely evil, anti-God position based upon tradition rather than upon Scripture.


You see, it is people who dislike Scripture and who would like to change it themselves, who make these sorts of unfounded accusations. However, for man to behave corruptly, outside of the directives of God’s Word, is easy. We witness this here. The priesthood is almost non-existent at this time; David is out of God’s geographical will and often out of fellowship; Eli’s sons were corrupt priests, as Samuel’s sons were corrupt judges. No one needs to change Scripture in order to indulge their sin natures. Man attacks Scripture in a number of subtle ways, one of those being, to allege that someone or some group changed it to suit themselves. They reject the Bible as being God’s Word, so they must come up with various scenarios which discredit God’s Word in some way or another. However, when it comes to the actual application of these ideas, their theories continually come up short.


In the past 27 chapters of the book of Samuel, we have found quite a number of differences between the Greek Septuagint translation and the Hebrew Masoretic text. 99% of the time, these differences have no theological impact whatsoever. That some manuscripts were damaged and difficult copies to read from—that probably occurred; that some translators occasionally took great liberties with the rendering of Hebrew into Greek—that probably occurred; that Hebrew copyists made an occasional mistake in copying Scripture and that, somehow, faulty manuscripts became the manuscript used when translating from Hebrew to Greek—that probably happened. We have great textual evidence ot support these things. It also should be clear, as we have examined the minutia of differences, that these differences have essentially no theological impact. That is, we cannot really look to this or that passage and claim that, for instance, some priest wanting to elevate his position in the world, made some changes in order to achieve that. For centuries upon centuries, the Jews have revered David, and rightly so—however, we see the historical narrative of David, warts and all. There is no reason to ever look at the history of David and think that he is somehow elevated to some heroic position apart from what he actually did (and, apart from what he did as empowered by God the Holy Spirit).


1Sam. 28 is very much a continuation of this chapter, and it brings into focus what is happening with Saul. However, when we get to chapter 29, all of a sudden, what David has done in this chapter will have its pay off—and it won’t be pretty. If you can remember our study of David first going to the city of Nob, to the priests, and lying to the high priest. The end result was, Saul went into Nob and murdered almost all of the priests there. If we had any doubt that David’s behavior was wrong in 1Sam. 21, we had no doubt once we got to the results of his actions, found in 1Sam. 22. These things give David a kick in his theological pants, and he will churn out a great many psalms based upon these incidents (indicating that he is back in fellowship—after all, a writer of Scripture must be in fellowship when writing Scripture). We should expect the same thing to happen here—suddenly, something will happen in David’s world, as a result of his poor choices, and this will jump start his spiritual life again. All coming up in 1Sam. 30 (i.e., this was your preview of coming attractions). By the way, the resulting psalms, in my estimation, are Psalms 13, 17 and 143 (which we will cover after completing 1Sam. 30).


What I have batted back and forth here is whether or not David is in fellowship. Is he doing God’s will or is he just taking care of himself and his men? Let me give you the arguments from both sides.

Is David In God’s Will or Not?

The Case for David Being out of Fellowship:

1.      There is nothing which is revealed to David which indicates that he should be raiding these other people.

2.      No prophet or priest is mentioned as coming to David and suggesting that he continue to destroy the heathen around the territory of Israel.

3.      The location of the people attacked by David are so specific as to tell us, he is not ridding the land of Israel of heathen; he is attacking heathen who are living outside the land of Israel, south of Judah, between Judah and Egypt.

4.      David’s motivation to kill all of these people is not to fulfil a mandate from God, but so that he will not be found out by Achish. The Bible clearly records David’s motivation in v. 11.

5.      David lies to Achish about who he is attacking. Achish is essentially an ally of David’s.

6.      David’s life appears to be in a downward spiral. He leaves Israel, without guidance from God to do so. He allies himself with an enemy of Israel. He makes questionable raids on those who are enemies of Israel; however, these raids are unprovoked and without clear direction from God. David takes their stuff, kills all of those he plunders, and then lies to Achish about whom he has plundered. Although David does not attack Israel or those allied with Israel at first, he appears ready to fight against Israel in 1Sam. 29. It become obvious that David has hit a low when he returns from almost fighting Israel to an empty camp which had been raided by his own enemies. It will be at this time that David will get back into fellowship.

7.      In fact, 1Sam. 30:6 reads that David strengthens himself in Jehovah. That clearly sounds like a move from being out of fellowship to being in fellowship.

8.      Below, I will quote Deut. 7:1–2, which appears to support the destruction of these nations; however, note that it specifically names 7 nations which God would deliver into their hands. Also note, that this is presented as a completed action (which is how God sees it). Furthermore, note that this passage does not mention any of the 3 groups which we are dealing with.

9.      David is not acting in conjunction with the army of Israel against enemies of Israel; he is acting on his own with a band of men for their own provision.

The Case for David Being in Fellowship:

1.      The people which David is attacking are legitimate enemies of God. Although we are not positive about the Gizrites or the Geshurites, God had told Saul to destroy every single Amalekite. Given that the evil Haman from the book of Esther is descended from the Amalekites, we would prefer to have seen every Amalekite wiped off the face of the earth.

2.      David, as a good leader, is simply providing for his own men.

3.      David sends some of the spoils of the Amalekites to the elders of Judah, as spoil from plundering enemies of Jehovah (1Sam. 30:26). This verbiage suggests that this has been David’s plan all along—to destroy the enemies of Israel.

4.      God had given Israel in general a mandate to destroy all of the heathen in their land: When Yahweh your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before you, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than you; and when Yahweh your God shall deliver them up before you, and you shall strike them; then you shall utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them (Deut. 7:1–2).

It is my opinion that David is generally out of fellowship throughout most of his stay in Ziklag; however, near the end, he appears to get back into fellowship (1Sam. 30:26) and God works everything out for good.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index


David’s stay in Ziklag is an interesting one. He apparently spends a great deal of his time out of fellowship; we have no indication that he wrote any of his psalms during this time; however, regardless of his spiritual condition, God still sent him men from Israel, who would eventually be a part of his military and administration when David rules over Israel. We find this in 1Chron. 12:1–8, which is the passage we should examine next. However, we are also in the midst of a narrative which will take us all the way through to the end of 2Sam. 1. Men began coming to David when he was in the stronghold in the wilderness and here after he moved to Ziklag and they continued to come to him until the day he marched into Hebron as the sovereign of Judah. Let us quickly examine those first 8 verses of 1Chron. 12, and then return to this narrative.