1 Samuel · Chapter 27

V. 1. I shall perish-But this was certainly a very great fault in David: for

1. This proceeded from gross distrust of God’s promise and providence; and that after such repeated demonstrations of God’s peculiar care over him.

2. He forsakes the place where god had settled him, 1 Samuel 22:5, and given him both assurance and experience of his protection there.

3. He voluntarily runs upon that rock, which he cursed his enemies for throwing him upon, 1 Samuel 26:19, and upon many other snares and dangers, as the following history will shew; and withal, deprives the people of the Lord of those succours which he might have given them, in case of a battle. But God hereby designed to withdraw David from the Israelites, that they might fall by the hand of the Philistines, without any reproach or inconvenience to David.

Verse 1. I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul] This was a very hasty conclusion: God had so often interposed in behalf of his life, that he was authorized to believe the reverse. God had hitherto confounded all Saul’s stratagems, and it was not at all likely that he would now abandon him: there was now no additional reason why he should withdraw from David his helping hand.

Verse 1. I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul — David, says Delaney, “weary of wandering, weary of struggling with Saul’s implacable spirit, weary of the unequal conflict between too dangerous generosity and too relentless malice, weary of subsisting by the spoils of his enemies, or bounty of his friends, resolves at last to quit his country, and throw himself once more under the protection of its enemies. This resolution is, I think, universally censured by commentators, on account of his neglecting to consult God, either by his priest or by his prophet, before he fixed upon it. God had commanded him to go into the land of Judah, 1 Samuel 22:5. And surely he should not have left that to go into a heathen country, without a like divine command, or at least permission. Therefore most writers ascribe this resolution to want of grace, and a proper confidence in the protection of that God who had so often and so signally delivered him in the greatest exigencies.” Add to this, that David not only showed, by forming and executing this resolution, great distrust of God’s promise and providence, and that after repeated demonstrations of God’s peculiar care over him; but he voluntarily run upon that rock, which he censured his enemies for throwing him upon, 1 Samuel 26:19, and upon many other snares and dangers, as the following history will show. And he also deprived the people of God of those succours which he might have given them in case of a battle. God, however, permitted him to be thus withdrawn from the Israelites, that they might fall by the hand of the Philistines, without any reproach or inconvenience to David.

DAVID AT GATH THE SECOND TIME, 1-4.

David had now good reason to believe that his life would be in continual jeopardy as long as he remained in the land of Saul; and seeing in that monarch’s conduct so striking a display of human treachery and deceitfulness, he may have even felt that some of his own men might find occasion at some time to betray him into the hands of his enemy. But the method by which he sought to escape from danger was a very questionable one. Far better for him to have gone away into the wilds of Horeb, as did Elijah in the time of his persecution, and to have there awaited the death of his royal foe. Dr. A. Clarke’s comments on this wrong step in David’s life are not too strong. “There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blamable. David joins the enemies of his God and of his country; acts a most inhuman part against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretence of Divine authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act, giving him to understand that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defence of this conduct of David; it is all bad, all defenceless; God vindicates him not.” “This measure was calculated to alienate the affections of the Israelites, and to give credit to the slanders of his accusers; he thus ran himself and his men into the temptations to idolatry; and he laid himself under obligations to those whom he could never favour without betraying the cause of God.” — Scott.

1. I shall now perish — This was taking too dark a view of the case. Dangers, indeed, encompassed him; but he had received too many tokens of the Divine favour to allow himself to yield to such unworthy fears.

Verse 2. David arose, and he passed over-unto Achish] There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blameable. David joins the enemies of his God and of his country, acts a most inhuman part against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretense of a Divine authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act; giving him to understand that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defence of this conduct of David; it is all bad, all defenceless; God vindicates him not. The inspired penman tells what he did, but passes no eulogium upon his conduct; and it is false to say that, because these things are recorded, therefore they are approved. In all these transactions David was in no sense a man after God’s own heart. Chandler attempts to vindicate all this conduct: those who can receive his saying, let them receive it.

Verse 2. Unto Achish the son of Maoch — “Most writers agree that this Achish, to whom David now fled, was not the Achish by whom he was so inhospitably received, and from whom he so narrowly escaped, when he was before at Gath. His being here called Achish the son of Maoch, sufficiently implies him to have been another person; for those words can, in the nature of the thing, have no use but to distinguish this Achish from another of the same name. And indeed this Achish seems as well distinguished from the other by the rest of his character, as by that of the son of Maoch. But this, by the way, is a fair proof that this book was written at the time that it is said to have been written; insomuch as this distinction was information enough to the people of that age, but could neither be given nor received as such either by any writer or reader of any subsequent age.” — Delaney.

2. Achish, the son of Maoch — Probably the same person mentioned 1 Samuel 21:11. But David’s reception in Gath was very different from that of the former occasion. “The inveterate hatred of Saul, now so well known, was his recommendation, and no distrust could be entertained of a man who fled for his life to the enemies of his country — exasperated by wrongs, and willing, it might be supposed, to avenge them.” — Kitto.

Verse 3. Every man with his household] So it appears that the men who consorted with David had wives and families. David and his company resembled a tribe of the wandering Arabs.

3. Every man with his household — From which it appears that many of David’s men, like their leader, had their families with them. DAVID IN POSSESSION OF ZIKLAG, 5-12.

David was known at Gath as the conqueror of Goliath, and at one time at least, if not now, was looked upon as an aspirant to the throne of Israel. 1 Samuel 21:11. To many persons in Gath he must therefore have been an object of suspicion. Also, as Kitto well observes, “it must have been obviously difficult for him and his men to be living there among idolaters without giving or taking offence; and there was constant danger lest, with so many strong and reckless men moving about among their old enemies, some affray might arise on religions or national grounds, which might have a fatal and ruinous termination. He, therefore, at length ventured to ask the king to assign him some town in the land where he might live apart with his men; and where, as seems to be adroitly implied, they might provide for themselves, and be no longer burdensome as guests in the royal city.”

V. 4. Sought no more for him-At their meeting Saul’s heart was deeply wounded, and he had said, “Return, my son David, Be with me as in time past.” Nor have we the least proof, that he would have sought for him again, with any other design.

DAVID AT GATH THE SECOND TIME, 1-4.

David had now good reason to believe that his life would be in continual jeopardy as long as he remained in the land of Saul; and seeing in that monarch’s conduct so striking a display of human treachery and deceitfulness, he may have even felt that some of his own men might find occasion at some time to betray him into the hands of his enemy. But the method by which he sought to escape from danger was a very questionable one. Far better for him to have gone away into the wilds of Horeb, as did Elijah in the time of his persecution, and to have there awaited the death of his royal foe. Dr. A. Clarke’s comments on this wrong step in David’s life are not too strong. “There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blamable. David joins the enemies of his God and of his country; acts a most inhuman part against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretence of Divine authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act, giving him to understand that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defence of this conduct of David; it is all bad, all defenceless; God vindicates him not.” “This measure was calculated to alienate the affections of the Israelites, and to give credit to the slanders of his accusers; he thus ran himself and his men into the temptations to idolatry; and he laid himself under obligations to those whom he could never favour without betraying the cause of God.” — Scott.

1. I shall now perish — This was taking too dark a view of the case. Dangers, indeed, encompassed him; but he had received too many tokens of the Divine favour to allow himself to yield to such unworthy fears.

V. 5. Give me a place-A prudent desire. Hereby David designed to preserve his people, both from the vices, which conversation with the Philistines would have exposed them to; and from that envy, and malice, which diversity of religion might have caused. With thee-Which is too great an honour for me, and too burdensome to thee, and may be an occasion of offence to thy people.

Verse 5. Why should thy servant dwell in the royal city] He seemed to intimate that two princely establishments in the same city were too many. Achish appears to have felt the propriety of his proposal, and therefore appoints him Ziklag.

Verse 5. Let them give me a place — This was a prudent request of David, who hereby intended to preserve his people, both from the vices to which conversation with the Philistines would have exposed them, and from that envy and malice which a different religion, and his appearing like a prince with so many men under his command, might have caused. For in a private town he might more freely worship the true God, and use the rites of his own religion without offence to the Philistines, who worshipped other gods, and might, with less notice and interruption, exercise his authority over his soldiers, and also more conveniently make incursions against the enemies of Israel. Why should thy servant dwell in the royal city? — Which is too great an honour for me, too burdensome to thee, and may be an occasion of offence to thy people.

V. 6. Gave Ziklag-Not only to inhabit, but to possess it as his own. Which he did, to lay the greater obligations upon David, whom he knew so able to serve him. It was given to the tribe of Judah before, Joshua 15:31, but the Philistines kept the possession of it ‘till this time. And being given by them to David, it now belonged not to the tribe of Judah; but to the king of Judah, David and his heirs forever. To this day-This, and some such clauses seem to have been added, after the main substance of the several books was written.

Verse 6. Achish gave him Ziklag] Ziklag was at first given to the tribe of Judah, but afterwards it was ceded to that of Simeon, Joshua 15:31; 19:5. The Philistines had, however, made themselves masters of it, and held it to the time here mentioned; it then fell into the tribe of Judah again, and continued to be the property of the kings of Judah. This verse is a proof that this book was written long after the days of Samuel, and that it was formed by a later hand, out of materials which had been collected by a contemporary author. See the preface.

Verse 6. Achish gave him Ziklag — Not only that he might inhabit it for the present, but possess it as his own in future. This Achish did, either out of his royal bounty, or on condition of some service which David was to perform. Or perhaps he thought hereby to lay the greater obligations on David, whom he knew to be so able to serve him. In the division of the country it was first given to the tribe of Judah, Joshua 15:31; and afterward to that of Simeon, who had a portion out of the land given to Judah, Joshua 19:5. But the Philistines kept possession of it, so that neither of them enjoyed it, till now, by the gift of Achish, it became the peculiar inheritance of David and his successors. Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day — This and such clauses were evidently added after the substance of the books in which they are contained was written.

6. Gave him Ziklag — This town was situated in the extreme south of Palestine, (Joshua 15:31; 19:5.) but its exact location is unknown. A trace of the name may linger in the Wady Asluj, a day’s journey southwest of Beersheba. Near here are found the extensive ruins of Khalasah, identified by Robinson and Palmer with the Elusa of the Peutinger tables and of Jerome; but the ruins, says Palmer, are “so utterly destroyed that it is impossible to make out what the original ground plan might have been, though the course of one broad street can still be traced. The inhabitants of Gaza are in the habit of removing the stones for building purposes, and have thus nearly cleared the site, in many cases actually digging out the foundations of the houses.” May not this be the site of the ancient Ziklag? Ziklag… unto this day — A remark inserted, probably, by a transcriber after the Book of Samuel was otherwise complete. See Introduction.

7. A full year and four months — This doubtless gives the true sense of the Hebrew, which is, literally, days and four months. The Septuagint and Vulgate render: The number of days which David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was four months. Josephus has four months and twenty days. The confusion seems to have come from misapprehension of the idiomatic use of µymy in the sense of a year. While David abode at Ziklag he was reinforced by multitudes from the land of Israel. See at 1 Chronicles 12:1-22.

V. 8. Amalekites-The remnant of those whom Saul destroyed, 1 Samuel 15:3-9, who retired into remote and desert places.

Verse 8. David and his men invaded the Geshurites, &c. — These were some remains of the Amorites, and other ancient inhabitants of the country; whom God, for their inveterate and incorrigible wickedness, had commanded to be extirpated. And they “were not confederate with Achish, but in a state of hostility with him; particularly the Amalekites, whom we find soon after making great depredations upon the Philistine territories, chap. 30:16. David, therefore, did not act in the least dishonourably by him, but in reality for his service, in the attack he made on them. It is further to be remarked, that as those people were on the south of Judah, they made frequent incursions into the land, and were the avowed enemies of the Hebrews. This is certain at least of the Amalekites, the remnant of those whom Saul destroyed, (chap. 15.,) who had retired into remote and distant places. Of these frequent mention is made in the books of the Old Testament, as engaged in many expeditions to plunder the country and destroy the inhabitants. David, therefore, had a right to cut off those nations; as deserving the character of a man after God’s own heart, he was called upon to do it; and in doing it he served his country, without injuring his protector and friend.” — Chandler. But it has been objected, that it was unjustifiable in David, being a private man, to act thus without a warrant from Achish or from God, which it does not appear that he had. In answer to this it must be observed, that he did not act as a private man, but as one elected and anointed to the kingdom. And “the same Spirit of God which once inspired Saul with all regal virtues, was now gone over to David, and rested on him, and it were very strange if David, as king-elect of Israel, could have any guilt in doing that which Saul, as a king in possession, was deposed for not doing.” — Delaney.

Ver. 8. The Geshurites. They were a branch of the Canaanites. Joshua 12:5. Another branch of this people resided beyond the Jordan. 2 Samuel 3:3. 13:15.—The Gezrites are the people of Gezer. Joshua 16:3. The people of Amalek have been spoken of before. Hence David, by leaving none of them alive, fulfilled the divine injunction which was twice given by Moses, and once by Samuel: chap. 15.

8. The Geshurites — A nomadic people occupying the desert south of the Philistines. See at Joshua 13:2, 13. The Gezrites — Rather, The Gerzites, as in the margin. Of these we have no certain trace elsewhere, but from this verse we readily infer that their territory was contiguous to that of the Geshurites and Amalekites. The Amalekites — See Exodus 17:8. Shur — The name given to the wilderness extending from the Isthmus of Suez eastward to an indefinite extent, and comprising a considerable portion of Northern Arabia. Genesis 16:7; Exodus 15:22.

V. 9. Let neither man, &c.-In that part where he came: but there were more of the Amalekites yet left in another part of that land.

Verse 9. David smote the land] Here was a complete extirpation of all these people, not one being left alive, lest he should carry tidings of the disasters of his country! The spoil which David took consisted of sheep, oxen, asses, camels, and apparel.

Verse 9. And left neither man nor woman alive — In that part where he came; but there were many of the Amalekites yet left in another part of that land.

9. David smote the land — What was the occasion or reason of this terrible slaughter we are not informed, but probably roving bands from these tribes had made incursions into the land adjoining Ziklag. Compare 1 Chronicles 12:21. The question of Achish, in verse 10, seems to imply that David was wont to make such predatory excursions; and some have sought to justify him in this slaughter on the ground that these nations were under the curse of God, and the Israelites were divinely authorized to exterminate them. But this was no sufficient warrant for David, while a fugitive from his native land, and without special instruction from God, to undertake the work on his own responsibility. If any apology is to be offered, it is the supposition that these tribes were disturbing the country by their lawless raids for plunder.

V. 10. David-These and the following words are ambiguous, and contrary to that simplicity which became David, both as a prince, and as an eminent professor of the true religion. The fidelity of Achish to him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravates his sin in thus deceiving him, which David seems penitently to reflect on, when he prays, Remove from me the way of lying.

Verse 10. Whither have ye made a road today?] He had probably been in the habit of making predatory excursions. This seems to be implied in the question of Achish.

Verse 10. David said, Against the south of Judah, &c. — David expressed himself thus ambiguously that Achish might suppose he had assaulted the land of Judah; whereas he had only fallen upon those people who bordered on that land. His words, therefore, though not directly false, (all those people actually dwelling on the south of Judah,) yet being ambiguous, and intended to convey an erroneous idea, were very contrary to that simplicity which became David, both as a prince and as an eminent professor of the true religion. The fidelity of Achish to him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravates his sin in thus deceiving him; which David seems peculiarly to reflect on when he prays, “Remove from me the way of lying.”

Ver. 10. Against the south of Judah. The three nations, ver. 8, had maintained themselves in the lot or district of Judah. But this was not telling Achish the whole truth. This invasion would make David popular in Judah; and it is not doubted but he consulted the Lord, who had said that he would have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Exodus 17:14.

10. Jerahmeelites — The family of Jerahmeel, the son of Hezron, and descendant of Judah. 1 Chronicles 2:9, 25. Kenites — See note on 1 Samuel 15:6. In making this reply to Achish, David uttered a deliberate lie, for which no apology can be offered.

Verse 11. To bring tidings to Gath — Our translation has here put in the word tidings, which entirely perverts the sense of this place. For in the Hebrew it is, he saved neither man nor woman alive to bring to Gath; that is, he brought no prisoners thither; and the reason was, because it would then have appeared that they were not Israelites that David had spoiled, as Achish supposed. But the words, to bring tidings to Gath, occasions the reader to make a very wrong conclusion, namely, that these people were in alliance with Achish, and that they would have sent messengers to have complained of David’s behaviour, but that he cruelly butchered them on purpose to prevent this. Whereas it is certain there is no sort of reason to believe that these people were in any kind of alliance with Achish, but quite the contrary.

11. Lest they should tell — This craftiness shows that David’s extermination of these tribes was not with the intention of executing the curse of God upon them, but to save himself from suspicion. By such foul means did he establish himself in the confidence of Achish, who now began to regard David as a powerful ally.

Verse 12. He hath made his people-utterly to abhor him] This deception, which Dr. Delaney says “did harm to nobody, and to the account of which he is at an utter loss what degree of guilt to charge,” imposed upon Achish, had the most direct tendency to make him imagine himself secure, while in the utmost danger; and to have a faithful friend and able ally in David, while he was the veriest enemy he could possibly have. Shame on him who becomes the apologist of such conduct! As to Dr. Chandler, he should know that no lie is of the truth, and that all falsity is an abomination to the Lord.

I SAMUEL