Outline of Chapter 30:

       vv.    1–5        David and his Men Return to their Camp which was Raided by the Amalekites

       vv.    6–8        David’s Soldiers Turn Against Him/David Turns to God for Guidance

       vv.    9–10      David and His Soldiers Pursue the Amalekites; Some Lack the Strength to Continue

       vv.   11–15      An Abandoned Egyptian Servant Leads David to the Amalekite Raiders

       vv.   16–20      David’s Army Slaughters the Amalekites and Recovers their Women and Property

       vv.   21–25      David Treats Those too Weary to Continue with Grace

       vv.   26–31      David Distributes Much of the Spoil to the Elders in Judah

Charts, Short Doctrines and Maps:

       v.      3           How Did David Get Himself into this Mess?

       v.      6           Strengthening Oneself in the Midst of Tragedy with God’s Word

       v.     29           A Summary of the Doctrine of the Kenites

       v.     30           A Summary of the Doctrine of the City of Hormah

       v.     31           Interpreting the Final Wâw Conjunction

I ntroduction: In 1Sam. 30, we follow David back to his camp where the Amalekites have burned down his tents with fire and have taken all of their women hostage. We know up until this time, David’s spiritual life has been questionable. He does not belong in Philistia; he should not be lying to Achish about his exploits; and he should not be taking his army to fight against Saul and his army. In other words, very little seems right in David’s life at this time. And when we are out of fellowship, and out of fellowship for awhile, we can expect God to bring discipline our way. This is exactly what we find in David’s situation. He and his men have been plundering the people around him and lying to Achish about it—now, it is time for David to suffer a little discipline.

In the previous chapter, Saul has gone to speak to the witch of Endor. This chapter is, more or less, coterminous with that chapter. We have several things occurring at or nearly at the same time. Achish tells David that he needs to assist him in battle, and David agrees to this, bringing his men with him. However, in Aphek, the other rulers of the Philistines object to David being there, and he is sent packing. So while David heads back south, Achish and the rest of the Philistines go north. While David is in transit, an Amalekite army strikes his camp and carries away all of the wives and children (which is the subject of this chapter). About the time David arrives in Ziklag, to find his camp burned to the ground, the Philistines arrive at their destination in Shunem. Saul and his army are gathered in Gilboa, and Saul goes out that night to Endor to speak to this witch. Then, while Saul goes to battle against the Philistines (1Sam. 31), David goes to war against the Amalekites (1Sam. 30). So, you see not only are these chapters not in chronological order, but they could not be in chronological order, as some events are occurring simultaneously. What I will do in the next chapter is lay these events all out, so it is easy to examine them from a chronological perspective (which seems to be the bend of the western mind).

To give you a bit more detail about this chapter: David had joined up with Achish and the rest of the Philistine army in Aphek. The other leaders of Philistine army did not want David fighting together with them, worried that he might, at any time, turn against them. So, as the Philistine soldiers move northward from Aphek to fight Saul, David and his men return to Ziklag (1Sam. 29:11). When they arrived in Ziklag, the found their camp destroyed with fire and all of their women and children gone (1Sam. 30:1). Although they did not know it at the time, the Amalekites who did this did not kill their women and children but took them captive (vv. 2–3). This upset the entire Israeli camp, even to the point of turning against David (vv. 4, 6a). David, however, returns to God and strengthens himself in Jehovah, the God of Israel (v. 6b). He calls upon Abiathar, who has the ephod, and asked him for guidance (vv. 7–8). Almost immediately, 200 of the men could go no further—they were exhausted from their march up to Aphek and then back to Ziklag (vv. 9–10). God left an Egyptian slave behind from the Amalekites for David and his soldiers to find (vv. 11–12). This former slave not only gave David all of the information that he needed, but he led David’s army to the Amalekites (vv. 13–16a). The Amalekites had apparently learned from David, and they had not only struck David’s camp, but probably several others (this is a logical deduction). At the time that David found them, they were having a huge, wild party while they were spread out over the countryside (v. 16a). Even though, these Amalekites were probably formidable warriors, in their drunkenness, they were easy prey for David and his men, who slaughtered all of them except for 400 who escaped (vv. 16b–17). David and his men recovered all that was taken from them and, apparently, a great deal more (vv. 18–20).

Leading and carrying all of this tremendous reward for destroying the Amalekites, David still had to deal with the 200 men who remained behind. Even though David could have ordered their execution, he treated them graciously, allowing them to partake in the loot which he recovered (vv. 21–22). In fact, this became customary from that time on for all of Israel to function in the same way (vv. 23–24).

There was so much additional spoil, much of which was probably taken from the inhabitants of Judah, that David sent it to the elders of Judah (v. 26). In fact, all (or most) of the cities that David shared this loot with are named (vv. 27–31).

Darby gives us a partial summary of previous events as they are tied to this chapter: In chapter 29, God, in His loving-kindness, brings David out of his difficulty by means of the jealousy of the lords of the Philistines. Nevertheless, to maintain his credit with Achish, David falls still lower, it seems to me, and protests that he is quite ready to fight against the enemies of the Philistine king, that is to say, against the people of God. This appears to me the most wretched part of David's life-at any rate, before he was king. God makes him sensible of it; for while he is there, the Amalekites strip him of everything and burn Ziklag, and his followers are ready to stone him. All this is grievous; but the grace of God raises him up again, and the effect of this chastisement is to bring him back to God, for he was ever true to Him in heart. David encouraged himself in Jehovah his God, and inquires of Him what he shall do. What patience, what kindness in God! What care He takes of His people, even while they are turning away from Him! 

Application: When you are in fellowship, in God’s will, it is a black and white world. With a little doctrine, most of your day-to-day decisions are fairly simple to make. You generally do not have to stress about this or that decision. When I was a lot younger, I wondered about a lot of decisions: should I make a left turn or a right turn; should I take this or that route to work; etc.—a lot of very trivial things. Often, charismatics I have known are plagued with trivial decisions which they believe require special signs from God to guide them. With a little doctrine, I found myself less and less concerned with the trivial options in my day. I knew what was right and what was wrong; when I did that which was wrong, I also knew to rebound and get back into fellowship. I have screwed up again and again, but God, in His grace, has allowed me to live and has allowed me to move forward. Furthermore, in my life, there have been relatively few difficult decisions. I know the trend is to leave your volition sensitive to God’s directive will; however, the more doctrine you know, the more time that you are filled with the Holy Spirit, the less you need to concern yourself with what are generally unimportant decisions.

Now, as we watch David, first he is out of God’s geographical will. Next, he is attacking enemies of Israel, but he is lying to Achish. Notice how gray his world has become? Maybe he should and maybe he should not be attacking these heathen; and what should he doe about Achish? Does he tell the truth, and cause Achish to become alarmed? Does he lie and provide some modicum of security for his men. And then David is faced with a very gray area: he is living in Philistia, making him, essentially, a citizen of that nation, making him responsible to Philistia and beholden to Achish. In that situation, David owes some allegiance and service to his country, which is Philistia. So now we find David facing the greyest decision of all: does he serve the country he lives in and fight against Israel; does he refuse to serve his country and not raise his hand against the army of the living God and the king of Israel? See, that is a grey area. The longer David stays out of fellowship, the more grey his decisions become. The longer you stay out of fellowship, the more morally ambiguous your situation will become.

Let’s talk about production and the spiritual life. There are two things you need in your spiritual life: the filling of the Holy Spirit and spiritual growth. Spiritual growth comes through doctrine mixed with faith mixed with the day-to-day life you lead. Doctrine makes your day-to-day decisions easier. There is less grey area for you to be concerned with. Furthermore, your production becomes more meaningful and greater. Let me give you the simplest of analogies: place a baby in the position of a executive and nothing is going to get done. Put a teenager in charge, and once and awhile, something might get done. Put a motivated MBA in charge, and suddenly, a great deal gets accomplished. The training makes all the difference in the world. The growth and maturity makes all the difference in the world. The same is true with the spiritual life. A baby cannot do much of anything. A teenager can do a few things, but they are too focused on themselves. Making intelligent decisions about the spiritual life is rather difficult. The more mature you are, the more you know about God’s plan, the greater your impact and the easier your day-to-day decisions are. Your life has meaning and impact. You are not just a person hanging around sucking up air and crying for food.

Have you noticed that we have gone a few chapters without studying a psalm written by David. There are no psalms that are clearly from this time period. David is spiritually stagnating; he is often out of fellowship; and he livs in a very, very grey world. Do you see the problems here? We have had several chapters where David seems to be unfocused and wandering; along with this, there seems to be no spiritual production. What we would expect is, any day now, God is going to bring down the ax. God is going to discipline David; and David is going to have to get right with God before he continues with his life. That is what this chapter is. David has stagnated, if not retrogressed; and now he is going to have to reverse this direction.

With regards to the various ancient manuscripts, I should point out that the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is based upon the Latin, is completely out of synch with the other Bibles. These first four verses, for instance, are found in the previous chapter of the DRB. There are some verses which are missing entirely (like v. 5). For this reason, I will rarely refer to the Latin when discussing these differences. Furthermore, most of this chapter is missing from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However, apart from the Latin Bible being very out of synch here; the MT and LXX essentially agree. The few places where they do not are insignificant. Furthermore, the Hebrew is fairly easy throughout. We will run into very few phrases where I have to give you my best guess. Furthermore, the various translations seem to be more in synch here than any other chapter in recent memory. Although I offer a variety of English translations with each verse, it is remarkable that they are all so similar.

David and his Men Return to their Camp which was Raided by the Amalekites

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he is in a coming of David and his men [to] Ziklag in the day the third; and Amalekites had spread out unto [the] negeb and unto Ziklag and so they strike Ziklag and so they consume her in the fire.

Septuagint                             And it came to pass when David and his men had entered Sekelac on the third day, that Amalec had made an incursion upon the south, and upon Sekelac, and smitten Sekelac, and burnt it with fire.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       It took David and his men three days to reach Ziklag. But while they had been away, the Amalekites had been raiding in the desert around there. They had attacked Ziklag, burned it to the ground,...

The Message                         Three days later, David and his men arrived back in Ziklag. Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They tore Ziklag to pieces and then burned it down.

NLT                                        Three days later, when David and his men arrived home at their town of Ziklag, they found that the amalekites had made a raid into the Negev and had burned Ziklag to the ground.

REB                                       On the third day David and his men reached Ziklag. In the mean time the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb, attacked Ziklag, and set it on fire.

TEV                                       Two days later David and his men arrived back at Ziklag. The amalekites had raided southern Judah and attacked Ziklag. They had burned down the town...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Two days later, when David and his men came to Ziklag, the Amalekites had raided the Negev, including Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it.

JPS (Tanakh)                        By the time David and his men arrived in Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb and against Ziklag; they had stormed Ziklag and burned it down.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    David and his men arrived in Ziklag on the third day. The Amalekites had raided the Negev and attacked and burned down Ziklag.

Young's Updated LT              And it comes to pass, in the coming in of David and his men to Ziklag, on the third day, that the Amalekites have pushed unto the south, and unto Ziklag, and strike Ziklag, and burn it with fire.

What is the gist of this verse? David and his men returned to their camp in Ziklag, only to discover that the Amalekites had attacked their city and set fire to it.

Translation: And so it came to pass [when] David and his men entered Ziklag... This phrase is sort of a title to this chapter. As mentioned, 1Sam. 29 will diverge into two sections, chapters 30 and 31. One chapter follows David and the other follows Saul. 1Sam. 31 will begin with sort of a meanwhile, back at the ranch beginning.

As I have talked about for sometime, even before I read this chapter, David is out of God’s geographical will and it is only a matter of time before God steps in and deals with David directly. In fact, David and all those who are with him are outside of God’s geographical will, so we should expect that God’s punishment will extend to all of them. For over a year, these men have collected things, provisions and women from their raids on the surrounding heathen. It is not clear at any point that God told David to do this. So here is where the chickens come home to roost. David and all of his men will appear to lose it all at their return to their camp in Ziklag.

Translation: ...on the third day:.. I separated this from the rest of this verse simply because we have two sets of English translations: one has David and his men arriving on the second day, the other on the third (or so it seems). Since David and his men arrive in Ziklag after marching for two days, they arrive on the third day. So, a correct translation would have after two days or on the third day. I would assume that this would have been their march from Aphek down to Ziklag. This is following a march from Ziklag to Aphek with a night’s rest in between.

What follows in vv. 1b–2 is parenthetical. This passage tells us what has happened. In v. 3, the author will restate v. 1a and then tell us what David and his men saw, having given us the background as to what happened in their absence. V. 4 will then tells us what the men did upon entering their camp.

Translation: ...the Amalekites had [begun to] plunder the negeb and Ziklag... The negeb is a designation of the southern portion of Judah as well as that which is south of Judah. These Amalekites, possibly even observing David’s raiding parties, decide to get in on this action themselves. So they began to plunder the souther region and this southern region included Ziklag.

I want to remind you that we discussed Ziklag briefly when Achish handed it over to David and recall that this was actually significantly south of Gath. Achish did not give David the next city over, but put David about 20 miles south of Gath. Although we observed the exchange between David and Achish, it was never clear why Achish put David this far south. It is possible that this was a city which Achish had control over, but it was too far south to constantly oversee.

Barnes: This indicates that Aphek was three days’ march from Ziklag, say about 50 miles, which agrees very well with the probable situation of Aphek. From Ziklag to Shunem would not be less than 80 or 90 miles.

As an aside, we should deal with a possible contradiction here. In 1Sam. 27:8–9, David attacks the Amalekites, among others, takes all of their things, and does not leave anyone alive in their camp. So, how is it that the Amalekites are able to strike David’s camp if he has already killed them all? There are three possible options here. The first possibility is that David struck the Amalekite camp while the Amalekites were out plundering another city themselves. Therefore, their camp would be vulnerable, and easy to plunder. It is possible that their attack on David is payback. The second possible explanation is, Saul, when he attacked and plundered the Amalekites way back in 1Sam. 15, allowed his men to take some of the things which belonged to the Amalekites. Even though they were supposed to destroy all of the Amalekites, they got their eyes on the possessions of the Amalekites and the Amalekites scattered in several directions. Therefore, what we have here is a different group of Amalekites than those who were struck by David. The 3^rd possibility is, even though Saul struck one centralized group of Amalekites and David struck a particular encampment of them, there were Amalekite settlements or encampments all over the Negev (southern Judah and southern Philistia). Any one of these three explanations makes sense, so there is no reason to assume that there is a contradiction here.

Translation: ...and they struck Ziklag... While attacking various portions of southern Judah, the Amalekites came upon a city which was unfortified and had no men: Ziklag. David and all of his men (maybe a couple remained behind; however, there is no evidence of that) were off with Achish, doing that which was inappropriate. When Achish summoned David, David should have told him, “I realize we are in your debt; but I cannot fight against my own people Israel.” Prior to that, David should not have lied about fighting against Israel in the first place. We may reasonably suppose that Achish asked David to join him based upon these supposed raids against his fellow Israelites. So, David’s lies had led him into the murky situation. As I mentioned in the preface, the further you get away from God, the murkier or murkier your world becomes. Moral choices no longer are black and white, but become very difficult calls.

You will recall that King Saul originally struck the Amalekites as God had told him to, but he did not wipe them all out as God told him to. Apparently, while Saul’s men got caught up in taking their possessions, many of them escaped. This is apparently a large group of them who became very mobile after that. I don’t know if their observation of David and his plundering suggested to them that they should do the same, or if this was just a very common practice in the ancient world. However, we will see that David will recover so much plunder from them, that we can reasonably deduce that the Amalekites had been striking city after city, camp after camp, for some time now.

Also, don’t forget, the Amalekites had been struck by David as well (1Sam. 27:8). No doubt this was payback and no doubt that the Amalekites watched David’s camp carefully, waiting for any sign of weakness.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: While the strength of the Philistine forces was poured out of their country into the plain of Esdraelon, the Amalekite marauders seized the opportunity of the defenseless state of Philistia to invade the southern territory. Of course, David's town suffered from the ravages of these nomad plunderers, in revenge for his recent raid upon their territory.

Clarke: These were, doubtless, a traveling predatory horde, who, availing themselves of the war between the Philistines and the Israelites, plundered several unprotected towns, and among them Ziklag. It is likely they had not heard of what David did to some of their tribes, else they would have avenged themselves by slaying all they found in Ziklag.

Personally, I would not be surprised had they known what David had done—and the kidnaping of their women and children was more of a practical consideration rather than one of vengeance. They had no idea that David would return this quickly from the war between the Philistines and the Israelites—I imagine that they had spies set up to watch his camp for an opportunity like this. Gill suggests that the distance is 88 miles. My Bible atlas has this at closer to 50 miles, which is more in line with the geography that we are given as well as the time line of David’s march.

Translation: ...and burned it with fire. These Amalekites hate Israel, and they have a reason to. God had instructed Israel to destroy the Amalekites. Israel had struck them several times; David had as well. The mutual hatred between these two peoples would survive for centuries, even to the time of Esther and the Persian displacement of Israel (and when those times are recalled today, Jews will still hiss the evil man Haman, who sought to destroy every Jews in Persia).

Several commentators attribute this attack to the Amalekites taking vengeance on David specifically for his attacks against them (1Sam. 27:8). We do not really know how closely tied these Amalekites are to one another. That is, was there any direct connection between these various roving bands of Amalekites? When David struck a camp, he would wipe them all out. Therefore, it is not necessarily so that these Amalekites are striking David because of what he has done to another faction of them.

By the way, if you had any doubts about whether David should live there or not, what do you think now? God has allowed the Amalekites to burn down where David and his men were living—doesn’t that tell you something?

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so they take captive the women who [are] in her from small [or, young] as far as great. They did not kill a man and so they carry off and so they go their way.

Peshitta                                 And they had taken captive all the people who were in them, both the small and the great; and they put to death the men of war; and they took the spoil and went on their way.

Septuagint                             And as to the women and all things that were in it, great and small, they killed neither man nor woman, but carried them captives, and went on their way.

Significant differences:           The Hebrew lacks and all, which is found in the LXX. The Peshitta presents an entirely different story. According to the Peshitta, David apparently left some men behind and the Amalekites killed all of them, and then took the spoil (which apparently included the women from the camp). None were killed in the LXX or MT versions. The Latin, by the way, is in agreement with the MT.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       ...and had taken away the women and children.

The Message                         They captured all the women, young and old. They didn't kill anyone, but drove them like a herd of cattle.

NLT                                        They had carried off the women and children and everyone else but without killing anyone.

REB                                       They had taken captive all the women, young and old. They did not put any to death, but carried them off as they continued their march.

TEV                                       ...and captured all the women; they had not killed anyone, but had taken everyone with them when they left.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Although they captured the young and old women who were there, they killed no one. Instead, they had taken the women and other prisoners and gone away.

JPS (Tanakh)                        They had taken the women in it captive, low-born and high-born alike; they did not kill any, but carried them off and went their way.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Updated Emphasized Bible   ...and had taken captive the women and all [as per the Septuagint] who were there │from the small to the great│. They had not put anyone to death, but they had driven them out and gone their way.

HCSB                                    They also had kidnapped the women and everyone in it from the youngest to the oldest. They had killed no one but had carried them off as they went on their way.

WEB                                      ...and had taken captive the women and all who were therein, both small and great: they didn't kill any, but carried them off, and went their way.

Young's Updated LT              ...and they take captive the women who are in it; from small unto great they have not put any one to death, and they lead away, and go on their way.

What is the gist of this verse? The Amalekites did not kill any of the inhabitants of David’s camp; they carried all of them away captive.

Translation: They also took away captive the women who [were] in Ziklag... The Amalekites, like any group of male soldiers, are going to take an interest in the women. When they find a camp filled with women, it is just like they struck gold. Realize that when God told Israel that they had to completely destroy a people, this was not always an easy thing to do. However, I hope you can see by this incident alone that it was necessary for Saul to have destroyed all of the Amalekites.

The perks of a soldier were the things which belonged to their conquered enemies—including their women. As we know, David and his men did not set up a farming community; they went out and attacked others and took from them. David had two wives and apparently many of his men chose wives as well, probably from the people that they conquered in battle. So, when the Amalekites came across a camp with material possessions and women and few if any men, this was a great find for them.

Translation:... [lit., her], both small and great,... This is a little more difficult to interpret. It does not say young and old; although it could be taken to read young and great. My take on this was, the Amalekites took everyone there; from the small, young children to the wives of David, who were obviously of a royal bend. They would have occupied the largest tent with the most stuff. The idea is to contrast the smallest children with the royal wives of David, and to indicate that the Amalekites took all of them captive.

Translation: ...[and] they killed no one. What Israel did was quite unusual among the people of that time—destroying an entire population along with all of their things. What we find here was more standard among the heathen. Since there were few if any men, these Amalekites took everything. This was their payday, the things which they took when they plundered another people. Killing a woman or a child was like burning your paycheck.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: But their apparent clemency did not arise from humane considerations. It is traceable to the ancient war usages of the East, where the men of war, on the capture of a city, were unsparingly put to death, but there were no warriors in Ziklag at the time. The women and boys were reserved for slaves, and the old people were spared out of respect to age. In the case of David’s camp, I do not believe that we are dealing with any old people. David’s leading of this band of men probably continued for a period of roughly 10 years, or perhaps less.

Translation:....They carried [them] away and went on their way. This was the movement of the Amalekites into the southern areas of Judah and Philistia. They destroyed David’s camp in Ziklag and took off with all of their things. It does not appear as though these Amalekites had any permanent home since the attack of Saul in 1Sam. 15. Apparently they would take whatever they found with them and retire temporarily to a new encampment.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so comes in David and his men unto the city and behold, consumed in the fire. And their women and their sons and their daughters had been taken captive.

Septuagint                             And David and his men came into the city, and, behold, it was burnt with fire; and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters were carried captive.

Significant differences:           None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       When David and his men came to Ziklag, they saw the burned-out ruins and learned that their families had been taken captive.

The Message                         By the time David and his men entered the village, it had been burned to the ground, and their wives, sons, and daughters all taken prisoner.

NLT                                        When David and his men saw the ruins and realized what had happened to their families,...

TEV                                       When David and his men arrived, they found that the town had been burned down and that their wives, sons, and daughters had been carried away.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         By the time David and his men came to the town, it had been burned down, and their wives, sons, and daughters had been taken captive.

HCSB                                    When David and his men arrived at the town, they found it burned down. Their wives, sons, and daughters had been kidnapped.

JPS (Tanakh)                        When David and his men came to the town and found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive,...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Young's Updated LT              And David comes in—and his men—unto the city, and lo, burnt with fire, and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters have been taken captive.

What is the gist of this verse? When David and his men arrived at their encampment, they could see that it had been burned to the ground and that their women and children had been taken.

Translation: So David and his men came to the encampment... Even though the verb is singular, this is a very common approach in the Hebrew. Actually, it is David who enters into the city; and his men are then added as sort of an afterthought. It is his leadership which is being emphasized here.

Even thought some translators may have rendered this city, we really don’t know if David and his men had anything set up which resembled a city. My guess is, the most they had set up was semi-permanent tents. However, bear in mind that David’s idea was probably to wait Saul out while living in Philistia. For all he knew, this could take several years. Therefore, there may have been more permanent structures here. On the other hand, David and his men had been going out and raiding other groups of people in this general area, so they may not have devoted a lot of time to settling in yet. After all, they had only been in this site for a little over a year.

This also picks up the narrative from v. 1a. If you will recall, vv. 1b–2 were parenthetical. What had happened while David was gone is told to us in those verses, something which David pieced together later. This now tells us what David and his men saw as they entered into their camp.

Translation: ...and, observe, [it had been] consumed by fire. What these men find shocks them and shakes them to their very souls. I don’t believe that David or his men thought too deeply about what they had been doing. They had lied to Achish about who they were attacking; they became allied with Achish, a Philistine king, as opposed to being allied with Israel; and when called to go to war with Achish, they were so obligated. In other words, what they had been doing was wrong, and they did not seem to give thought to this.

Translation: Also, their women, sons and daughters had been taken away captive. As mentioned, one of the primary reasons for an attack was to take away those things which belong to the loser. These greedy Amalekites wanted everything that David and his men had.

Edersheim aptly describes what David and his men came to find: It was the third day when the Hebrews reached their Philistine home. But what a sight greeted them here! Broken walls, blackened ruins, and the desolateness of utter silence all around! The Amalekites had indeed taken vengeance for David’s repeated raids upon them (1Sam. 27:8). They had made an incursion into the Negeb, or south country, and specially upon Ziklag. In the absence of its defenders, the place fell an easy prey. After laying it waste, the Amalekites took with them all the women and children, as well as the cattle, and any other booty on which they could lay hands. It was a terrible surprise...[for] David and his men.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so lifts up David and the people who [were] with him their voice and so they weep until that [there is] not in them strength to weep.

Septuagint                             And David and his men lifted up their voice, and wept till there was no longer any power within them to weep.

Significant differences:           None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       They started crying and kept it up until they were too weak to cry any more.

The Message                         David and his men burst out in loud wails—wept and wept until they were exhausted with weeping.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Then David and his men cried loudly until they didn't have the strength to cry anymore.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       Then David and the people who were with him raised their voices and wept until they had no more strength to weep.

Young's Updated LT              And David lifts up—and the people who are with him—their voice and weep, until that they have no power to weep.

What is the gist of this verse? David and his men all cry until they are without the ability to cry any more. .

Translation: Then David and the people who [were] with him lifted up their voices... David and these men had functioned for over a year thinking that there were no consequences for their actions. David was out of fellowship much of the time and he did not appear to give God’s directives any consideration. What I think happened was: David had hit a stride as a leader. He had a lot of problems in Israel with Saul, but as a leader, he was commanding a motivated and well-run military unit; therefore, he gave little thought to the spiritual aspects of his life, as his life seemed to be on the right track. Now, don’t get me wrong—perhaps David should have continued to attack the heathen groups that he was attacking. The point is, he was in the wrong place, he was lying, and he was to the point that he was willing to take his men and fight against the armies of the Living God. As we have discussed before, David is clearly out of God’s plan. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before God holds him accountable for this.

What we will find in this chapter is something which we have not seen for awhile: the Ephod of God. David asks for God to give him direction, something which has not been a part of his life since he left Israel. In vv. 6b–7, it will be clear that David is getting back into fellowship, which certainly tells us that he has not been in fellowship for awhile.

Translation: ...and they wept until [there] was no more strength in them to weep. For a year, David and his men had enjoyed a respite from Saul. They could settle in. Many of them had women. All of them had possessions which they had taken as the spoil of war. Life was good to them. All of a sudden, every important material possession along with their women were gone. Seemingly, their world had completely and totally fallen apart.

Application: David has experienced a spiritual setback which has sent him into an emotional spiral. However, we are going to see that he does not linger there. He does not allow circumstances to overwhelm him. Well, first, he will—he will cry until he can no longer cry—but then he will get up, dust himself off, and move ahead spiritually. We may be the poorest excuse on this planet for human beings; however, we can always get up, dust ourselves off, and depend upon God for direction, guidance and support (unless we are under the sin unto death, of course).

Application: This does require some positive volition on our parts. That is, we don’t pick ourselves off the ground and say, “God, use me” nor do we walk to the nearest Sunday school and offer our services. Let me give you an analogous situation: someone has been living on the streets, shooting heroin and drinking huge quantities of alcohol, and then one day he sobers up. That person just can’t walk on over to NASA the next day and say, “I am ready to serve man and become an astronaut.” There is some training and some growth involved here. It is the same for the Christian life—a new believer or a recovered reversionist does not suddenly walk from their lives of sin to a pulpit (which is literally done in some churches). We begin with the basics: we get into fellowship by naming our sins to God and we get on Bible doctrine on a daily basis. In the analogy which I presented, this is the addict getting clean and going to college (or receiving training).

David is not a new believer. He has grown spiritually for a long time and he took a hiatus in Ziklag. So David is not starting from zero. Nevertheless, as we will see in v. 6b, David will strengthen himself in God—this means, rebound, doctrine and probably prayer.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Peshitta                                 And a pair of wives of David had been taken captive: Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail a wife of Nabal, the Carmelite.

Septuagint                             And both the wives of David were carried captive, Achinaam, the Jezraelitess, and Abigaia the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David's two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, had been taken captive with everyone else.

The Message                         David's two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail widow of Nabal of Carmel, had been taken prisoner along with the rest.

NLT                                        David’s two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel, were among those captured.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Amalekites also captured David's two wives, Ahinoam from Jezreel and Abigail (who had been Nabal's wife) from Carmel.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    David's two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelite and Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite, had also been kidnapped.

MKJV                                     And David's two wives had been seized, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail, the former wife of Nabal of Carmel.

Young's Literal Translation    And the two wives of David have been taken captive, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail wife of Nabal the Carmelite;.

What is the gist of this verse? David’s two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, had been taken captive as well.

Translation: Also David’s two wives had been taken captive:... We are told back in 1Sam. 27:3 that each man set up a household when living in Gath, indicating that they were no longer all bunking together in the same cave. David’s household included these two wives, both taken hostage by the Amalekites.

Translation: ...Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail, the widow [lit., wife] of Nabal the Carmelite. These are David’s two wives, both named in almost exactly this same way in 1Sam. 27:4, where we covered them in more detail. The only difference between the two passages is, Carmelite is in the masculine form here and in the feminine form in 1Sam. 27:4.

Matthew Henry comments: The mention of David's wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, and their being carried captive, intimates that this circumstance went nearer his heart than any thing else. Note, It is no disparagement to the boldest and bravest spirits to lament the calamities of relations and friends.

A reasonable question is, why do we have this verse? We have already been told that all of the women and children had been taken captive—isn’t this redundant? We should ask ourselves two things when we come across a passage like this: why did the author include it and then why did God the Holy Spirit include it? Scripture is a melding of the work of men, who wrote in accordance with their own vocabulary, their own emotions, their own literary style, their own background while we carried along by God the Holy Spirit. The words of Scripture are the words of the authors that wrote them as well as being God-breathed.

I believe that David wrote the book of Samuel, although he certainly used some source material; and the first dozen or so chapters were probably written by Samuel. Therefore, David, as the author, is going to include this information about his wives because this had a powerful impact upon him. He had two wives whom he loved and was devastated by this turn of events himself. He was not untouched by this tragedy.

Now, from the divine side: David has been out of God’s geographical will and out of fellowship as well for some time now. God had to get David’s attention, and this is how He did it. Suddenly, David had sunk to the lowest depths and, on top of that, he will be blamed for this situation. What is clear is, David must either be destroyed by this turn of events or he must emerge as a great leader. In this narrative, God the Holy Spirit makes it clear to us when David gets back into fellowship with God and how this turns everything around.

Matthew Henry makes some additional comments: 1. This trouble came upon them when they were absent. It was the ancient policy of Amalek to take Israel at an advantage. 2. This trouble met them at their return. Note, when we go abroad [by getting out of fellowship] we cannot foresee what evil tidings may meet us when we come home again. The going out may be very cheerful, and yet the coming in be very doleful. Do not boast to yourself of tomorrow, nor of tonight either, for you do not know what a day, or even a portion of a day, may bring forth (Prov. 27:1). If, when we come off a journey, we find our home in peace, and not laid waste as David here found his, let the Lord be praised for it.

David's Soldiers Turn Against Him/David Turns to God for Guidance

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so she presses to David greatly for spoke the people to stone him for was bitter a soul all the people a man upon his sons and upon his daughters. And so strengthens himself David in Yehowah his Elohim.

Septuagint                             And David was greatly distressed, because the people spoke of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, each for his sons and his daughters: but David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David was desperate. His soldiers were so upset over what had happened to their sons and daughters that they were thinking about stoning David to death. But he felt the LORD God giving him strength,...

The Message                         And suddenly David was in even worse trouble. There was talk among the men, bitter over the loss of their families, of stoning him. David strengthened himself with trust in his GOD.

NLT                                        David was now in serious trouble because his men were very bitter about losing their wives and children, and they began to talk of stoning him. But David found strength in the Lord his God.

REB                                       David was in a desperate position because the troops, embittered by the loss of their sons and daughters, threatened to stone him.

David sought strength in the Lord his God,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David was in great distress because the people in their bitterness said he should be stoned. (They were thinking of their sons and daughters. But David found strength in the LORD his God.)

JPS (Tanakh)                        David was in great danger, for the troops threatened to stone him; for all the troops were embittered on account of their sons and daughters.

But David sought strength in the Lord his God.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB                                    David was in a difficult position because the troops talked about stoning him, for they were all very bitter over the loss of their sons and daughters. But David found strength in the LORD his God.

Young's Updated LT              And David has great distress, for the people have said to stone him, for the soul of all the people has been bitter, each for his sons and for his daughters; and David does strengthen himself in Jehovah his God.

What is the gist of this verse? The soldiers were upset over losing their children here, and determined to stone David, as their leader, for this turn of events. David is very upset over these same things and over the people turning against him, so he turns to God and strengthens himself in God.

Translation: And it distressed David greatly... Until now, David was probably feeling pretty good as a leader; he felt as though he had guided his men safely away from Saul and that he had pulled the wool over the eyes of Achish; but suddenly, David fell to rock bottom. His world had been taken from him; his leadership was under attacked; he was greatly stressed. No song and dance, no lie, no moving from here to there would solve this situation that he found himself in. If David were a boxer, he would have been soundly floored with an unexpected blow to the head. He is not knocked out, but he is reeling.

Translation: ...because the people spoke to stone him... His soldiers were very upset. It is interesting; throughout most of the previous chapters, these are called David’s men. However, through this portion of the chapter, they are simply called the people, the companions. There is no personal pronoun attached. These men are mad at David and they want to vent their anger against him. So they speak of stoning him, which behavior is not atypical for Israelites (compare Ex. 17:4 Num. 14:10).

I want you to notice something here: David is distressed more than anyone else (or, let’s say, he has more reason to be upset than anyone else). Not only has he suffered the loss of his wives, but his soldiers have turned on him. When you have great authority, you also take on great responsibilities.

As put by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: David was greatly distressed, not only on his own personal account (1Sam. 30:5), but on account of the vehement outcry and insurrectionary threats against him for having left the place so defenseless that the families of his men fell an unresisting prey to the enemy. Under the pressure of so unexpected and widespread a calamity, of which he was upbraided as the indirect occasion, the spirit of any other leader guided by ordinary motives would have sunk.

Application: You might think you need to be in power; that you need to be in charge; that you know how to do it better than anyone who is over you. In truth, we are all lucky that you are not in charge of anything. If all you associate with authority is being able to do things differently and being able to tell others what they should be doing, then you don’t have the first clue about authority.

These men held David responsible for the events which transpired, as well they should. Now, executing David may be entirely improper, but realize, we are dealing with a mob here. This is a group of men who have just lost their wives and children and the only person they have to blame is David—he is the only person right there that they can deal with. So things could turn ugly.

Don’t misunderstand in this—I am not saying that these soldiers are justified in what they want to do. There is talk of stoning David, and, if David cannot turn things around quickly, he will be taken out of this world by a mob execution (not a reference to the Cosa Nostra). The things a mob can do exhibit the ugliest, lowest forms of human behavior. I have observed mob behavior at a jail before; I have seen it on television with police versus demonstrators (on both sides). Many of us have observed riots on television in various cities where portions of a city are burned and destroyed and looted. We have seen it over and over again in our history where men have been lynched by a mob, apart from a formal trial. I have witnessed firsthand mob behavior on a picket line. I have read about the rape of murder of two girls performed by a mob of young boys. I have even seen mob behavior in a group of parents at school.

Let me give a concrete, day-to-day illustration. As a teacher, I was a difficult, exacting teacher. I expected a lot from my students and even more from my honors students. One year, about the 3^rd or 4^th day of school, a small mob of parents showed up in the counselors office demanding that their kids be moved out of my class. Their children—honors students—had been in my class for only one or two days —that’s it—and these parents were hysterical. The counselors refused to deal with them as a mob, and we later dealt with the parents one set at a time, along with their kids. Two daughters in particular (from what I could tell) had set this in motion and manipulated their parents into gathering other parents. When all was said and done, these two girls remained in my class, both actually did quite well; but, not only had their parents undermined my authority to a great degree (which took some work to gain back), but they undermined their own authority by being so easily manipulated into a mob-type action. Since this mob was dispersed early on, all was not lost. However, I would have been able to take these kids further intellectually had the parents not allowed themselves to be manipulated by their children into becoming a mob. By the way, unless these parents learned from their evil actions, I don’t know of any good which came out of this mob behavior. I did not lower my expectations and I don’t feel as though I got the full cooperation of the students for a few days because of all this.

In the past, what happened was, if I seemed to be too difficult a teacher for a student, the parents would come in to talk (after setting an appointment, by the way—they would not just barge in demanding changes). They would not impugn my character or teaching methods and they would not request a transfer to an easier teacher. Our discussion would center on what we could all do in order to help their son or daughter to do well in my class. That meant, what could they do, what could their son or daughter do, and what would I be willing to do. In those days, we did not talk of lowering my expectations, we did not speak of moving the child to an easier teacher; we spoke of bringing their child up to my expectations, and the parents were willing to do their part in order to achieve this. Throughout the years, I have had easily a hundred students who were concerned about their grades and who worked hand-in-hand with me and their parents to excel. From an academic perspective, these are the students who got the most out of my classes. I recall one year, the highest grade I had in a set of classes was made by a young lady, a basketball player, who was very concerned at the beginning of the course about her grade and about whether she could even pass my class. She went from this kind of concern to the highest grade of, if I recall correctly, about 80 students.

Application: Do not ever get caught up in a mob of any sort. When your volition submits to the volition of the mob, you may do things that go against everything that you believe. Now, I realize that most of you will never be caught up in a lynch mob or a mob which destroys public and private property. However, this is not the only kind of mob there is. When you are involved in a group of people who shout down the opposition or make demands as a group, all apart from discussion, debate and reflection; then you are part of a mob subject to mob dynamics and behavior. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that you are out of fellowship.

Application: We live in a country where assembly and protest are a part of our tradition; and I am not saying that you cannot get involved in this march or that demonstration. Although I do not personally believe in political solutions, let’s just put that aside for a moment and assume you are going to become a part of some march or some demonstration. You have to remain in fellowship the entire time, and the moment you see mob behavior being exhibited (e.g., shouting down the opposition; any destruction of personal property; any trampling of the individual rights of another), then you separate from that mob. We are not here to make Satan’s world a nicer world to live in. God did not call us to make a paradise out of this world. God did not call us to turn this world into a Garden of Eden. None of this is going to happen. God called us to evangelize and to learn the Word of God and to spread the Word of God.

Translation: ...for all the people were embittered [in] soul;... David’s soldiers were embittered in their souls. All they could think is, they lost all that they had and David was the cause. These men were ready to kill David then and there. Remember, this is a group of men who are not the kind who just go along with whoever is in power. When faced with the situation they faced that day, they were ready to end David’s life, if for no other reason than personal satisfaction.

By the way, this phrase is key in understanding the motivation of these men. They are motivated by mental attitude sins. They have not thought this through; they have not weighed the options; they have not stopped to think that maybe they are to blame as well. They are bitter over what has happened and they want a scape goat. They want David to suffer as they are suffering.

Translation: ...each [one] because of his sons and because of his daughters. The reason these men were so upset was because all of their sons and daughters were gone. As far as they knew, their children had been killed. Nothing can cause a parent more pain than to think his children had been killed. David, as their leader and guide, was responsible for this in their eyes—and to some extent, he was.

Matthew Henry summarizes this first portion of v. 6: The mutiny and murmuring of David's men against him (1Sam. 30:6): David was greatly distressed, for, in the midst of all his losses, his own people spoke of stoning him, 1. Because they looked upon him as the occasion of their calamities, by the provocation he had given the Amalekites, and his indiscretion in leaving Ziklag without a garrison in it. Thus apt are we, when we are in trouble, to fly into a rage against those who are in any way the occasion of our trouble, while we overlook the divine providence, and have not that regard to the operations of God's hand in it which would silence our passions, and make us patient. 2. Because now they began to despair of that preferment which they had promised themselves in following David. They hoped that in this to have been all princes; and now to find themselves all beggars was such a disappointment to them as made them grow outrageous, and threaten the life of him on whom, under God, they had the greatest dependence. What absurdities will not ungoverned passions plunge men into? This was a sore trial to the man after God's own heart, and could not but go very near him. Saul had driven him from his country, the Philistines had driven him from their camp, the Amalekites had plundered his city, his wives were taken prisoners, and now, to complete his woe, his own familiar friends, in whom he trusted, whom he had sheltered, and who did eat of his bread, instead of sympathizing with him and offering him any relief, lifted up the heel against him and threatened to stone him. Great faith must expect such severe exercises.

Translation: ...So David strengthened himself in Y^ehowah his Elohim. Here is another turning point in David’s life. He can go nowhere else but to God for strength and encouragement. We are not 100% certain of the mechanics here, as none are given. No doubt, David did confess his personal sins to God; whether he prayed or read from the Law or read from his psalms, or even wrote a psalm, we do not know. However, David did have enough doctrine in his soul to faith-rest at this point.

Now look back on v. 5: I had posed the question, why did David and why did God the Holy Spirit include the fact that David’s two wives had been taken? Let me give you a better answer now: this indicates that David was in the exact same situation has his men. He lost his wives as well. He had reason himself to be upset and irrational. He had reason to react as his men did (possibly even to the point of taking his own life in despair); but David does not. David strengthens himself in God. David reacts to the pressures of life as he should—by strengthening himself in God.

As Matthew Henry points out: Those that have taken the Lord for their God may take encouragement from their relation to him in the worst of times. It is the duty and interest of all good people, whatever happens, to encourage themselves in God as their Lord and their God, assuring themselves that he can and will bring light out of darkness, peace out of trouble, and good out of evil.

Although I do not want to break up this narrative, at the end of this chapter, I believe we will go to Psalm 118 and 143 to attempt to capture David’s feelings at this point in time. I don’t know if either psalm was written around this time (or even if David wrote Psalm 118); but they are indicative of David’s situation at least.

Notice the contrast between David and his men. All had been struck by the same fate. All the married men lost their wives and children; David lost two wives. All were grieved and cried until they could cry no more. But here is where the similarity ends—David’s men sought to take this out on a scapegoat. They could blame David (which is not completely unfair) and they could execute him; or mutiny against him. Now, think about this: where would this get them? How would this solve anything? Once David was stoned to death, what would be their next move? These men did not think past that. They had their grief and their anger. They had exercised their grief and now, they wanted to exercise their anger. However, when all is said and done, if they stoned David, they will now be without a leader, and less likely able to recover their families. David, on the other hand, not only faces grief, but faces being killed by his own men. His situation is even more bleak. However, as we are often forced to do under great pressure, David looked to God. Recall that, sometimes, the only way God can get your attention is to put you under great pressure; plunge you into great pain; make you face tremendous difficulties. There is no telling how long David would have continued in this way—out of God’s geographical will, out of fellowship—as long as things went well. He has a good life here. He and his men had their families. They raided various heathen groups and took all of their food and possessions. They were no longer threatened by Saul. This meant that David remained out of fellowship for a long time. God had to get David’s attention: God first put David in a morally ambiguous situation, for which David had nothing he could do to extricate himself from this situation; then God had the Amalekites raid David’s camp and take away the women and children. Sometimes, God has to act with great drama to get our attention. Most of us, if life was good, if we got whatever we wanted in life, then we would give little or no thought to God.

Application: Don’t make God have to get your attention through some terrible tragedy. Stay in fellowship and keep on learning the Word of God. If you get so caught up in life that you forget your relationship to God, then expect something horrendous to go wrong in order to get your attention. You may lose your job, you may lose your savings, your home may be flooded, a family member may get a terrible disease. There are enough trials and tribulations that we will go through in this life. Don’t add to these by shutting God out of your life. God might be disciplining you and God might be testing you; but, in either case, God is right there.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says David unto Abiathar the priest, son of Ahimelech, “Bring please to me the Ephod.” And so brings Abiathar the Ephod unto David.

Septuagint                             And David said to Abiathar the priest the son of Achimelech, Bring near the ephod.

Significant differences:          The Alexandrian LXX, the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta and the MT all contain the second sentence So Abiathar brought the Ephod to David. This sentence is missing from the LXX.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       ...and he said to the priest, "Abiathar, let's ask God what to do." Abiathar brought everything he needed to get answers from God, and he went over to David.

.

The Message                         He ordered Abiathar the priest, son of Ahimelech, "Bring me the Ephod so I can consult God." Abiathar brought it to David.

.

REB                                       ...and told Abiathar the priest, son of Abimelech, to bring the ephod. When Abiathar had brought the ephod,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David told the priest Abiathar, Ahimelech's son, "Please bring me the priestly ephod." So Abiathar brought David the ephod.

.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Keil and Delitzsch (revised)   David said to the priest Abiathar son of Ahimelech, “Bring the ephod up to me.” When Abiathar brought up the ephod to David,...

Young's Updated LT              And David says unto Abiathar the priest, son of Ahimelech, `Bring near, I pray you, to me the ephod;' and Abiathar brings near the ephod unto David,

.

What is the gist of this verse? For the first time since 1Sam. 23:9, David calls for Abiathar the priest to bring the ephod near to him.

Translation: David then said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech,... After David had rebounded and then prayed to God and/or studied God’s Word, he needed guidance. One of the wonderful things about David is, he observes no miracles, God does not speak to David directly; but he still looks to God for guidance. David goes to God through an intermediary, the young priest Abiathar, who will make it possible for David to know God’s will.

In case you don’t recall, Saul executed all of the priests at Nob (at least, those in line for the High Priesthood) and only Abiathar got away (1Sam. 22). He escaped to David and brought with him the Ephod of God (1Sam. 23:6). Interestingly enough, the last time that we know David called for the Ephod was 1Sam. 23:9—although, it is possible that he asked for it since then, there are no recorded circumstances where David actually made use of the Ephod. On the other hand, that does not mean that David has been out of fellowship since 1Sam. 23—we have a number of incidents where David chose to do the right thing by Saul. Our first inkling that David is out of fellowship is when he moves to Philistia—which state of dis-fellowship, he is about to rectify.

I hope that you are struck with the contrast between this chapter and 1Sam. 28. In that chapter, Saul could not communicate with God in any way, so he went to a medium and called for Samuel to come back from the grave to help guide him. Samuel does not really guide Saul, per se, but just tells him what will come to pass. David goes to a priest, who represents Jesus Christ, and the priest guides David in what to do. One of the significant differences between David and Saul is, when David made a mistake, he was willing to admit it and move on; when David received direction from God, he followed that direction. When Saul made a mistake, he rationalized it; when God told him what to do, sometimes Saul did it, sometimes he did it half way, and sometimes he just did not do what God mandated that he do.

Translation: ...“Please bring the Ephod to me.” Recall that the Ephod was part of the priest’s outfit which apparently seemed to give a yes or no answer to whomever inquired of God through it. Most agree that these were shoulder pads and whichever one lit up indicated which answer God indicated.

Please recall that we examined the Doctrine of the Ephod (PDF version) in 1Sam. 23:6.

By the way, you will notice a marked difference between Saul and David when it came to the Ephod. Saul called for the priest and the Ephod in 1Sam. 14:18, but then he never asked any questions. He was not really that concerned with being guided by God. Instead, he makes a stupid vow. David will call for the Ephod and he will ask of God what he should do and then he will do whatever God requires him to do.

Application: Now, maybe you are in difficult circumstances right now and your comment is, well, hell, if I had an ephod, I’d damn sure know what to do as well! You have the completed canon of Scripture. Access today to outstanding Bible teaching is as easy as finding a drink of water. God’s Word is capable of guiding you; a good teacher, through the teaching of God’s Word, is every bit as good the having the Ephod of God. If you don’t know this, then you do not know the Word of God.

One commentator (Matthew Henry ) asks why David did not consult the Ephod before joining up with Achish in Aphek. I hope for you, this is a simple answer: David was out of fellowship—he is not going to ask God’s guidance when he is out of fellowship. Now, his conscious thinking is probably not, “I’m out of fellowship, so I am not going to ask God what to do.” His conscious thinking is probably, “Well, yeah, I should join up with Achish; how can I refuse my host?” To consult God is not on the forefront of David’s thinking until v. 6b of this chapter.

Translation: So Abiathar brought the Ephod to David. Abiathar rescued the Ephod when Saul came and massacred the priests at Nob. He escaped with his life and the Ephod and knew to come to David.

This also tells us something that we would have assumed: Abiathar accompanied David to Aphek to meet up with Achish. Even though he was a very young man (my guess is early or mid-teens), David took with him all young men who could fight. We are never told a cut off age; my guess is somewhere around 12–14 would have been the cut off age between a child and a very young adult (depending upon the circumstances).

Now, bear in mind, David and his men have been together for perhaps ten years. This is also an estimation. Although it is possible that some of these men came to David with families, there is no mention of that. However, just as David did, we may assume that these men got married as they were on the run from Saul. Therefore, the cut off age between children and adults was an easy call here. All of the children would have been under 10 years of age; Abiathar would have probably been a young adult.

As an aside, about 20 years in the future, Abiathar will have a son, Ahimelech, whom he will name after his father; and this son will be old enough to assume some adult duties (2Sam. 8:17); so it is even possible that Abiathar has, over these past vew years, gotten married and it is even possible that he has fathered a child by this time.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so inquires David in Yehowah to say, “I pursue after the band [of soldiers] the this; will I overtake them?” And so he says to him, “Pursue for an overtaking you will overtake and a rescuing you will rescue.”.

Septuagint                             And David enquired of the Lord, saying, “Should I pursue after this troop? Will I overtake them?” And he said to him, “Pursue, for you shalt surely overtake them, and you shalt surely rescue the captives.” [with the word troop, there is this inscrutable footnote: The Greek is borrowed from the Hebrew].

Significant differences:          The first Hebrew sentence of David’s is a phrase and not a question in the Hebrew; both phrases of David are questions in the Greek and the Peshitta.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Then David asked the LORD, "Should I go after the people who raided our town? Can I catch up with them?" "Go after them," the LORD answered. "You will catch up with them, and you will rescue your families."

NLT                                        The David asked the Lord, “Should I chase them? Will I catch them?”

And the Lord told him, “Yes, go after them. You will surely recover everything that was taken from you!”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Then David asked the LORD, "Should I pursue these troops? Will I catch up with them?" "Pursue them," the LORD told him. "You will certainly catch up with them and rescue the captives."

HCSB                                    ...and David asked the LORD: "Should I pursue these raiders? Will I overtake them?" The LORD replied to him, "Pursue them, for you will certainly overtake them and rescue the people."

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible                And David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue this troop? Shall I overtake them? The Lord answered him, Pursue; for you shall surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.

Updated Emphasized Bible   And David inquired of Yahweh, saying,

Should I pursue this troop? Will I overtake it?

And he said to him:

Pursue, for you will ║overtake║ and you will ║rescue║.

Young's Updated LT              and David asks Jehovah, saying, “I pursue after this troop—do I overtake it?” And He says to him, “Pursue, for you do certainly overtake, and do certainly deliver.”

.

What is the gist of this verse? David tells God that he will pursue those who attacked his camp; he asks if he will overtake them. God answers, saying, “Pursue them and you will overtake them and deliver your people.”

Translation: David then inquired of Y^ehowah, saying,... You will notice that David, after strengthening himself in God, also goes to God, through the priest, to find out exactly what we should do. Actually, this is interesting, as the English translations seem like that is what David is doing—asking at least two questions. However, I would take issue with their translations. However, so far, we are fine—David goes to God and inquires of Him. At this point, pretty much all of these translations are in agreement.

It is quite interesting that David’s inquiries are directed toward God here and in 1Sam. 23. We would expect, with having a resource like that, that David would go to God over and over for answers. However, this does not appear to be the case. David inquires of God in 1Sam. 23 and in this chapter. Of course we would not expect David to ask God what he should do in the previous few chapters because he is out of God’s geographical will and out of fellowship. However, even in the chapters when being pursued by Saul, David did not inquire of God (at least, we have no record of that).

You might think, “I’d check with God every single day to figure out what to do.” Not necessarily so. Going to the Ephod for answers was one of the ways that getting divine viewpoint. Today, we would go to the Word of God. Do you go to the Word of God daily? If so, then maybe you would have gone to the Ephod daily as well. However, just because you consult a fortune teller every month or so does not mean that you would inquire of God as often. In fact, many don’t want to know because they don’t really want to obey God.

Let me so bold as to be your ephod for a moment or two: that sin you are thinking about doing? Don’t do it. That sin you committed? Confess it to God. Going to Bible class tonight? The ephod says, do it. Is there no Bible class tonight? Listen to an MP3 file or a tape of a good Bible teacher. Or, if you happen to fall asleep when you do that, then get up an hour earlier tomorrow and listen to the teaching of the Word of God. Do you see how easy it is?

Okay, you have a major, life-altering decision to make apart from going to Bible class and apart from committing some sin—Paul tells you what to do: don’t do anything. If you are a slave, do not seek your freedom; if you have been freed, do not seek to be enslaved again. Are you married? Don’t divorce. Are you single? Do not get married. The key here is, get enough doctrine under your belt before you begin making the big decisions. You may be surprised to find how easy these decisions are to make, once you know the Word of God.

Translation: ... “I will pursue after this detachment [of soldiers];... Note that the first thing that David says is not really a question. He does not ask God if he should pursue the marauders who overran his camp; he says that he is going to do it. At this point, his own life is not as important as doing what is right. Even if David knew his plan was doomed, he would not shake his head, go to his soldiers, and tell them it was hopeless, so they are not going. David is pursuing these Amalekites. That is a given. Honor requires certain things of a man. For instance, honor requires that Saul lead his troops into battle, even though they will lose. Saul does have some semblance of honor and he will go into battle against the Philistines (actually, this is taking place coterminously with David’s situation).

At this point, David really has no choice but to pursue the marauders who hit his camp. There is no alternative; if he tried to convince his men to remain there (something he would never do), they would stone him first and then pursue the Amalekites. However, David himself would pursue these Amalekites even if it were just him, as they ran off with his two wives. His personal safety is not really an issue; the idea of asking the question, “Should we pursue these men?” is ludicrous. This is why it is not framed as a question in the Hebrew or in my translation.

Translation: ...will I overtake them?” David asks but one question (at least, there is only one question that we find here); will he catch up to this band of marauding Amalekites? I should add, at this point, he does not really know who his attackers are. He does not know if they are Amalekites or what.

Translation: ...And he said to him, “Pursue [them]... God answers David, “Pursue them.” That is an order. This imperative may be why most English versions present David’s first phrase as a question.

Here is where some interpretation comes in. First of all, when it reads he said to him, this is Abiathar speaking to David. Secondly, what we know about the Ephod is limited. However, there is no indication that it could talk and there is no indication that the priest could freely interpret the responses. My educated guess is, David either asked three questions, which I do not believe to be the case; or, the priest took what David said and asked the questions himself. “Should David pursue the ones who invaded the camp? Will David over take them? Will David rescue the women and children?” At the very least, Abiathar asked the latter two questions as the first action was a given.

Essentially, what we find here is the questions combined with the answers. Going with this interpretation, Abiathar, the priest asks, “Should David pursue these marauders?” and the Ephod flashes back a yes answer. Or, even more likely based upon his two questions which follow, that are implied, Abiathar encouraged David here to pursue the Amalekites. In other words, my thinking is that, pursue is an order by Abiathar, indicating that the results of David’s pursuit would be good, which Abiathar determined by the answers he received to the two questions which are implied (“Will David overtake the marauders and will he recover that which belongs to the Israelite band?”).

Now, recall that there are two stones, one on each shoulder, and my guess is one indicated yes and the other indicated no. Somehow they lit up and that provided the answer. Whether it was a reflection of the sun through the stone, I do not know.

You may wonder, why don’t we know how this worked exactly? God did not design our dispensation to be depended upon an Ephod. As God completed His Word, He also weaned man from signs, miracles, and direct contact. God has placed everything we need to know in His Word. God does not want someone attempting to recreate the Ephod of old. He does not want us to go to some priest like a fortune teller to determine what we should do tomorrow or the next day. God expects us to be guided by the filling of the Spirit and by His Word.

Application: Pretty much all you need in order for God to guide you is the filling of the Holy Spirit and the daily intake of His Word. Everything else will take care of itself.

Translation: ...for you will [definitely] overtake [the marauders]... Abiathar asks, “Will David overtake these men?” The response is a definite yes. The combination of a Hiphil infinitive absolute and a Hiphil imperfect indicates that this will definitely occur. Although we might literally render this, for overtaking, you will over take; but the doubling of the verb gives great emphasis to the verb. Abiathar tells David that, without a doubt, he would catch up to those to invaded his encampment.