Outline of Chapter 29:

Prologue (1Samuel 28:1–2)

       vv.    1–2        The Philistine Armies Initially Gather at Aphek

       vv.    3–5        The Philistine Generals Object to David Joining Them

       vv.    6–9        Achish Tells David the Decision of the Philistine Generals

       vv.   10–11      David’s Departure from the Philistine Armies

Charts, Short Doctrines and Maps:

       v.      6           Theories About Achish Taking an Oath by Jehovah

       v.      6           “As Jehovah Lives” in the Book of 1Samuel

I ntroduction: 1Sam. 29 is an interesting chapter. David has allied himself with the Philistines and the Philistines are about to attack Israel. We have already talked about Saul and his army and how God is going to remove Saul and his sons from this life. We already know about Saul in great detail; however, his army has gone along with him as well. Saul would say, “Where’s David?” and someone would try to locate him for Saul. Saul would say, “Saddle up, let’s ride; let’s find David and kill him” and they would all move out with Saul in pursuit of David, who had done them no wrong, had done Saul no wrong and had done Israel no wrong. However, God works out these events so that David and his men would not be fighting against Saul and his men; David and his men are not going to fight against the army which represents Israel. God works out these events so that there is no confusion in what David should or should not do.

What we have in this chapter is the initial gathering of the Philistines forces. They will all assemble in Aphek and first take stock of their forces before moving onto Shunem (vv. 1–2). Achish has asked David to join him as his personal bodyguard, along with his army (1Sam. 28:1–2). The Philistine generals recognize David and object to his joining their ranks to fight against Israel, despite the high recommendation of Achish (vv. 3–5). Achish apologetically tells David that he must leave, making it clear that he trusts him implicitly (vv. 6–9). Achish suggests to David that he leave first thing in the morning, which David does (vv. 10–11a). While David is proceeding south, the Philistine army advances to the north (v 11) to Shunem.

The key cities of these final chapters of 1Samuel are all well known to us. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown tell us: Gilboa, Jezreel, Shunem, En-dor, are all found [today], still bearing the same names. They lie within sight of each other. Aphek is the only one of the cluster not yet identified [however, we do have a good idea where it is]. Jezreel on the northern slope of Gilboa, and at the distance of twenty minutes to the east, is a large fountain, and a smaller one still nearer; just the position which a chieftain would select, both on account of its elevation and the supply of water needed for his troops.

At least one exegete, Matthew Henry, talks about how David is close to God, in contrast to Saul, who is far from God, and he notes the difference in results. The problem is, David is not in fellowship; he is in the wrong place; he does not belong with the Philistines; he should not be going to war against Israel. We have gone into great detail in 1Sam. 27 just how far out of bounds David is. Furthermore, in 1Sam. 30, we will see David and his men disciplined as well as David turning back to God (1Sam. 30:6). There is a contrast between Saul and David in these two chapters; but it is a contrast between a believer about to die the sin unto death as versus a believer who can and will recover from his own reversionism.

McGee gives us a more accurate summary of the events leading to this: David has become so discouraged and despondent because of Saul’s determination to kill him that he left the land of Israel. God had not told him to leave any more than He told Abraham to leave the land. On the part of both these men it was a lapse of faith. So David stepped out of the land and moved over into the country of Philistia.

Prologue (1Samuel 28:1–2)

Because 1Sam. 28:3–25 were obviously inserted, I am going to briefly cover 1Sam. 28:1–2, which, chronologically, belong with this chapter of 1Samuel. 1Sam. 28:3–25 chronologically follow 1Sam. 29 in time. What you will notice is, how smoothly 1Sam. 28:1–2 fit together with 1Sam. 29. I would guess in the source material, these were found together, written by the same author (who is probably David).

If I were teaching this to a congregation, we would go in this order: 1Sam. 28:1–2 1Sam. 29:1–11 1Sam. 28:3–25 1Sam. 30–31. This is roughly the chronological order; however, what is really happening is some of these narratives follow Saul (1Sam. 28:3–25 1Sam. 31) and some of them follow David (1Sam. 28:1–2 1Sam. 29–30). Many of these events are occurring simultaneously, about 70 miles apart.

A complete exegesis of the following two verses can be found with the exegesis of 1Sam. 28.

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines decided to make another move against Israel. Achish tells David that he is expected to be allied with the Philistine army.

The listing of the various translations along with the Hebrew exegesis is to be found with our examination of 1Sam. 28.

Translation: And it happened [or, and it came to pass; lit., and it was] in those days the Philistines congregated their camps for war to fight against Israel. The Philistines and the Jews had an ongoing hatred for each other going back to the time of the judges. God had given the land of the Philistines to Israel and the Philistines were forever looking to take bites out of the land that Israel occupied. I don’t know how things are during the time that you are reading this, but as I write this, we have almost the exact same situation occurring between the Israelis and the Palestinians (the name Palestine, by the way, has its roots in the word Philistine). Israel did not seem to make any inroads over the years on Philistine territory (if we limit their territory to their five cities and the immediate surrounding area), but the Philistines seemed to be continually driving a wedge between Israel and Judah, as well as encroaching upon Judah’s territory. Being heathen and not understanding that God had given this land to the Jews, the Philistines certainly believed that they had more rights to this land than Israel did. Therefore, the Philistines would gather their armies periodically to attack Israel, which is what was occurring at this point in time. David, because he is a brilliant man, should have been able to foresee that this would be a possibility during the year and a quarter that he lived in the land of the Philistines.

I have mentioned just how messy the border between Israel and Philistia was. The Philistines apparently had owned Beth shan for much of its history, even though that is right in the midst of Manasseh. We have a hard time grasping that, as our borders tend to be quite clear, well-marked, and contiguous. However, what we find here is not unlike Israel in modern history. There are a few streets which are considered Palestinian, a few which are considered Israeli; and there are people of the wrong type living in each. The borders of Israel at the time of this writing are relatively fluid, and so it was in the days of Saul and before. In fact, there were apparently whole cities within Israel’s borders which were essentially controlled by heathen (Judges 1:27, for instance).

You will also notice that there will be an occasional alliance (like David and Achish) and there will be a lot of animosity as well. We have the same thing today. I have an acquaintance who is a Palestinian who said that when she lived in Israel/Palestine, that those who had lived there (Israelis and Palestinians) essentially got along well, and the newer settlers were the ones who often stirred up trouble. My point is, what we find today as I write this is not altogether different from the time of David and Saul; except that they engaged in more direct warfare.

Translation: ...Furthermore [lit., and], Achish said to David, “You fully understand that you will go out with me in the camps—you and your soldiers.” Achish calls David in and tells him, “You understand that, as a part of this country, you must take part in our military excursions.” The idea is, it did not matter whether these attacks were against Israel or anyone else. This was a well-understood principal in the ancient world. Any man who was a part of a country, also had a responsibility to serve his country in the military. Even though there were exceptions (Saul did not draft every single male), an exception would not be made for David, who is a military man (it is highly unlikely that Achish had any idea that David was once a shepherd boy). David is beholden to Achish; and, as an adult male, he has an obligation to defend the country in which he has chosen to live.

Gill writes: David, and whereby he was like to be drawn into a dilemma; either to fight against his country, which he could not do conscientiously; or be guilty of ingratitude to Achish, and incur his displeasure, and be liable to be turned out of his country, or treated in a worse manner, even he and his men, to be seized on and cut to pieces by the forces of the Philistines, should he refuse. Do you see the moral dilemmas which result when you move a little out of God’s will and direction for your life? David went to Philistia originally just to escape Saul’s constant hounding; now he finds himself in the compromised position of being expected to go to war against his own country.

By the way, it is not just David that Achish expect to join him; he certainly expects for David to bring his army with him. They are also beneficiaries of life in Philistia, so they are also subject to conscription. Achish believes that they have all been making raids against southern Judah, so the idea of expecting them to fight against Israel is reasonable. Recall the last thing that Achish said about David at the end of 1Sam. 27: “He has made himself odious among his people Israel; therefore, he will become my servant forever.” The same verse tells us that Achish trusts David. Achish has no reason to think that there is any problem at all with his request (which is, for all intents and purposes, a royal command).

Again, the Hebrew exegesis of this verse along with the various English translations can be found in the exegesis of 1Sam. 28.

What is the gist of this verse? David appears to agree to join forces with Achish against the Jews. Achish makes David his permanent bodyguard.

Translation: David answered Achish, “Certainly you [even] you will know that which your servant will [can?] do.” David’s answer appears to be vague and somewhat ambiguous; I assume that this allows the listener to take it in whatever way he chooses to take it. “You certainly know what your servant does.” Now, I base my assessment on this sentence alone. It is my opinion that David really does not know exactly what he will do; he is being plunged further and further into this morally ambiguous situation. Furthermore, consider this: David came to Philistia to escape Saul and his army—the Philistines are mobilizing a huge army right at this point in time. How wise would it be for David to tell Achish, “Okay, I have been lying to you all along. I have not made any raids against Judah. Furthermore, I am not taking my army into battle against Israel.” David has an army of 600; the Philistines have thousands of men mobilized for war. If David says the wrong thing, he and his army and their wives and children could be wiped out (remember, David is out of fellowship, so he is not really clinging to the promises of God).

Now Achish does not take this response as vague or noncommital, regardless of the way that David meant it. Achish takes this as an unqualified affirmative response. Achish now has great trust in David, which will be made clear by what he says next.

Translation: ...Then Achish said to David, “Certainly I will make you my bodyguard [lit., a guard with reference to my head] perpetually.” Achish was apparently satisfied with David’s response, even though it sounds noncommital to me; and assigns David probably the most important job he could assign him: he made David his personal bodyguard. This indicates that Achish had great trust in David. Achish will be one of the leaders in this war against Israel (it is not clear if he is the head of this attack or not). We also know that the Philistines have before been routed when their leader is killed (as with Goliath). So Achish has a tremendous amount of trust in David. He is trusting David with his very life. It is unlikely that he suspects David of anything, given the position which he awards him.

You have got to think that this gets David to thinking. He is out of God’s geographical will. He is often out of fellowship. His anointment to become king of Israel was a long, long time ago. This man Achish is putting a great deal of trust in him. He treats David in he way that Saul should have treated him. He trusts David in the way that Saul should have trusted him. Perhaps David is thinking to himself, “Maybe this is where I should be.” David’s ambiguous response may not have been an attempt on his part to do anything but to think this situation through while talking to Achish. One can only imagine the confusion that must be in David’s soul. Saul could have trusted him completely, yet did not; here is a traditional enemy of the Jew, and he trusts David implicitly—with his very own life.

The Philistine Armies Initially Gather at Aphek

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so gather Philistines all their camps [in] Aphek; and Israel is camping in the spring which [is] in Jezreel.

Septuagint                             And the Philistines gather all their armies to Aphek and Israel encamped in Aendor, which is in Jezrael.

Significant differences:          The Septuagint version I have has Israel in Aendor and the MT has them camping near a spring (and the Hebrew here could not be transliterated Aendor). The Peshitta is in agreement with the MT. 1Sam. 29 did not survive as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. None of the ancient manuscripts which I have support the REB or the NAB, including the Latin (not even by transliteration). My guess is, the Alexandrian LXX reads Harod. The only footnote offered by any of my sources is in the REB, which unhelpfully footnotes En-harod with: probable reading; Hebrew: at the spring.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Philistines had brought their whole army to Aphek, while Israel's army was camping near Jezreel Spring.

The Message                         The Philistines mustered all their troops at Aphek. Meanwhile Israel had made camp at the spring at Jezreel.

NAB                                       Now the Philistines had mustered all their forces in the spring of Harod near Jezreel.

NLT                                The entire Philistine army now mobilized at Aphek, and the Israelites camped at the spring in Jezreel.

REB                                       The Philistines mustered their entire army in Aphek; the Israelites encamped at En-harod in Jezreel.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Philistines assembled their whole army at Aphek, and Israel camped at the spring in Jezreel.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HSBC                                    The Philistines brought all their military units together at Aphek while Israel was camped by the spring in Jezreel.

Young's Literal Translation    And the Philistines gather all their camps to Aphek, and the Israelites are encamping at a fountain which is in Jezreel..

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines muster their forces in Aphek; and the Israelites camp by a fountain or spring in Jezreel.

Translation: The Philistines gathered all their forces [or, camps] [in] Aphek;... I’ve covered the Doctrine of Aphek in Joshua 12:18; now might be a good time to refer to it. There are several Aphek’s in Scripture, and here we are probably speaking of Aphek in Ephraim, which was probably where the Philistines camped when they fought against Israel in I Sam. 4:1. At this time, Aphek would have been on the northern rim of Philistine territory. This would likely be near, but not on, the northern coast of the Mediterranean. Although this could be the Aphek listed in the point above in the southern portion of Judah, it is more likely that this is located in Ephraim. Given that the Philistines control the territory of Dan around this time, moving eastward into Ephraim would make the most sense. Recall that when the Philistines camped here before, the Israelites went back to get the Ark of God for good luck, which would have been located in the Tabernacle of God which was at Shiloh in Ephraim.

Recall from the previous chapter (vv. 1–2) that these are Philistines from the 5 cities of Philistia. Therefore, if Achish of Gath is there, then we would expect the four rulers of the other city-states to be there as well. Only one commentary that I use seems to think that Achish is the supreme ruler here subject to some checks and balances by his generals.

This was, by the way, an initial gathering of the Philistine armies. They are not going to necessarily make this their main camp from which to attack. Once they gather and number their troops in relative peace, then they will move northward toward Jezreel. This tells us that this incident that we will study in 1Sam. 29 actually precedes 1Sam. 28:1–4. Several Philistine battalions move through Aphek up to the valley of Jezreel to Shunem (1Sam. 28:4). There is no way that they would move from Shunem and backtrack to Aphek. Furthermore, David is going to be kept from going anywhere close to Shunem, which will be the final stop of the Philistine armies prior to their attack against Israel. This makes this verse occur previous in time to 1Sam. 28:4, where the Philistines are gathering in Shunem. Also in that verse, I gave you a chronological chart of these two chapters, which I will expand upon in 1Sam. 31.

Now, the only thing I have a problem with is, 1Sam. 28:1–2 seem to be properly placed at the beginning of this chapter and 1Sam. 28 should have consisted of vv. 3–25. Furthermore, the eyewitness to the events of 1Sam. 28:3–25 would be different than the eyewitness of the events of 1Sam. 28:1–2 and 1Sam. 29. This tells us that the bulk of 1Sam. 28 was inserted by an editor and written by someone entirely different. This does not mean that it is a phoney account, or anything like that; it simply means that the source material is different and its insertion into Scripture as a part of Scripture was something which occurred later. We do not know who wrote the book of Samuel (it is one book in the Hebrew)—like the book of Genesis, I believe there were several original authors: Samuel, David, Jonathan (for at least 1Sam. 14) and the author of 1Sam. 28 (which actually could have been the same man who recorded 1Sam. 14—Jonathan’s armor bearer). It is my opinion that David was the final author/editor of Samuel (given that his death is not recorded until Kings). Since he was an eyewitness to most of the events of 1Sam. 16–2Sam. 24, and since he was closely associated with Jonathan, who was an eyewitness to 1Sam. 9–15 (and Samuel was also an eyewitness to some of these events) as well as with Samuel (who would have been an eyewitness to most of 1Sam. 1–10), David would be the likely person to have written and edited the entire book of Samuel.

I want you to recognize that there is an invisible hero here—someone observed the events of 1Sam. 28, and yet, we do not even know him by name. He is probably one of the two men who accompanied Saul, but we don’t know his name and we won’t know his name until we slip from this life into eternity. However, if you look around your church, you are going to see a lot of invisible heroes—people who you might even think are too far beneath you to associate with, people who might even be praying quietly on your behalf day after day.

The question in the back of my mind is, why the slopping editing job? That is, why not have 1Sam. 28:3–25 follow 1Sam. 29? That would give us a better chronological order and it would place 1Sam. 28:1–2 where they belong, with 1Sam. 29. After putting in several months of study on these two chapters, this question jumps out at me, as does the odd editing job, and I don’t know if I have a satisfactory explanation as to why it is done this way. Maybe, for those of us who are curious about authorship, this is God the Holy Spirit’s way of making it clear that this is an insertion, a narrative by a different author, which narrative stands out because it requires a different eyewitness and is obviously just stuck right smack dab in the middle of another narrative. Apart from this, I do not know why the history of Saul and the witch of Endor was placed where it is.

I should make two points at this time: first of all, I will try to record all of my questions and concerns, whether or not I have an answer. Part of this reason is, as I continue to study the passage, the answer will become clear to me. Given my age and forgetfulness, it is a good idea to write these questions down, as I could otherwise easily forget them. Furthermore, I am not embarrassed to record a question for which I do not have a satisfactory answer. I have no idea who will read this study of Samuel in the future, but I doubt that it will be the casual believer or the new believer. I pose these questions for the person who does read and study what I have written so that they will have questions of their own to answer which I could not.

Secondly, by introducing a question like this, by indicating that 1Sam. 28:3–25 is from a difference source and obviously inserted, I am not questioning in any way the inspiration of the Word of God. I am not questioning the inspiration of that portion of God’s Word nor am I questioning that this is the Word of God. Just because the final book is written by several authors that one editor wove together, this does not in any way indicate that the narrative lacks divine inspiration and guidance. Our understanding of divine inspiration should not be altered simple because David, for instance, took what Samuel wrote, appended to it what he personally witnessed, and then inserted some narratives from sources which he trusted. After all, if David had not included the account of Saul and the witch of Endor, then that statement of 1Chron. 10:13–14 would make no sense, as it would reference something which Saul did that we would not have a record of (Chronicles was recorded long after the books of Samuel and Kings).

Another question: could the final editor of the book of Chronicles have inserted 1Sam. 28:3–25 into the book of Samuel, so that he had something to refer back to? I doubt it. Believers in the Old Testament, particularly those closely associated with the plan of God, were not in the habit of appending lengthy narratives to the Word of God. The manuscripts which we have of Scripture which are separated by as much as a millennium show little if any change. What is most likely is, David saw this as important to include about Saul. David did not denigrate Saul to bring himself up—David is very honest in presenting himself as well. We see David’s warts as well as his good points. Saul’s choices, the depths to which he sank, as a dog returning to his vomit, is important for us to see.

Translation: ...and Israel was bivouacking by the spring which [is] near Jezreel. The bêyth preposition has a number of meanings; however, here, I have rendered it near instead of in. The reason is, if this spring were in Jezreel, this would simply read by the spring of Jezreel (spring would be in the construct).

Keil and Delitzsch give us a description of this fountain: This fountain is the present Ain Jalûd (or Ain Jalût, i.e., Goliath's fountain, probably so called because it was regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath), a very large fountain, which issues from a cleft in the rock at the foot of the mountain on the north-eastern border of Gilboa, forming a beautifully limpid pool of about forty or fifty feet in diameter, and then flowing in a brook through the valley (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 168). I don’t know if this is the correct one, but they paint a vivid picture of it.

Jezreel of Issachar was the summer residence of Ahab and his house (1Kings 18:45, 46). Jezreel was situated on a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela. Jezreel is situated between Scythopolis and Legio and can be found in the present-day Zerîn, situated in the northwest mountains of Gilboa

There is a tributary on my map which runs by Jezreel and feeds into the Jordan River. This location is in Issachar, and puts us reasonably close to Endor. My original problem with this location is, we are about 40 miles northeast of Aphek, which is quite a distance away for two armies to be. However, this makes sense, as this is not actually where the Israelites and the Philistines will do battle. The Philistines are initially gathering their troops to go to war. They are not ready to move against Israel, so they first gather some distance away from Saul and his army. They will advance as a group to Shunem when they are ready to go to war. (1Sam. 28:4).

It is interesting the order in which this occurs. Saul gathers his army far north of the Philistine army, recognizing that there will be a conflict soon. More than likely, Saul had men who relayed to him that the Philistines were mustering their forces. I don’t know exactly how he chose to go to this particular area; maybe Saul is choosing the battleground. In any case, he chooses a choice place for his troops to cool their heels; near a natural spring, which is a necessity for a large army.

Saul is quite fearful of what will happen. This is not Saul the great leader and warrior of his early years; but this is Saul, the coward, the reversionist, a man who had become an enemy of God. He fears dying at the hand of the Philistines; he fears dying under discipline from God; he fears the pain and suffering of war.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And warlords of Philistines are passing over to hundreds and to thousands and David and his men were passing over in the coming after with Achish.

Septuagint                             And the lords of the Philistines went on by hundreds and thousands, and David and his men went on in the rear with Anchus.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Philistine rulers and their troops were marching past the Philistine army commanders in groups of a hundred and a thousand. When David and his men marched by at the end with Achish,...

NLT                                As the Philistine rulers were leading out their troops in groups of one hundred and one thousand, David and his men marched at the rear with King Achish.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Philistine leaders were marching by with their companies and regiments. David and his men were marching in the rear with Achish.

JPS (Tanakh)                        The Philistine lords came marching, each with his units of hundreds and of thousands; and David and his men came marching last, with Achish.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    As the Philistine leaders were passing in review with their units of hundreds and thousands, David and his men were passing in review behind them with Achish.

Young's Updated LT              And the princes of the Philistines are passing on by hundreds, and by thousands, and David and his men are passing on in the rear with Achish.

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines had their army organized in units of 100 or 1000. David was in the rear with Achish, as his personal guard.

Translation: The warlords were marching [lit., passing] with respect to hundreds and with respect to thousands;... This was a very serious act of aggression against Israel. The Philistines hated the Israelites, just like Arab groups hate the Jews today. Therefore, if they have their troops built up enough to engage the Israelites in battle, then they will. It is almost automatic. At this point, they are meeting in Aphek first, just to determine their troops numbers and to set up battle protocol, as these troops probably came from the five main Philistine cities. Once they are organized, then they will march to Shunem.

Gill suggests that these warlords were five in number, one for each primary city-state in Philistia. Joshua 13:3 Judges 3:3 and 1Sam. 6:4, 16, 18 would appear to support this, inasmuch as the same word is used there for the five lords of the Philistines. Furthermore, çeren is the only word used when making reference to the five Philistine lords in Scripture. Some of these lords were over groups of a hundred men; others over thousands of men. Judges 16:18 seems to indicate that this word had a broader usage (however, there is no reason to necessarily construe the word any differently in the other places where it is found (Joshua 13:3 Judges 3:3 16:5, 8, 18, 23, 27, 30, 1Sam. 5:8, 11 6:4, 12, 16, 18 7:7 29:2, 6–7 1Chron. 12:19). Most of the commentators to whom I refer also see this as an effort of all the Philistine city-states, meaning that Achish is among equals (the four other city-state warlords).

Israel’s army also was divided into hundreds and thousands (1Sam. 8:12), which suggests that their arithmetic system, like ours, has a special place for tens, hundreds and thousands.

Translation: ...and David and his men were marching [lit., passing] in the rear with Achish. David developed a good relationship with Achish. Recall that he demonstrated a marvelous sense of humor when David had gone to Gath previously (1Sam. 21). Since Achish did not kill David, David felt comfortable going back to him. Given that they apparently have this unspoken pact of nonaggression, it is very natural that David and Achish would ride together. Achish is not terrifically jealous of David like Saul is. He may be using David; but he does not get weird about it.

Now, recall that David has, more or less, consented to join in with Achish against the Israelites. He had little choice; Achish had trusted him and provided him refuge from Saul, who had spent a decade pursuing David. In those days, it was customary to be willing to defend your own country (something which most young people in the United States do not find to be an imperative). Philistia had become David’s country as a result of David’s volition. Therefore, it was only right for David to join them. However, Israel was David’s country over which he would rule, which places David in a tenuous position. Matthew Henry describes his situation below:

Matthew Henry comments: If [David] should quit his post [not fight against the Israelites], he would fall under the indelible reproach, not only of cowardice and treachery, but of base ingratitude to Achish, who had been his protector and benefactor and had reposed a confidence in him, and from whom he had received a very honourable commission. Such an unprincipled thing as this he could by no means persuade himself to do.

If he should, as was expected from him, fight for the Philistines against Israel, he would incur the imputation of being an enemy to the Israel of God and a traitor to his country, would make his own people hate him, and unanimously oppose his coming to the crown, as unworthy the name of an Israelite, much more the honour and trust of a king of Israel, when he had fought against them under the banner of the uncircumcised. If Saul should be killed (as it proved he was) in this engagement, the fault would be laid at David's door, as if he had killed him. So that on each side there seemed to be both sin and scandal. This was the strait he was in; and a great strait it was to a good man, greater to see sin before him than to see trouble. Into this strait he brought himself by his own unadvisedness, in quitting the land of Judah, and going among the uncircumcised. It is strange if those that associate themselves with wicked people, and grow intimate with them, come off without guilt, or grief, or both. What he himself proposed to do does not appear. Perhaps he designed to act only as keeper to the king's head, the post assigned him (1Sam. 28:2) and not to do any thing offensively against Israel. But it would have been very hard to come so near the brink of sin and not to fall in. Therefore, though God might justly have left him in this difficulty, to chastise him for his folly, yet, because his heart was upright with him, he would not suffer him to be tempted above what he was able, but with the temptation made a way for him to escape, 1Cor. 10:13.

There is little worse than to be put into a difficult position by your own volition, which is what has happened to David. He is out of fellowship, out of God’s geographical will, and now in a place where, whatever he seems to choose will be wrong. As Henry says above, only God can provide David a way out of this predicament.

One commentator, Abarbinel, suggests that David was there strictly as a bodyguard and that he would not have raised his hand against the Israelites. Think this through a little: David is there with 600 warriors—are they going to surround Achish and not let anyone through, and yet not use their weapons? That would make little sense. They might remain in Achish’s vicinity, but part of their protection is going to involve killing any Israeli soldier that comes near. You cannot twist the situation here into David finding a way to fulfill his obligation to Achish and yet do nothing against Israel—he is clearly trapped in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. David is out of God’s geographical will and apparently out of fellowship as well (it is implied that he fears Saul in 1Sam. 27:1). Being out of fellowship and out of God’s geographical will is the easiest way to go from a black and white world, into a world of grays. God, in His grace, will solve David’s dilemma.

The Philistine Generals Object to David Joining Them

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         And the princes of the Philistines said to Achis: What mean these Hebrews? And Achis said to the princes of the Philistines: Do you not know David who was the servant of Saul, the king of Israel, and hath been with me many days, or years, and I have found no fault in him, since the day that he fled over to me until this day?

Masoretic Text                       And so say leaders of Philistines, “What the Hebrews the these?” And so says Achish unto leaders of the Philistines, “[Is] not this David, a servant of Saul king of Israel who is with me here days and here years and I have not found in him anything from a day [of] his falling away until the day the this?”

Peshitta                                 Then the princes of the Philistines said to Achish, “What are these men marching here?” And Achish said to the princes of the Philistines, “This is David, the servant of Saul, the king of Israel, who has been with us a year and some months, and I have found no fault in him from the day he came to me until this day.”

Septuagint                             And the lords of the Philistines said, “Who [are] these that pass by?” And Anchus said to the captains of the Philistine, “[Is this] not David, the servant of Saul king of Israel? He has been with us some days, even this second year, and I have not found any fault in him from the day that he attached himself to me even until this day.”

Significant differences:          In the MT, David has fallen away from (or defected from) Saul (who is not named). In the LXX, David is said to have attached himself to Achish. In the Peshitta, David is said to have come to Achish. In the Vulgate, David has fled over to Achish. Now, even though the specific meaning of this phrase is quite different in the ancient translations, the difference is minor with respect to the overall meaning.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Philistine rulers and their troops were marching past the Philistine army commanders in groups of a hundred and a thousand. When David and his men marched by at the end with Achish, the commanders said, "What are these worthless Israelites doing here?" "They are David's men," Achish answered. "David used to be one of Saul's officers, but he left Saul and joined my army a long time ago. I've never had even one complaint about him.” [vv. 2–3].

NLT                                But the Philistine commanders demanded, “What are these Hebrews doing here?”

And Achish told them, “This is David, the man who ran away from King Saul of Israel. He’s been with me for years, and I’ve never found a single fault in him since he defected to me.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Philistine officers asked, "What are these Hebrews doing here?" Achish asked the Philistine officers, "Isn't this David, the servant of King Saul of Israel, who has been with me now for a year or two? I've found nothing wrong with him from the day he defected until now.”

JPS (Tanakh)                        The Philistine officers asked, “Who are those Hebrews?” “Why, that’s David, the servant of King Saul of Israel,” Achish answered the Philistine officers. “He has been with me for a year or more, and I have found no fault in him from the day he defected until now.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Updated Emphasized Bible   Then said the princes of the Philistines,

What are these Hebrews [doing here]?

And Achish said to the princes of the Philistines,

Is [this] not David, servant of Saul king of Israel, who has been with me [for] a year or two, and I have found in him nothing [suspect], from the day of his coming over [or, falling away] to me [so it should be, as per the Aramaic, Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate] to this day?”

HCSB                                    Then the Philistine commanders asked, "What are these Hebrews doing here?" Achish answered the Philistine commanders, "That is David, servant of King Saul of Israel. He has been with me a considerable period of time. From the day he defected until today, I've found no fault with him.”

MKJV                                     And the rulers of the Philistines said, What are these Hebrews doing? And Achish said to the rulers of the Philistines, Is this not David the servant of Saul the king of Israel, who has been with me these days, or these years. And I have not found anything evil in him from the day he fell away until today?.

Young’s Updated LT             And the heads of the Philistines say, “What are these Hebrews?” and Achish says unto the heads of the Philistines, “Is not this David servant of Saul king of Israel, who has been with me these days or these years, and I have not found in him anything wrong from the day of his falling away till this day.”

What is the gist of this verse? The officers of the Philistine army confront Achish, asking him, essentially, “What are Hebrews doing here?” Achish reassures them that this is David, who has not done anything wrong before Achish for the past year or so.

Translation: The leaders of the Philistines said, “What [is up with all] these Hebrews?” The Philistines have gathered for battle, and they are passing in review, and they notice David and his 600 men bringing up the rear with Achish. Several of them (and possibly all of them) go right to Achish and ask, “What is going on? Why do we have all these Hebrews with us?” They are about to go to battle with the Jews. It seems ill-advised to have a battalion of Hebrews directly behind them given that they are about to face off with Jews in front. This could result in a nightmare in battle with Hebrews on both sides of them. Therefore, this is a legitimate question. It is unclear whether or not they knew that this was David. I suspect that several of them knew it was David or thought that it was David.

I suspect that one or two saw David and the Hebrews, and then commented around to the others, to see how the rest of them felt about this situation. When there was an unofficial consensus of opinion, many of the officers decided to approach Achish en masse.

A different word is used here for leadership than what we found in v. 2; I suspect the word found in v. 2 refers to specifically the five kings of the five cities of Philistia; and the sarim here refers to these men as well as many of the officers beneath them. In other words, I think Achish was approached by perhaps a couple dozen officers of the Philistine army. The intention is for this delegation to be reasonably large and to carry enough authority to overrule Achish at any point. Achish would not be able to simply look at the other four Philistine lords and say, “Well, what of your junior officers? They are going to do the bulk of the fighting—what do they say about this?”

Translation: ...So Achish said to the leaders of the Philistines, “[Is] not this David, a servant of Saul king of Israel,... What Achish does is, answer with a rhetorical question. He is not asking these leaders to answer “true” or “false” with regards to whether or not this is David. It is his way of clearly identifying who David is and making it perspicuous that he knows exactly who David is. David is not just some guy from Israel, but he was Saul’s right-hand man for awhile. Achish does not say that much, but he identifies David as a servant of Saul. Achish is asked about all of the Hebrews which are there, and he answers specifically about one of them, David, their leader.

I believe that Achish expected this question, so he already had an answer planned for them. Notice the way that he presents this—he first tells them, “Hell, yes, these are Hebrews; in fact, this is David—he used to be Saul’s right hand man.” It should be clear to all of the officers who have approach Achish that he knows exactly who David is and what his reputation is. However, Achish will quickly add more information to allay their fears.

Translation: ...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?” Achish is also making it clear that David did not just arrive, but that he has been with Achish for a long time. During that time, Achish has found no fault in him, from the day he deserted Saul until this day.

Achish uses the phrase these days or, rather, these years to indicate a long but unspecific period of time. In all actuality, he had David living in Philistia for a year and four months, but he had known David for considerably longer. All the time that Achish knew David, there was never a reason for Achish to distrust him. Now, had Achish known that David was raiding one group of people, but claiming to raid a different group, that may have changed his mind. ...from the day he fell away... is also nonspecific. This could have been from the beginning when he first fell out with Saul and the first time he came to Achish, or it could refer back to the second time he came to Achish. However, to reconstruct this, I think Achish is being intentionally vague, to imply a trust in David which goes back further than it actually goes back. That is, Achish is considerably satisfied with David’s integrity after a year and a few months, but he phrases his evaluation to sound as though it goes further back. This is similar to someone asking about a friend of yours and you say, “Oh, yeah, I’ve known Charlie Brown forever.” You haven’t known C. Brown forever; that is impossible. However, your turn of the phrase makes it sound as though you have known C. Brown all your life.

The idea of finding sin or guilt in someone is used often in Scripture: 1Sam. 25:28 Dan. 6:5 John 19:6 Rom. 12:17 1Peter 3:16 are a few examples of this.

With regards to the verb to desert, you may want to look over the definitions which I have offered in the Hebrew exegesis. In the definitions which I offer, I try to stick with the most common ones; and often, they serve me throughout the exegesis of any book. However, sometimes with a word like nâphal, a more detailed look is required. I do not want to offer a translation, and then for someone to come along several years later and believe it to be unjustified. A good translation is the key to the understanding of all Scripture. There were some cults who really liked to use Moffett’s translation because it suited their points of view. I have also included the Septuagint which seems to convey the proper gist of this verse. David fell from a higher status under Saul to Achish. David went from being royalty under Saul to being a cast-off who is now with Achish. Achish offers no details, insofar as we know; just the gist of David’s status.

Furthermore, Achish assures these officers that not only is David a safe bet, but he was been under Achish’s watch for the past year or so, and Achish has found no reason to be concerned about David and his former status. Note that Achish’s answer is essentially two-pronged: (1) “Yes, I know exactly who David is” and (2) “You do not near to worry about his ultimate allegiance.” This gist of Achish’s answer is, “Yes, I know who this is and I am giving you my personal assurances that everything is fine.”

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so are angry upon him leaders of Philistines and so say to him leaders of Philistines, “Cause to return the man and he will return unto his place which appointed him there. And he will not go down with us in the battle and he will be to us for an adversary in the battle. And in how will he make himself pleasing here unto his adonai? Will [it] not [be] in heads the men the these?.

Peshitta                                 ...lest he be an adversary to us there...

Septuagint                             And the captains of the Philistines were displeased at him, and they say to him, “Send the man away, and let him return to his place, where you set him, and let him not come with us to the war, and let him not be a plotter in the camp. And how will he be reconciled to his master? Will it not be with the heads of those men?”

Significant differences:          A slight difference; the MT says David might be an adversary in the battle and the LXX says he might be a plotter in the camp. In the Peshitta, he is being an adversary to us there (which might be the English translator freely translating?).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Philistine army commanders were angry and shouted: Send David back to the town you gave him. We won't have him going into the battle with us. He could turn and fight against us! Saul would take David back as an officer if David brought him the heads of our soldiers.

The Message                         Angry with Achish, the Philistine officers said, "Send this man back to where he came from. Let him stick to his normal duties. He's not going into battle with us. He'd switch sides in the middle of the fight! What better chance to get back in favor with his master than by stabbing us in the back!

NLT                                But the Philistine commanders were angry. “Send him back!” they demanded. “He can’t go into the battle with us. What if he turns against us? Is there any better way for him to reconcile himself with his master than by turning on us in battle?.

REB                                       The commanders were indignant and said, ‘Send the man back to the place you allotted to him. He must not fight side by side with us, for he my turn traitor in the battle. What better way to buy his master’s favour, than at the price of our lives?

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         But the Philistine officers were angry with Achish. "Send the man back," the Philistine officers told him. "Return him to the place you assigned him. He shouldn't go with us into battle. He shouldn't be allowed to become our enemy during the battle. Is this man going to try to regain his master's favor? He'll do it with the lives of our men!

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    The Philistine commanders, however, were enraged with Achish and told him, "Send that man back and let him return to the place you assigned him. He must not go down with us into battle only to become our adversary during the battle. What better way could he regain his master's favor than with the heads of our men?.

WEB                                      But the princes of the Philistines were angry with him; and the princes of the Philistines said to him, Make the man return, that he may go back to his place where you have appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he become an adversary to us: for with what should this fellow reconcile himself to his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?

Young’s Updated LT             And the heads of the Philistines are angry against him, and the heads of the Philistines say to him, “Send back the man, and he does turn back unto his place whither you have appointed him, and does not go down with us into battle, and is not to us for an adversary in battle; and with what does this one reconcile himself unto his lord—is it not with the heads of those men?”

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistine officers object to David’s presence, telling Achish to send David back to the land he gave him. The officers do not want David into battle, because he could at anytime turn against them and kill them in order to gain back Saul’s favor.

Translation: The leaders of the Philistines were angry with [or, because of] him... Although this could mean that these leaders were mad because of David, it probably means that they were angry with Achish. The adverb could be interpreted in either way and it is not unusual for two masculine singular suffixes in the same sentence to stand for two different people in the Hebrew (my point being, there is no way to determine for certain to whom him refers). Because the him in the next section refers to Achish, him in this portion probably also refers to Achish. You will note that in my moderately literal translation, both masculine singular suffixes refer to Achish; but in my more freely translated verse, I apply the first to David and the second to Achish. You will note that both approaches make perfect sense. In either case, as the Philistine generals saw it, Achish’s decision to include David in this battle endangered their lives.

Translation: ...and the leaders of the Philistines said to him, “Send back the man... Recall that there is a preposition in the Hebrew which shows respect and deference, and there is one which does not; the Philistine leaders used the one which does not. Furthermore, there is no use of the particle of entreaty here; they flat out tell Achish to send David back. Given the number of Philistine soldiers involved in this assault, we are dealing simply with the leaders of the various battalions and with the heads of the city-states, equal to Achish (we discussed the word çeren back in v. 2 which would indicate that four of these men are equal to Achish). So there is no confusion, this not the men under Achish who are giving him this order, but the kings who are equal with him, as well as generals who are not beholden to him. Achish is being ordered to send David back by his peers and by those who are under him.

Translation: ...that he will return to the place which you assigned him then. There was no argument as to whether David should be a part of the Philistine landscape; he was just not going to go into battle against the Jews. That was far to risky, in the eyes of the Philistine leaders and generals. Achish had assigned David to Ziklag, and this was not a part of the argument. No doubt, there were those who wanted David run out of the Philistine neighborhood altogether; however, there is that expression pick your battles. These generals and kings drew the line at David going to war with them against Jews.

Translation: He will not go down with us to the battle... The position of the generals and kings is forceful. They leave nothing open to debate. They don’t go up to Achish and say, “Okay, this is our take on the matter...do you see what we mean? So we just don’t feel that David should be fighting along side us.” It is much more direct and forceful. “This David is not going down into the battle with us.” This is a non-negotiable order.

I guess I should mention that, no other exegete that I am aware of sees these men as the generals under Achish who are speaking to him (although they could make up part of this counsel). Again, the number of soldiers involved (groups of hundreds and thousands), as well as the use of the word çeren indicate that these are men who are equal to Achish.

McGee comments: When war was about to break out, David and his men marched with the Philistines. All the lords of the Philistines knew David, and when they saw him marching with them, they did not like it—and rightly so. I am sure that if you saw a person who had been your enemy suddenly turn and be on your side, you would want to make sure that he was not going to come up from the rear and attack you. that sometimes happens even among Christian brethren today. When a formerly unfriendly person suddenly becomes friendly, you wonder if he is really your friend or whether he has some ulterior motive in mind.

Translation: ...that he not become to us an adversary in the battle. These men who confront Achish explain their position. It is nonnegotiable, but they are going to explain their position. Their biggest fear is that David will turn on them in battle. Had Saul been killed in front of David, there is a good chance that he might have turned against the Philistines.

Robert Gordon comments: Achish has been blinded by David’s charm, but the Philistine commanders take a more pragmatic view of the situation. It is hard not to agree with their assessment, even though we are never given an express statement of David’s intention. As we have seen, the Philistines have already had experience with the Israelites changing sides (1Sam. 14:21).

You may well note that David’s attacks against the Geshurites, Gezrites, and Amalekites is not mentioned, because David was able to keep the victims of his raids secret, by killing every man, woman and child. Had the Philistine leaders known that David was lying to Achish about these raids, they would have had even more reason to exclude David from this war.

Now, one of the things running through your mind is, what is David doing, volunteering himself to fight against the Jews? and will God let him get away with that? I’ve got two opinions here which I may expand upon later. David is out of God’s geographical will at this point, and that many of his decisions are faulty because of that. Your follow up question invokes my second opinion: David has a limited leadership role at this time. It is important insofar as it involves his growth as a leader; however, I don’t believe that David’s mistakes carry the same weight as they would if he were king. That is, I think that David could do the same thing as a leader of these 600 men and as a king over Israel, that God would treat him differently. To wit, a sin committed as a leader of the 600 has less by way of consequence than the same sin committed by David as king. I think as you move up the chain of command, as you assume more authority, you also take on more responsibility—not in simply the most obvious sense, but before God as well. As a member of a congregation, with little or no authority within the church and outside of the church, you might get a minor slap on the wrist for this sin or that; however, for the pastor to commit the same sin, his discipline would be greater. I am not trying to give you a reason not to seek a leadership position in your church—but when you go after any position of power, make certain that you are willing to take the responsibility that goes with it.

Now that I think about it, I believe that Thieme taught something very similar to this: that in some cases, a person received double-discipline; and in some cases, there was triple-compound discipline. Therefore, if you desire this or that position of authority—if you believe your opinion should be the foremost opinion—you must be willing to take the heat as well.

Application: While you sit around your small house with the rusted 15 year old car outside in the rain, you think how you would like to win the lottery or how much you would like that promotion as it would give you more power and more money. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it. With money and position comes responsibility. Do you think God is going to drop a million dollars in your lap if all you are going to do is buy a new car and electronic gear (or, shoes if you are a woman )? When God gives you money, you have a responsibility; when God gives you authority, you have greater responsibilities. It is a fact of life. You have a great increase in your financial and authority status, and those sins that God gives you a slap on the wrist for might suddenly turn into much greater and more painful discipline.

Translation: ...And in what way could he ingratiate himself here to his lord? David’s estrangement from Saul was well known, not only in Israel but in the neighboring kingdoms. David does not just show up to Gath and Achish says, “Okay, no problem; hang out with your guys in Ziklag.” Achish knows what is going on with Saul and David. Most of those under him also are cognizant of this. They may not know all of the details; they certainly do not know the spiritual repercussions—but they know the basics. Saul has branded David an outlaw. David used to be a high-ranking general under Saul, and now he is not. However, as the leaders point out here, what better way for David to ingratiate himself to Saul than to double-cross the Philistines in the midst of battle. This is a very logical conclusion; we know that if David suddenly turned on the Philistines and killed every single one of them, that Saul would be thankful for a few days, and then David would be on his crap-list again. However, the Philistines do not know this. They may not be fully aware of the nature of Saul’s fight with David, that it is based solely upon his mental attitude sins exacerbated by his mental illness. They simply know that Saul and David are on the outs with one another and that David could be looking for a way to get back in Saul’s good graces. They don’t realize that this would be futile for David to even try (as he had done on several occasions).

Translation: ...Would [it] not [be] with the heads of these men? Here is what David will give in exchange for Saul’s appreciation: the heads of the Philistine soldiers. This is the viewpoint of the men speaking to Achish; we already know that such an act would only temporarily cause Saul to back off from pursuing David’s life; however, they don’t know this. The fears and suspicions of these Philistine leaders are very reasonable.

What is occurring here is a wonderful out for David. He finds himself in a morally tenuous situation, and God gives him an out. He has been a guest of Achish in the land of the Philistines, and, as such, is beholden to them. Understood well during that period of time what a man’s obligation to serve in the military, something which we do not have an appreciation for in our country. So David was under a moral obligation to serve militarily under Achish. However, he was going to be the next king of Israel. It makes little sense for such a one to go into battle against Israel on the side of their enemies. God delivers David here. God works out all things for good on David’s behalf. As we have discussed, David is not even in fellowship nor is he in God’s geographical will; yet God still takes care of him. We have little or no true appreciation with regards to God’s grace. Most of us still think that, if we are good, God is going to bless us. God gives us multifarious blessings regardless; and God even blesses us in difficulties. Learn from this passage; learn from David’s life; recognize how God works in the life of David, despite the fact that David is outside God’s will right now. These men of the Old Testament are examples to us, lessons to us, so that we might better apprehend God’s grace to us.

The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge concludes: The princes reasoned wisely, according to the common practice of mankind; and it was well for David that they were such good politicians. it was ordered by a gracious Providence that they refused to let David go with them to this battle, in which he must have been either an enemy to his country, or false to his friends and to his trust. Had he fought for the Philistines, he would have fought against God and his country; and had he in the battle gone over to the Israelites, he would have deceived and become a traitor to the hospitable Achish. God therefore delivered him from such disgrace; and by the same kind Providence he was sent back to rescue his wives, and the wives and children of his people, from captivity.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And is not this David who they answer to him in the dancing, to say ‘Has slain Saul in his thousands and David in his ten thousands’?”

Septuagint                             [Is] this not David who they began to celebrate in dances, saying, ‘Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands’?”

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Israelites even dance and sing, "Saul has killed a thousand enemies; David has killed ten thousand enemies!”

The Message                         Isn't this the same David they celebrate at their parties, singing, Saul kills by the thousand, David by the ten thousand!”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Isn't this David of whom people sing in dances: 'Saul has defeated thousands but David tens of thousands'?”

JPS (Tanakh)                        Remember, he is the David of whom they sang as they danced:

Saul has slain his thousands;

David, his tens of thousands.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    Isn't this the David they sing about during their dances: Saul has killed his thousands, but David his tens of thousands?”

Young’s Updated LT             Is not this David, of whom they answer in choruses, saying, ‘Saul has struck down his thousands, and David among his myriads’?”

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistine generals ask Achish if this is the same David that the Israelite women sing about; the song which goes, “Saul has killed thousands; and David tens of thousands.”

Translation: And is this not the David of whom they sing [lit., whom they sing regarding him] in dances,... The men of Philistia were familiar with David. They knew of him by his reputation, which he retained in other countries, despite what Saul did. This word for dances very likely is a part of a celebration.

Translation: ...saying, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands’?” This song which the Jewish women sang quickly became a folk song throughout the land and extended beyond Israel (1Sam. 18:7 21:11). Apparently, this song was known far and wide; at least these few lyrics. There is some irony here, lost on the Philistines (and lost on most casual readers of Scripture as well). It appears as though this song is also what nudged Saul’s jealousy and mental attitude sins against David (see 1Sam. 18:8–15). So, David is there with the Philistines, in part, because of this song. The Philistine leaders do not want him there because of this song.

It is interesting what these men know and don’t know about David. This song to which they refer probably goes back a decade or two (recall, this was sung around the time that David had defeated Goliath). Achish, who probably had David investigated, was aware of his being on the outs with Saul. These Philistine leaders may or may not have been aware that Saul was out to kill David; none of them realize that David is to be king over Israel (even though many Israelites appear to be aware of this, including Saul). None of them know that David’s recent attacks have been against the enemies of Israel and that he has been lying about this to Achish. Like all situations, neither Achish nor these other leaders have all of the facts. The news which they had was quite limited in scope, and they had to make whatever decisions they could based upon what they knew. The decision here was a good and reasonable one, from their viewpoint. It also gets David off the hook, as we have discussed.

Achish Tells David the Decision of the Philistine Generals

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so calls Achish unto David and so he says unto him, “Living Yehowah, for upright you [are] and good in my [two] eyes [in] your going out and your coming in with me in the battle, for I have not found in you evil from a day of your coming in unto me until the day the this. And in [two] eyes of the officers, not good you..

Septuagint                             And Anchus called David, and said to him, “[As] the Lord lives, you [are] upright and approved in my eyes, and your going out and your coming in with me in the army, and I have not found evil to charge against you from the day that you came to me until this day. But you are not approved in the eyes of the lords.

Significant differences:          Not really.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Achish called David over and said: I swear by the living LORD that you've been honest with me, and I want you to fight by my side. I don't think you've done anything wrong from the day you joined me until this very moment. But the other Philistine rulers don't want you to come along.

NLT                                So Achish finally summoned David and his men. “I swear by the Lord,” he told them, “you are some of the finest men I’ve ever met. I think you should go with us, but the other Philistine rulers won’t hear of it.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Then Achish called David and told him, "I solemnly swear, as the LORD lives, you are a dependable man. I consider your campaigning with me a good thing, because I've never found anything wrong with you from the day you came to me until now. But the rulers don't approve of you.

JPS (Tanakh)                        Achish summoned David and said to him, “As the Lord lives, you are an honest man, and I would like to have you serve in my forces; for I have found no fault with you from the day you joined me until now. But you are not acceptable to the other lords.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       Then Achish called David and said to him, "As the LORD lives, you have been honest, and to me it seems right that you should march out and in with me in the campaign. For I have found nothing wrong in you from the day of your coming to me to this day. Nevertheless, the lords do not approve of you.

HCSB                                    So Achish summoned David and told him, "As the LORD lives, you are an honorable man. I think it is good to have you working with me in the camp, because I have found no fault in you from the day you came to me until today. But the leaders don't think you are reliable.

Young's Updated LT              And Achish call unto David, and says unto him, “Jehovah lives, surely you are upright, and good in mine eyes is your going out, and your coming in, with me in the camp, for I have not found in you evil from the day of your coming in unto me till this day; and in the eyes of the princes you are not good.

What is the gist of this verse? Achish calls David over and tells him that he has no problem with David joining them, but that his officers will not hear of it.

Translation: Achish then called to David and said to him, “[As] Y^ehowah [is] alive,... This oath which Achish takes is interesting; we expect such an oath from David or Jonathan or even from Saul; but not from a Philistine. We could suppose that Achish is attempting to be politically correct, but I think this indicates that he is a believer. If he is a believer, there are a number of implications and tangents that we could go on. Why is he going to war against Saul? How could David be a positive influence on Achish if he has been dishonest in his dealings with Achish? What is up with this oath, when David has actually been dishonest with Achish? On the other hand, if Achish is simply being politically correct, then we have no questions, was what he is saying is meaningless. At this point, I am very curious as to the comments by other exegetes.

Translation: ...you [are] upright [or, you (have) integrity]. This is quite interesting that Achish sees David as upright (or as having integrity), when in fact, David has actually been dishonest with him and dishonest about where he has been and what he has been doing. However, unlike the information which Saul received, as to David’s whereabouts, we have not found the same thing with Achish. Achish has trusted David from the beginning, even though it could be argued that David’s time with him has been David’s worst time, his effect upon Achish has been positive for the most part. Again, this is interesting and leaves us wide open for speculation.

Translation: And in my eyes your going out and your coming in with me in the camp [has been] good,... Achish tells David that in all of his observations of David, David’s comings and going have been good. The mention of camp here could refer either to the encampment of the Philistines where they are right here; or to David’s camp in Ziklag. I would assume that Achish is referencing the latter, as it is not clear that David has spent much time with Achish preparing for battle.

So far, David has responded just as he should have responded when Achish called him into battle. He was living on Philistine land, and therefore had some responsibility to the Philistine army. When he was called to serve, he showed up. On the other hand, it appears as though David was outside the geographical will of God; so, even though he did some things which were okay; he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. At no time, did God guide David, through a prophet or through the Ephod, to leave Israel.

Translation: ...for I have not found in you evil from the day you came in to me until this day.... Achish goes on; he apparently has not looked too deep, but David has never turned on Achish and David has never made any attacks on Philistine encampments. So, despite the battles David has engaged in previously against the Philistines, David’s behavior has been good with respect to Achish during this time period. It is almost as though David has been traded from one sport’s franchise to another; at one time he was a rival, and now he is an ally. It is interesting how easily Achish is taken in by David (although David never did plot evil against Achish). It makes me think that Achish is a young man who did not have a previous history in the wars against David. However, this theory ignores the fact that he would have been brought up to hate the Jews; it also brings into question how so young a man could be ruler over one of the five Philistine cities. On the other hand, recall how Saul let the king of the Amalekites live? He seemed to have as much in common with this king as with his own men, and he apparently had some respect for him—this king was his counterpart. Achish may have a similar point of view with David—David may be, in his eyes, his Jewish counterpart. For David to become his ally is a great coup. Again, please realize, I am only thinking aloud here; only speculating.

Recall that Saul accused David of sedition and of turning his own son against him; Achish was probably aware of these charges, and David did nothing of the sort while on Philistine land. So Achish is pleased with this odd alliance that he has with David.

We are never told whether Achish had spies observe David and report back, but, given that Achish does not appear to know that David has lied to him about his exploits, I would think that Achish does not have spies following David (at least, not into battle). At best, Achish has a few observers here or there near Ziklag, who might note when David and his men come and go.

I hope that you can see the irony in what Achish is saying. Achish trusts David implicitly, enough to trust him with his life, while David has lied to him repeatedly. One might even say that David is using Achish. On the other hand, Saul did not trust David at all, taking steps to kill him again and again, even though David’s dealings with Saul have been completely honest and above board.