Bible Commentaries

David at Ziklag in the Land of the Philistines - 1 Samuel 27:1-12

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

The result of the last affair with Saul, after his life had againbeen spared, could not fail to confirm David in his conviction that Saulwould not desist from pursuing him, and that if he stayed any longer in theland, he would fall eventually into the hands of his enemy. With thisconviction, he formed the following resolution: “Now shall I be consumedone day by the hand of Saul: there is no good to me (i.e., it will not be wellwith me if I remain in the land), but (כּי after a negative) I will fleeinto the land of the Philistines; so will Saul desist from me to seek mefurther (i.e., give up seeking me) in the whole of the territory of Israel, andI shall escape his hand.”

1 Samuel 27:2

Accordingly he went over with the 600 men who were with himto Achish, the king of Gath. Achish, the son of Maoch, is in all probabilitythe same person not only as the king Achish mentioned in 1 Samuel 21:11,but also as Achish the son of Maachah (1 Kings 2:39), since Maoch andMaachah are certainly only different forms of the same name; and a fiftyyears' reign, which we should have in that case to ascribe to Achish, it notimpossible.

1 Samuel 27:3-4

Achish allotted dwelling-places in his capital, Gath, for Davidand his wives, and for all his retinue; and Saul desisted from any furtherpursuit of David when he was informed of his flight to Gath. TheChethibh יוסף is apparently only a copyist's error for יסף.

1 Samuel 27:5-6

In the capital of the kingdom, however, David felt cramped, andtherefore entreated Achish to assign him one of the land (or provincial)towns to dwell in; whereupon he gave him Ziklag for that purpose. Thistown was given to the Simeonites in the time of Joshua (Joshua 19:5), butwas afterwards taken by the Philistines, probably not long before the timeof David, and appears to have been left without inhabitants inconsequence of this conquest. The exact situation, in the western part ofthe Negeb, has not been clearly ascertained (see at Joshua 15:31). Achishappears to have given it to David. This is implied in the remark,“Therefore Ziklag came to the kings of Judah (i.e., became their property)unto this day.”

1 Samuel 27:7

The statement that David remained a year and four months in theland of the Philistines, is a proof of the historical character of the wholenarrative. The ימים before the “four months” signifies a year;strictly speaking, a term of days which amounted to a full year (as in Leviticus 25:29: see also 1 Samuel 1:3, 1 Samuel 1:20; 1 Samuel 2:19).

From Ziklag David made an attack upon the Geshurites, Gerzites, andAmalekites, smote them without leaving a man alive, and returned withmuch booty. The occasion of this attack is not mentioned, as being amatter of indifference in relation to the chief object of the history; but it isno doubt to be sought for in plundering incursions made by these tribesinto the land of Israel. For David would hardly have entered upon such awar in the situation in which he was placed at that time without some suchoccasion, seeing that it would be almost sure to bring him into suspicionwith Achish, and endanger his safety. ויּעל, “he advanced,” theverb being used, as it frequently is, to denote the advance of an armyagainst a people or town (see at Joshua 8:1). At the same time, the tribeswhich he attacked may have had their seat upon the mountain plateau inthe northern portion of the desert of Paran, so that David was obliged tomarch up to reach them. פּשׁט, to invade for the purpose ofdevastation and plunder. Geshuri is a tribe mentioned in Joshua 13:2 as living in the south of theterritory of the Philistines, and is a different tribe from the Geshurites inthe north-east of Gilead (Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11, Joshua 13:13; Deuteronomy 3:14). These are theonly passages in which they are mentioned. The Gerzites, or Gizritesaccording to the Keri, are entirely unknown. Bonfrere and Clericussuppose them to be the Gerreni spoken of in 2 Macc. 13:24, whoinhabited the town of Gerra, between Rhinocolura and Pelusium (Strabo,xvi. 760), or Gerron (Ptol. iv. 5). This conjecture is a possible one, but isvery uncertain nevertheless, as the Gerzites certainly dwelt somewhere inthe desert of Arabia. At any rate Grotius and Ewald cannot be correct intheir opinion that they were the inhabitants of Gezer (Joshua 10:33). TheAmalekites were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites,who had taken to flight on Saul's war of extermination, and had nowassembled again (see at 1 Samuel 15:8-9). “For they inhabit the land, whereyou go from of old to Shur, even to the land of Egypt.” The עשׁר before מעולם may be explained from the fact that בּואך is not adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as aninfinitive: literally, “where from of old thy coming is to Shur.” עשׁר cannot have crept into the text through a copyist's mistake, as sucha mistake would not have found its way into all the MSS. The fact that theearly translators did not render the word proves nothing against itsgenuineness, but merely shows that the translators regarded it assuperfluous. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, andעולם is confounded with עלם, ἀπὸ Γελάμ . Shur is thedesert of Jifar, which is situated in front of Egypt (as in 1 Samuel 15:7). These tribes were nomads, and had large flocks, which David took withhim as booty when he had smitten the tribes themselves. After his return,David betook himself to Achish, to report to the Philistian king concerninghis enterprise, and deceive him as to its true character.

Achish said, “Ye have not made an invasion to-day, have ye?” אל,like μὴ , is an interrogative sense; the ה has dropped out: vid.,Ewald, §324, b. David replied, “Against the south of Judah, and the southof the Jerahmeelites, and into the south of the Kenites,” sc., we have madean incursion. This reply shows that the Geshurites, Gerzites, andAmalekites dwelt close to the southern boundary of Judah, so that Davidwas able to represent the march against these tribes to Achish as a marchagainst the south of Judah, to make him believe that he had been making anattack upon the southern territory of Judah and its dependencies. TheNegeb of Judah is the land between the mountains of Judah and the desertof Arabia (see at Joshua 15:21). The Jerahmeelites are the descendants ofJerahmeel, the first-born of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:9, 1 Chronicles 2:25-26), and therefore oneof the three large families of Judah who sprang from Hezron. Theyprobably dwelt on the southern frontier of the tribe of Judah (vid., 1 Samuel 30:29). The Kenites were protégés of Judah (see at 1 Samuel 15:6, and Judges 1:16). In 1 Samuel 27:11 the writer introduces the remark, that in his raid David leftneither man nor woman of his enemies alive, to take them to Gath, becausehe thought “they might report against us, and say, Thus hath David done.”There ought to be a major point under דּוד עשׂה, as thefollowing clause does not contain the words of the slaughtered enemies,but is a clause appended by the historian himself, to the effect that Davidcontinued to act in that manner as long as he dwelt in the land of thePhilistines. משׁפּט, the mode of procedure; lit. the right whichhe exercised (see 1 Samuel 8:9).

1 Samuel 27:12 is connected with 1 Samuel 27:10; Achish believed David's words, and said (tohimself), “He hath made himself stinking (i.e., hated) among his ownpeople, among Israel, and will be my servant (i.e., subject to me) for ever.”