The document discusses the complexities of David's life as he flees from Saul and finds refuge among the Philistines. It highlights the tension between faith and fear in David's decisions, noting his eventual descent into despair and poor choices that arise from doubt in God's plan. Ultimately, the text emphasizes that biblical accounts reflect the true nature of their subjects, capturing both their divine potential and human failures.

1. 1 SAMUEL 27 COMMUNTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
David Among the Philistines
INTRODUCTION
Pink wrote, “One of the chief differences between the Holy Spirit’s description of
Biblical characters and the delineations in human biographies is, that the former
has faithfully presented their failures and falls, showing us that they were indeed
men of "like passions with us"; whereas the latter (with very rare exceptions)
record little else than the fair and favorable side of their subjects, leaving the
impression they were more angelic than human. Biographies need to be read
sparingly, especially modern ones, and then with due caution (remembering that
there is much "between the lines" not related), lest a false estimate of the life of a
Christian be formed, and the honest reader be driven to despair. But God has
painted the features of Biblical characters in the colors of reality and truth, and thus
we find that "as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man" (Prov.
27:19).
The practical importance (and it is that which should ever be our first and chief
quest as we read and ponder the Scriptures) of what has just been pointed out
should preserve both preacher and hearer from a one-sided idea of Christian
experience. A saint on earth is not a sinless being; nor, on the other hand, does sin
have complete dominion over him. In consequence of both the "flesh" and the
"spirit" still indwelling him, in "many things" he offends (James 3:2), and in many
things he pleases God. The "old man" is not only still alive (though the Christian is
to "reckon" it as being judicially dead before God: Rom. 6:11), but is constantly
active; and though divine grace restrain it from breaking forth into much outward
evil, yet it defiles all our inner being, and pollutes our best endeavors both God
ward and man ward (Rom. 7:14-25). Nevertheless, the "new man" is also active,
producing that which is glorifying to God.
The above meditations have been suggested by that portion of David s life which is
now to engage our attention. The more it be carefully pondered, the more should we
be delivered from entertaining an erroneous conception of the experience and
history of a saint. Not that we are to seize upon these sad blemishes in David to
excuse our own faults—no indeed, that would be wickedness of the worst kind; but
we are to be humbled by the realization that the same evil nature indwells us, and
produces works in you and me equally vile. Those who are surprised that the
Psalmist should act as he here did, must be woefully ignorant of the "plague" of
their own hearts, and blind unto sins in their own lives which are just as abominable
in the sight of the Holy One as were those of David’s.
An unknown author wrote, "Now, God doesn't attempt to cover up the sin of godly
1

2. men. Noah got drunk. David committed adultery. Gideon made an idol. Simon Peter
denied Christ. Paul argued with Barnabas and split up their ministry. This is one
reason that I never read the biographies of great missionaries and ministers of the
past. To hear many of these books tell it, once you become a Christian, your life of
sin ends and a new, glorious life of sinlessness begins. But I haven't found that to be
true in my life. And it's not true in the lives shown to us in the Bible. These chapters
will show us a sad side of David, an ungodly side. It's not the first time, and it won't
be the last, but it was a sad season that lasted too long in David's life.”
The best introduction I have read for this chapter comes from Alan Carr who wrote,
“I want you to place yourself in David’s sandals for just a moment. You were told
as a teenager that you were going to be the next king of Israel. Samuel, the old man
of God, came and anointed you for that office. The next thing you know, you are in
the royal palace playing and singing for the king. Then, like a whirlwind, one
activity after another took place in your life that brought you to national
prominence.
You killed Goliath with a single stone thrown from your sling. You were
promoted in the army and made the captain over a thousand men. You married the
king’s daughter and were best friends with the king’s son. It seemed that every
event in your life was bringing you ever closer to the day when you would step up
and claim the throne of the land as your own.
Then, things began to happen. Cracks began to appear in the perfectly
constructed life you enjoyed so much. You fell out of favor with the king, and he
even tried to kill you! Your relationship with your wife came to an end. You could
no longer fellowship with Jonathan, your best friend. You were demoted and lost
your position in the army. The next thing you know, you are a fugitive, running for
your very life, from an insane king who is determined to take your life.
Yet, even as you run from your enemy, you continue to carry yourself well. You
spare his life when the opportunity to kill him is virtually handed to you. You show
compassion when dealing with others you could have destroyed out of hand. You
even continue to seek God’s direction for your life, believing that some day His
promises for your life will all be fulfilled.
Then, one day, something changes. You awake as usual, but somehow, the world
is different today. For the first time, it looks like God may have forgotten all about
you. It looks like your enemies will eventually prevail. You become discouraged,
disillusioned and find yourself trapped in the pit of hopelessness. While you are in
that state of despair, you make a foolish decision that alters the course of your life;
brings you troubles that you could have never imagined; and leaves you broken
spiritually.
That, in a nutshell, is the life of David up to this point. David was on the fast
track to the kingdom; now he is a fugitive on the run. Our text finds David hunted,
2

3. hounded and haunted. He is defeated, discouraged and depressed. While he is in
that condition, he makes a foolish decision that will produce some very serious
consequences in his life. David decided to give up on God’s plan for his life. He
decided that, somehow, God must have forgotten about him. He decided that God’s
plan for his life had failed. David took his own life in his own hands and began to
live for himself as he wanted to live.”
1 But David thought to himself, "One of these
days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The
best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the
Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for
me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his
hand."
Here is a paradox. The last chapter ends with a victory over Saul and Saul is
blessing David, and all seems to be well. Yet this chapter begins with David being
very pessimistic. He thought all is fine for the moment, but Saul will never change.
He will hunt me until he does finally get the chance to kill me. I have to get out of
this vicious circle. David seems to make his worst decisions when all is going well.
David let fear of Saul rather than faith in God become the basis for his major
decision about the future. The best of men are men at best, and David was weak and
fallible at times. David had been hunted for so long and had many close calls, and so
he was battle weary. All of life is a battle for balance. Some believers are always in
Job and Lamentations dealing with problems, and some are always in Philippians
trying to rejoice always and never face their problems. We need both. David is a
great example of how the best of men can make the worst decisions. The folly of
God's people is the best proof that God does not manipulate our lives but lets us
freely choose the direction we go. Psa. 27:1-3 is where David could be, but he did not
always live where he could. The Psalm is David's potential, the history is his actual.
Psalm 27:1-3 says, “ The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the
LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? 2 When the wicked,
even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled
and fell. 3 Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear:
though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.” Now David is going
to abandon this thought and take his life into his own hands, and as usual, by doing
so, screws it up. He forgot this verse, “"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and
3

4. lean not unto thine own understanding."--Proverb 3:5
PETER PETT, "Introduction
SECTION 5. David’s First Taste Of Kingship - The Death Final Disobedience And
Of Saul (1 Samuel 27:1 -2 Samuel 1:27).
A). David Rises To Petty Kingship Over Ziklag And Continually Destroys The
Amalekites (YHWH’s Enemies) While Saul Proceeds On In Darkness To His Doom
(27:1-30:31).
In this subsection David and his Men flee to Gath, while with Samuel dead Saul falls
further into error and confides in a spiritist medium because YHWH too has
deserted him. David meanwhile becomes a petty king, continually defeats the
Amalekites, YHWH’s enemies, and is spared from having to fight against his own
people (1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 30:31).
Analysis of 1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 30:31.
a David leaves his haunts in Judah and goes over Achish of Gath to escape from
Saul (1 Samuel 27:1-4).
b David becomes a petty king under Achish and attacks and defeats the Amalekites,
slaughtering them and obtaining great booty (1 Samuel 27:5-12).
c David swears loyalty to Achish in view of the invasion of Israel (1 Samuel 28:1-2).
d Saul seeks to consult Samuel through a necromancer and is reminded that he is
rejected by YHWH (1 Samuel 28:3-20).
e Saul shares hospitality with a woman condemned by YHWH and goes out into the
night (1 Samuel 28:21-25).
d David is accompanying the Philistines and is rejected by them (1 Samuel 29:1-7).
c David swears loyalty to Achish in view of the invasion of Israel and goes out into
the day (1 Samuel 29:8-11).
b David finds his kingdom despoiled and attacks and defeats the Amalekites,
slaughtering them and obtaining great booty (1 Samuel 30:1-25).
a David shows his gratitude to those who had assisted him among the people of
Judah when he was escaping from Saul (1 Samuel 30:26-31).
Note than in ‘a’ David leaves his haunts in Judah and goes over to the Philistines in
order to avoid Saul, and in the parallel he send gifts to his friends who had
4

5. supported him while he was in his haunts in Judah escaping from Saul. In ‘b’ David
slaughters the Amalekites, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘c’ David swears
loyalty to Achish, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘d’ Saul is with a woman
rejected by YHWH and is reminded that he too is rejected by YHWH, and in the
parallel David is with the people rejected by YHWH (the Philistines) but is himself
rejected by them. In ‘e’ Saul reaches the lowest stage in his fall from YHWH when
he enjoys hospitality with a woman rejected by YHWH and goes out into the night.
In some ways the flight of David to Gath appears to conflict with all that has gone
before, for up to this point YHWH had always ensured that David remained in
Israel/Judah and had protected him there. Indeed when David had previously fled
to Gath (1 Samuel 21:10-15), it had resulted in his being humiliated and driven back
into Israel, and this fact, combined with the later words of Gad the Prophet (1
Samuel 22:5), suggests that being in Israel/Judah was God’s purpose for him at that
time even though he was an outlaw. In this regard it has, indeed, been pointed out
that in 1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 28:2 there is no mention of God, with the
inference being drawn that his action here was also not of God.
On the other hand it is questionable whether this latter fact can really be
emphasised for we must bear in mind that we are only talking about fourteen
verses, verses which are on the whole the kind where no mention of God was really
required, and this is especially so as there are certainly previous passages elsewhere
which have also not included the name of God, even when we might have expected
it, without it there being especially significant. See for example, 1 Samuel 13:15-23;
1 Samuel 17:1-24; 1 Samuel 17:55 to 1 Samuel 18:9; and especially 1 Samuel
14:47-52. Furthermore we should note that when the account of the stay among the
Philistines continues the king of Gath is himself portrayed as swearing by YHWH (1
Samuel 29:6, see also 1 Samuel 27:9), something possibly intended to illustrate the
influence that David has had on him, and certainly demonstrating that he
recognised YHWH as David’s God and that YHWH was with him there. Thus there
is no real indication that the writer sees this as a backward move. Rather he seems
to portray it as demonstrating a sensible way of escaping from Saul’s
prevarications, while immediately stressing that he finally took up refuge in Ziklag
which was a Philistine occupied town of Judah in the Negeb (as he emphasises). So
he had not permanently left Israel after all. The only question that does possibly
spring to mind in this regard is as to why David did not at this stage ‘enquire of
YHWH’ through the ephod. Precedent might suggest that he did in fact do so and
that the writer simply does not mention the fact.
Certainly we should note that David would see no difficulty in consulting YHWH
when he was in Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:7-8), even though it was outside the current
boundaries of Israel (although still in what was part of Israel’s inheritance). On the
other hand we might argue that Ziklag had been appropriated from Judah/Simeon
(Joshua 15:31; Joshua 19:5) by the Philistines, and could really therefore be seen as
an ‘Israelite’ city. This might be seen as confirmed by the fact that the writer
emphasises that from that time on Ziklag was seen as belonging to Judah (1 Samuel
5

6. 27:6). Consider also the fact that many fighting men of Israel came to join up with
him there at this point, including men from Benjamin, Judah, Gad and Manasseh (1
Chronicles 12:1-7; 1 Chronicles 12:20-22). They too probably saw it as a haven from
Saul and a kind of little Israel where they could be freer to behave as they wished,
even though it did give them responsibilities towards a Philistine king, which
YHWH would overrule.
We might thus argue that having established his popularity at home in Israel/Judah
(apart from with the Ziphites), his rule over a semi-independent Ziklag with its
surrounding territories was now intended by God to be the next stage in his training
for the kingship, for through his time there he would be able to gain experience of
ruling a city and its environs before he was finally faced up with the greater task of
ruling Judah, and then all Israel. It is a reminder that God educates His people as
and where He will.
That God was with him there comes out quite clearly in the narrative. Firstly in that
he was given this convenient semi-independent position, in a place where YHWH
could be consulted, and secondly in that he was later prevented from having to fight
against his own countrymen, something which would surely have hindered his later
rise to kingship. So whether his first move was pleasing to YHWH or not, it is clear
that YHWH did not see him as having been grossly disobedient. (And all of us know
of situations in which we have to make difficult decisions which have to be based on
our own judgment at the time, and which might even be ‘wrong’, with God then
acting graciously towards us on the basis of what we have done in all honesty, as He
continues to lead us forward).
Furthermore there are good grounds for seeing the writer as deliberately wanting us
to contrast this triumphant move into Philistia, along with David being given an
honoured position there, with the debacle that had taken place on his previous visit
to Gath when he had had to publicly humiliate himself and flee. Then it was clearly
being portrayed as a move that he should not have made. Here it can be argued that,
as a move that brought him honour and prestige and an opportunity to serve God in
destroying the Amalekites, it was clearly of God.
But why should Achish have given Ziklag and its surrounding territories to David?
The probable reason must be that it was a part of a suzerainty treaty whereby
David was given his own independent city in a spot convenient for raids over the
border, on condition that he made such raids and gave to Achish a certain
proportion of any booty that he and his men collected. For we must surely recognise
that the whole purpose of having David and his army under his umbrella was in
order that David might earn his keep by raids over the border, while at the same
time being available for any major offensive that had to be made. He would not
want to continually provision David and his small tribe while they were idle, and
continual raiding was considered to be the sport of kings (2 Samuel 11:1). There
appears little doubt that such border raids constantly took place (e.g. 1 Samuel
23:1-6, and compare David’s earlier activities against the Philistines, not all of which
6

7. can have been related to major invasions - 1 Samuel 18:5; 1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Samuel
20:8) as we would in fact expect in those savage days. This certainly also serves to
explain David’s subsequent activities.
Verses 1-4
David Decides To Move To Gath And Is Welcomed By Achish (1 Samuel 27:1-4).
It is easy to understand the reason why David moved to Gath. He had at last
realised that there was no hope of any further reconciliation with Saul, and had no
doubt also recognised that a broody and constantly changing Saul would never
finally leave him and his men to get on with their lives. Furthermore he was once
again a married man, and his wives were with him, and it would appear that many
of his men also had their families (‘households’ - 1 Samuel 27:3) with them, possibly
sheltering them from the vengeance of Saul. Life in the harsh wilderness was no life
for such as them. Thus the idea of being mercenaries to the Philistines and living a
‘normal’ life must have appealed to them. While David had previously been rejected
at Gath as an individual who had fairly recently slain Goliath, it was very unlikely
that a strong band of Habiru mercenaries would be rejected by the Philistines, as
previous references have suggested (1 Samuel 14:21).
Analysis.
a And David said in his heart, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.
There is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the
Philistines, and Saul will despair of me, to seek me any more in all the borders of
Israel. So shall I escape out of his hand” (1 Samuel 27:1).
b And David arose, and passed over, he and the six hundred men who were with
him, to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath (1 Samuel 27:2).
b And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his
household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the
Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife (1 Samuel 27:3).
a And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath, and he sought no more again for
him (1 Samuel 27:4).
Note than in ‘a’ David hoped by going to Gath to cause Saul to give up pursuing
him, and in the parallel that is what happened. Centrally in ‘b’ David and his six
hundred left Israel and took service under the King of Gath as an independent
mercenary force, and in the parallel dwelt in Gath, along with their wives and
children. (their ‘households’; compare 1 Samuel 30:6).
1 Samuel 27:1
7

8. ‘And David said in his heart, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul. There
is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines,
and Saul will despair of me, to seek me any more in all the borders of Israel. So shall
I escape out of his hand.” ’
Musing in his heart over the whole situation that they faced David came to the
conclusion that the time had at last arrived when he and his men must leave Israel.
It had become quite clear to him that Saul was not to be trusted whatever he might
say (which was, of course, partly due to his dreadful psychiatric illness which no one
would have been able to understand), and that those of his men’s families who were
with them could not be expected to go on living in wilderness conditions in constant
fear of pursuit. Better then to take his now experienced military force and put them
at the disposal of someone who would appreciate them. The employment of such
mercenary forces was a feature of those times. It was something that was true over
many centuries, for in a world where nations were continually seeking to grow rich
at the expense of those around them (2 Samuel 11:1), kings were always looking to
augment their own armies with experienced foreign mercenaries so as to make
themselves more effective.
It was quite clear to him that once they had moved out of Israel the news would
reach Saul so that he would cease to pursue them. They would no longer be his
concern. Thus they would be able to relax and live without the constant fear of Saul
being on their tails. Of course they would be required to earn their keep. They
would be expected to take part in border raids and seize booty, and to take part in
any major engagements that their employer required of them. But it would be better
than living in the wilderness, surviving on minimal provisions.
There is much that we are not told. We are not told whether David consulted God,
although in the light of what we know from elsewhere it seems very likely. Nor are
we told why David seems always to have favoured Gath over the other main
Philistine cities. Perhaps it was because Achish was famed as a warrior king, or
because Gath was well known for welcoming migrants. Or it may have been because
he knew that the king of Gath and Saul were sworn enemies so that there was no
likelihood that Achish would hand him over to Saul. Or possibly it was simply
because it was the nearest and had territories extending down to the Negeb. It was
probably only a few miles/kilometres from Lachish, but its site has not yet been
certainly identified.
Alan Carr, “When David communed with his heart, he immediately forgot all the
great promises which the Lord had made to him. God had promised David that he
would be king, 1 Sam. 16:1, 12-13. That promise had been confirmed by Jonathan,
1 Sam. 23:17; by Abigail, 1 Sam. 25:30-31; and even by Saul, 1 Sam. 24:20. Yet, all
these great promises are forgotten when David begins to listen to his own heart.”
“(Note: Beware of trusting your own heart! When we consult the heart, we will get
in touch with our human nature. Our old, human nature is fallen and it always
looks at things from an earthly level, Gal. 5:19-21. When people say, “Well, I feel it
8

9. in my heart,” they are usually headed for trouble! That is why the Bible cautions us
against trusting the heart, Jer. 17:9; Pro. 28:26; Eccl. 9:3; Mark 7:21-22. When you
talk to yourself, be sure to talk to yourself about the things of God, Eph. 5:19-20;
Phil. 4:8. When someone says to you, “Just listen to what your heart is telling you,”
they have given you advice that can lead to spiritual wreck and ruin, if you are
foolish enough to follow it.”
Pessimism about his survival with Saul always on his trail made him choose one of
the worst things he ever did. He made an alliance with the enemies of God and his
own people, and he became just like them in being murderously violent. There are
valid reasons to be pessimistic about mankind, for all are fallen and capable of evil,
and all creation is affected by man’s fall, so things often go wrong, but to give up on
God’s guidance in this fallen world is folly, and David was being a fool again at this
point. He let fear convince him that a pessimistic attitude is the only realistic
attitude. He would have joined in singing with the pessimist who wrote this song:
They're rioting in Africa, they're starving in Spain;
There're hurricanes in Florida, and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls,
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles;
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch;
And I don't like anybody very much.
But we can be thankful and grateful and proud,
For (we've) been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day,
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.
They're rioting in Africa; there's strife in Iran.
What Mother Nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow man. The Kingston Trio and The Merry Minuet
MURPHEY'S LAWS rather than God’s laws would have been his choice as guides
to his attitudes in life.
1st law of human interaction. If anything can go wrong, it will.
Corollary: If anything just can't go wrong, it will anyway.
2nd law. When things are going well, something will go wrong.
Corollary: When things just can't get any worse, they will.
Corollary 2: Anytime things appear to be going better, you have
overlooked something.
3rd law. Purposes, as understood by the purposer, will be judged otherwise by
others. Corollary: If you explain so clearly that nobody can misunderstand,
somebody will. Corollary 2: If you do something which you are sure will meet with
everybody's approval, somebody won't like it. Corollary 3: Procedures devised to
9

10. implement the purpose won't quite work. Corollary 4: No matter how long or how
many times you explain, no one is listening.
If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it!
Nothing will be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
A pessimist can hardly wait for the future so he can look back with regret.
Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist wrote, “The defining characteristic of
pessimists is that they tend to believe bad events will last a long time, undermine
everything that they do, and are their fault. Optimists, confronted with the same
situations, believe that defeat is a temporary setback, its causes are confined to that
one situation, and it's not their fault. While a pessimist may give up, an optimist will
try harder to change the situation.
The difference between optimists and pessimists isn't a difference in life experiences,
but rather in how people perceive and respond to adversity. For example, an
optimist who is going through a hard time assumes that life will get better, while a
pessimist believes life will always be difficult and painful.”
Pink feels that David just took his life in his own hands and did not consult with
God at all. Not once in this chapter do we see David going to the Lord in prayer. He
was self-centered and running his own life at this point. He became a servant of
God's foes. Saul and David should have been working together for God's purpose,
but they wasted many years because of evil attitudes. Division among believers
wastes many years that could be used in God's service; Even Dr. James Dobson was
sued by his former announcer and they who were once the best of friends became
foes. This has been a problem all through history. Believers are just as capable of
unbelievers in being pessimistic and being unable to work in harmony with others in
a way that helps rather than hinders the kingdom of God.
For some reason David is going through a time of doubt about God’s protection of
him from the threat of Saul. Spurgeon writes about how foolish it was of him to
have these doubts. He wrote, “The thought of David's heart at this time was a false
thought, because he certainly had no ground for thinking that God's anointing him
by Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one occasion
had the Lord deserted His servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very
often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine interposition had not
delivered him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied; they had
not assumed one form only, but many--yet in every case He who sent the trial had
also graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger upon any
entry in his diary, and say of it, "Here is evidence that the Lord will forsake me,"
for the entire tenor of his past life proved the very reverse. He should have argued
from what God had done for him, that God would be his defender still. But is it not
just in the same way that we doubt God's help? Is it not mistrust without a cause?
Have we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father's goodness? Have not
His loving-kindnesses been marvelous? Has He once failed to justify our trust? Ah,
10

11. no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had dark nights, but the star of
love has shone forth amid the blackness; we have been in stern conflicts, but over
our head He has held aloft the shield of our defense. We have gone through many
trials, but never to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from
our past experience is, that He who has been with us in six troubles, will not forsake
us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God, proves that He will
keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason contrary to evidence. How can we ever
be so ungenerous as to doubt our God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our
unbelief, and let the dogs devour it.”
Timothy Smith also has a good insight into David here, and plus a good outline of
the texts. He writes, “I want us to look at this incident in David’s life where his faith
faltered. Up until this point, David has been almost flawless in his character. He was
an obedient shepherd, a submissive servant, a courageous warrior and a forgiving
enemy. But today we come to a period where David goes into a "spiritual slump"
and makes a series of drastic mistakes. I think that this passage can be very helpful
to us. It is encouraging to those of us who have fallen, to see that a great man like
David wasn’t immune to failure. But it’s also a warning to us of the danger of
drifting away from God. I want us to see David’s doubt, his defection and his
deliverance.” Pastor Smith goes on to point out that in the previous chapter David is
such an optimist, and he is full of faith, but now in this chapter doubt pushes his
faith to the back burner and takes over. One of these days the chase will end and I
will be killed is the theme going through his head, and doubt about his survival
controls his decision to go the wrong way.
MEYER, 1 Samuel 27:1, "And David said, I shall now perish one day by the hand
of Saul.
What a fit of despondency and unbelief was here! We can hardly believe that this is
he who in so many Psalms had boasted of the shepherd care of God, who had so
often insisted on the safety of God’s pavilion. It was a fainting fit, brought on by the
bad air he had breathed amid the evil associations of Adullam’s cave. Had not God
promised to take care of him? Was not his future already guaranteed by the
promises that he should succeed to the kingdom? But nothing availed to check his
precipitate flight into the land of the Philistines.
Bitterly he rued this mistake. The prevarication and deceit to which he was driven;
the anguish of having to march with Achish against his own people; the sack and
burning of Ziklag these were the price he had to pay for his mistrust. Unbelief
always brings many other bitter sorrows in its train, and leads the soul to cry, “How
long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide thy face from
me?”
Let us beware of losing heart, as David did. Look not at Saul, but at God, who is
omnipotent; not at the winds and waves, but at Him who walks across the water;
not at what may come, but at that which is— for the glorious Lord is roundabout
11

12. thee to deliver thee. He shall deliver thy soul from death, thine eyes from tears, and
thy feet from falling. He that has helped will help. What He has done, He will do.
God always works from less to more, never from more to less. Dost thou not hear—
hast thou not heard— his voice saying, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee?
What, then, can man do unto thee? Every weapon used against thee shall go blunt
on an invisible shield!
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:1. 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.
HENRI ROSSIER
1 SAMUEL 27
“And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there
is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the
Philistines; and Saul will despair of me to seek me any more within all the limits of
Israel, and I shall escape out of his hand” (v. 1).
Isn't it surprising to see David's weakness here after so many striking marks of
divine protection? Just yesterday he had said, full of confidence: “Let my life be
highly esteemed in the eyes of Jehovah, that He may deliver me out of all distress!”
(1 Sam. 26: 24). Today his courage is gone and he says: “I shall now one day perish
by the hand of Saul.” We must often experience that a great victory is apt to be
followed by a great despondency. When God was with us, did we not happen to
attribute something to ourselves? When David said to Saul: “Jehovah will render to
every man his righteousness and his faithfulness” (1 Sam. 26: 23), God alone knows
whether or not there was some self-satisfaction in these words. Therefore God leaves
us to ourselves (I am not saying, of course, that He forsakes us) in order to show us
that we cannot have any confidence in the flesh. Thus we learn to probe “the
12

13. division of soul and spirit” which is so subtle that in the fight of faith we are often
unaware of the mixture of the two, and that gold which has been refined, or which
appears to have been refined, still needs the crucible to be purified from every alloy.
This clearly explains the weakness of believers at the very time when their faith has
been shining so splendidly.
Elijah is a striking example of this (1 Kings 19). Heaven had been closed at his
request, he had escaped the wrath of Ahab, had performed miracles, had
vanquished the priests of Baal, had confronted an entire people, and now look at the
great prophet of Israel who trembles and flees from a woman. Let us remember that
having been used by God does not mean that we know ourselves yet, and let us
remember that this self-knowledge is indispensable for us to appreciate grace. We
often have this experience after times of special blessing. The enemy takes advantage
of the situation to make us fall when, armed with God's power, we have illusions
about our own strength, esteeming ourselves to be unassailable. Therefore a time of
special favor and power is often an occasion for the flesh to act. Being introduced
into the third heaven does not preserve us from this and the purpose of God's
discipline, as we shall see, is to lead us to examine all this and many other things
besides.
Is it God who is commanding David to save himself in the land of the Philistines?
Were not the experiences he had had at Achish's court sufficient (1 Sam. 21: 11-15)?
Was it God who had sent him there then? No, God through the mouth of Gad had
then given him a positive commandment to go into the land of Judah (1 Sam. 22: 5).
Had this command been revoked? And why didn't he inquire of the Lord as he had
done at Keilah (1 Sam. 23: 1-13)? Headlong haste, discouragement, forgetfulness of
God's word, seeking help from Israel's enemies, confidence in his own thoughts
while neglecting to seek divine direction: all these weaknesses are concentrated in
David here.
The lovely walk of faith which had characterized him seems to be annulled by a
single false step. But it is a good thing for our souls to fathom these precipices. We
cannot be the companions of Christ unless hold the beginning of our assurance firm
to the end (Heb. 3: 14). For David to save himself by fleeing to Achish could in no
way be a type of Christ. There was no altar for Abraham in Egypt; David's second
stay among the Philistines did not inspire him with any psalm.
It is an exceedingly serious thing to consider that often one false step causes us to
lose all the benefit of a long life of faith. One day while hiking high in the mountains
my feet slipped toward a chasm; I was done for when the strong hand of my guide
succeeded in holding me back — already disappearing over the edge. Without him I
was lost, His hand saved me (that is grace), but in an instant I had measured and
realized the terrible consequence of one wrong step.
Grace alone is able to prevent our fall, but often we must long experience the
consequences of a walk which did not have the Lord's approval. This course delivers
David from Saul's pursuit: “And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath, and
he sought no more for him” (v. 4). At what price? The following chapters inform us,
and this chapter instructs us already.
The stay at Gath gives rise to falsehood. Under pain of appearing to be their enemy
the Philistines cannot be told that one has had to depart from Israel. Some success is
13

14. had against the Geshurites, the Gerzites, and the Amalekites, but to openly declare
one's self to be their adversary would be to expose one's self to many dangers. David
is a guest of the Philistine who from this fact deems him brought into subjection:
“He shall be my servant for ever (v. 12). How can one then make war against their
race? One uses words that have a double meaning to hide one's real sympathies (1
Sam. 28: 2). Just see how many serious consequences the search for the world's
assistance brings with it! The Christian swamped by “social conventions” to which
he is subjected loses his true character there and has no more effect on the
consciences of those around him. He lives in fear of displeasing the world which is
protecting him; he seeks like David to destroy all the witnesses who could come
forward to give evidence of his hostility against the enemies of God's people; he no
longer has a good conscience. Although he is a child of God he is following a path of
hypocrisy.
“Achish trusted David.” The world believes us and flatters itself to have broken the
ties that united us to God's people (v. 12). David through God's grace will be
restored and in what follows his behavior will awaken Achish to his deception. But
how many Christians tangled in this net never awaken the world to their deception,
lose their strength, their peace, and their joy there, sacrifice their testimony there,
and finally leave this scene to go to be with the Lord feeling that they have been
nothing for Him during their lifetime, nothing for Him who however has done
everything for them!
GUZIK, "VID FLEES TO THE PHILISTINES
A. David joins with the Philistine leader Achish.
1. (1Sa_27:1) David’s discouraged decision.
And David said in his heart, “Now I shall perish someday by the hand of
Saul. There is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape to
the land of the Philistines; and Saul will despair of me, to seek me
anymore in any part of Israel. So I shall escape out of his hand.”
a. David said in his heart: The sad story of 1Sa_27:1-12 begins with
something David said in his heart. He may have never said it out loud;
he may have never said it to anyone else; he may have never said it to
God. But David said it in his heart. What we say in our heart has a
tremendous power to shape our thinking, our actions, even our whole
destiny.
i. If someone says in their heart, “God doesn’t care about me,” it
will make a difference in their life. If someone says in their heart,
“I deserve better than this,” it will make a difference in their life.
If someone says in their heart, “I come before others,” it will make
a difference in their life. By the same principle, if someone says in
their heart, “God loves me and I don’t have to earn His love,” it
will make a difference. If they say in their heart, “I am grateful for
every blessing I have,” it will make a difference. If someone says,
“Others come first,” it will make difference in their life. What we
say in our heart has great power for good or evil, for blessing or
14

15. cursing.
b. What did David say in his heart? Now I shall perish someday by the
hand of Saul. That was a word of discouragement, coming from a
heart that was tired of trusting God for His continued deliverance.
God had protected David so many times before, why wouldn’t He
continue to protect him from the hand of Saul? But in his
discouragement, David forgets God’s past deliverance.
i. “This was a very hasty conclusion: God had so often interposed
in behalf of his life, that he was authorized to believe the reverse.”
(Clarke)
ii. David could have asked himself for a different opinion.
Previously, David declared his great trust in God against all
enemies (1Sa_17:45-47). The David of 1Sa_27:1-12 should listen to
the David of 1Sa_17:1-58!
iii. “I remember on one occasion, to my shame, being sad and
doubtful of heart, and a kind friend took out a paper and read to
me a short extract from a discourse upon faith. I very soon
detected the author of the extract; my friend was reading to me
from one of my own sermons. Without saying a word he just left it
to my own conscience, for he had convicted me of committing the
very fault against which I had so earnestly declaimed.” (Spurgeon)
c. What did David say in his heart? There is nothing better for me
than that I should speedily escape to the land of the Philistines. David
is actually telling himself to leave the land of Israel and go live among
the idol worshipping Philistines.
i. In this, David tells himself to do what he feared in 1Sa_26:19:
For they have driven me out this day from abiding in the
inheritance of the LORD, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods.’ This
temptation, these words in David’s heart, had been working their
way in for quite a while. Now, David considers something he
would have never considered before - leaving the land of God’s
people, the land of promise, to go and live among the Philistines!
ii. Nothing better? Was there nothing better for David in Israel
among God’s people than among the ungodly? Is not the love of the
LORD, and His kindness, goodness, and mercy something better?
But David doubted God’s care for him.
iii. “To doubt the lovingkindness of God is thought by some to be a
very small sin; in fact, some have even exalted the doubts and
fears of God’s people into fruits and grace, and evidences of great
advancement in experience. It is humiliating to observe that
certain ministers have pampered and petted men in unbelief and
distrust of God, being in this matter false to their Master, and to
the souls of his people. Far be it from me to smite the feeble of the
flock; but their sins I must and will smite, since it is my firm
conviction, that to doubt the kindness, the faithfulness, and the
15

16. love of God, is a very heinous offense.” (Spurgeon)
d. What did David say in his heart? Saul will despair of me, to seek me
anymore in any part of Israel. So I shall escape out of his hand.
Before, David trusted in the LORD to protect him from the hand of
Saul. Now, David gives up trusting in the LORD, and will instead leave
the land of promise, leave the people of God, and find “protection”
among the Philistines.
i. Saul will despair: What? Will Saul despair if David leaves the
land of promise? Will Saul despair if David forsakes the people of
God and joins the ungodly? No, Saul will rejoice! It is David who is
in despair, not Saul.
ii. In his discouraged despair, David is at a place that many find
themselves at some point in their lives. He says, “I give up. I can’t
take this anymore. The stress of trusting God is too much, and I
have to find protection somewhere else.”
iii. Saul could never drive David to the Philistines. If Saul were to
tell David, “You must leave the people of God and go live among
the Philistines,” David would never bow to it. But discouragement
and despair are more powerful enemies than even Saul was.
Discouragement and despair will drive David to do something
that Saul could never make him do.
iv. All of these are reasons to deal with what we say in our hearts,
to deal with discouragement and despair instead of simply
ignoring them. When we don’t deal with them, they can build and
drive us to far worse places.
e. At this point, David looked at Saul, not at God. David listened to
himself, not to God. This will always end in trouble.
i. “Always be afraid of being afraid. Failing faith means failing
strength. Do not regard despondency as merely a loss of joy, view
it as draining away your spiritual life. Struggle against it, for it
often happens that when faith ebbs sin comes to the flood. He who
does not comfortably trust God will soon seek after comfort
somewhere else.” (Spurgeon)
ELLICOT, " (1) And David said in his heart.—David’s position seems to have
grown more and more untenable during the latter days of Saul’s reign.
Probably the paroxysms of the king’s fatal malady grew sharper and more
frequent, and his chieftains and favourites, whom, as we have already seen
(1 Samuel 26), he had chosen mostly out of the one small tribe of Benjamin,
feared—and with good reason—the advent of David to the throne, which
they saw was imminent in the event of Saul’s dying or being permanently
disqualified to rule. These men, whose bitter hostility to David is more than
hinted at in several places, doubtless taking advantage of the king’s state of
mind, incited him against David. The words and persuasions of such men as
Cush the Benjamite (see Psalms 7), Doeg the Edomite, probably Abner the
16

17. captain of the host, the men of Ziph, and others, quickly erased from the
memory of Saul such scenes as we have witnessed in the En-gedi cave, and,
still more recently, in the hill of Hachilah, and more than counterbalanced
the devotion and powerful friendship of true warriors like Jonathan, who
loved and admired David. In David’s words, after he had taken the spear
and cruse from the side of the sleeping Saul, we see something of what was
passing in his mind—his constant fear of a violent death; his knowledge that
powerful and wicked men were constantly plotting against him; and his
determination to seek a home in another land, where, however, he expected
to find a grave far away from the chosen race, among the idolators and
enemies of Jehovah of Israel. He now realises a part of these sorrowful
forebodings. But in this determination of the son of Jesse we never hear of
prayer, or of consultation with prophet or with priest. A dull despair seems
to have at this time deprived David at once of faith and hope.
Into the land of the Philistines.—David chose to seek a refuge among these
warlike people, for he believed he would be in greater security there than
among his friendly kinsfolk, the Moabites, where, in former days, he had
found such a kindly welcome for his family in the first period of Saul’s
enmity. He probably doubted the power of Moab to protect him.
CONSTABLE, "Was it God's will for David to leave Israel and move to Philistia?
The text does not say, but there are indications that lead me to believe that he
should not have done this even though he must have felt almost forced to do it. First,
there is the statement that David consulted with himself, but he had previously
asked God for guidance in prayer (cf. 23:2,
4). Second, David said he believed he would die if he remained in Israel. Yet Samuel
had anointed him as Israel's next king (16:13), Jonathan had said twice that David
would be king (18:4; 23:17), as had Saul (24:20; 26:25), and so had Abigail (25:30).
Saul's most recent statement about this occurs in the verse immediately preceding
verse one.
Third, the name of God does not appear in this chapter suggesting that David did
not get his guidance from the Lord. David's faith in God's ability to keep him safe
seems to have lapsed temporarily. The stress and strain of his hide-and-seek
existence with no end in view seem to have worn on David. In addition, he had
another wife to take care of now (25:42). This led him to seek refuge from Saul in
Philistia again (cf. 21:10-15). This
The next step is to distract yourself from your pessimistic beliefs or dispute them.
Disputing pessimistic beliefs will bring deeper, longer lasting results than distracting
will, but distraction can also be effective, and sometimes easier.
Disputing pessimistic beliefs involves replacing them with alternative, kinder, and
17

18. more realistic explanations. For example, if you have an argument with your
partner, you might immediately think: "S/he never understands me! I'm always the
one who ends up apologizing. This isn't working out; we should split up." In the
heat of an argument, it's hard to think rationally. But if you step back and think
about the situation more realistically, you might find that your thoughts become
more positive, and you may even be able to work things out faster. For instance, you
might tell yourself, "We just had an argument, and while s/he wasn't very
understanding, neither was I. S/he's understood me lots of other times, and will
probably understand me again once we've both cooled off. We've always been able
to work through our problems before. I know we can again."
Maintaining a hopeful, positive, yet real perspective in the face of adversity can be a
real challenge - one many are facing right now in the world - but it is essential to
living peacefully and happily. Just as it is important to recognize what is unjust and
unfair in our lives and the world, it is equally important to see the beauty, love,
generosity, and goodness as well. Being gentle and loving with ourselves when we
make mistakes, or when bad things happen is key to being hopeful and optimistic.
And even if you're not sure it's possible, you can do it!
Negative Thinking
4/21/2000 - By George Freeman
When you are up on the lanes trying to make the 10 pin (or 7 pin), do you find
yourself thinking, "I hope I don't miss this spare"? That's negative thinking, and
more often than not, creates doubt, thus making the spare all that more difficult. It's
not just spares either, it can be any scenario: Practicing something new in your
game, bowling in league, competing in a tournament: Negative thought patterns are
easy to develop. It's simply human nature. Nobody is perfect, but you can minimize
the effect of these thoughts to your game by just thinking positive. For example,
instead of thinking, "I hope I don't miss this spare"... how about, "No sweat." It's
simple, sounds goofy, but it works.
Negative thinking is 100% effective when it comes to playing sports. When a person
gets ready to shoot a basketball and thinks he is going to miss, what is the chance he
will make it? Not very good. The key to playing well in sports starts with a great
mindset and a positive attitude.
People who are great at sports often also have great minds. They have a short-term
memory for bad things and a long-term memory for good. Have you ever stood over
a five-foot putt or at the free-throw line and suddenly the thought of missing flashes
through your mind? It is a problem many athletes have to deal with. Unfortunately,
negative thoughts seem to come at the worst possible time. Athletes need to work on
this problem and have confidence that they can do what their minds tell them they
can.
The reason most things are not accomplished really has nothing to do with physical
talent but rather the lack of the right mindset. Sports is all about having your mind
18

19. focused. For instance, when you play golf, you should be thinking about your next
shot, not your last one. You need to think of positive things and where you want the
ball to end up. Thinking positively may not guarantee success, but it will surely give
it a chance to occur.
Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Which came first: the depression or the
pessimistic thoughts? I can't answer the first question, but the answer to the latter
may surprise you.
In many, many cases depression actually is the result of negative thoughts. When
bad things happen, we begin chastising ourselves with such thoughts as: "I'm no
good."; "I'm a total failure."; or "Nothing ever goes my way." These thoughts can
send us spiraling right down into a deep depression. You see, we are what we think.
This concept is the guiding principle behind Cognitive Therapy. If we think
something often enough, we begin to believe it's true. To conquer depression, we
must stop those automatic thoughts and replace them with more positive, truthful
ones.
Shakespeare, the great man of words himself, knew the immense power of our
thoughts when he wrote, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes
it so." Negative thinking habits can, in fact, have a devastating effect on our lives -
simply by believing something, whether consciously or subconsciously, we can make
it come true.
DAVID'S DANGEROUS DECISION
Decisions made when we're down in the dumps or emotionally distraught are
exceedingly perilous. We're most vulnerable to bad choices when we're in that state
of mind--choices we would never make if we were on top of things. When we're
down, we inevitably stumble into bad judgment.
Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D
"The sad fact is that negative thinking causes negative feelings, such as depression,
pessimism, and anxiety. We need to keep our negative thoughts in control.
Whenever we catch ourselves thinking negative thoughts, we should change them.
There are three major types of negative thoughts: 1. Negative thoughts about self 2.
Negative thoughts about others 3 Negative thoughts about the future. Let's look at
each type of negative thinking a little more closely.
Negative thoughts about self are usually self-criticisms which tend to be absolute,
such as, "I am worthless" or, "I am no good." Negative thoughts can also be
indirect and inferred from negative events. For example, something bad happens in
your life and you think, "If I were a good person, this wouldn't have happened to
me." Or, somebody treats you unfairly and you say, "There is nothing I can do
about it. I deserve to be treated like that. "
Cynicism is another name for negative thinking about others. Cynical people
perceive others as mean, uncaring, and critical. They ignore that others are also
kind, helpful, generous, or complementary. A negative thinker focuses only on the
19

20. faults, shortcomings, and limitations of others and overlooks their positive qualities,
strengths and achievements. Cynical people overgeneralize their bad experiences
with a few people and see the whole world in a negative light. When we see the
world as nothing but full of selfish, mean and critical people, we see no hope of ever
finding anyone we can trust or lean on. Pretty heartbreaking situation eh? If this
won't make one lonely, what will? If the negative thinking about others is at the
extreme, one can be lonely in the middle of a roomfull of people Negative thoughts
about others pave the way for helplessness, "Nobody can help me." Negative
thoughts about self and others can also lead to hopelessness, which is the third type
of negative thinking.
Hopelessness can be the ultimate result of negative thinking about future, such as,
"What is the use of trying," or, "It's only going to get worse," or, "It's never going
to get better." These thoughts encourage a person to be resigned to fate. It is a
"fatalist thinking," which is a notch higher than the mere "pessimistic thinking."
Negative thoughts can lead to a feeling of powerlessness. Powerlessness sets in when
one feels a total lack of faith in one's own ability to change one's future. Examples"
"I've gone so deep, I can never dig out." "I will never get better. " "This is what I
am. I can never change my temper." Some negative thoughts have a grim view of
our own selves and of the future. Example: "They will never accept me." "If I ever
try to come up, they will try to knock me down."
So those are a few examples of the negative thinking about self, others, and the
future. Let's become an expert in identifying negative thoughts as that is the first
major step to change them. In the next article, I will discuss, how to change the
negative thinking.
Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D
During this mental health month I encourage you to become more aware of what
you think about all day long. As you become more aware of your thought patterns,
pay special attention to the patterns that are self-defeating and distort the reality of
the world around you. Here are some thought patterns identified by psychologists
which impair our ability to take appropriate action or maintain satisfying
relationships:
Mind reading: you assume you know what others are thinking in their mind, for
example, "My boss thinks I'm an idiot." You may feel so sure of your ability to read
minds that even if your boss pays you a compliment about how smart you are, you
say to yourself, "Oh sure! I know what you really think of me." At times, I tell my
clients, "I'm only a psychologist, not a mind reader. So tell me what you're
thinking"
Fortune telling: you predict future negative outcomes, sometimes, even before you
begin an undertaking, for example, "I'll fail that exam" or, "Things are alright
now, but something will soon happen to mess things up." And, when something does
go wrong (as things often do) you acclaim, "I knew it." Thus, your belief in your
fortune telling ability becomes so strong that next time you don't even bother to try.
"Awfulizing" it: you believe that the outcome of something will be so awful and
20

21. terrible that you won't be able to stand it.
Negative labeling: originates from our childhood habit of nicknaming. You give
yourself and others negative labels: "I am a flop" and then you act like one; "He's a
rotten man," then, you relate to that person as if he really is, therefore, no wonder
that he acts like one.
Dismissing positives: You treat positives as insignficant, trivial, or temporary. For
example, your spouse takes an awful lot of trouble for doing something for you and
you say to yourself, "Spouses are supposed to do things like that for each other."
You accomplish something and say to yourself, "Anybody can do that. No big deal."
Negative focusing: you focus almost exclusively on negatives, "I can never do
anything right," or "He never has anything positive to say about me." Dismissing
positives and focusing on negatives, which often go hand in hand, are two thieves
that will rob you of your happiness.
Overgeneralization: On the basis of an experience of one thing or a person you draw
conclusions about all. For example, one man (or woman) betrays you and you form
a belief, "No man (or woman) can be trusted."
All-or-nothing thinking: It is also called "black and white thinking." For example,
you believe a person or a thing is either all good or all bad. The truth is that
everyone has some good and some bad and the proportions of that mix may vary
from one person to the other.
"Shoulds" and "musts" thinking: unmet expectations are a source of unhappiness.
Expectations are based on shoulds and musts. We bring a lot of unhappiness to
ourselves by forming such expectations as "I should," "they should," or "you
must," and believing that they will be upheld by everyone at all times. When this
doesn't happen, we gripe, fight or mope, and feel awful.
Personalizing: You disproportionately, inaccurately, or unjustifiably blame yourself
for negative outcomes, for example: "My parents divorced. It's my fault," or "The
marriage ended. It's all my fault."
Blanming: You disproportionately, inaccurately, or unjustifiably blame others for
negative outcomes and refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself, for
example, "She's to blame for the way I feel," or, "My parents caused all my
problem."
Emotional reasoning: You think your problem behavior or situation is caused by
your emotion, for example, "My marriage is not working out because I am
depressed."
Unfair comparison: You make comparisions without enough information to know
whether you are comparing apples with apples, for example, "Everybody is going
about their life steadily and having a good time, and look at me!" You don't know
enough about what's really going on in their lives.
Interestingly, many people who think in this way won't swap their life for anyone
else's.
Negative Thinking
‘Negativitis’ cripples the human spirit
Does it seem strange that some people COMPLAIN they don’t have enough TIME
to be happy, yet they find enough time to be sad? Not really. You see, their
deplorable plight has nothing to do with having sufficient or insufficient time. It has
21

22. everything to do with complaining. After all, complaining is the negation of
happiness. It’s impossible to complain and be happy at the same time.
So, beware of that insidious disease known as ‘negativitis’ (negative thinking). It is
as pervasive as the common cold, but far more damaging. It mutilates, cripples, and
corrodes the human spirit. Those infected by it are broken men and women
aimlessly plodding along. The dark clouds brooding over them obscure their vision
and cause them to become confrontational, apathetic, and cynical. Their lives are
like flat champagne, without any sizzle. So, how do we inoculate ourselves against
such a harmful disease? It was only after learning about the horrible effects of
smoking that people began to give it up. It may be wise to do the same here. So, let’s
review the effects of negativitis.
1. Complaining is worse than doing nothing, for it is digging the rut one is in deeper
and deeper. Each time one complains, it becomes increasingly difficult to climb out
of the ditch they’ve created. To loosen the grip of this vicious habit, we need to
become aware of our complaining, stop it in its tracks, and immediately look for
something positive to say. It’s just a matter of replacing a bad habit with a good one.
2. A negative attitude is self-defeating. We won’t find solutions to life’s problems by
looking for someone or something to blame. Those who say, "Positive thinking
doesn't work for me," have got it backwards. It’s not positive thinking that has to
work; YOU have to work. For example, you have to work at appreciating what you
have instead of moaning about what you lack.
3. Failure to do what you want to do (be happy) causes physical and mental stress. A
rotten attitude, not only delays success, but also shortens life by damaging the
immune system (to learn more on how your thoughts affect your immune system,
investigate psychoneuroimmunology). So, besides the diseases directly caused by
stress, such as heart disease and ulcers, we become susceptible to all manner of
other diseases because of a weakened immune system.
4. Do you know anyone with a negative attitude? How many years have they been
that way? Two years? Five years? Ten years? That’s how many years of happiness
and success they have robbed themselves of. Blinded by their own negativity, they
are prevented from seeing the good around them.
5. One characteristic of negative thinkers is their need to have the world behave
according to their wishes. They have never grown up and still live with childish
demands. Whenever people and the world fail to act according to their selfish
wishes, they are unhappy. Such a poisonous attitude prevents them from growing
and learning how to cope with life's challenges.
6. Everything negative we say about ourselves to ourselves (self-talk) and to others is
a suggestion. We are unwittingly practicing self-hypnosis, programing ourselves for
failure, and creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
7. The negative world of our imagination creates a negative world that is real and
one that we are forced to live in. Take Ralph, for example. He’s always complaining
about life. “Nowadays people are rude and surly. No matter where you go or what
you do, you have to deal with ill-bred people.” As he said this, we made our way to a
coffee shop. Once inside, we were greeted by a cheerful chap who asked us what we
would like. Sighing (as if it took a great effect to speak), Ralph, almost inaudibly,
ordered a medium sized regular coffee. When it arrived, he started complaining.
22

23. Pointing to the cup, he said, “This is medium?” Without waiting for a response, he
added, “You should have told me your cups are so small; I would have ordered a
large one if I knew.” Despite the long line that Ralph was holding up, the man
behind the counter tried to be patient. Without complaint, he took away the small
coffee and replaced it with a large one. As soon as it arrived, Ralph looked at it
aghast and bellowed, “You call this regular? There’s not enough cream!” The man
behind the counter, who only moments ago was cheerful was now upset and
sarcastically replied, “Yes, for MOST people, this is regular, but if you INSIST, I’ll
put in more cream. Perhaps next time you may want to ask for DOUBLE cream!” I
was next, so I got my coffee and joined Ralph at the table. “See,” he told me, “what
did I say to you? People are rude.” Yes, in Ralph’s world, people ARE rude, but
what he does not realize is he makes them so.
8. A particularly pernicious effect of ‘negativitis’ is that it sets one up for the
mentality of a victim. Those with a woe-is-me attitude sit around in misery, waiting
to be rescued. But they wait in vain because no one can rescue them from their own
attitude. They are the only ones who can change it. And until they do so, they are
condemned to continue suffering.
9. Another adverse effect of negativity is that it sets one up for the magic-bullet-
syndrome. That is, the victim of ‘negativitis’ spends their time looking for a quick,
easy fix, when none exists. By denying a fundamental law of life that states anything
worthwhile requires effort to achieve, they achieve nothing. They won’t make
progress until they realize that nothing in life is free. They’ve got to be willing to do
what it takes to get what they want.
10. Also, beware of the fact that negative people attract other complainers. Because
those who live in a world of doom and gloom alienate others, they have no choice
but to look for other negative people to associate with. They then feed off one
another and get locked in a clique of losers.
11. The constant stress that flows from a negative attitude also saps one’s energy,
focus, and motivation. It is hardly a formula for success.
12. Also of great concern is the fact that those who refuse to work on improving
their negative attitude may slide into depression, self-pity, and hopelessness.
13. Additionally, negative people not only harm themselves; they harm the world.
They cease to make a contribution to it. Instead of helping, they spread gloom and
misery everywhere. If they insist on infecting others, why not infect them with
laughter? If they must carry something contagious, why not carry a smile?
Imagine being in a small boat drifting in a river. And imagine being unaware that
your boat has a motor. As long as you fail to use that motor you will be a captive of
the river. You will be a prisoner without any control over your destination. Yet, the
boat that we’re in does have a motor. We can use it to change course. That motor is
our power of choice. All we have to do is choose to look for the good, for when we do
so, that is all we will find!
© Chuck Gallozzi, gallozzi@interlog.com
One person in the Bible who had more than his share of trouble was King David... a.
23

24. For example: 1) He was pursued by King Saul 2) He barely escaped several
assassination attempts 3) He had to spend much time hiding in the wilderness 4) His
entire family was kidnapped on one occasion 5) His friends turned against him and
were ready to kill him 6) He suffered the shame of having committed adultery and
murder 7) His son Amnon raped his daughter Tamar 8) His other son Absalom
murdered Amnon 9) Absalom led a revolt against his father 10) Absalom himself
was killed, much to David's grief b. Need I go on? David was certainly a man with
many problems!
RAY PRITCHARD, "Once upon a time the devil decided to have a garage sale. He
did it because he wanted to clear out some of his old tools to make room for new
ones. After he set up his wares, a fellow dropped by to see what he had. Arrayed on
a long table were all the tricks of his infernal trade. Each tool had a price tag. In one
corner was a shiny implement labeled “Anger—$250,” next to it a curved tool
labeled “Sloth—$380.” As the man searched, he found “Criticism—$500” and
“Jealousy—$630.” Out of the corner of his eye, the man spotted a beaten-up tool
with a price tag of $12,000. Curious, the man asked the devil why he would offer a
worn-out piece of junk for such an exorbitant price. The devil said it was expensive
because he used it so much. “What is it?,” the man asked. The answer came back,
“It is discouragement. It always works when nothing else will.”
Surely all of us can testify to the truth of that little fable. We all know from hard
experience how the devil uses discouragement to keep us from moving ahead. When
anger won’t stop us, when lust can do us no harm, when envy finds no foothold,
discouragement always works. It is the devil’s number one tool.
The dictionary defines discouragement as “anything that makes us less confident
and hopeful.” Another way to look at it is to say that encouragement is the act of
putting courage into someone. Therefore, discouragement is anything that takes the
courage out.
That’s a dangerous state to be in because a discouraged person makes many
mistakes. You won’t be surprised to learn that David’s life offers an excellent
example of what discouragement can do to a man of God. The story is told in I
Samuel 27-30, a passage little known to most of us but one which is perfectly
relevant today.
I. What Discouragement Did to David The story begins this way: “But David
thought to himself, ‘One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The
best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up
searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand’” (I Samuel
27:1). In those words you have the x-ray of a discouraged soul. It shows us what
discouragement can do to you and me.
First, discouragement destroyed his perspective. It all begins when David starts to
think about his situation. For nearly ten years he’s been running from Saul. Ten
24

25. years is a big chunk out of a man’s life. Maybe he was tired on this particular day.
No one could blame him for feeling down. We’ve all been in the same place. But this
time his mind jumps from one negative thought to another until at last he reaches a
hopeless conclusion: “One of these days Saul is going to get me. I don’t know where
or when or how but I can’t run like this forever. It may not come for a year or it
may happen tomorrow but sure as sunrise, it’s going to happen.” The future looks
bleak because he has decided to focus on the negative instead of the positive.
As I said, we can excuse and even understand such thinking except for two key
facts. First, God had promised that David would be the next king. That wasn’t a
prediction the way political pundits predict the next president. No, it was a rock-
solid promise and David could take it to the bank. Meaning that Saul would never
kill him no matter how bleak the circumstances might appear.
Second, David had just emerged from a string of three remarkable spiritual
victories. He had spared Saul’s life once in the cave at En Gedi (I Samuel 24). Then
he had spared Nabal’s life when Abigail interceded (I Samuel 25). Then he had very
recently spared Saul’s life again when he crept into the camp and found Saul
sleeping (I Samuel 26). Perhaps it isn’t surprising that discouragement came hard
on the heels of such remarkable victories. It is often that way for the children of
God. We could almost say that when things are going well, watch out because you
are set up to be blindsided by temptation of one kind or another.
In any case, David chooses to focus on what might happen instead of what has
happened, and on his own resources instead of God’s promises. As a result, he
completely loses his perspective on life.
Dumb and Dumber Second, it led him to an impulsive decision. You can certainly
say the decision to go live with the Philistines was impulsive. You can also say it was
just plain dumb. Again, David has his reasons. The big one is that by going to the
Philistines he will make Saul quit chasing him. The other one is a bit more subtle.
You may recall this isn’t the first time David has lived with Goliath’s people. He did
it before, back in chapter 21, when he lied to Ahimelech to get bread for his men.
That episode ended in humiliation with David slobbering on his beard to make
Achish think he had gone nuts. So now David turns around and makes the same
mistake all over again. There is a great warning for all of us in this. One act of
spiritual compromise—no matter how small—makes it easier to compromise the
next time. Even a tiny step in the wrong direction sets us up to take the next step
sooner or later.
Third, it forced him into a position of compromise. God’s word was crystal clear:
The children of Israel were not to mix with the surrounding nations. Over and over
the warning was given and every time somebody tried it, disaster resulted. David
knew all that and he did it anyway. I’m sure if you had asked David as he led his
band toward Gath, “Are you deserting God?” he would have said no. He probably
would have been insulted by the very question. “Me, desert God? Are you kidding?
I believe everything I always believed.” “But David, these are not God’s people.” “It
25

26. makes no difference. I’m going to go live there for a while until the pressure is off.
It’s not a big deal. I can have my quiet time in Gath just as easily as I can in Israel.”
We always have an excuse when we compromise. It seems logical enough to us.
Some of us are doing it right now. We are involved in shady deals, compromising
relationships, and business arrangements that we know aren’t quite right. We’re
going along with some things that would embarrass us if anyone else knew. We’re
still in church this morning, still singing the songs of Zion, but in our hearts, we
know we’ve taken the low road. Discouragement does that. It leads us slowly
downward until we end up doing things we would never dreamed we would do.
What starts as a fleeting thought becomes a plan, a plan becomes a commitment,
and eventually a commitment becomes a lifestyle.
II. What Compromise Did to David As we read on, we find things rapidly getting
worse. His compromise involved innocent people in his wrong decision. First Samuel
27:2 says that “David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to
Achish son of Maoch king of Gath.” Each man brought his family with him. That
means there were at least 600 men, 600 women, and who knows how many children
involved. All now living with the enemy because of David’s choice.
The same thing happens to us. Whenever we begin to compromise, we take other
people with us. Naturally, we don’t think about it at the time, but soon enough we
discover that our impulsiveness has hurt a lot of innocent people.
If you keep on reading, you find one fact that may surprise you. David’s
compromise ushered in a period of temporary peace and prosperity. Verse 4 tells us
that Saul did indeed stop searching for David. Verses 5-6 record that David and his
people were given the village of Ziklag to live in. I Chronicles 12 informs us that
during this period a great many of Saul’s soldiers defected to David in Ziklag.
Finally, verse 12 says that Achish king of Gath was very pleased with David.
On the surface, it looks like David made a wise decision. You could argue that God
is blessing David for going to the Philistines. For a period of weeks or maybe months
I’m sure he felt vindicated. Things were going well. He gets up in the morning about
nine, reads the Ziklag Gazette, goes down to the aerobics center to work out with the
boys, in the afternoon he raids a nearby village, and in the evening maybe there’s a
feast. Not a bad life.
There is a clear biblical principle at work here. Disobedience often results in a
temporary lessening of pressure. We remember that Hebrews 11 speaks of “the
pleasures of sin for a season.” Sure, David felt better for a while. Don’t ever let
anyone tell you that sin isn’t fun. The exact opposite is true. Sin is lots of fun and
compromise is exciting. That’s why so many Christians do it.
There’s a third result of David’s compromise. It led him into further sin. Here’s the
other side of the coin. First there was discouragement, then there was desperation,
26

27. then defection, and now further disobedience that leads to deceit and needless death.
Verses 8-11 describe raiding parties David would undertake while he was living at
Ziklag. You need to know a little geography to get the picture. Ziklag was a tiny
village off in the wilderness between Gaza and Beersheba. David would take his men
and raid the villages to the south and southwest of Ziklag. But when Achish asked,
“Where did you go raiding today?” David would answer, “I’ve been to the Negev of
Judah,” which was south and east. The implication of David’s answer was that he
had been raiding his own people Israel. Actually he had been going the opposite
direction. But the deception served the purpose of convincing Achish that he was
truly loyal to him.
That doesn’t seem like such a big deal until you read verse 11. “He did not leave a
man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, ‘They might inform on
us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” So what started as a plundering party ended
in a bloody slaughter. After all, dead men tell no tales.
Playing for the Wrong Team But are you surprised? That’s what happens to all of
us when discouragement leads us to compromise. When David attacked those
villages, he did it without God’s permission, without provocation, under false
pretenses, and with unnecessary cruelty. David is caught in a terrible downward
spiral and the worst is still to come.
There is one final result of compromise. It climaxed with an order to join the other
side. For David and his men, everything seems to be going great. In fact, it seems
like God is blessing him more than ever before. Life is beautiful until the day David
gets his draft notice. First Samuel 28:1 puts it this way: “In those days the
Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. Achish said to David, ‘You
must understand that you and your men will accompany me in the army.’” Now the
chickens are coming home to roost. Why did Achish welcome David’s defection so
many months ago? He was collecting an IOU and now he calls it in. What’s worse,
he names David as his personal bodyguard. That means that if the Philistines win
the battle, it will be the bodyguard’s duty to kill the defeated king. Which means
that David will be forced to do the one thing he has steadfastly refused to do—kill
Saul.
David never intended to get into this mess. In his mind, going to live with the
Philistines was just a temporary maneuver to buy some time and space. But now he
is faced with the full results of his compromise. Unless God intervenes, he will be
forced to fight against his own people. But that’s what happens whenever you live
your life apart from God. One little step leads to another, one tiny compromise
opens the door to another, and before long you find yourself in too deep to get out.
When that happens, you think, “It’s okay. I’ll make it.” But you won’t.
By now, David is too indebted to Achish to even think about backing out. He is the
perfect picture of the carnal man operating on his own resources.
III. How David Bottomed Out So now the scene is set. The Philistines gather at
27

28. Aphek to war against the men of Israel. The soldiers gather in small groups, check
their weapons, discuss strategy, and wonder when the battle will begin. Men are
here from all the various Philistine cities—Gath, Ekron, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza—
the total number is up in the thousands. This is no small skirmish; this is all-out
war. David and his men are bringing up the rear.
All goes well until one of the Philistines says, “What are those Jews doing here?”
Then someone else says, “Get those guys out of here.” Word shoots through the
ranks and something like a small riot breaks out. The generals come to Achish and
say, “What’s this man David doing here? Don’t you remember the song they used to
play on the Hebrew Hit Parade about ten years ago?” And they quote that little
ditty that used to make Saul so mad, “Saul has slain his thousands, but David his
tens of thousands.” They object to David being near them because they fear he will
turn against them in the heat of battle in order to regain Saul’s favor.
So Achish has to go back to David and say, “I’m sorry, but you can’t fight with us.
My men don’t trust you. Go back to Ziklag. We’ll let you fight in the next battle.”
The World Doesn’t Trust a Compromising Christian There is an important lesson
for us to consider at this point. A child of God defects—even temporarily—to the
other side and then he discovers that the other side doesn’t want him because they
don’t trust him. Why? Because a child of God is always a child of God. The new
nature within cannot be taken away even though it can be covered up and
camouflaged by compromise. That’s why backsliding is a kind of spiritual suicide.
The believer who cuts himself off from the people of God soon discovers the people
of the world don’t want him around either. So he is fated to spend his years in a
kind of no-man’s land, half in the world, half in the church. He is a man without a
country.
When I preached this sermon, a woman came up to me and thanked me for pressing
home this point. “I’ve been too concerned with what the other women in my
neighborhood think of me.” She had been trying to become like them in order to win
their favor. But it never works. The people of the world are smarter than that. They
can recognize the true children of God and they won’t respect us if we try to play on
their team. The world respects Christians who stand up for what they believe. They
may not like us (they might even persecute us) but they will respect us and they
can’t deny the reality of our faith.
The end is almost upon David and he doesn’t even know it. As he and his men
march back to Ziklag, I imagine they feel pretty lucky. Only a last-second
intervention prevented them from joining the attack on Israel. They are almost
home now, only one more hill to cross. Suddenly one of the men says, “I smell
smoke.” Another says, “I do, too.” Someone shouts, “It’s Ziklag.” In a moment, 600
men break ranks and run for the village. Their eyes are not prepared for what they
see. While they were gone, the Amalekites came and took their wives, took their
children, took all their possessions, and burned the village to the ground. Nothing is
left.
28

29. You see, the Amalekites were part of those villages David used to raid when he was
playing that little game and pretending to attack Judah. Remember, David not only
raided those villages, he also killed the people to keep them from talking. Now the
Amalekites have returned the favor.
David has been flirting with disaster for a long, long time. What started out as a
simple case of discouragement has now led to something inconceivable. When he
first came to the Philistines, he only meant to relieve the pressure. He never meant
for anything like this to happen. And all this time, God has been trying to get his
attention but David won’t listen. Finally, disaster strikes and David is totally
unprepared.
The text says that David and his men wept until they could not weep anymore. It
also says David’s men were so bitter that they talked of stoning David. And why
not? Ziklag is burning and it’s all David’s fault. What started with discouragement
led to desperation which led to defection which led to disobedience which
culminated in disaster.
Now God is beginning to get David’s attention. Sometimes the Lord has to do that in
order to get through to us. Disaster comes and we stand in the blackened, smoking
ruins of a part of our life. And at last we come to our senses. After 16 months of
compromise and disobedience, David finally begins to look up. The tragedy is that it
took so long and hurt so many people.
IV. How David Turned His Life Around The turning point comes so quickly that we
may miss it. First Samuel 30:6 says that “David found strength in the LORD his
God.” David found strength. That means he is no longer relying on his own
strength. David’s number one problem from the beginning was that he was so gifted
that he could operate very successfully apart from God. We know he was handsome
and strong, we know he was a gifted musician and a mighty warrior, we know that
women were attracted to him, we know he was a born leader. David had it all. He
was every woman’s dream and every man’s hero. In later years, those qualities
would make him Israel’s greatest king. But one reason God put David through ten
years of obscurity in the desert was to teach him not to rely on his own abilities but
in the Lord alone. That’s a hard lesson for all of us to learn and doubly hard for
those with great natural gifts.
As long as David leaned on the Lord, those enormous gifts could be used to
accomplish great ends. We have seen it already and we will see it again as he leads
his people to the greatest era of prosperity they will ever know. But every time
David leaned on his own strength to get the job done, he got in trouble. And he hurt
a lot of people in the process.
What lesson should we take from this story? Primarily the one mentioned in I
Corinthians 10:12, “So if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t
29

30. fall!” What happened to David can happen to any of us.
Beyond that, we can sum up three clear warning statements and one positive
application:
1) Discouragement is inevitable when we attempt to face the problems of life in our
own strength.
2) Compromise with the world offers only a temporary solution to our problems.
3) God’s punishment is usually to let us face the consequence s of our own wrong
decisions.
4) Discouragement is not meant to throw us on our back, but to bring us to our
knees.
Where is the grace of God in this story? To paraphrase a famous hymn, this story is
all about the “love that will not let us go.” God loves us too much to let us stay
forever in our sin. The Lord knows his own, he puts his seal upon us, and he
watches every move we make. When we decide to live in our own strength, God lets
us go our own way in order that when we fail (and we will fail eventually), we will
turn to him with a new resolve and a firm commitment to walk in the light. Because
we are little children, we have to fall in order to learn how to walk. There is a
warning here and also great hope based on a God whose love is so strong that even
when we sin, that same love keeps calling us back home.
Some of us have done exactly what David did. Some of us are still doing it. There’s a
lesson to be learned and a warning to be taken. The good news is this—whenever
we’re ready, truly ready, we can turn things around. That’s what the grace of God
is all about. The question is, how far will we have to go before that moment comes?
Escape is a very common way of dealing with problems, and especially the problem
of being chased by a mad man who wants to kill you.
David had reached the end of his rope. He just couldn't take it anymore. So he
thought to himself:
GILL, "this was a strange fit of unbelief he was sunk into, and very unaccountable
and unreasonable it was, had he but considered his being anointed king by the
Lord, the promise of God to him, which could not fail, and the providence of God
that watched over him from time to time:
so shall I escape out of his hand; and be for ever safe: these were the carnal
reasonings of his mind, under the prevalence of unbelief; and shows what poor
weak creatures the best of men are, and how low their graces may sink as to
exercise, when left to themselves.
30

31. PINK, "After Saul’s departure (1 Sam. 26:25), David took stock of his situation, but
unfortunately he left God out of his calculations. During tedious and trying delays,
and especially when outward things seem to be all going against us, there is grave
danger of giving way to unbelief. Then it is we are very apt to forget former mercies,
and fear the worst. And when faith staggers, obedience wavers, and self-expedients
are frequently employed, which later, involve us in great difficulties. So it was now
with the one whose varied life we are seeking to trace. As David considered the
situation he was still in, remembered the inconstancy and treachery of Saul, things
appeared very gloomy to him. Knowing full well the king’s jealousy, and perhaps
reasoning that he would now regard him with a still more evil eye, since God so
favored him, David feared the worst.
"The moment in which faith attains any triumph, is often one of peculiar danger.
Self-confidence may be engendered by success, and pride may spring out of honour
that humility has won; or else, if faithfulness, after having achieved its victory, still
finds itself left in the midst of danger and sorrow, the hour of triumph may be
succeeded by one of undue depression and sorrowful disappointment. And thus it
was with David. He had obtained this great moral victory; but his circumstances
were still unchanged. Saul yet continued to be king of Israel: himself remained a
persecuted outcast. As the period, when he had before spared the life of Saul, had
been followed by days of lengthened sorrow, so he probably anticipated an
indefinite prolongation of similar sufferings, and his heart quailed at the prospect"
(B. W. Newton).
"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul." Such
a conclusion was positively erroneous. There was no evidence in proof thereof: he
had been placed in perilous positions before, but God had never deserted him. His
trials had been many and varied, but God had always made for him "a way to
escape" (1 Cor. 10:13). It was therefore contrary to the evidence. Once he had said,
"thy servant slew both the lion and the bear, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall
be as one of them" (1 Sam. 17:36). Why not reason like that now? and say "Thy
servant slew Goliath, was delivered from the javelin of a madman, escaped the evil
devices of Doeg, and so he shall continue to escape out of the hand of Saul!"
Moreover, David’s rash conclusion was contrary to promise: Samuel had poured
upon his head the anointing oil as God’s earnest that he should be king—how then
could he be slain by Saul?
How is David’s unbelief to be accounted for? "First, because he was a man. The best
of men are men at the best, and man at his best is such a creature that well might
David himself say, ‘Lord, what is man?’ . . . If faith never gave place to unbelief, we
might be tempted to lift up the believer into a demigod, and think him something
more than mortal. That we might see that a man full of faith is still a man, that we
might glory in infirmities, since by them the power of God is the more clearly
proved, therefore God was pleased to let the feebleness of man grievously show
itself. Ah, it was not David who achieved those former victories, but God’s grace in
David; and now, when that is removed for a moment, see what Israel’s champion
becomes!
31

32. "Second, David had been exposed to a very long trial; not for one week, but for
month after month, he had been hunted like a partridge, upon the mountains. Now
a man could bear one trial, but a perpetuity of tribulations is very hard to bear.
Such was David’s trial: always safe, but always harassed; always secure through
God, but always hunted about by his foe. No place could give him any ease. If he
went unto Keilah, then the citizens would deliver him up; if he went into the woods
of Ziph, then the Ziphites betrayed him; if he went even to the priest of God, there
was that dog of a Doeg to go to Saul, and accuse the priest; even in Engedi or in
Adullam he was not secure; secure, I grant you, in God, but always persecuted by
his foe. Now, this was enough to make the wise man mad, and to make the faithful
man doubt. Do not judge too harshly of David; at least judge just as hardly of
yourselves.
"Third, David had passed through some strong excitements of mind. Just a day or
so before he had gone forth with Abishai in the moonlight to the field where Saul
and his hosts lay sleeping. They passed the outer circle where the common soldiers
lay, and quietly and stealthily the two heroes passed without awakening any. They
came at last to the spot where the captains of the hundreds slept, and they trod over
their slumbering bodies without arousing them. They reached the spot where Saul
lay, and David had to hold back Abishai’s hand from slaying him; so he escaped
from this temptation, as he had aforetime. Now, brethren, a man may do these great
things helped by God, but do you know it is a sort of natural law with us, that after
a strong excitement there is a reaction! It was thus with Elijah after his victory over
the prophets of Baal: later, he ran from Jezebel, and cried ‘Let me die.’
"But there was another reason, for we are not to exculpate David. He sinned, and
that not merely through infirmity, but through evil of heart. It seems to us that
David had restrained prayer. In every other action of David you find some hint that
he asked counsel of the Lord . . . But this time what did he talk with? Why, with the
most deceitful thing that he could have found—with his own heart . . . Having
restrained prayer, he did the fool’s act: he forgot his God, he looked only at his
enemy, and it was no wonder that when he saw the strength of the cruel monarch,
and the pertinacity of his persecution, he said ‘I shall one day fall before him.’
Brothers and sisters, would you wish to hatch the egg of unbelief till it turns into a
scorpion? Restrain prayer! Would you see evils magnified and mercies diminish?
Would you find your tribulations increased sevenfold and your faith diminished in
proportion? Restrain prayer!" (Condensed from C. H. Spurgeon).
CLARKE "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.
JFB This resolution of David's was, in every respect, wrong: (1) It was removing
32

33. him from the place where the divine oracle intimated him to remain (1Sa_22:5); (2)
It was rushing into the idolatrous land, for driving him into which he had
denounced an imprecation on his enemies (1Sa_26:19); (3) It was a withdrawal of
his counsel and aid from God's people. It was a movement, however, overruled by
Providence to detach him from his country and to let the disasters impending over
Saul and his followers be brought on by the Philistines.
HENRY, "Was he not anointed to be king? Did not that imply an assurance that he
should be preserved to the kingdom? Though he had no reason to trust Saul's
promises, had he not all the reason in the world to trust the promises of God? His
experience of the particular care Providence took of him ought to have encouraged
him. He that has delivered does and will. But unbelief is a sin that easily besets even
good men. When without are fightings, within are fears, and it is a hard matter to
get over them. Lord, increase our faith!
David was no friend to himself in taking this course. God had appointed him to set
up his standard in the land of Judah, 1Sa_22:5. There God had wonderfully
preserved him, and employed him sometimes for the good of his country; why then
should he think of deserting his post? How could he expect the protection of the God
of Israel if he went out of the borders of the land of Israel? Could he expect to be
safe among the Philistines, out of whose hands he had lately escaped so narrowly by
feigning himself mad? Would he receive obligations from those now whom he knew
he must not return kindness to when he should come to be king, but be under an
obligation to make war upon? Hereby he would gratify his enemies, who bade him
go and serve other gods that they might have wherewith to reproach him, and very
much weaken the hands of his friends, who would not have wherewith to answer
that reproach. See what need we have to pray, Lord, lead us not into temptation.
JAMISON, "1Sa_27:1-4. Saul hearing that David was fled to Gath, seeks
no more for him.
David said in his heart, ... there is nothing better for me than that I should
speedily escape into the land of the Philistines — This resolution of David’s
was, in every respect, wrong: (1) It was removing him from the place where
the divine oracle intimated him to remain (1Sa_22:5); (2) It was rushing
into the idolatrous land, for driving him into which he had denounced an
imprecation on his enemies (1Sa_26:19); (3) It was a withdrawal of his
counsel and aid from God’s people. It was a movement, however, overruled
by Providence to detach him from his country and to let the disasters
impending over Saul and his followers be brought on by the Philistines.
K&D, "
The result of the last affair with Saul, after his life had again been spared,
could not fail to confirm David in his conviction that Saul would not desist
from pursuing him, and that if he stayed any longer in the land, he would
fall eventually into the hands of his enemy. With this conviction, he formed
the following resolution: “Now shall I be consumed one day by the hand of
33

34. Saul: there is no good to me (i.e., it will not be well with me if I remain in
the land), but (‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ after a negative) I will flee into the land of the Philistines;
so will Saul desist from me to seek me further (i.e., give up seeking me) in
the whole of the territory of Israel, and I shall escape his hand.”
PULPIT. "1Sa_27:1
David said in his heart. Hebrew, "to his heart," to himself (see 1Sa_1:13). l
shall perish by the hand. The verb is that used in 1Sa_12:25; 1Sa_26:10, but
instead of by the hand the Hebrew has into the hand. Hence the versions
generally render it, "I shall some day fall into the hand." Really it is a
proegnans constructio: "I shall perish by failing into the hand of Saul." It
was the second treachery of the Ziphites which made David feel that,
surrounded as he was by spies, there was no safety for him but in taking
that course to which, as he so sorrowfully complained to Saul, his enemies
were driving him (1Sa_26:19). His words there show that the thought of
quitting Judaea was already in his mind, so that this chapter follows
naturally on 1Sa_26:1-25; and not, as some have argued, upon 1Sa_24:1-22.
HENRY, "1 Samuel 27:1-7
Here is, I. The prevalency of David's fear, which was the effect of the
weakness of his faith (1Sa_27:1): He said to his heart (so it may be read), in
his communings with it concerning his present condition, I shall now
perish one day by the hand of Saul. He represented to himself the restless
rage and malice of Saul (who could not be wrought into a reconciliation)
and the treachery of his own countrymen, witness that of the Ziphites, once
and again; he looked upon his own forces, and observed how few they were,
and that no recruits had come in to him for a great while, nor could he
perceive that he got any ground; and hence, in a melancholy mood, he
draws this dark conclusion: I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul. But,
O thou of little faith! wherefore dost thou doubt? Was he not anointed to be
king? Did not that imply an assurance that he should be preserved to the
kingdom? Though he had no reason to trust Saul's promises, had he not all
the reason in the world to trust the promises of God? His experience of the
particular care Providence took of him ought to have encouraged him. He
that has delivered does and will. But unbelief is a sin that easily besets even
good men. When without are fightings, within are fears, and it is a hard
matter to get over them. Lord, increase our faith!
II. The resolution he came to hereupon. Now that Saul had, for this time,
returned to his place, he determined to take this opportunity of retiring into
the Philistines' country. Consulting his own heart only, and not the ephod or
the prophet, he concludes, There is nothing better for me than that I should
speedily escape into the land of the Philistines. Long trials are in danger of
tiring the faith and patience even of very good men. Now, 1. Saul was an
enemy to himself and his kingdom in driving David to this extremity. He
weakened his own interest when he expelled from his service, and forced
into the service of his enemies, so great a general as David was, and so brave
34

35. a regiment as he had the command of. 2. David was no friend to himself in
taking this course. God had appointed him to set up his standard in the land
of Judah, 1Sa_22:5. There God had wonderfully preserved him, and
employed him sometimes for the good of his country; why then should he
think of deserting his post? How could he expect the protection of the God
of Israel if he went out of the borders of the land of Israel? Could he expect
to be safe among the Philistines, out of whose hands he had lately escaped
so narrowly by feigning himself mad? Would he receive obligations from
those now whom he knew he must not return kindness to when he should
come to be king, but be under an obligation to make war upon? Hereby he
would gratify his enemies, who bade him go and serve other gods that they
might have wherewith to reproach him, and very much weaken the hands of
his friends, who would not have wherewith to answer that reproach. See
what need we have to pray, Lord, lead us not into temptation.
In the past, David talked to Gad or to one of his other counselors. Or better yet, he
"inquired of the LORD" (1 Sam. 23:2,4). But on this occasion, David didn't ask the
Lord or anyone else. He looked at his circumstances, took counsel of his fears, and
fled to Philistia. Under the circumstances, he believed that was the best thing for
him to do.
The phrase translated "The best thing I can do is to escape" is put in a way that
suggests great haste: "I shall immediately escape. I will do it now!"
Decisions made when we're down in the dumps or emotionally distraught are
exceedingly perilous. We're most vulnerable to bad choices when we're in that state
of mind--choices we would never make if we were on top of things. When we're
down, we inevitably stumble into bad judgment.
I wonder how many single people have decided in a moment of weariness that they
can't handle the thought of perpetual loneliness, so they settle for a mate who makes
life even more miserable for them? I wonder how many men have walked away
from good jobs in a fit of momentary frustration and rage and now find themselves
hopelessly out of work or working in situations far less desirable? I wonder how
many have given up on their marriages when they are at low ebb and have lived to
regret that decision? I wonder how many men have walked away from fruitful
ministries because of weariness and discouragement?
Ignatius of Loyola, a 16th-century Basque Christian, wrote a book titled The
Spiritual Exercises. He pointed out that there are two conditions in the Christian
life. One is consolation, "When the soul is aroused to a love for its Creator and
Lord. When faith, hope, and charity, and interior joy inspire the soul to peace and
quiet in our Lord." The other is desolation, "When there is darkness of soul,
turmoil of mind, a strong inclination to earthly things, restlessness resulting from
disturbances, and temptations leading to loss of faith. We find ourselves apathetic,
tepid, sad, and separated, as it were, from our Lord."
35

36. "In time of desolation," he wrote, "one should never make a change, but stand firm
and constant in the resolution and decision which guided him the day before the
desolation, or to the decision which he observed in the preceding consolation. For
just as the good spirit guides and consoles us in consolation, so in desolation the evil
spirit guides and counsels. Following the counsels of this latter spirit, one can never
find the correct way to a right decision."
He continued: "Although in desolation we should not change our earlier resolutions,
it will be very advantageous to intensify our activity against desolation. This can be
done by insisting more on prayer, meditation, examination, and confession."
So we should wait and pray. David eventually learned to wait for God (Ps. 5:3;
27:14; 33:20; 37:7,34; 38:15). He should have waited on this occasion, but he had
made up his mind. Given his circumstances, Philistia looked better than the shadow
of God's invisible wings.
DEFFINBAUGH "The word David employs here (rendered “perish” by the NASB)
is significant, especially since David should have known the Law of Moses. The
word is employed some 18 times from Genesis to Judges – that is, until David
employs it in 26:10 and 27:1. Three of those times it is used to refer to God’s
judgment on Israel’s enemies. Eleven times it refers to God’s judgment on Israel as
His enemy, for disobeying Him and disregarding His Law. Is it not interesting that
David, who has just spoken of himself as innocent and of others as guilty, now uses
this term to express his fear that Saul will destroy him? David has really lost it here.
Dale Ralph Davis writes that, “. . . the thinking that led David to this move points to
one of faith’s fainting fits (as H. L. Ellison calls them):
It has not been that long ago since David sought sanctuary in Gath the first time.
That was a miserable disaster for David. He did survive, but he was driven out as a
scribbling, slobbering lunatic. One would have thought that as David left the gates
of Gath, he would have muttered to himself, “I’ll never do that again!” And yet,
here he is, but this time he is not alone. This time, David has his 600 followers, plus
all their wives and families (27:2-3).6 David’s two wives are with him as well.7
David is right about one thing. When Saul hears that David has fled to Gath, he no
longer searches for him.
ROBERT ROE, "David was getting tired of being chased around the wilderness. He
began to tire of God's total provision. He wanted to have this thing over with. He
wanted to be out from under the pressure, to be free from the possibility of death, to
be free from the constant tension of sleeping with one hand on his sword and one
ear listening for the special task force, run by a mad man, designed to get him.
These were very normal, natural desires. In themselves there was nothing wrong
with them, but he needed to get back to Judah, out of Moab, where he could learn
that God would be his shield; that God would be his "exceeding great reward" as
God had told Abraham. God was committed to David becoming king of Israel. He
had anointed him to replace Saul, not to be slain by Saul, and David knew that. So
his desire to get out from under the pressure may have been normal and natural but
it was wrong. The Philistines were the one outfit that seemed to be holding their own
36

37. against Saul, so, David figured that was the place to go to ease the pressure. Things
had been seesawing back and forth. The more Saul pursued David, neglecting his
kingship, the more the Philistines moved onto the frontiers and took over the land.
David was just plain tired of going through the process of what God calls "boot
camp," being honed, chafed, molded, "disciplined" in Hebrews 12, into the image
and likeness of God, into a man after God's own heart. He wanted out. So, he said to
himself, "I think I'll escape over into the territory of the Philistines."
The songs that are assigned to this period of David's life are sad songs. The
overriding mood is one of dreary depression and despair.
Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
(Psalm 10:1).
How long, O LORD? Will you forget me for ever? How long will you hide your face
from me? (Psalm 13:1).
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning? (Psalm 22:1).
BI, "And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of
Saul.
Despondency: Its causes and cure
I. The gloom and despondency of David’s heart. How variable is the
Christian’s experience! Few pass on long without changes; the more equable
Christians are generally those of the slightest attainment. The little tree is
but moved by the breeze, the ponderous oak with its outstretching branches
feels ice full weight; the tiny lake then only presents a small surface is but
rippled, the sea is heaved and lashed into a fury. The powerful passion is
generally allied to the corresponding intellect and acts as a
counterbalancing power. David was a large-souled and large-hearted man,
his experience is ever-varying, the slightest circumstance stirs him to the
depths.
II. The causes of this despondency. God never willeth that we should be cast
down; it is attributable to ourselves. Some men exclude themselves from the
rays of the sun; it shines nevertheless.
1. The first cause here is his regarding man as a primary instead of a
secondary agent. “I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul.” Why? Is
there anything in Saul that came not from God? Is he a man? God made
him. A king? God appointed him. Has he power? It also belongs to God,
and when His arm is removed, Saul at once becomes the helpless child.
Another cause is found:—
2. In communing with his heart instead of with God. “Cursed be the man
that trusteth in man,” is as much true of ourselves as others. The earth
kept by the centripetal and centrifugal forces never wanders too far
from, or goes too near, the sun; let them cease but for one moment and
we should with lightning speed rush into collision, or be lost in endless
space. So man’s heart under Heavenly guidance is, and must be right.
Die by the enemy, go into the land of the Philistines. The enemy within
37

38. suggested it.
III. David erred in comparing his own with his enemy’s forces. Compare the
suggestions of sense and faith. Sense says, what can six hundred with a
valiant captain do against the army of Saul? Sense sees the host of Satan’s
emissaries encamped before the solitary soul and says, Fly, for thy life fly,
ere they overtake. Faith goes beyond, stoops not to count the opposing
forces, and gives assurance of the victory. Sense says, “I shall one day fetish
by the hand of Saul.” Faith says, Greater is be that is for me titan all that can
be against me. “Stand still and see the salvation of God.”
IV. Another cause of his despondency was his forgetfulness of the Divine
promises. Had not Samuel, the prophet of the Lord, visited his father’s
house and anointed him king? Had not this choice again and again been
ratified? Had not Saul, his enemy, been forced to acknowledge him as his
successor? Yet Saul is to kill him.
V. See the consequence of acting on such convictions. It may be that some of
us have found our way into the land of the Philistines, have gone for peace
and found war, gone for safety and have been more exposed. Why? Because
we have acted against the Spirit and the Word. Take David’s experience as
confirmatory of such results. Listen no more to such misleading assertions.
Die! yes, you will, as far as a separation of the body from the spirit is
concerned; but by the hand of the enemy, never, no, neverse (J. H. Snell.)
Sins arising from discouragement
1. This incident in David’s life is most instructive. It shows us the folly of
endeavouring to remove evils under which we labour, by unlawful
means; and especially of resorting to such expedients in our moments of
discouragement; and may further teach us, that under all circumstances,
the path of duty is the path of safety.
2. This lesson is one which we greatly need. Under the pressure of trials
we naturally seek relief; and if no lawful means present themselves, we
are tempted to use those which are unlawful; and by a delusive
reasoning satisfy ourselves that that is right, which under other
circumstances we should ourselves condemn as wrong. We often have
cause to repent of resolutions taken, like David’s, under the pressure of
trials and the influence of discouraged feeling. The fact is that
despondency borders on insanity. “It makes a man his own executioner,
and leads to suicidal acts.” Everything, therefore, we do under the
influence of such feeling will be pretty sure to be wrong, and to give us
work for after repentance.
3. Again, our subject may be applied to another class of hearers. There
are those who have made many efforts to gain the hope of the Christian,
but have failed in all. They say, “that they have sought most earnestly to
believe and feel as the people of God do: that they have prayed, inquired,
and done all that they knew ought to be done, but still do not enjoy a
‘hope of acceptance;’” and now they are discouraged, and that
38

39. discouragement leads them into a very sinful resolution. This is a very
common case, and one with which ministers and Christians do not
sympathize as they ought! We are disposed, when we see one lingering in
neglect of religion, to condemn him as if nothing but obstinacy and
rebellion prevented his surrender of himself to God. We bear down
harshly upon him with the terrors of the law, when the man needs
encouragement. Such severity only tends to exasperate and harden. The
Jews in Jeremiah’s time said “There is no hope,” and added, “we will
walk after our own devices.” “The beggar will sometimes knock at a door
until he finds that no notice is likely to be taken of his application, and
then rail at those who live within; and so let the sinner fear that God’s
heart is hardened against him, and his own heart will soon be hardened
against God.” Let Christians, then, beware of taking away hope from the
inquiring soul, by condemning all delay as obstinacy and obduracy, for it
may arise from discouraged feeling; and the sinner may lie in the mire of
sin, because be has made many efforts to get out, only to fall back again
into the ditch.
4. And let the inquirer beware of yielding to discouragement, and thence
to sin. “He may say, “I have sought, and prayed so many times, and found
no relief; must I still continue to seek?” Even so, for what better can you
do? If you finally and entirely cease from all effort, you are certainly lost;
if you persevere you may be saved, and certainly will be in the end. Rise,
discouraged soul, renew thy prayers, and if a lifetime of blind perplexed
inquiries and in thine everlasting salvation, count the blessing cheaply
won.
5. The same advice may apply to the backslidden Christian or to those
who sometimes hope they are accepted in Christ, but lack the clear
evidence of it. (W. H. Lewis, D. D.)
David’s fear and folly
I. Observe his fear. It was the language, not, of his lips, but of his feelings—
he “said in his heart, I shall now one day perish by the hand of Saul.” If a
man hawks about his trouble from door to door, we may be assured be will
never die of grief. Profound sorrow, like the deep river, flows noiseless; the
man wounded at heart, like the smitten deer, leaves the herd for the shade.
“I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul.” And suppose be had? This was
all the injury he could have done him: and we are forbidden to fear those
that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. He must
have died, according to the course of nature, in a few years: and what is
death, in any form, to a good man, but falling asleep or going home? He
ought then, you say, to have risen above the fear of death. But David was in
no danger of perishing by the hand of Saul. Saul was indeed a malicious and
powerful enemy; but he was chained, and could do nothing against him
except it was given him from above. And the Lord was on David’s side: And
he had the promise of the throne, which implied his preservation. And he
had already experienced many wonderful deliverances. You would do well
to take the advice of an old writer. “Never,” says he, “converse with your
39

40. difficulties alone.”
II. Reminded Of David’s Folly. “There is nothing better for me than that I
should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines.” But nothing could
have been worse. For by this step—he would alienate the affections of the
Israelites from him—be would justify the reproaches of the enemy—he
would deprive himself of the means of grace and the ordinances of
religion—he would grieve his soul with the vice and idolatry of the
heathen—he would put himself out of the warrant of Divine protection—and
lay himself under peculiar obligation to those whom he could not serve
without betraying the cause of God.
1. How much depends on one improper step. The effects may be
remediless, and give a complexion to all our future days. Our reputation,
our comfort, our usefulness, our religion, our very salvation, may binge
upon it.
2. Let us learn how incompetent we are to judge for ourselves. (W. Jay.)
A fit of mistrust
The Psalms, which, with more or less probability, may be assigned to this
period of David’s life, are marked with growing sadness and depression.
Amongst them may be reckoned the 10, 12, 17, 22, 25, 64, and perhaps 11 and
69.
I. Let us examine this sudden resolution.
1. It was the suggestion of worldly policy. “David said in his heart.” Never
act in a panic; nor allow man to dictate to thee; calm thyself and be still;
force thyself into the quiet of thy closet until the pulse beats normally
and the scare has ceased to perturb. When thou art most eager to act is
the time when thou wilt make the most pitiable mistakes.
2. It was very dishonouring to God. Surely, then, it, was unworthy of
David to say, in effect: “I am beginning to fear that God has undertaken
more than He can carry through. True, He has kept me hitherto; but I
question if He can make me surmount the growing difficulties of my
situation. Saul will, sooner or later, accomplish his designs against me; it
is a mistake to attempt the impossible. I have waited till I am tired; it is
time to use my own wits, and extricate myself while I can from the nets
that are being drawn over my path.” How much easier it is to indicate a
true course to others in hours of comparative security, than to stand to it
under a squall of wind!
3. It was highly injurious. Philistia was full of idol temples and
idolatrous priests (2Sa_5:21). What fellowship could David look for with
the Divine Spirit who had chosen Israel for his people and Jacob for the
lot of his inheritance? How could he sing the Lord’s songs in a strange
land?
4. It was the entrance on a course that demanded the perpetual practice
of deceit. The whole behaviour of David at this time was utterly
40

41. unworthy of his high character as God’s anointed servant.
5. It was also a barren time in his religious experience. No psalms are
credited to this period. The sweet singer was mute. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The danger of doubting
I. The thought of David’s heart was false. He said, “I shall now perish one
day by the hand of Saul.”
1. We might conclude it to be false upon the very face of it, because there
certainly was no evidence to prove it. On no one occasion had the Lord
deserted his servant. Now, mark. When you and I doubt God’s Word
there is this to be said of it, we mistrust it without a cause.
2. But, again, what David said in his heart was not only without evidence,
but it was contrary to evidence. What reason had he to believe that God
would leave him? Rather, how many evidences had he to conclude that
the Lord neither could nor would leave him?
3. This exclamation of David was contrary to God’s promises. Samuel
had poured the anointing oil on David’s head—God’s earnest and
promise that David should be king. Let David die by the hand of Saul,
how can the promise be fulfilled?
4. But further, this wicked exclamation of David was contrary to what he
himself had often said. Yet once more, this exclamation of David was
contrary to the facts. I mean not merely contrary to the facts that were in
evidence, but contrary to the facts that were transpiring at that very
moment. Where was Saul?
II. How was it that David came to think thus of his God?
1. The first answer I give is, because he was a man. The best of men are
men at the best; and man at the best, is such a creature that well might
David himself say, “Lord, what is man?”
2. But again, you must consider that David had been exposed to a very
long trial; not for one week, but for month after month, he had been
hunted like a partridge upon the mountains. Now, a man could bear one
trial, but a perpetuity of tribulation is very hard to bear.
3. Then again, you must remember, David had passed through some
strong excitements of mind.
III. What were the ill-effects of David’s unbelief?
1. It made him do a foolish thing, the same foolish thing which he had
rued once before. He goes to the same Achish again! Yes, and mark ye,
although you and I know the bitterness of sin, yet if we are left to our
own unbelief, we shall fall into the same sin again.
2. But next: for the beginning of sin is like the letting out of water, and
we go from bad to worse, he went over to the Lord’s enemies. He that
killed Goliath sought a refuge in Goliath’s land; he who smote the
41

42. Philistines trusts in the Philistines; nay, more, he who was Israel’s
champion, becomes the chamberlain to Achish.
3. That not only thus did David become numbered with God’s enemies,
but that he actually went into open sin. David did two very evil things. He
acted the part of a liar and deceiverse He went out and slew the
Geshurites, and sundry other tribes, and this he did often. When he
came back, Achish asked him where he had been, and he said he had
been to the south of Judah—that is to say, he made Achish believe that
his incursions were made against his own people, instead of being made
against the allies of Philistia. This he kept up for a long time; and then, as
one sin never goes without a companion, for the devil’s hounds always
hunt in couples, he was guilty of bloodshed, for into whatsoever town he
went he put all the inhabitants to death; he spared neither man, nor
woman, nor child, lest they should tell the king of Philistia where he had
been. So that one sin led him on to another. And this is a very sorrowful
part of David’s life. He that believes God, and acts in faith, acts with
dignity, and other men will stoop before him and pay him reverence; but
he who disbelieves his God, and begins to act in his own carnal wisdom,
will soon be this, and that, and the other, and the enemy will say, “Aha,
aha, so would we have it,” while the godly will say, “How are the mighty
fallen! how hath the strong man been given up unto his adversary!”
4. Furthermore, not only was David guilty of all this, but he was on the
verge of being guilty of still worse sin—of covert acts of warfare against
the Lord’s people; for David having become the friend of Achish, when
Achish went to the battle against Israel, David professed his willingness
to go. We believe it was only a feigned willingness; but then, you see, we
convict him again of falsehood.
5. The last effect of David’s sin—and here it blessedly came to close—was
this: it brought him into great trial. While David was away with king
Achish, the Amalekites invaded the south, and attacked Ziklag, which
was David’s town. For some reason or other they did not put to death any
of the inhabitants, but they took away the whole of the men, the few who
were left, the women and children, all their household goods, and stuff,
and treasures; and when David came back to Ziklag, there were the bare
walls and empty houses, and Ahinoam and Abigail, his two wives, were
gone, and all the mighty men who were with him had lost their wives and
little ones; and as soon as they saw it, they lifted up their voice and wept.
It was not that they had lost their gold and silver, but they had lost
everything. That exiled band had lost their own flesh and blood, the
partners of their lives. Then they mutinied against their captain, and
they said, “Let us stone David.” And here is David, a penniless beggar, a
leader deserted by his own men, suspected by them probably of having
traitorously given up the town to the foe. And then it is written—and O
how blessed is that line!—“And David encouraged himself in the Lord his
God.” Ah! now David is right; now he has come back to his proper
anchorage. Sin and smart go together; the child of God cannot sin with
impunity. Other men may. Ye that fear not God may go add sin as ye like,
and often meet with very little trouble in this world as the consequence
42

43. of it; but a child of God cannot do that. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
HENRI ROSSIER
1 SAMUEL 27
“And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there
is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the
Philistines; and Saul will despair of me to seek me any more within all the limits of
Israel, and I shall escape out of his hand” (v. 1).
Isn't it surprising to see David's weakness here after so many striking marks of
divine protection? Just yesterday he had said, full of confidence: “Let my life be
highly esteemed in the eyes of Jehovah, that He may deliver me out of all distress!”
(1 Sam. 26: 24). Today his courage is gone and he says: “I shall now one day perish
by the hand of Saul.” We must often experience that a great victory is apt to be
followed by a great despondency. When God was with us, did we not happen to
attribute something to ourselves? When David said to Saul: “Jehovah will render to
every man his righteousness and his faithfulness” (1 Sam. 26: 23), God alone knows
whether or not there was some self-satisfaction in these words. Therefore God leaves
us to ourselves (I am not saying, of course, that He forsakes us) in order to show us
that we cannot have any confidence in the flesh. Thus we learn to probe “the
division of soul and spirit” which is so subtle that in the fight of faith we are often
unaware of the mixture of the two, and that gold which has been refined, or which
appears to have been refined, still needs the crucible to be purified from every alloy.
This clearly explains the weakness of believers at the very time when their faith has
been shining so splendidly.
Elijah is a striking example of this (1 Kings 19). Heaven had been closed at his
request, he had escaped the wrath of Ahab, had performed miracles, had
vanquished the priests of Baal, had confronted an entire people, and now look at the
great prophet of Israel who trembles and flees from a woman. Let us remember that
having been used by God does not mean that we know ourselves yet, and let us
remember that this self-knowledge is indispensable for us to appreciate grace. We
often have this experience after times of special blessing. The enemy takes advantage
of the situation to make us fall when, armed with God's power, we have illusions
about our own strength, esteeming ourselves to be unassailable. Therefore a time of
special favor and power is often an occasion for the flesh to act. Being introduced
into the third heaven does not preserve us from this and the purpose of God's
discipline, as we shall see, is to lead us to examine all this and many other things
besides.
Is it God who is commanding David to save himself in the land of the Philistines?
Were not the experiences he had had at Achish's court sufficient (1 Sam. 21: 11-15)?
Was it God who had sent him there then? No, God through the mouth of Gad had
then given him a positive commandment to go into the land of Judah (1 Sam. 22: 5).
Had this command been revoked? And why didn't he inquire of the Lord as he had
done at Keilah (1 Sam. 23: 1-13)? Headlong haste, discouragement, forgetfulness of
God's word, seeking help from Israel's enemies, confidence in his own thoughts
43

44. while neglecting to seek divine direction: all these weaknesses are concentrated in
David here.
The lovely walk of faith which had characterized him seems to be annulled by a
single false step. But it is a good thing for our souls to fathom these precipices. We
cannot be the companions of Christ unless hold the beginning of our assurance firm
to the end (Heb. 3: 14). For David to save himself by fleeing to Achish could in no
way be a type of Christ. There was no altar for Abraham in Egypt; David's second
stay among the Philistines did not inspire him with any psalm.
It is an exceedingly serious thing to consider that often one false step causes us to
lose all the benefit of a long life of faith. One day while hiking high in the mountains
my feet slipped toward a chasm; I was done for when the strong hand of my guide
succeeded in holding me back — already disappearing over the edge. Without him I
was lost, His hand saved me (that is grace), but in an instant I had measured and
realized the terrible consequence of one wrong step.
Grace alone is able to prevent our fall, but often we must long experience the
consequences of a walk which did not have the Lord's approval. This course delivers
David from Saul's pursuit: “And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath, and
he sought no more for him” (v. 4). At what price? The following chapters inform us,
and this chapter instructs us already.
The stay at Gath gives rise to falsehood. Under pain of appearing to be their enemy
the Philistines cannot be told that one has had to depart from Israel. Some success is
had against the Geshurites, the Gerzites, and the Amalekites, but to openly declare
one's self to be their adversary would be to expose one's self to many dangers. David
is a guest of the Philistine who from this fact deems him brought into subjection:
“He shall be my servant for ever (v. 12). How can one then make war against their
race? One uses words that have a double meaning to hide one's real sympathies (1
Sam. 28: 2). Just see how many serious consequences the search for the world's
assistance brings with it! The Christian swamped by “social conventions” to which
he is subjected loses his true character there and has no more effect on the
consciences of those around him. He lives in fear of displeasing the world which is
protecting him; he seeks like David to destroy all the witnesses who could come
forward to give evidence of his hostility against the enemies of God's people; he no
longer has a good conscience. Although he is a child of God he is following a path of
hypocrisy.
“Achish trusted David.” The world believes us and flatters itself to have broken the
ties that united us to God's people (v. 12). David through God's grace will be
restored and in what follows his behavior will awaken Achish to his deception. But
how many Christians tangled in this net never awaken the world to their deception,
lose their strength, their peace, and their joy there, sacrifice their testimony there,
and finally leave this scene to go to be with the Lord feeling that they have been
nothing for Him during their lifetime, nothing for Him who however has done
everything for them!
44

45. 2 So David and the six hundred men with him left
and went over to Achish son of Maoch king of
Gath.
JFB The popular description of this king's family creates a presumption that he was
a different king from the reigning sovereign on David's first visit to Gath. Whether
David had received a special invitation from him or a mere permission to enter his
territories, cannot be determined. It is probable that the former was the case. From
the universal notoriety given to the feud between Saul and David, which had now
become irreconcilable, it might appear to Achish good policy to harbor him as a
guest, and so the better pave the way for the hostile measures against Israel which
the Philistines were at this time meditating.
CLARKE 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.
GILL, "whether this was the same Achish David was with before, 1Sa_21:10, is not
certain; it seems as if he was not the same, since he is described as the son of Maoch,
as if it was to distinguish him from him; though it is not improbable that he was the
same person. Some think (a) that he is described not from his father, but from his
mother, whose name was Maacha. The circumstances of David were now very much
altered from what they were when he went to Gath before; then he went secretly,
now openly; then as a person unknown, now as well known; then alone, now with
six hundred men; then when discovered he was seized by the princes of Gath, and
brought before the king, and was driven from his presence; but now he came either
at the invitation of Achish, hearing how he had been treated by Saul, and thinking
to attach him to his interest, and make him more and more the enemy of Saul, and
so free himself from a very powerful one, and of whose wisdom and prudence, and
military skill, and courage, and valour, he might hope to avail himself; or David sent
45

46. an embassy to him, to treat with him about his coming into his country, and
settlement in it, and terms to mutual satisfaction were agreed upon.
HENRY, " The kind reception he had at Gath. Achish bade him welcome,
partly out of generosity, being proud of entertaining so brave a man, partly
out of policy, hoping to engage him for ever to his service, and that his
example would invite many more to desert and come over to him. No doubt
he gave David a solemn promise of protection, which he could rely upon
when he could not trust Saul's promises. We may blush to think that the
word of a Philistine should go further than the word of an Israelite, who, if
an Israelite indeed, would be without guile, and that the city of Gath should
be a place of refuge for a good man when the cities of Israel refuse him a
safe abode. David, 1. Brought his men with him (1Sa_27:2) that they might
guard him, and might themselves be safe where he was, and to recommend
himself the more to Achish, who hoped to have service out of him. 2. He
brought his family with him, his wives and his household, so did all his
men, 1Sa_27:2, 1Sa_27:3. Masters of families ought to take care of those that
are committed to them, to protect and provide for those of their own house,
and to dwell with them as men of knowledge.
JAMISON, "Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath — The popular
description of this king’s family creates a presumption that he was a
different king from the reigning sovereign on David’s first visit to Gath.
Whether David had received a special invitation from him or a mere
permission to enter his territories, cannot be determined. It is probable
that the former was the case. From the universal notoriety given to the feud
between Saul and David, which had now become irreconcilable, it might
appear to Achish good policy to harbor him as a guest, and so the better
pave the way for the hostile measures against Israel which the Philistines
were at this time meditating.
K&D, "1Sa_27:2
Accordingly he went over with the 600 men who were with him to Achish,
the king of Gath. Achish, the son of Maoch, is in all probability the same
person not only as the king Achish mentioned in 1Sa_21:11, but also as
Achish the son of Maachah (1Ki_2:39), since Maoch and Maachah are
certainly only different forms of the same name; and a fifty years' reign,
which we should have in that case to ascribe to Achish, it not impossible.
PULPIT, "1Sa_27:2-4
Achish, the son of Maoch. No doubt the Achish of 1Sa_21:10; but if the same
as Achish, son of Maachah, in 1Ki_2:39, as is probably the case, he must
have lived to a good old age. As it is said in 1Ch_18:1 that David conquered
the Philistines, and took from them Gath and other towns, it would seem
that he still permitted Achish to remain there as a tributary king, while
Ziklag he kept as his private property (1Ch_18:6). On the former occasion,.
when David was alone, Achish had paid him but scant courtesy; but now
46

47. that he came with 600 warriors, each with his household, and, therefore,
with numerous followers, he shows him every respect, and for the time
David and his men settle at Gath, and Saul gives over his pursuit, knowing
that if he followed him into Philistine territory he would provoke a war, for
which he was not now prepared. It has been pointed out that David probably
introduced from Gath the style of music called Gittith (Psa_8:1-9; Psa_
81:1-16; Psa_84:1-12; titles).
PETT, 1 Samuel 27:2
‘And David arose, and passed over, he and the six hundred men who were
with him, to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath.’
Having come to his decision David made overtures to the king of Gath and
clearly came to an understanding with him, for he and his ‘six hundred’ (six
small but effective military units) passed over the border and went to Gath.
We do not know whether this Achish was the same as the Achish in 1 Samuel
21:10-15. ‘Son of Maoch’ might be intended to make a distinction. Achish
may have been a throne name (compare Abimelech in Genesis 1 Samuel
20:2; 1 Samuel 26:1; Psalms 34 heading). On the other hand there is no
reason why they should not be the same person. An Achish, king of Gath, is
also mentioned in 1 Kings 2:39-40, but there is no reason for thinking that
Achish could not have had a long reign. It may be asked why Achish should
accept David now when he had rejected him years before, but we should
recognise that then it had been as a single suppliant seeking refuge and
feigning madness, now it was as leader of an effective military force. The
situation was totally different. How much the Philistines knew of his
exploits we do not know, but they were certainly aware of his past fame (1
Samuel 29:5).
GUZIK, "2. (1Sa_27:2-4) David goes over to Achish, leader of Gath.
Then David arose and went over with the six hundred men who were
with him to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath. So David dwelt with
Achish at Gath, he and his men, each man with his household, and David
with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the
Carmelitess, Nabal’s widow. And it was told Saul that David had fled to
Gath; so he sought him no more.
a. David arose and went over with the six hundred men: David’s
discouraged and despairing heart didn’t only affect himself; he led six
hundred men out of the land of promise, over to live with the
ungodly. Before David sunk into his pit of discouragement and
despair, he would have never dreamed of doing this!
47

48. i. 1Sa_27:3 makes it even worse: Each man with his household.
David’s defection to the Philistines touched even more than the six
hundred men, it touched all of their families. It directly touched
David’s household also, because Ahinoam and Abigail were with
him.
b. So David dwelt with Achish at Gath: Previously (recorded in 1Sa_
21:10-15), David had briefly gone over to Achish of the Philistines,
believing there might be a place of refuge for him there. God allowed
that experience to quickly turn sour, and David pretended to be a
madman so he could escape. In his discouragement and despair, built
upon what David said in his heart, David will go down a road of sin he
has been down before.
i. Why does Achish receive him this time, when he would not in
1Sa_21:10-15? First, it is clear now when it wasn’t clear before that
David and Achish both share the same enemy, Saul. Second, now
David brings with him 600 fighting men, whom Achish can use as
mercenaries.
c. It was told Saul that David had fled to Gath; so he sought him no
more: David accomplished his immediate goal, because now Saul has
stopped pursuing him. But now David is in a place of compromise
that will leave him worse off than before. He is actually submitting to
a Philistine master!
i. We have no record of any Psalms that David wrote during this
time. This was not a high point in his spiritual life; he wasn’t
writing sweet Psalms unto the LORD.
ii. “The sweet singer was mute. He probably acquired a few new
strains of music, or even mastered some fresh instruments, while
sojourning at Gath, a memory of which is perpetuated in the term
Gittith, a term which frequently occurs in the inscriptions of the
psalms composed afterward. But who would barter a song for a
melody, a psalm for a guitar? It was a poor exchange.” (Meyer)
iii. David left Israel and went among the ungodly because he badly
needed a sense of security from Saul’s unrelenting attacks. But
where was David more secure: in Israel and in God’s will, or
among the Philistines and out of God’s will?
iv. “It is impossible to see David taking refuge in Gath, without
recognizing that he had lost for the time being the clear vision of
God which made him strong against Goliath.” (Morgan)
PINK
"And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him
unto Achish, the son of Maoch king of Gath" (v. 2). Under the pressure of trials,
relief is what the flesh most desires, and unless the mind be stayed upon God, there
is grave danger of seeking to take things into our own hands. Such was the case with
48

49. David: having leaned unto his own understanding, being occupied entirely with the
things of sight and sense, he now sought relief in his own way, and followed a course
which was the very opposite to that which the Lord had enjoined him (1 Sam. 22:5).
There God had told him to depart from the land of Moab and go into the land of
Judah, and there He had marvelously preserved him. How this shows us what poor
weak creatures the best of us are, and how low our graces sink when the Spirit does
not renew them!
In what is here before us (v. 2), we are shown the ill effects of David’s unbelief.
"First, it made him do a foolish thing; the same foolish thing which he had rued
once before. Now we say a burnt child always dreads the flame; but David had been
burnt, and yet, in his unbelief, he puts his hand into the same fire again. He went
once to Achish, king of Gath, and the Philistines identified him, and being greatly
afraid, David feigned himself mad in their hands, and they drove him away. Now he
goes to the same Achish again! Yes, and mark it, my brethren, although you and I
know the bitterness of sin, yet if we are left to our own unbelief, we shall fall into the
same sin again. I know we have said, ‘No; never, never; I know so much by
experience what an awful thing this is.’ Your experience is not worth a rush to you
apart from the continual restraints of grace. If your faith fail, everything else goes
down with it; and you hoary-headed professor, will be as a big fool as a very boy, if
God lets you alone.
"Second, he went over to the Lord’s enemies. Would you have believed it: he that
killed Goliath, sought a refuge in Goliath’s land; he who smote the Philistines trusts
in the Philistines; nay, more, he who was Israel’s champion, becomes the
chamberlain to Achish, for Achish said, ‘Therefore will I make thee keeper of my
head forever,’ and David became thus the captain of the body-guard of the king of
Philistia, and helped preserve the life of one who was the enemy of God’s Israel. Ah,
if we doubt God, we shall soon be numbered among God’s foes. Inconsistency will
win us over into the ranks of His enemies, and they will be saying, ‘What do these
Hebrews here?’ ‘The just shall live by faith, but if any man draw back, My soul
shall have no pleasure in him’—the two sentences are put together as if the failure
of our faith would surely lead to a turning back to sin.
"Third, he was on the verge of still worse sin—of overt acts of warfare against the
Lord’s people. David’s having become the friend of Achish, when Achish went to
battle against Israel, he said to him, ‘Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go with
me to battle, thou and thy men’; and David professed his willingness to go. We
believe it was only a feigned willingness; but then, you see, we convict him again of
falsehood. It is true that God interposed and prevented him fighting against Israel,
but this was no credit to David, for you know, brethren, we are guilty of a sin, even
if we do not commit it, if we are willing to commit it. The last effect of David’s sin
was this: it brought him into great trial" (C. H. Spurgeon).
O my readers, what a solemn warning is all of this for our hearts! How it shows us
the wickedness of unbelief and the fearful fruits which that evil root produces. It is
49

50. true that David had no reason to trust Saul, but he had every reason to continue
trusting God. But alas, unbelief is the sin of all others which doth so easily beset us.
It is inherent in our very nature, and it is more impossible to root it out by any
exertions of ours, than it is to change the features of our countenances. What need is
there for us to cry daily, "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief" (Mark 9:24).
Let me see in David myself, my very nothingness. O to fully realize that in our best
moments, we can never trust ourselves too little, nor God too much.
"And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him
unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath" (v. 2). Here we see David not only
forsaking the path of duty, but joining interests with the enemies of God: this we
must never do; no, not even for self-preservation, or out of care for our family. As
another has said, "It is in one sense, a very easy matter to get out of the place of
trial; but then we get out of the place of blessing also." Such is generally, if not
always the case, with the children of God. No matter how sore the trial, how
pressing our circumstances, or how acute our need, to "rest in the Lord, wait
patiently for Him" (Ps. 37:7), is not only the course which most honors Him, but
which, in the long run, spares us much great confusion and trouble which results
when we seek to extricate ourselves.
BENSON, "Verse 2
1 Samuel 27:2. 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.
ELLICOTT, " (2) The six hundred men.—This was the original number. They still
formed the nucleus of the force, but the total number was now far larger. These “six
hundred” had each their households, besides which, many a group of warriors,
large and small, had already joined the now renowned standard of the future king.
Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath.—The same, we believe, as that Achish to
whom David fled before (see 1 Samuel 21:11), and identical with Achish, son of
Maachah (1 Kings 2:39). This would involve the necessity of ascribing a fifty years’
reign to this prince. (Such a lengthy reign is quite possible.) The whole of Philistia
subsequently fell under King David’s rule. It seems, however, that he permitted,
even after the conquest, Achish to remain in his old city of Gath, most likely as his
tributary: thus, we may suppose, paying back the old debt of kindness to Achish.
50

51. 3 David and his men settled in Gath with Achish.
Each man had his family with him, and David had
his two wives: Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of
Carmel, the widow of Nabal.
PINK, "David’s circumstances upon entering into Gath this time were decidedly
different from what they had been on a previous occasion (1 Sam. 21:10-15): then he
entered secretly, now openly; then as a person unknown, now as the recognized
enemy of Israel’s king; then alone, now with six hundred men; then he was driven
hence, now he probably had been invited thither. Apparently he met with a kindly
reception—probably because the king of Gath now hoped to use him in his own
service: either that he could employ David against Israel, or secure an advantageous
alliance with him, if ever he came to the throne. Thus the plan of David appeared to
meet with success: at least he found a quiet dwelling-place. Providence seemed to be
smiling upon him, and none but an anointed eye could have discerned otherwise.
"And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his
household, even David with his two wives: Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail the
Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife" (v. 3). Ah, has not the Holy Spirit supplied the key (in the
second half of this verse) which explains to us David’s sad lapse? It was his "two
wives" which had displeased the Lord! We entitled the last chapter but one David’s
"chastening" and sought to point out the connection between what is found at the
end of 1 Samuel 25 and that which is recorded in 1 Samuel 26, namely, the renewed
attack of Saul upon him. That divine "chastening" was now continued, and may be
discerned by the spiritual eye in a variety of details.
PINK In this chapter we have sought to show the awfulness of unbelief, and the evil
character of the fruits that issue from it; and how that the graces of the strongest
Christian soon became feeble unless they are renewed by the Spirit. But let it be now
pointed out that God does not act capriciously in this: if our graces be not renewed,
the fault lies in ourselves. It is by working backward from effect to cause, that we
may here learn the most important lesson of all. (1) David sinned grievously in
seeking refuge among the enemies of the Lord. (2) He went to them without having
sought divine guidance. (3) He leaned unto his own understanding, and reasoned
that it was best for him to go to Gath. (4) He acted thus because he had given way to
unbelief. (5) He gave way to unbelief because his faith was not divinely renewed and
51

52. prayer in him had been choked. (6) His faith was not renewed because the Holy
Spirit was grieved over his sin! Re-read these six points in their inverse order.
"And David dwelt with Achish, he and his men, every man with his household" (v.
3). From these words it seems that Achish, the Philistine, made no demur against
David and his men entering his territory; rather does it look as though he met with a
friendly and kindly reception. Thus, from present appearances—the obtaining, at
last, a quiet dwelling-place—it seemed that the fleshly plan of David was meeting
with real success, that Providence was smiling upon him. Yes, it is often this way at
first when a Christian takes things into his own hands: to carnal reason the sequel
shows he did the right thing. Ah, but later on, he discovers otherwise. One false step
is followed by another, just as the telling of a lie is usually succeeded by other lies to
cover it. So it was now with David: he went from bad to worse.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And David dwelt with Achish at Gath,.... The metropolis of his kingdom,
called, 1Sa_27:5, the royal city:
he and his men, every man with his household; or family; which they brought
with them, to secure them from the malice of Saul; who in their absence might have
destroyed them, as being the families of traitors and fugitives, and might be the more
readily received by Achish, as he might hope for some advantage front them; and besides
were pledges of their fidelity to him, and of their design to continue with him:
even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail the
Carmelitess, Nabal's wife; who had been the wife of Nabal; of these See Gill on 1Sa_
25:43.
K&D, "1Sa_27:3-4
Achish allotted dwelling-places in his capital, Gath, for David and his wives, and for all
his retinue; and Saul desisted from any further pursuit of David when he was informed
of his flight to Gath. The Chethibh ‫יוסף‬ is apparently only a copyist's error for ‫ף‬ ַ‫ָס‬‫י‬.
ELLICOTT, " (3) And David dwelt with Achish at Gath.—His reception by the
Philistines seems to have been most kindly. There was a wide difference between the
circumstances of this and his former visit to Gath. Then he was a fugitive, almost
unattended; now he was at the head of an army of trained and devoted soldiers.
Such a guest might be of the greatest service to the Philistines in their perpetual
wars with Saul, with whom David would now be considered to have finally broken
off all relations, seeing he had sought a home and shelter among the most bitter of
his foes.
Timothy Smith
DAVID’S DEFECTION:
52

53. And as so often happens when we give up on God and “think to ourselves,” David
makes a major mistake. He defects to the enemy camp. Now, one of the reasons I
wanted to look at this chapter is because I think it is an accurate picture of anyone
who is out of tune with God. That may be the person who has never received His
Son Jesus, as their Savior and Lord or it may be the Christian, who due to difficult
circumstances has drifted away from God. I see 6 characteristics in the downward
spiritual spiral of David that can apply to all of us.
(1) It begins when David’s reasoning becomes pessimistic. David’s doubt produces a
lack of dependence on God and the pity party begins. He says in vs:1.. "I’m going to
die. Saul is going to get the best of me. I can’t depend on God so I’ll have to take
matters in my own hands." And that is a good example of what Zig Ziegler calls,
"Stinkin’ Thinkin’". Anytime you begin to emphasize and verbalize the negatives in
your life, your headed for trouble. Pessimism is an enemy because we become what
we mentally dwell on. You’ve seen people who predominately portray the "sloutch
and groutch" routine. They are never happy. They always have to criticize. You
don’t dare ask them how they’re doing because they just might tell you and tell you
and tell you. And if you’re mental outlook is negative your life becomes negative.
Next month millions will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the death of Elvis
Presley. Now, I didn’t get caught up in the "Elvis frenzy" that his fans displayed
when he was alive nor have I joined in the commeration of his death. But something
about the circumstances surrounding his death did astound me. Did you know that
he died at the exact same age of his mother - not just the same year but at exactly 42
years and 8 months. And the thing that makes that so bizarre is that her death had
been an obsession for the last year of his life. And if you think negative thoughts
long enough they will begin to take you over until your attitude is exhibited in your
behavior. And that applies to your walk with God. Next time you’re down, think
about how you’re thinking! Is it pessimistic? Is it critical? Is it spilling over into
your behavior?
(2) Next, David’s downward spiritual spiral gained momentum when he chooses the
wrong companions. In vs:3 it says that David settled in Gath. Do you believe that? If
you have been with us during this series the name Gath might strike a familiar
chord. When you read 17:4 you see just how incredible this is. It reads: “A
champion name Goliath, who was from Gath..” Just several years back Gath had
been the heart of enemy territory, the spawning place of David’s giant foe. But now,
David had settled down there to live and now those who he was consorting with
were still bent on destroying his people and worse, were blasphemers of the God he
served.
Listen, one of the things you must be careful of if you are interested in seeking God
or staying spiritually strong, is those who you hang out with. They will invariably
drag you down. You’ll begin to make small compromises that lead to spiritual
cracks, then ungodly chasms. And you’ll find yourself saying things like, "Oh, doing
this with them isn’t all that bad." - or- "You know, I find these people more
53

54. accepting & less judgmental than many of those who call themselves Christians."
Duh! Why wouldn’t you? They have no real standard for judgement of behavior,
there is no Christ, no Bible to reject- anything goes. Rollo May a psychologist said,
"man is the strangest of creatures. He’s the only animal that runs faster, when he
runs in the wrong direction.”
(3) And notice in vs:4 how being out of tune with God somehow produces a false
sense of peace. “Word soon reached Saul that David has fled to Gath, so he stopped
hunting for him.” Oh, yeah, David had gotten rid of Saul’s advances by running to
the enemy, but it was false sense of security. Don’t make the mistake of thinking
that the blessings of life necessarily are a sign of God’s approval of your actions.
David felt better out from under Saul’s persecution, but he was also out from under
God’s will. Hebrews 11:25 talks about "..enjoying the fleeting pleasures of sin." Sin
has it’s exhilarating moments but they are temporary.
(4) Being out of tune with God results in David’s life being characterized by
vagueness and secrecy. David was very clear in his statements before this chapter,
very honest. But now he becomes very vague in reporting his actions. In order to
stay in his little sanctuary, David is expected to be a traitor to Israel by attacking his
homeland. But David was an Israelite at heart and so he only acted the part of a
Philistine. He made military raids on neutral tribes, and then he gave the impression
that he was doing Israel harm. Vs:10 - “‘Where did you make your raid today?’
Achish would ask. And David would reply, ‘Against the south of Judah, the
Herahmeelites, and the Kenites.’" When, in fact he wasn’t attacking the Israelites at
all but friends and cohorts of the Philistines. And double standards, half-truths, and
cover-ups became his way of life.
And when we are out of tune with God we can become very secretive about our
actions. We become veiled in our answers. Parents you know how that works. You
catch your child doing something wrong and you ask, "What you doing?" "Oh, just
playing." Or if you find out that your teen has been somewhere that they’re
forbidden to go and you ask them, "Where did you go?" They’ll say, "Oh, just
driving." "Where
did you drive?" "Oh, you know, around." Even as Christians we get caught in the
same trap.. We say we want to be accountable but when asked how our quiet time
with God we say, “Oh, it’s fine, just fine,”when we haven’t had one in weeks. Or we
play golf in Delta when we should be honoring God in Church and someone asks,
"Where were you Sunday?" "Oh, I was out of town."
(5) But then finally, David’s spiritual spiral concludes with an insensitive
conscience. David reasoned that if he left any people alive in the places he raided
that they would squeal on him. So David covered up the real truth by slaughtering
innocent men, women and children in each village. Could this be the same David
that two years ago was conscience stricken because he had cut off a piece of Saul’s
robe? Now, he’s able to cut off people’s heads and commit murder? Yes.. You see,
David had drifted far enough away from God that his conscience became seared.
And we need to realize that sin’s downward spiral doesn’t often happen fast. It is
54

55. usually a gradual process whereby the conscience becomes harder and harder. And
David began with doubt and it turned to deception, lying and finally violence.
4 When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath,
he no longer searched for him.
ROE, "What does God let happen in verse 4? Does he block David even though
David is definitely out of the will of God and deep down must realize it? No? What
does God let happen in verse 4? He lets the pressure lift. "Saul no longer searches
for David." That is one of the horrifying things of this passage. The fact that he got
out from under the circumstances, out from under the pressures, does not mean
David is in the will of God. [You have a struggle in your home, and finally you say,
"I've had it," and you flee to an apartment. To heck with the kids and wife. Sure
you feel better. You are out from under all the responsibilities. There was a prayer
in the prayer list this morning for a husband to return to his wife and two children.
They are all Christians. He is tired of the responsibility. He is living in an apartment
somewhere, and he feels out from under the responsibilities all right. The pressure is
off. But I can find nowhere in Scripture where you are allowed to flee from your
wife and children to avoid the pressure. This young man may feel better, but he is
out of the will of God.] David feels better and God allows the pressure to be relieved.
If you choose wrong, and you know it is wrong, God will let you have it. David feels
excellent at this point. He is in Maui, on the beach, in the sunshine away from
pressure. Achish loves him. Achish was going to kill him the first time he showed up,
but Achish has just had a run in with Saul. Remember back in chapter 23 when
David was trapped on that mountain and the Philistines invaded the land? Saul took
off after the Philistines, pursued them and won. He was a good general. He may
have been a little bit mad, but he was a good general. Achish lost men. Now here
comes David with six hundred, well trained, guerrilla warriors with their own
equipment, and they want to fight for Achish. David is welcomed with open arms
and given the run of the city. He is fed and clothed and housed, and everything is
going great. He has welfare coming out of his ears. The tragedy is that is does not
stop there. It moves on from the satisfying of the desires that are normal but, in this
case, illegal or immoral or unlawful in the eyes of God, to something more. You
cannot be satisfied with the status quo when you are heading down into sin.
PINK "And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more
again for him" (v. 4). This too would seem to confirm the thought that David had
acted wisely, and that God was blessing his worldly scheme, for his family and
55

56. people now rested safely from the approaches of their dreaded foe. But when
everything is going smoothly with the Christian, and the enemy ceases to harass
him, then is the time, generally speaking, when he needs to suspect that something is
wrong with his testimony, and beg God to show him what it is. Nor was Saul’s
cessation of hostility due to any improvement of character, but because he dared not
to come where David now was. "Thus many seem to leave their sins, but really their
sins leave them; they would persist in them if they could" (Matthew Henry).
Alan Carr
Not only did David’s decision affect the people around him; the very way David
lived his life was altered. In other words, his decision to walk away from the Lord
changed him completely. Look at some of the things the Bible reveals about this
tragic time in David’s life.
It seems as though the “Sweet Singer of Israel” has lost his voice.
(Note: When a believer makes that fatal decision to walk away from the Lord and
from the place of blessing, their life will be affected in a negative way.
GILL, "And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath,.... Who very probably
had his spies out to watch his motions, and report to him where he was, and what he was
doing:
and he sought no more again for him; by which it seems as if he would have sought
after him again, had he continued in the land of Israel; but now being gone, and in an
enemy's country, and having nothing to fear from him while there, he laid aside all
thoughts of seeking after him.
HENRY, " Saul's desisting from the further prosecution of him (1Sa_27:4): He
sought no more again for him; this intimates that notwithstanding the professions of
repentance he had lately made, if he had had David in his reach, he would have aimed
another blow. But, because he dares not come where he is, he resolves to let him alone.
Thus many seem to leave their sins, but really their sins leave them; they would persist
in them if they could. Saul sought no more for him, contenting himself with his
banishment, since he could not have his blood, and hoping, it may be (as he had done,
1Sa_18:25), that he would, some time or other, fall by the hand of the Philistines; and,
though he would rather have the pleasure of destroying him himself, yet, if they do it, he
will be satisfied, so that it be done effectually.
ELLICOTT, "(4) And it was told Saul.—This short statement tells us plainly that up to
the moment when Saul heard that David had crossed the frontier, he had not ceased to
pursue after him and to seek his life. Ewald considers that it was during the residence at
Gath that David exercised himself as a musician in the Gittite—i.e., the Philistine—style,
which he afterwards transferred from there to Judah and Jerusalem. (See titles of
Psalms 8, 81, 84, “upon the Gittith.”) Gittith is a feminine adjective derived from Gath;
the words possibly signify, “after the Gittith manner: some peculiar measure of style of
Philistine music, or else the reference may be to a Philistine musical instrument.”
56

57. 5 Then David said to Achish, "If I have found
favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in
one of the country towns, that I may live there.
Why should your servant live in the royal city
with you?"
David knew his host would be pleased to get rid of him and his men, and so he
suggests this, and also for the sake of his own privacy.
CONSTABLE
Why would David have been welcome in Philistia? Probably Achish and the other
Philistine lords rejoiced to see the rift that existed between David and Saul.
"Without David, Saul lacked military leadership sufficient to eliminate the
Philistine threat; without Saul, David lacked a power base from which to
operate."292
"Secondly, Achish realized that as soon as David did attack his own
people, he would lose for ever the possibility of changing sides."293
Consequently Achish was willing for David and his men to live in Philistia,
apparently as
mercenaries (cf. 2 Sam. 10:6; 15-18-22). Gath stood about 27 miles west-northwest
of
Ziph. David's move was a fairly major relocation of his forces and his family (v. 3);
he
evidently planned to stay in Philistia until God disposed of Saul. Since David now
enjoyed Philistine protection, Saul no longer searched for him. Saul would have had
to
take on the Philistines to get to David, and Saul did not want to do that. David must
have
looked like the frustrated leader of an ineffective coup d'état to Achish. Anyone who
was
the enemy of Saul was the friend of Achish. David pretended to be more of a servant
to
Achish than he really was (v. 5).
292Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 219.
293David Payne, p. 140.
57

58. 2007 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Samuel 105
Ziklag evidently stood on the southwestern edge of Philistia about 27 miles
southsouthwest
of Gerar, but its exact site is not certain.294 It continued under Israelite control
from the time David moved there until David incorporated it into his kingdom. This
town
became David's headquarters until he moved to Hebron 16 months later (v. 7; cf. 2
Sam.
1:1). In Ziklag David could come and go without constant observation by the
Philistines
who lived mainly to the north of Ziklag.
HENRY "It was really prudent. David knew what it was to be envied in the court of
Saul, and had much more reason to fear in the court of Achish, and therefore
declines preferment there, and wishes for a settlement in the country, where he
might be private, more within himself, and less in other people's way. In a town of
his own he might have the more free exercise of his religion, and keep his men better
to it, and not have his righteous soul vexed, as it was at Gath, with the idolatries of
the Philistines. (2.) As it was presented to Achish it was very modest. He does not
prescribe to him what place he should assign him, only begs it may be in some town
in the country, where he pleased (beggars must not be choosers); but he gives this
for a reason, “Why should thy servant dwell in the royal city, to crowd thee, and
disoblige those about thee?” Note, Those that would stand fast must not covet to
stand high; and humble souls aim not to dwell in royal cities.
BARNES, "David, with characteristic Oriental subtlety (compare 1Sa_21:2),
suggests as a reason for leaving Gath that his presence was burdensome and
expensive to the king. His real motive was to be more out of the way of observation
and control, so as to act the part of an enemy of Saul, without really lifting up his
hand against him and his own countrymen of Israel.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL. "And David said unto Achish,.... After he had been some time with him:
if I have now found grace in thine eyes; or was in favour, as he thought himself to
be, by various instances of respect shown him:
let them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there:
he does not ask for a city or town, but a place in one of them, though one was given him;
but of whom he asks it, it is not easy to say; though it is certain that Achish gave it him,
1Sa_27:6. Perhaps he might desire it might be given him by Achish, with the consent of
his princes and nobles, or at least of his privy council; that so it might be to general
satisfaction, and the grant more authentic; though it may be impersonally read, as in the
Vulgate Latin version, "let there be given me", &c. David's view in this might be partly to
58

59. prevent the envy of the courtiers of Achish, who might think that David was too near the
king, and might have too great an interest in him, and receive too many of his favours,
and become his chief confidant and prime minister; and partly to preserve himself and
people from all temptations to idolatry, and corruptions in religion; as also that ho might
have an opportunity, without the knowledge of Achish, to fall upon the enemies of Israel;
though the excuse he made was as follows:
for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee? for so Gath was;
and six hundred men and their families might seem to crowd the city; and this reasoning
of his might suggest, that he and his men were a straitening of him, and a burden on
him; and it might seem as if he was a rival with him in state and dignity, when he was no
other than a servant of his.
HENRY, "David's removal from Gath to Ziklag.
1. David's request for leave to remove was prudent and very modest, 1Sa_27:5. (1.) It
was really prudent. David knew what it was to be envied in the court of Saul, and had
much more reason to fear in the court of Achish, and therefore declines preferment
there, and wishes for a settlement in the country, where he might be private, more
within himself, and less in other people's way. In a town of his own he might have the
more free exercise of his religion, and keep his men better to it, and not have his
righteous soul vexed, as it was at Gath, with the idolatries of the Philistines. (2.) As it
was presented to Achish it was very modest. He does not prescribe to him what place he
should assign him, only begs it may be in some town in the country, where he pleased
(beggars must not be choosers); but he gives this for a reason, “Why should thy servant
dwell in the royal city, to crowd thee, and disoblige those about thee?” Note, Those that
would stand fast must not covet to stand high; and humble souls aim not to dwell in
royal cities.
JAMISON, "1Sa_27:5-12. David begs Ziklag of Achish.
let them give me a place in some town in the country — It was a prudent
arrangement on the part of David; for it would prevent him being an object of jealous
suspicion, or of mischievous plots among the Philistines. It would place his followers
more beyond the risk of contamination by the idolatries of the court and capital; and it
would give him an opportunity of making reprisals on the freebooting tribes that
infested the common border of Israel and the Philistines.
K&D, "1Sa_27:5-6
In the capital of the kingdom, however, David felt cramped, and therefore entreated
Achish to assign him one of the land (or provincial) towns to dwell in; whereupon he
gave him Ziklag for that purpose. This town was given to the Simeonites in the time of
Joshua (Jos_19:5), but was afterwards taken by the Philistines, probably not long before
the time of David, and appears to have been left without inhabitants in consequence of
this conquest. The exact situation, in the western part of the Negeb, has not been clearly
ascertained (see at Jos_15:31). Achish appears 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.”
59

60. PULPIT, "1Sa_27:5, 1Sa_27:6
If l have now found grace in thine eyes. Now is not an adverb of time, but means "I
pray," i.e. If verily I have found favour with thee. David’s position was one of difficulty.
The fame of his exploits, and of Saul’s vain pursuit of him, made Achish no doubt regard
him as a bitter foe of the Israelite king, and expect valuable assistance from him;
whereas David was unwilling to take up arms even against Saul, and much less against
his own countrymen. He is anxious, therefore, to get away from a too close observation
of his acts, and requests Achish to give him a place in some town in the country.
Hebrew, "a place in one of the cities in the field." Why should thy servant, etc.
David’s presence with so large a following must in many ways have been inconvenient as
well as expensive to Achish. In some small country town David and his men would
maintain themselves. Achish accordingly gives him Ziklag, a small place assigned first
of all to Judah (Jos_15:31), but subsequently to Simeon (ibid. 1Sa_19:5). Its exact
position is not known. It seems to have been valued by David’s successors, as it is noted
that it still belonged unto the kings of Judah. This phrase proves that the Book of
Samuel must have been compiled at a date subsequent to the revolt of Jeroboam, while
the concluding words, unto this day, equally plainly indicate a date prior to the
Babylonian exile.
GUZIK, "David becomes a bandit.
1. (1Sa_27:5-7) David receives the city of Ziklag.
Then David said to Achish, “If I have now found favor in your eyes, let them give me
a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there. For why should your
servant dwell in the royal city with you?” So Achish gave him Ziklag that day.
Therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day. Now the time that
David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was one full year and four months.
a. David said to Achish, “If I have now found favor in your eyes.” When
did David care about finding favor in the eyes of a Philistine ruler? What a
change in David!
b. Why should your servant dwell in the royal city with you? It smarts to
hear David say to a Philistine ruler, “your servant.” But why did David want his
own city? “From every point of view it was good that David should move away
from Achish’s capital, but especially because he needed freedom to operate his
own independent policy without being observed too closely.” (Baldwin)
c. Let them give me a place . . . that I may dwell there: In David’s mind,
this isn’t just a visit to the Philistines. He may say to himself that he will someday
return to Israel, but he isn’t planning on a short stay among the ungodly. He
wants to dwell there, and he did for one full year and four months.
i. Now David, his 600 men and their families lived in a completely new
situation. They lived in a fortified city, a formal place of defense. No more
finding refuge in the wilderness! But apart from God, they aren’t safer in the
city.
2. (1Sa_27:8-9) David’s new occupation: a roving bandit.
And David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the
60

61. Amalekites. For those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as you go
to Shur, even as far as the land of Egypt. Whenever David attacked the land, he left
neither man nor woman alive, but took away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the
camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achish.
a. David and his men went up and raided: The Hebrew word raided comes
from the verb to strip, with especially the idea of stripping the dead for loot.
David would attack these villages or encampments, kill some of the men, strip
their bodies for treasure or armor, and rob the people of the village or
encampment. Is this a way of life for a man after God’s own heart?
b. The Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites: David hasn’t totally
turned against God and His people. For now, he only attacks the enemies of
Israel. This probably gave David some comfort, but it is a small consolation to
know that you aren’t as bad as you possibly could be.
c. He left neither man nor woman alive, but took away: Even though he
is attacking the enemies of Israel, David is nothing more than an armed robber
and a murderer. He kills all the people of the village or encampment he attacks,
takes all the spoil, and does all of this without the approval or guidance of God.
He now fights wars for profit, instead of for God’s honor.
3. (1Sa_27:10-12) David lies to Achish.
Then Achish would say, “Where have you made a raid today?” And David would say,
“Against the southern area of Judah, or against the southern area of the
Jerahmeelites, or against the southern area of the Kenites.” David would save
neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to Gath, saying, “Lest they should
inform on us, saying, ‘Thus David did.’ “ And thus was his behavior all the time he
dwelt in the country of the Philistines. So Achish believed David, saying, “He has
made his people Israel utterly abhor him; therefore he will be my servant forever.”
a. And David would say, “Against the southern area of Judah.” David
didn’t lie to Achish because he was ashamed of what he did. He lied to gain favor
with Achish. He knew that this Philistine leader would be pleased to hear that
David raided his own people of Israel.
b. David would save neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to
Gath: In his raids, David killed all the men and the women, so his lie to Achish
would not be exposed.
i. Much later in his life, David will have a far more notorious season of sin
with Bathsheba, and end up killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriah to cover his
sin. Though that later event is far more famous, the root of sin that nourished
it began way back in 1Sa_27:1-12. Here, many years before David killed Uriah
to cover his sin, he kills these men and women in his raids to cover his sin.
The roots of sin must be dealt with, or they come back with greater strength.
c. So Achish believed David, saying, “He has made his people Israel
utterly abhor him; therefore he will be my servant forever.” Achish felt
he was in a good place. David was trapped in a web, and Achish was the spider.
Achish believed that David had burned all his bridges with the people of God. It
all looks pretty dark; but David had not - and could not - burn his bridge with
God.
61

62. PINK
"And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give
me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there: for why should thy
servant dwell in the royal city with thee?" (v. 5). David knew from experience how
jealous were kings and their favorites, so to prevent the envy of Achish’s courtiers
he deemed it well not to remain too near and receive too many favors at his hands.
Probably the idolatry and corruption which abounded in the royal city made David
desirous of getting his family and people removed therefrom. But in the light of the
sequel, it seems that the principle motive which prompted him to make this request
was, that he might have a better opportunity to fall upon some of the enemies of
Israel without the king of Gath being aware of it. The practical lesson for us is, that
when we forsake the path of God’s appointment a spirit of restlessness and
discontent is sure to possess us.
David presented his request to Achish very modestly: "give me a place in some town
in the country that I may dwell there, where they could enjoy greater privacy and
more freedom from the idolatry of the land. Six hundred men and their families
would crowd the royal city, and might prove quite a burden; while there was always
the danger of the subjects of Achish regarding David as a rival in state and dignity.
But to what a low level had God’s anointed descended when he speaks of himself as
the "servant" of Achish! How far from communion with the Lord was he, when one
of the uncircumcised is to choose his dwelling-place for him! A child of God is "the
Lord’s free man" (1 Cor. 7:22): yes, but to maintain this in a practical way, he must
walk in faith and obedience to Him; otherwise he will be brought in bondage to the
creature, as David was.
ROE
At last David and his band could settle down. For months their lives had been full of
alarm and flight. Now they had a little corner of peace. Their children could play in
safety; old men and women could sit in the sun and chat; men could work the fields
instead of sustaining themselves by raiding and looting.
David and his people lived in Ziklag unmolested for a time, and everything seemed
to be going well outwardly, but this was a barren time in David's walk with God. He
wrote no poetry and sang no songs in Ziklag; Israel's sweet singer was mute. David
drifted steadily away from the Lord. But David's drifting did not result in personal
failure alone; he also placed his friends in spiritual jeopardy. Philistia lay outside
the inheritance of the Lord, the abiding place of the Most High. It was full of idols (2
Samuel 5:21). Philistine carries with it an entrenched negative image. A philistine is
someone who is crude, crass, deficient in esthetic sensitivity. But the image is
undeserved. The Philistines came from the Aegean Sea and had roots in Greek
culture. They were a sophisticated and attractive people. While in Philistia, David
and his followers gained familiarity with Philistine culture and religion. This was a
perilous time for those with weaker faith. They were defiled by what they saw.
62

63. David's actions tainted Israel for centuries. Israelite men were still attracted to
Philistine women, and their children spoke "the language of Ashdod" (Nehemiah
13:24). They bought into a pagan culture. David was, at least in part, the trendsetter
for that declension. As David drifted away from God he became increasingly
restless, a state of mind that always gets us in deep trouble. Blaise Pascal, a
seventeenth-century philosopher, had this to say: "When I have set myself now and
then to consider the various distractions of men, the toils and dangers to which
they expose themselves in the court or in the camp, whence arise so many quarrels
and passions, such daring and often such evil exploits, etc., I have discovered that all
these misfortunes of men arise from one thing only, that they are unable to stay
quietly in their own chamber . . . Hence it comes that play, the society of women,
war and offices of State are sought after . . . Hence it comes that men so love noise
and movement."
First Chronicles tells us that men from all the tribes of Israel began to defect from
Saul and emigrate to Ziklag and identify with David's cause. "All of them were
brave warriors," the chronicler says, "and they were commanders in his army. Day
after day men came to help David, until he had a great army, like the army of God"
(see 1 Chronicles 12:20-21).
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:5. 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.
COFFMAN, "Verse 5
THE TOWN OF ZIKLAG WAS GIVEN TO DAVID BY ACHISH
"Then David said to Achish, "If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be given
me in one of the country towns, that I may dwell there; for why should your servant
dwell in the royal city with you"? So that day Achish gave him Ziklag; therefore
Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day. And the number of the days
that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a year and four months."
We are not given much information about the conditions upon which Achish settled
David in Ziklag, but part of David's obligation, as proved by subsequent
developments, included his report back to Achish in Gath after each military
63

64. expedition, including, no doubt, a sharing of the spoil from such endeavors with
Achish, David's overlord.
"Ziklag" was an ideal location for David. "Scholars now generally agree that Ziklag
is the modern Tel el-Khuweilifeh, about twelve miles north-northeast of
Beersheba."[5] Following the Conquest, Ziklag was assigned to Simeon but later
incorporated into the territory of Judah (Joshua 19:5). Although David had
suggested this change as a convenience to Achish, that could not possibly have been
his real motive. David needed to be at a distance from the observation of Achish in
order to carry out his plans for deceiving the king of Gath. Furthermore, as Young
wrote, "In a district of his own David could observe his own religious rites without
being under the surveillance of the king."[6]
"Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day" (1 Samuel 27:6). This writer
believes that such expressions as this are in all probability interpolations due to
some later copyist adding the words in the margin and which eventually found their
way into the text. Note that this expression is no part whatever of the narrative. The
use which most scholars make of an expression such as this is that of making it a
device for late-dating the Biblical book where it is found. To this writer, it seems
very suspicious that critical scholars such as H. P. Smith who could always find
anywhere from two or three to thirty or forty `interpolated verses' in a single
chapter, always takes a comment like that at the head of this paragraph as the
gospel truth and positive evidence of a late date. Such maneuvers are absolutely
unbelievable.
"The number of days that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a year
and four months" (1 Samuel 27:7). This is a mistranslation, representing some
"scholarly guess" instead of what the Hebrew text says. Dummelow wrote that,
"The Hebrew text here is literally, `days and four months,'"[7] thus being no
definite statement whatever of the time David was with the Philistines. The RSV (the
version we are following) guessed the time as a year and four months; but the
Septuagint (LXX) guessed it as only four months; and according to H. P. Smith,
both versions missed it, being far "Too short in the light of Achish's own statement
in 1 Samuel 29:3."[8]
ELLICOTT, "(5) Why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee?—The
real reason why David wished a separate residence was that he might conduct his
forays and other affairs apart from the supervision of his Philistine friends. They
had one purpose in welcoming him and his band, he had quite another. Achish
trusted that through David’s assistance powerful military demonstrations in the
southern districts of Saul’s kingdom might be made. At this time the Philistine
nation were preparing for that grand national effort against Saul which culminated
in the battle of Mount Gilboa. David, on the other hand, intended, from a
comparatively secure centre of operations somewhere in Philistia, to harry those
nomad foes of Israel whose home was in the deserts to the south of Canaan.
64

65. PETT, "Verse 5
David Becomes A Petty King of Ziklag And Carries Out successful Raids To Obtain
Booty, Thereby Consolidating His Position with The King Of Gath Who Thought
That He Was Raiding Israel/Judah (1 Samuel 27:5 to 1 Samuel 28:2).
We need not doubt that there was far more to the discussions between Achish and
David than we are told. It seems very probable that David was feeling constricted
both physically and spiritually in Gath and that his men were possibly chafing
through inactivity. There may also have been conflicts with local Gittites who
objected to their presence. David may well therefore have proposed to the king that
he and his men could achieve more by having their own city to operate from, a city
‘in the country’, that is, in a less occupied area from which raiding operations could
be carried out.
Achish clearly saw the sense in this and gave David the city of Ziklag, with its
environs, which was probably sparsely occupied at the time. Ziklag was in the far
south, in the Negeb. (That it was near Beersheba is suggested by Nehemiah 11:28).
There its surrounding area was especially vulnerable to attacks from the warlike
tribes that roamed the Sinai peninsula. Achish may well therefore have seen this as
a means of making that area, which was under his control, secure. And from there
David in his turn attacked these tribes and obtained from them much booty,
including large quantities of cattle, sheep and goats. Achish would receive his share
of it, being informed erroneously that it had been obtained by attacking Israelite
towns. Some of it was also distributed among the hardpressed people of Judah, to
their eternal gratitude, so that they began to look on David with favour. He was a
good neighbour to have.
Analysis.
a And David said to Achish, “If now I have found favour in your eyes, let them give
me a place in one of the cities in the country, that I may dwell there. For why should
your servant dwell in the royal city with you?” (1 Samuel 27:5).
b Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day, which is why Ziklag pertains to the kings
of Judah to this day. And the number of the days that David dwelt in the country of
the Philistines was a full year and four months (1 Samuel 27:6-7).
c And David and his men went up, and made a raid on the Geshurites, and the
Girzites, and the Amalekites, for those nations were the inhabitants of the land, who
were of old, as you go to Shur, even to the land of Egypt (1 Samuel 27:8).
d And David smote the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive, and took
away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the clothing, and
he returned, and came to Achish (1 Samuel 27:9).
65

66. c And Achish said, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” And David said,
“Against the South of Judah, and against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and
against the South of the Kenites” (1 Samuel 27:10).
b And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring them to Gath, saying,
“Lest they should tell of us, saying, So did David, and so has been his way all the
while he has dwelt in the country of the Philistines.” And Achish believed David,
saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly to abhor him, therefore he shall be
my servant for ever” (1 Samuel 27:11-12).
a And it came about in those days, that the Philistines gathered their hosts together
for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said to David, “Know you assuredly,
that you will go out with me in the host, you and your men.” And David said to
Achish, “Therefore you will know what your servant will do.” And Achish said to
David, “Therefore will I make you keeper of my head for ever” (1 Samuel 28:1-2).
Note that in ‘a’ David had found favour in the eyes of Achish, and in the parallel
that favour is clearly demonstrated. In ‘b’ we learn of the limited period for which
David dwelt in the land of the Philistines, and in the parallel Achish mistakenly
thought that he had him as his servant for ever. In ‘c’ we are told the names of the
tribes which David raided, and in the parallel the names of those that he claimed to
have raided. Central in ‘d’ is the fact that Achish received much tribute, thus
enhancing David in his eyes..
1 Samuel 27:5
‘And David said to Achish, “If now I have found favour in your eyes, let them give
me a place in one of the cities in the country, that I may dwell there. For why should
your servant dwell in the royal city with you?” ’
Whatever the reasons David approached Achish and asked to be given a city some
distance from Gath so as to avoid cramping the royal city. This probably indicates
that many of the Gittite aristocracy were somewhat put out by the presence of David
and his men, and were in some way expressing their hostility, claiming that this was
the royal city of Gath, a place in which such a foreign element were not welcome. If
this was so Achish would be aware of it and might well have seen David’s suggestion
as very wise. He had little to lose and much to gain by giving to David a sparsely
populated town guarding the approach from the south, especially if David was able
to keep the surrounding area safe and use it as a base from which to carry out his
foraging expeditions (compare 1 Samuel 13:17), thus enhancing Achish’s wealth. It
does, however, illustrate the confidence and trust that Achish had in David. He saw
him as someone reliable.
66

67. 6 So on that day Achish gave him Ziklag, and it
has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since.
He gave away a town, and it became property of the kings of Israel. It could not
have been much of a place, and later it was burned to the ground by enemy forces.
DEFFINBAUGH "Achish gives David the city of Ziklag. This city is 25 miles or so
to the south and east of Gath. It is somewhat out of the way, from a Philistine
perspective, and not all that distant from Israelite cities. It gives David and his
followers a “place of their own,” in an area where David’s activities will not be
monitored by Achish. It is something like moving far enough away from your in-
laws to have a life of your own. David dwelt in Philistia a year and four months, but
the town of Ziklag becomes a permanent possession of the Israelite kings (verses
6-7).
HENRY, "Achish gave him Ziklag. Hereby, (1.) Israel recovered their ancient right;
for Ziklag was in the lot of the tribe of Judah (Jos_15:31), and afterwards, out of
that lot, was assigned, with some other cities, to Simeon, Jos_19:5. But either it was
never subdued, or the Philistines had, in some struggle with Israel, made themselves
masters of it. Perhaps they had got it unjustly, and Achish, being a man of sense and
honour, took this occasion to restore it.
JAMISON, "Ziklag — Though originally assigned to Judah (Jos_15:31), and
subsequently to Simeon (Jos_19:5), this town had never been possessed by the
Israelites. It belonged to the Philistines, who gave it to David.
CLARKE 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.
BARNES, "Ziklag - This was properly one of the cities of Simeon within the tribe
of Judah (marginal references), but it had been taken possession of by the
Philistines. The exact situation of it is uncertain.
Unto this day - This phrase, coupled with the title the kings of Judah, implies that
this was written after the revolt of Jeroboam, and before the Babylonian captivity.
GILL, "Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day,.... A city which in the division of the
land was given to the tribe of Judah, and after that to the tribe of Simeon, Jos_
15:31; though it seems not to have been possessed by either of them, at least not
long, but soon came into the hands of the Philistines, who kept it till this time, and
now it returned to its right owners; according to Bunting (g) it was twelve miles
67

68. from Gath:
wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day; not to the tribe
of Judah, though it originally belonged to it, but to the kings of it, it, being granted
to David, who quickly after this became king of Judah; and this was annexed to the
crown lands, and ever after enjoyed by the kings, of the house of Judah; for this was
not given for a temporary habitation, but for perpetual possession. This clause
seems to be added by the continuator of this history, after the death of Samuel; who
might be Gad or Nathan; some say Ezra, and Abarbinel that Jeremiah was the
writer of it.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:6. 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.
PINK
"Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day:" (v. 6). Originally this city had been given
to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:31), then to Simeon (John 19:5), though it seems that
neither of them possessed it, but that it came into the hands of the Philistines.
"Wherefore Ziklag pertained unto the kings of Judah unto this day." Being given
unto David, who shortly after became king, this section was annexed to the crown-
lands, and ever after it was part of the portion of the kings of Judah: so that it was
given to David not as a temporary possession, but, under God, as a permanent one
for his descendants. Truly, the ways of the Lord are past finding out.
BI, "Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day.
God’s restoring mercy
Throughout that season of declension and relapse (1Sa_27:1-12, Psa_10:1-18) the
loving mercy of God hovered tenderly over David’s life. God’s restoring mercy was
evident.
I. In inclining strong and noble men to identify themselves with David’s cause. “Now
these are they,” says the chronicler, “that came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept
himself close, because of Saul, the son of Kish; and they were among the mighty
men, helpers in war” (1Ch_12:1). And he proceeds to enumerate them. Some came
from Saul’s own tribe, experienced marksmen. Some came from the eastern bank of
68

69. the Jordan, swimming it at the flood, mighty men of valour, men trained for war.
“Thine are we, David,” etc. Evidently the spirit of discontent was abroad in the
land. The people, weary of Saul’s oppression and misgovernment, were beginning to
realize that the true hope of Israel lay in the son of Jesse. They therefore went out to
him without the camp, bearing his reproach. Thus, in silence and secrecy, loyal and
true hearts are gathering around our blessed Lord, the centre of whose kingdom is
not earthly but heavenly. Who then are willing to leave the tottering realm of the
prince of this world, soon to be shattered on the last great battlefield of time, and
identify themselves with the kingdom of the Son of David, which is destined to
endure as long as the sun?
II. In extricating his servant from the false position into which he had drifted. The
Philistines suddenly resolved on a forward policy. They were aware of the
disintegration which was slowly dividing Saul’s kingdom. When this campaign was
being meditated, the guileless king assured David that he should accompany him.
This was perhaps said as a mark of special confidence. It was, however, a very
critical juncture with David. He had no alternative but to follow his liege lord into
the battle; but every mile of those fifty or sixty which had to be traversed must have
been trodden with lowering face and troubled heart. There was no hope for him in
man. If by your mistakes and sins you have reduced yourself to a false position like
this, do not despair; hope still in God. Confess and put away your sin, and humble
yourself before Him, and He will arise to deliver you. You may have destroyed
yourself; but in Him will be your help. An unexpected door of hope was suddenly
opened in this valley of Anchor. When Achish reviewed his troops in Aphek, after
the lords of the Philistines had passed on by hundreds and by thousands, David and
his men passed on in the rearward with the king. This aroused the jealousy and
suspicion of the imperious Philistine princes, and they came to Achish with fierce
words and threats. “What do these Hebrews here?” etc. They pointed out how
virulent a foe he had been, and how tempting the opportunity for him to purchase
reconciliation with Saul by turning traitor in the fight. In the end, therefore, the
king had to yield. It cost him much to inform David of the inevitable decision to
which he was driven; but he little realized with what a burst of relief his
announcement was received. He made a show of injured innocence: “What have I
done, and what has thou found in thy servant so long as I have been before thee
unto this day, that I may not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?”
But his heart was not with his words; and it was with unfeigned satisfaction that he
received the stringent command to depart from the camp with the morning light.
III. By the Divine dealings with him in respect to the burning of Ziklag. It was by
God’s great mercy that the Philistine lords were so set against the continuance of
David in their camp. They thought that they were executing a piece of ordinary
policy, dictated by prudence and foresight; little realizing that they were the shears
by which God was cutting the meshes of David’s net. As David was leaving the
battlefield, a number of the men of Manasseh, who appear to have deserted to
Achish, were assigned to him by the Philistines, lest they also should turn traitors on
the field. Thus he left the camp with a greatly increased following. Here, too, was a
proof of God’s tender thought, fulness, because at no time of his life was he in
69

70. greater need of reinforcements than now. God anticipates coming trial, and
reinforces us against its certain imminence and pressure. On reaching the spot
which they accounted home, after three days’ exhausting march, the soldiers found
it a heap of smouldering ruins; and instead of the welcome of wives and children,
silence and desolation reigned supreme. The loyalty and devotion which he had
never failed to receive from his followers were suddenly changed to vinegar and
gall. But this was the moment of his return to God. In that dread hour, with the
charred embers smoking at his feet; with this threat of stoning in his ears; his heart
suddenly sprang back into its old resting place in the bosom of God. From this
moment David is himself again, his old strong, glad, noble self. For the first time,
after months of disuse, he bids Abiathar bring him the ephod, and he enquires of
the Lord. With marvellous vigour he arises to pursue the marauding troop and he
overtakes it. He withholds the impetuosity of his men till daylight wanes, loosing
them from the leash in the twilight, and leading them to the work of rescue and
vengeance with such irresistible impetuosity that not a man of them escaped. He was
sweet as well as strong, as courteous as he was brave. (1Sa_30:26). The sunshine of
God’s favour rested afresh upon his soul. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Disaster and deliverance
To what fluctuations, what ebbs and flows of spiritual power, the same man is
subject! Moral victories are often succeeded by terrible weaknesses. Days differ not
so much as the men who live through them. Elijah flung himself beneath the juniper
in unbelieving despondency directly after the fire from heaven had honoured his
faith in God.
I. David nursing doubt. The pendulum of his faith has swung right back. His
heroism, patience, and fortitude are gone. He turns his face and feet toward the
enemies of Israel. Tides are not the sport of chance, nor is David’s declension. No
man retreats before a conquered enemy unless there be reason and cause.
1. God is not consulted. “David said in his heart” (verse 1). He omitted to lay the
case before God, and turned to commune with his own heart. He is simply a man
moved by his fears and inclinations. How they shut us out from prayer! To the
busy no time, to the perplexed no need, to the anxious no use. How hurriedly we
move to obey these promptings when once admitted! If David’s inclinations
tended towards Gath, he would not wish to ask God. Do not affect surprise;
plunge the test right into your life. Are you afraid lest the answer from God
should be against your inclinations?
2. Indifference to past mercies, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.”
Unbelief finds voice here—open, blank, base, ungrateful unbelief! What reason
had David to doubt God’s care for and over him?
3. Doubt thus led David to draw false conclusions. “There is nothing better for
me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines.” The
70

71. Seventh Psalm shows us how he suffered at this period of his life.
II. Distrust of God prepares the way for deceit. Doubt brought, forth deceit. Deceit
led to cruelty (verse 11). He slew the Amalekites, “so that none should tell the king.”
1. Deceit producing difficulty. Achish tells David be must join with his people
and fight against Israel (1Sa_27:1), and, moreover, appoints him captain of his
bodyguard (verse 2). Deceit weaves difficulties which bind as chains. How could
David go forward? Christian, you went with the multitude to do evil, and since
then you have found the way of transgressors is hard.
III. Disaster following and yet producing deliverance. While David was away, the
Amalekites, seizing their opportunity, pillaged and destroyed Ziklag. Home
destroyed, wives and children gone, wounded where most susceptible in his
affections, it was no wonder David “was greatly distressed.” If this was an hour of
bitterness, it was also a blessed hour. Repentance does not always follow sorrow for
sin—never, only in a gracious heart. David’s faith, chained down during these last
sixteen months, sprang up through the gloom, and in the day of sorrow made itself
heard. (H. E. Stone.).
ELLICOTT, " (6) Ziklag.—In the days of Joshua this place fell to the lot of Simeon
(Joshua 19:5). It was afterwards captured by the Philistines, not long before the
time of David, and Keil thinks was left without inhabitants in consequence of this
conquest. Its exact situation has never been clearly ascertained; it certainly lay far
south, near the Amalekite borders.
Wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day.—These words
supply us with a double note of time in the question of the date of this First Book of
Samuel. They tell us that it was cast in its present shape after the revolt of
Jeroboam, and certainly before the days of the carrying away of Israel to Babylon.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:6
‘Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day, which is why Ziklag pertains to the kings of
Judah to this day.’
So that day Achish gave Ziklag and its surrounds to David, for him to rule as a petty
king over an independent city state under Achish’s suzerainty. That is why when
David became king of Judah the city would become conjoined with Judah (with
Achish still seeing David as his loyal vassal), and the city became seen as a Judean
city under the control of whoever was king over Judah at the time. Thus anyone
who ruled Judah, even if as a part of Israel, ruled Ziklag by right of the fact that it
had been given to David and had been conjoined with Judah. It had, of course,
71

72. always been seen as in Judah’s (and Simeon’s) territory (Joshua 15:31; Joshua 19:5)
by the Israelites. That it was near Beersheba is suggested by Nehemiah 11:28.
There is no reason for suggesting that this phrase pinpoints the date of authorship
of the final book, for all kings from David onwards were ‘kings of Judah’, and it
was by virtue of this rather than as kings of Israel/Judah that they ruled Ziklag.
7 David lived in Philistine territory a year and
four months.
He could only do this because all knew that he was an enemy of Saul. But you would
think that the Philistines would hate David and kill him on sight when he killed so
many of them.
PINK
"And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and
four months" (v. 7). "But rest reached by self-will or disobedience is anything
rather than peace to the heart that fears God, and loves His service. David could not
forget that Israel, whom he had forsaken, were God’s people; nor that the
Philistines, whom he had joined, were God’s enemies. He could not but remember
his own peculiar relation to God and to His people—for Samuel had anointed him,
and even Saul had blessed him as the destined king of Israel. His conscience
therefore, must have been ill at ease; and the stillness and rest of Ziklag would only
cause him to be more sensible of its disquietude" (B. W. Newton).
GILL. "And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines,.... At Gath
and Ziklag:
was a full year and four months; or "days and four months"; days being sometimes
put for a year, Jdg_17:10; though some interpret it not of a year, but of some few
days out of the fifth month, besides the four months; so Jarchi and Kimchi; and
Josephus (h) makes his abode to be four months and twenty days; but, according to
the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, it was only four months; and so it may
be rendered, "days, that is, four months"; for according to the Jewish chronology (i)
Samuel died four months before Saul, and this flight of David was after the death of
Samuel, and when Saul died he left the land of the Philistines, and took the throne of
Judah; See Gill on 1Sa_25:1.
72

73. HENRY, " The grant which Achish made to him, upon that request, was very
generous and kind (1Sa_27:6, 1Sa_27:7): Achish gave him Ziklag. Hereby, (1.) Israel
recovered their ancient right; for Ziklag was in the lot of the tribe of Judah (Jos_
15:31), and afterwards, out of that lot, was assigned, with some other cities, to
Simeon, Jos_19:5. But either it was never subdued, or the Philistines had, in some
struggle with Israel, made themselves masters of it. Perhaps they had got it unjustly,
and Achish, being a man of sense and honour, took this occasion to restore it. The
righteous God judgeth righteously. (2.) David gained a commodious settlement, not
only at a distance from Gath, but bordering upon Israel, where he might keep up a
correspondence with his own countrymen, and whither they might resort to him at
the revolution that was now approaching. Though we do not find that he augmented
his forces at all while Saul lived (for, 1Sa_30:10, he had but his six hundred men),
yet, immediately after Saul's death, that was the rendezvous of his friends. Nay, it
should seem, while he kept himself close because of Saul, multitudes resorted to him,
at least to assure him of their sincere intentions, 1 Chr. 12:1-22. And this further
advantage David gained, that Ziklag was annexed to the crown, at least the royalty
of it pertained to the kings of Judah, ever after, 1Sa_27:6. Note, There is nothing
lost by humility and modesty, and a willingness to retire. Real advantages follow
those that flee from imaginary honours. Here David continued for some days, even
four months, as it may very well be read (1Sa_27:7), or some days above four
months: the Septuagint reads it, some months; so long he waited for the set time of
his accession to the throne; for he that believeth shall not make haste.
K&D, "1Sa_27:7
The statement that David remained a year and four months in the land of the
Philistines, is a proof of the historical character of the whole narrative. The ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬
before the “four months” signifies a year; strictly speaking, a term of days which
amounted to a full year (as in Lev_25:29 : see also 1Sa_1:3, 1Sa_1:20; 1Sa_2:19).
PULPIT, "1Sa_27:7
A full year. Hebrew, "days." Rashi argues in favour of its meaning some days, and
Josephus says the time of David’s stay in Philistia was "four months and twenty
days;" but already in 1Sa_1:3; 1Sa_2:19, we have had the phrase "from days day-
ward in the sense of yearly, and comp. Le 1Sa_25:29; Jdg_17:10; also Jdg_19:2,
where the A.V. translates the Hebrew days four months as meaning "four months"
only. Probably, as here, it is a year and four months, though the omission of the
conjunction is a difficulty. So too for "after a time" (Jdg_14:8) it should be "after a
year"—Hebrew, after days.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:7
73

74. ‘And the number of the days that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a
full year and four months.’
This may indicate the length of time that David was in Gath prior to moving to
Ziklag, after which on moving to Ziklag he was seen by the writer as living in an
independent city which was in territory allocated to Judah, even if Achish saw it
differently. As far as the writer is concerned David was a patriot who was to be seen
as having lived among the Philistines for as short a time as possible.
David appears to have ruled the city and its surrounds as an independent city state,
while acknowledging Achish as his overlord. The terms on which he received the
city would have been laid out in a suzerainty treaty. It would include the obtaining
of booty, a proportion of which would be given to Achish, as a result of raids on
‘foreign territory’ (which Achish would see as including Judah), and an expression
of willingness to serve Achish directly as mercenaries when called on. To this city
and its environs flocked many who were disaffected by Saul’s rule, in order to serve
under David who had once been a popular Israelite commander (1 Chronicles
12:1-7; 1 Chronicles 12:20-22). From it he sent ambassadors to Judean cities gaining
their friendship (1 Samuel 30:26-31). He was founding his own small kingdom and it
was giving him great experience for the future, with an influence that Achish never
dreamed of.
ELLICOTT, "(7) A full year and four months.—Keil calls attention to the exact
statement of time here as a proof of the historical character of the whole narrative.
The Hebrew expression, translated “a year,” is a singular one: yamim—literally,
days—a collective term, used in Leviticus 25:29, 1 Samuel 1:3; 1 Samuel 2:19, &c.,
to signify a term or period of days which amounted to a full year. This year and four
months were among the darkest days of David’s life. He was sorely tried, it is true;
but he had adopted the very course his bitterest foes would have wished him to
select. In open arms, apparently leagued with the deadliest foes of Israel, like an
Italian condottiere or captain of free lances of the Middle Ages, he had taken service
and accepted the wages of that very Philistine city whose champion he once had
slain in the morning of his career. At last his enemies at the court of Saul had reason
when they spoke of him as a traitor. From the curt recital in this chapter, which
deals with the saddest portion of David’s career, we shall see that while he
apparently continued to make common cause with the enemies of his race, he still
used his power to help, and not to injure, his countrymen; but the price he paid for
his patriotism was a life of falsehood, stained, too, with deeds of fierce cruelty,
shocking even in these rough, half-barbarous times.
74

75. 8 Now David and his men went up and raided the
Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites.
(From ancient times these peoples had lived in the
land extending to Shur and Egypt.)
DEFFINBAUGH "David and his men are given a place in which to live. They also
need a means of livelihood. David’s solution to this problem is indeed ingenious.
David uses Ziklag as his headquarters, his base of operations. From here, David and
his men go about the area raiding the cities and camps of Israel’s enemies. We know
some of these people, such as the Amalekites. But of others, like the Girzites, we
know nothing. We do know in a generic sort of way that these are the peoples who
inhabited the land from ancient times. It may be safe, therefore, to conclude that all
of these peoples are “Canaanites,” who are under the ban (see Exodus 23:23;
Numbers 21:3; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Judges 1:17).
If this is the case (we may have a small element of doubt in the case of the Girzites,
for example), then the wholesale slaughter of these “Canaanites” seems justified. I
must point out, however, that although David kills all of the people whose villages he
raids, including children, he does not kill all of the cattle. He “took away the sheep,
the cattle, the donkeys, the camels, and the clothing” (verse 9). If David is attacking
these peoples in order to obey God’s command, then he is no more obedient than
Saul, who left only the king and the best of the cattle alive. It seems, therefore, that
David attacks these peoples for more pragmatic reasons, such as providing food for
their families. He kills all the people, leaving no survivors, not because this is God’s
command, but because it is the only way he can continue his deception (see verse
11).
ROE
David was down in the "Wilderness of the Cherethites" and the Pelethites who were
actually Philistines [Cherethites comes from the word for Crete, which is where the
Philistines came from. Pelethites was one of the words for Philistines.] David, even
in the midst of his sin and apart from God, was a very attractive person. He had
great charisma and aroused great loyalty. When he was living in Gath and in this
wilderness, he made lots of friends among the Philistines. We are told later on that
when David became king, his personal bodyguard was made up of Cherethites,
Pelethites and Gittites, Gath people [II Samuel 15:18]. Six hundred people and their
families left their country, joined themselves with David, and became his most loyal
bodyguard. It is amazing the grace of God. In the midst of David's sin, God
75

76. provided for David's needs down the road. After his son Absalom chases him out of
town, the Cherethites, the Pelethites and the Gittites take their stand with David
when they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. When he admonishes Ittai
the Gittite to go back rather than cast his lot with a fugitive, Ittai says, "No, as the
Lord lives and my lord the king lives, surely wherever my lord the king may be,
whether for death or for life, there also your servant will be." [II Samuel 15:21] Six
hundred pagan Philistines and their families move into Jehovah land and obviously
became Jehovah worshippers. God was in the business of saving Philistines, even
using a disobedient king. Ittai the Gittite became one of the three leading generals of
Israel. God was doing a redemptive work at the same time he was dealing with
David.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:8. 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. 1 Samuel 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.
CONSTABLE
David used his opportunity to defeat and to annihilate the common enemies of Israel
and the Philistines that lived to Israel's southwest. David did not leave any
survivors, as the Lord had commanded (Deut. 3:18-20; Josh. 1:13). He was clearing
the Promised Land of foreign foes so the Israelites could occupy it. David walked a
thin line of deception but was able to convince Achish that his victories were for the
welfare of the Philistines and the detriment of Israel. Really he was conquering
Israel's surrounding enemies, but he gave Achish the impression that his raids were
against the southern portions in Judah. David continued to subdue Israel's enemy
76

77. neighbors later when he became king (2 Sam. 8). Achish believed that David had
alienated himself from the Israelites and would therefore be loyal to him from then
on (v. 12; cf. 17:9).
PINK
And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and
the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land" (v. 8).
"When the consciences of God’s servants tells them that their position is wrong, one
of their devices not unfrequently is, to give themselves, with fresh energy, to the
attainment of some right end; as if rightly directed, or successful energy, could atone
for committed evil, and satisfy the misgivings of a disquieted heart. Accordingly,
David, still retaining the self-gained rest of Ziklag, resolved that it should not be the
rest of inactivity, but that he would thence put forth fresh energies against the
enemies of God and of His people. The Amalekites were nigh. The Amalekites were
they of whom the Lord had sworn that He would have war with Amalek from
generation to generation. David therefore went up against them, and triumphed"
(B. W. Newton).
Those which David and his men invaded were some of the original tribes which
inhabited Canaan, and were such as had escaped the sword of Saul, and had fled to
more distant parts. His attack upon them was not an act of cruelty, for those people
had long before been divinely sentenced to destruction. Yet though they were the
enemies of the Lord and His people, David’s attack upon them was ill timed, and
more likely than not the chief motive which prompted him was the obtaining of food
and plunder for his forces. "Nothing could be more complete than his success: ‘He
smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive; and took away the sheep, and
the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel.’ Ziklag was enriched with
spoil, and that the spoil of the enemies of the Lord. What prosperity then could be
greater—what apparently more immediately from God?" (B. W. Newton)
BARNES, "The Geshurites bordered upon the Philistines, and lived in the
mountainous district which terminates the desert on the northeast (marginal
reference). They were a different tribe, or, at least, a different branch of it, from the
Geshurites who lived on the northeast border of Bashan, and were Arameans 2Sa_
15:8. The Gezrites, or Gerzites, may be connected with those who gave their name to
Mount Gerizim.
GILL, "And David and his men went up,.... From Ziklag, where they dwelt:
and invaded the Geshurites; some of the old inhabitants of the land of Canaan, the
remains of the Amorites, whose land was given to the half tribe of Manasseh, but
could never be expelled; and therefore David had a just right to invade them, and, if
he could, either expel or destroy them; see Deu_3:14; these are the Geshurites which
are joined with the Philistines, Jos_13:2,
77

78. and the Gezrites; the inhabitants of Gezer, which place fell to the tribe of Ephraim;
but that tribe could not drive out the inhabitants of it, and therefore David now fell
upon them as the enemies of Israel, and seized on their country, as belonging to
them, Jos_16:3,
and the Amalekites; the sworn and implacable enemies of Israel, and whose memory
they were laid under obligation to root out. These were such as had escaped the
sword of Saul, and had fled to the more distant parts, against whom David now
went; and perhaps these had fled to and mixed themselves with the people here
mentioned:
for these nations were of old the inhabitants of the land; of the land of Canaan:
as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt; see 1Sa_15:7.
HENRY, "Here is an account of David's actions while he was in the land of the
Philistines, a fierce attack he made upon some remains of the devoted nations, his
success in it, and the representation he gave of it to Achish. 1. We may acquit him of
injustice and cruelty in this action because those people whom he cut off were such
as heaven had long since doomed to destruction, and he that did it was one whom
heaven had ordained to dominion; so that the thing was very fit to be done, and he
was very fit to do it. It was not for him that was anointed to fight the Lord's battles
to sit still in sloth, however he might think fit, in modesty, to retire. He desired to be
safe from Saul only that he might expose himself for Israel. He avenged an old
quarrel that God had with these nations, and at the same time fetched in provisions
for himself and his army, for by their swords they must live. The Amalekites were to
be all cut off. Probably the Geshurites and Gezrites were branches of Amalek. Saul
was rejected for sparing them, David makes up the deficiency of his obedience
before he succeeds him. He smote them, and left none alive, 1Sa_27:8, 1Sa_27:9. The
service paid itself, for they carried off abundance of spoil, which served for the
subsistence of David's forces.
JAMISON, "David ... went up, and invaded the Geshurites — (See Jos_13:2).
and the Gezrites — or the Gerizi [Gesenius], (Jos_12:12), some Arab horde which
had once encamped there.
and the Amalekites — Part of the district occupied by them lay on the south of the
land of Israel (Jdg_5:14; Jdg_12:15).
K&D "From Ziklag David made an attack upon the Geshurites, Gerzites, and
Amalekites, smote them without leaving a man alive, and returned with much booty.
The occasion of this attack is not mentioned, as being a matter of indifference in
relation to the chief object of the history; but it is no doubt to be sought for in
plundering incursions made by these tribes into the land of Israel. For David would
hardly have entered upon such a war in the situation in which he was placed at that
78

79. time without some such occasion, seeing that it would be almost sure to bring him
into suspicion with Achish, and endanger his safety. ‫ל‬ַ‫ַﬠ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, “he advanced,” the verb
being used, as it frequently is, to denote the advance of an army against a people or
town (see at Jos_8:1). At the same time, the tribes which he attacked may have had
their seat upon the mountain plateau in the northern portion of the desert of Paran,
so that David was obliged to march up to reach them. ‫ט‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫,פּ‬ to invade for the purpose
of devastation and plunder. Geshuri is a tribe mentioned in Jos_13:2 as living in the
south of the territory of the Philistines, and is a different tribe from the Geshurites
in the north-east of Gilead (Jos_12:5; Jos_13:11, Jos_13:13; Deu_3:14). These are
the only passages in which they are mentioned. The Gerzites, or Gizrites according to
the Keri, are entirely unknown. Bonfrere and Clericus suppose them to be the
Gerreni spoken of in 2 Macc. 13:24, who inhabited the town of Gerra, between
Rhinocolura and Pelusium (Strabo, xvi. 760), or Gerron (Ptol. iv. 5). This conjecture
is a possible one, but is very uncertain nevertheless, as the Gerzites certainly dwelt
somewhere in the desert of Arabia. At any rate Grotius and Ewald cannot be correct
in their opinion that they were the inhabitants of Gezer (Jos_10:33). The Amalekites
were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites, who had taken to flight
on Saul's war of extermination, and had now assembled again (see at 1Sa_15:8-9).
“For they inhabit the land, where you go from of old to Shur, even to the land of
Egypt.” The ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫ﬠ‬ before ‫ָם‬‫ל‬‫ו‬ֹ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ may be explained from the fact that ֲ‫וא‬ֹ‫בּ‬ is not
adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as an infinitive: literally,
“where from of old thy coming is to Shur.” ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫ﬠ‬ cannot have crept into the text
through a copyist's mistake, as such a mistake would not have found its way into all
the MSS. The fact that the early translators did not render the word proves nothing
against its genuineness, but merely shows that the translators regarded it as
superfluous. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, and ‫ָם‬‫ל‬‫ו‬ֹ‫ע‬ is
confounded with ‫ָם‬‫ל‬ֵ‫,ﬠ‬ ἀπὸ Γελάμ. Shur is the desert of Jifar, which is situated in
front of Egypt (as in 1Sa_15:7). These tribes were nomads, and had large flocks,
which David took with him as booty when he had smitten the tribes themselves.
After his return, David betook himself to Achish, to report to the Philistian king
concerning his enterprise, and deceive him as to its true character.
PULPIT, "1Sa_27:8
Went up. The Geshurites inhabited the high table land which forms the
northeastern portion of the wilderness of Paran. Like the Kenites, they seem to have
broken up into scattered tribes, as we find one portion of them in the
neighbourhood of Bashan (Deu_3:14), and another in Syria (2Sa_15:8). Probably,
like the Amalekites, they were a Bedouin race, and so great wanderers. Hence the
verb translated invaded is literally "spread themselves out" like a fan, so as to
enclose these nomads, whose safety lay in flight. Gezrites. The written text has
Girzites, which the Kri has changed into Gezrites, probably from a wish to connect a
name never mentioned elsewhere with the town of Gezer. But Gezer lay far away in
the west of Ephraim, and the connection suggested in modern times of the Girzites
with Mount Gerizim in Central Palestine is more probable. They would thus be the
79

80. remains of a once more powerful people, dispossessed by the Amorites, but who
were now probably a very feeble remnant. For those nations, etc. The grammar and
translation of this clause are both full of difficulties, but the following rendering is
perhaps the least objectionable: "For these were (the families) inhabiting the land,
which were of old, as thou goest towards Shur," etc. Families must be supplied
because the participle inhabiting is feminine. What, then, the narrator means to say
is that these three Bedouin tribes were the aboriginal inhabitants of the
northwestern portion of the desert between Egypt and South Palestine. On the
Amalekites see 1Sa_15:2. We need not wonder at finding them mentioned again so
soon after Saul’s expedition. A race of nomads would sustain no great harm from an
expedition which soon began to occupy itself with capturing cattle. On Shur see
1Sa_15:7.
GUZIK, "(1Sa_27:8-9) David’s new occupation: a roving bandit.
And David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the
Amalekites. For those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as
you go to Shur, even as far as the land of Egypt. Whenever David attacked the
land, he left neither man nor woman alive, but took away the sheep, the oxen,
the donkeys, the camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achish.
a. David and his men went up and raided: The Hebrew word raided comes
from the verb to strip, with especially the idea of stripping the dead for loot.
David would attack these villages or encampments, kill some of the men,
strip their bodies for treasure or armor, and rob the people of the village or
encampment. Is this a way of life for a man after God’s own heart?
b. The Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites: David hasn’t totally
turned against God and His people. For now, he only attacks the enemies of
Israel. This probably gave David some comfort, but it is a small consolation
to know that you aren’t as bad as you possibly could be.
c. He left neither man nor woman alive, but took away: Even though he is
attacking the enemies of Israel, David is nothing more than an armed robber
and a murderer. He kills all the people of the village or encampment he
attacks, takes all the spoil, and does all of this without the approval or
guidance of God. He now fights wars for profit, instead of for God’s honor.
3. (1Sa_27:10-12) David lies to Achish.
Then Achish would say, “Where have you made a raid today?” And David
would say, “Against the southern area of Judah, or against the southern area of
the Jerahmeelites, or against the southern area of the Kenites.” David would
save neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to Gath, saying, “Lest they
should inform on us, saying, ‘Thus David did.’ “ And thus was his behavior all
the time he dwelt in the country of the Philistines. So Achish believed David,
saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly abhor him; therefore he will be
my servant forever.”
a. And David would say, “Against the southern area of Judah.” David didn’t
80

81. lie to Achish because he was ashamed of what he did. He lied to gain favor
with Achish. He knew that this Philistine leader would be pleased to hear
that David raided his own people of Israel.
b. David would save neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to Gath: In
his raids, David killed all the men and the women, so his lie to Achish would
not be exposed.
i. Much later in his life, David will have a far more notorious season of sin
with Bathsheba, and end up killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriah to cover
his sin. Though that later event is far more famous, the root of sin that
nourished it began way back in 1Sa_27:1-12. Here, many years before
David killed Uriah to cover his sin, he kills these men and women in his
raids to cover his sin. The roots of sin must be dealt with, or they come
back with greater strength.
c. So Achish believed David, saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly
abhor him; therefore he will be my servant forever.” Achish felt he was in a
good place. David was trapped in a web, and Achish was the spider. Achish
believed that David had burned all his bridges with the people of God. It all
looks pretty dark; but David had not - and could not - burn his bridge with
God.
David's motive was not to fulfill God's plan but just to enrich himself and survive.
He made his living by the plunder of other people. He was living a lie in enemy
territory. He was having great success, but as Pink points out success is no way to
judge the rightness of anything, for doing evil is often successful. It is easy to justify
anything by its success, but this is no proof that God's blessing is on it. If that were
the case the Mafia, LasVagas, Hollywood and drug and porno dealers would be
under God's blessing. Moses hit the rock in anger and did wrong, but the water still
flowed and so good can come from doing the bad and wrong thing, but it is still out
of God's will.
COFFMAN, "Verse 8
DAVID'S DECEPTION OF ACHISH IN HIS MILITARY RAIDS
"Now David and his men went up, and made raids on the Geshurites, and the
Girzites, and the Amalekites; for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old,
as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man
nor woman alive, but took away the sheep, the oxen, the asses, the camels, and the
garments, and came back to Achish. When Achish asked, "Against whom have you
made a raid today'? David would say, "Against the Negeb of Judah," or "Against
the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites," or "Against the Negeb of the Kenites." And David
saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, thinking, "Lest they
should tell about us, and say, `So David has done.'" And Achish trusted David,
thinking, `He has made himself utterly abhorred by his people Israel; therefore he
81

82. shall be my servant always.'"
"The Geshurites ... the Girzites ... and the Amalekites" (1 Samuel 27:8). These were
the peoples that David raided; and who were they? They were all in the category of
Israel's enemies, having dwelt in the land of Israel `from of old,' thus being among
the nations God had devoted, placed under the ban, and ordered their total
extermination during the Conquest. David no doubt used that ancient order of God
to Joshua regarding the extermination of those peoples to justify his brutal butchery
of whole cities among those peoples; and Matthew Henry thought that we can,
"Acquit David of this injustice and cruelty because those peoples had been long ago
doomed by heaven for destruction."[9] Maybe so! But David's constant lying to
Achish about what he was actually doing is totally without justification. "The
butchery and deceit here practiced by David are indicative of the desperate situation
in which he found himself."[10]
"David ... came back to Achish" (1 Samuel 27:9). "This does not mean that David
lived at Garb; he just went back there to share the spoils with Achish."[11]
"Against whom have you made a raid to day?" (1 Samuel 27:10). It was to the
questions of Achish such as this that David returned false answers. He was, in fact,
consistently raiding the enemies of Israel, but he informed Achish that he was
actually raiding the Israelites, saying, in effect, `I have been raiding southern
Judah.'
"The Negeb of Judah ... the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites ... the Negeb of the Kenites"
(1 Samuel 27:10). "The word `Negeb' literally means. `the dry country.'"[12] By
these assertions, David convinced Achish that he was making all of those raids
against Judah and related Israelites. "The first named here was the tribe of Judah
itself; the second of these three peoples was one of the prominent clans of Judah (1
Chronicles 2:9,42)";[13] and the Kenites had been associated with Israel since the
days of Moses, whose father-in-law Jethro was of the Kenites. Also Jael who
destroyed Sisera was a Kenite. If David had actually raided these people, as he said
he did, Achish's belief that Israel at that time abhorred David would have been true.
"So David hath done" (1 Samuel 27:11). Keil rejected the rendition of the RSV that
connects these words with what David feared the victims might say if he had spared
any of them, making the words instead, "A clause appended by the historian
himself, to the effect that David continued to act in that manner as long as he dwelt
in the land of the Philistines."[14]
There is no way to gloss over David's sin in this. He lied continually about what he
was really doing. Achish who believed David, trusted him and aided him was
shamefully betrayed and deceived by David. As Willis stated it, "Like Saul and
Nabal who returned to David evil for good, so David here returned to Achish evil
for good."[15] Matthew Henry supposed that David's conscience must have hurt
him because of all this, because of what is written in Psalms 119:29, "Remove from
82

83. me the way of lying (KJV)." (Henry ascribed this Psalm to David).[16]
The chronology of these final chapters of First Samuel is not stressed in any
manner. Between the death of Samuel (1 Samuel 25:1) and that of Saul (1 Samuel
31), a very long period elapsed. Josephus stated that it was twenty-two years; and
although modern scholars question this, the old tradition that Saul reigned 40 years
has never been disproved. These few chapters regarding those final twenty-two
years are, in one way, much like the extremely abbreviated record in Numbers of
Israel's forty years in the wilderness. God's purpose here is not to tell us all that
happened, but to give us things for our admonition and instruction.
ELLICOTT, " (8) Went up.—The expression is strictly accurate. The nomad tribes
against whom his expeditions were directed dwelt on higher ground than David’s
home at Ziklag, apparently on the wide extent of the mountain plateau, that high
table-land at the north-east of the desert of Paran.
The Geshurites, and the Gezerites, and the Amalekites.—These were all
“Bedaween” tribes, the scourge of the Israelitish families dwelling on the south of
Canaan. It is not easy to identify the first two named of these nomades against
whom David directed his operations. We hear of these Geshurites in the
neighbourhood of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:14), and of another tribe of them in
Syria (2 Samuel 15:8). They were a widely scattered race of nomad Arabs. The
Gezerites, or Gizrites, it has been supposed, were the remains of a once powerful
race dispossessed by the Amorites. The third named, the Amalekites, were the
remnant of that once powerful tribe destroyed by Saul in his famous war, when his
disobedience incurred the wrath of Samuel.
For those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even
unto the land of Egypt.—The grammar and construction of this sentence is confused
and difficult. On the whole, the rendering and explanation of Erdmann in Lange
seems the most satisfactory: “David . . . invaded the . . . and the Amalekites (for
these were inhabitants of the land, who inhabited it of old) as far as Shur and
Egypt.” Thus David’s raids extended as far as the desert frontier of Egypt.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:8
‘And David and his men went up, and made a raid on (advanced militarily on) the
Geshurites, and the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for those nations were the
inhabitants of the land, who were of old, as you go to Shur, even to the land of
Egypt.’
From Ziklag David made raids on fierce and warlike tribes in the Sinai peninsula. It
appears that the Geshurites and the Girzites, of whom little else is known (but see
Joshua 13:2), were similar to the Amalekites, and somewhat like modern Bedouin,
although they may have been more settled than the nomadic Amalekites, in desert
cities and oasis encampments. They no doubt constantly raided the Negeb of Judah,
83

84. and the Negeb of the Philistines, and it is possible that these raids on Philistine
territory were one reason why Achish was glad to place Ziklag as a buffer between
them and Philistia. These tribesmen had been there in the Sinai peninsula up to the
borders of Egypt for as long as men could remember, and they were seen as a
constant threat to the more settled peoples of the Negeb, swooping down
unexpectedly on unprotected areas and people, seizing both their cattle and flocks,
and their people to sell into slavery.
We know that the Amalekites had been responsible for attacks on the children of
Israel shortly after leaving Egypt (Exodus 17:8-16), the kind of act for which they
later came under God’s curse (1 Samuel 15:2-3; Deuteronomy 25:19). And while
Saul had wiped out one of their prominent tribes they were very numerous and
separated into a number of different tribes, some of which had escaped his
intentions. The Geshurites and Girzites may well therefore have also been seen as
coming under that general curse. David’s action would, in fact, partly be a
retaliation for raids made on what he now saw as his territory.
9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not
leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and
cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he
returned to Achish.
This is a low point in David's life, for he was no better than other renegades who go
about robbing other people for the sake of plunder. He wiped out whole families for
the sake of taking their livestock. He lived worse than Robin Hood, for he did not
focus on the rich to give to the poor, but killed anybody for the sake of himself and
his men.
JFB The deceit practised upon his royal host and the indiscriminate slaughter
committed, lest any one should escape to tell the tale, exhibit an unfavorable view of
this part of David's history.
DRUCKER
But there is a jarring note in the narrative; David adopted a policy of
extermination -- killing men, women, and children, lest they inform on him. The
verbs attacked, leave, and took are what grammarians call "frequentative verbs"
describing habitual action. Extermination was his "policy," as the Hebrew text
described it, "as long as he lived in Philistine territory." David ran in the fast lane
84

85. for a year and four months.
PINK
A solemn warning, which we do well to take to heart, is pointed for us in verses 8, 9,
namely, not to measure the right or wrong of a course of conduct by the success
which appears to attend it. This principle is now being flagrantly disregarded, the
scripturalness or unscripturalness of an action concerns few professing Christians
today: so long as it seems to produce good results, this is all that matters. Worldly
devices are brought into the "church," fleshly and high-pressure methods are
adopted by "evangelists," and so long as crowds are drawn, the young people
"held," and "converts" made, it is argued that the end justifies the means. If "souls
are being saved," the great majority are prepared to wink at almost anything today,
supposing that the "blessing of God" (?) is a sure proof that nothing serious is
wrong. So the children of Israel might have reasoned when the waters flowed from
the rock which Moses disobediently smote in his anger. So David might have
concluded when such success attended his attack upon the Amalekites! To judge by
visible results is walking by sight; to measure everything by Holy Writ and reject all
that is out of harmony therewith, is walking by faith.
"And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away
the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and
returned and came to Achish" (v. 9). Mark well the closing words of this verse: one
had thought that Achish was the last man whom David would wish to see at this
time. It had been far more prudent had he returned quietly to Ziklag, but as we
pointed out in a previous chapter, when a saint is out of communion with God, and
controlled by unbelief, he no longer acts according to the dictates of common sense.
A striking and solemn illustration of that fact is here before us. O that writer and
reader may lay this well to heart: faith and wisdom are inseparably linked together.
Nothing but folly can issue from an unbelieving heart, that is, from a heart which
has not been won by divine grace
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And David smote the land,.... In which the above mentioned people dwelt,
that is, the inhabitants of it:
and left neither man nor woman alive; for these being the old Canaanites and
Amalekites, according to the law of God were not to be spared, but utterly
destroyed; which may be observed to remove the charge of cruelty that might be
brought against David on this account, Deu_7:2; though this must be understood of
such that came within his reach; for it is certain there were people of these several
names after this; see 1Sa_30:1,
85

86. and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels,
and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish; at Gath, to make a report of
what he had been about and done; and what he brought was a good booty for the
support of his men and their families.
PULPIT, "1Sa_27:9, 1Sa_27:10
David smote the land. These expeditions were made partly to occupy his men, but
chiefly to obtain the means of subsistence. They also seem to have brought David
great renown, for in 1Ch_12:1-22 we read of warriors from far distant tribes
coming to him to swell his forces, and the enthusiasm for him was even such that a
band of men swam across the Jordan to join him (ibid. 1Ch_12:15); while others
from Manasseh deserted to him from Saul’s army before the battle of Mount
Gilboa, so that at last he had with him "a great host, like the host of God" (ibid.
verses 19-21). He came to Achish. To give him a portion of the spoil. And Achish
said. Like the verb went up in verse 8, the word indicates repeated action. David
made many expeditions against these wild tribes, and on each occasion, when
presenting himself at Gath, Achish would inquire, Whither have ye made a road—
i.e. an inroad, or a raid—today? As it stands the Hebrew means, "Do not make an
inroad today;" but the cor. rection of the text given in the A.V. has considerable
authority from the versions. The Jerahmeelites, mentioned again in ch. 30:29, were
the descendants of Hezron, the firstborn of Pharez, the son of Judah (1Ch_2:9), and
so were one of the great families into which the tribe of Judah was divided.
Apparently they occupied the most southerly position of its territory. The Kenites
(see on ch. 15:6) are here described as being in close alliance with the men of Judah.
Probably they lived under their protection, and paid them tribute. The south is
literally "the Negeb," the dry land, so called from the absence of streams (comp.
Psa_126:4), which formed not only the southernmost part of the territory of Judah,
but extended far into the Arabian desert. Achish naturally understood it as the
proper name for that part of the Negeb which belonged to Judah, whereas David
meant it as it is translated in the A.V; where there is no obscurity as to its meaning.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:9
‘And David smote the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive, and took away
the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the clothing, and he
returned, and came to Achish.’
Wherever he could find them David, in defence of his territory, sought out these
warrior tribes, smiting the land where they could be found, and slaughtering them
86

87. all, including both men and women. And in the process he took away their sheep,
oxen, asses, camels and clothware, most of which they themselves would have
obtained by the same method. David’s policy of mass slaughter no doubt sounds
harsh to us today, but it is doubtful if those who heard of it then thought the same.
All knew that any Amalekites who were left alive would simply join up with other
similar tribes, strengthening them for further raids on innocent people, while their
womenfolk would be seen as wild, insular, and useless as wives, and likely producers
of more raiders once they connected up with other tribes. They were probably as
fierce as the men. Harsh as it may seem eradication was therefore seen as the only
way of dealing with them (we can compare them with the pirates of later times who
preyed on anyone and everyone and were subject to none). Any other route simply
resulted in further problems of a particularly vicious kind.
David would then come to Achish bringing his spoils so that Achish could receive his
no doubt generous share, and the remainder would be divided up among David’s
men.
ELLICOTT, " (9) And left neither man nor woman alive.—These acts of ferocious
barbarity are simply without excuse; the reason for them is told us in 1 Samuel
27:11. No captive was to be left alive to tell the tale to King Achish, who was under
the delusion that David’s feats of arms were carried out at the expense of his own
countrymen, whose lands he was harrying. At this the Philistine rejoiced when he
heard David was thus burning his only bridge of retreat: by alienating by these
cruelties the affection of the people of Israel, by means of which, at some future
time, he might have been recalled to his native land. There were a few occasions in
the history of the chosen race when a war of extermination was commended. Then
Israel was simply the stern instrument of wrath, used—as a pestilence is at times—
to carry out the will of the earth’s Master; but David had no such charge. Was it not
these acts of ruthless cruelty which left on this king’s hands the stain of blood which
rendered them unfit in after days to build the House of the Lord he longed so
passionately to erect? (1 Chronicles 28:3).
And took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the
apparel.—To fight under David’s banner now promised to be a lucrative service as
well as an adventurous and wild career. Here at Ziklag, and for some time
previously, we hear of brave discontented spirits from all parts of Israel joining him.
In 1 Chronicles 12 we have a long and accurate list of heroes who formed that
Ziklag band. Amongst these gallant soldiers who now, to use the chronicler’s term,
“day by day came to David to help him,” were a troop of Benjamites who had joined
him some time before: their leader Amasai, on being questioned as to their reason
for joining him, answered, “We are on thy side, thou son of Jesse . . . for thy God
helpeth thee” (1 Chronicles 12:18). The words of Amasai express the feeling which
87

88. seems to have pervaded Israel at that time in reference to David. The people
throughout the land were coming to feel that Jehovah had indeed chosen David. The
chronicler even speaks of David’s band at Ziklag, after the recruits from all parts of
Israel had poured in, “as a great host, like the host of God” (1 Chronicles 12:22).
10 When Achish asked, "Where did you go
raiding today?" David would say, "Against the
Negev of Judah" or "Against the Negev of
Jerahmeel" or "Against the Negev of the
Kenites."
GILL he meant against some people that lay to the south of the land of Judah,
without it; but expressed himself so, that Achish might think he meant the southern
parts of Judah within the country; which, though not a downright lie, was an
equivocation, and made with a design to deceive; and was by no means agreeably to
the character of David, nor to be defended nor imitated:
BARNES, "The Jerahmeelites - i. e. the descendants of Jerahmeel, the son of
Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah (marginal references). They were
therefore a portion of the “south of Judah.”
The Kenites - See Num_24:21 note; Num_4:11; and for their near neighborhood
to Amalek, see 1Sa_15:6.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And Achish said, whither have ye made a road today?.... Or whither had
they rushed in, or poured in and spread themselves? or where had they made their
excursion to fetch in the prey and booty they now brought?
and David said, against the south of Judah; he meant against some people that lay to
the south of the land of Judah, without it; but expressed himself so, that Achish
might think he meant the southern parts of Judah within the country; which,
though not a downright lie, was an equivocation, and made with a design to deceive;
and was by no means agreeably to the character of David, nor to be defended nor
imitated:
88

89. and against the south of the Jerahmeelites; these were the descendants of Jerahmeel,
the son of Hezron, the grandson of Judah, and so inhabited in the tribe of Judah,
and very probably in the southern part of it, 1Ch_2:9,
and against the south of the Kenites; the posterity of Jethro; these, at least some of
them, at the first seating of the children of Israel in the land of Canaan, went with
the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad,
Jdg_1:16.
JAMISON, "Achish said, Whither have ye made a road to-day? — that is, raid, a
hostile excursion for seizing cattle and other booty.
David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the
Jerahmeelites — Jerahmeel was the great-grandson of Judah, and his posterity
occupied the southern portion of that tribal domain.
the south of the Kenites — the posterity of Jethro, who occupied the south of
Judah (Jdg_1:16; Num_24:21). The deceit practiced upon his royal host and the
indiscriminate slaughter committed, lest any one should escape to tell the tale,
exhibit an unfavorable view of this part of David’s history.
K&D, "Achish said, “Ye have not made an invasion to-day, have ye?” ‫ל‬ ַ‫,א‬ like μὴ, is
an interrogative sense; the ַ‫ה‬ has dropped out: vid., Ewald, §324, b. David replied,
“Against the south of Judah, and the south of the Jerahmeelites, and into the south
of the Kenites,” sc., we have made an incursion. This reply shows that the
Geshurites, Gerzites, and Amalekites dwelt close to the southern boundary of
Judah, so that David was able to represent the march against these tribes to Achish
as a march against the south of Judah, to make him believe that he had been making
an attack upon the southern territory of Judah and its dependencies. The Negeb of
Judah is the land between the mountains of Judah and the desert of Arabia (see at
Jos_15:21). The Jerahmeelites are the descendants of Jerahmeel, the first-born of
Hezron (1Ch_2:9, 1Ch_2:25-26), and therefore one of the three large families of
Judah who sprang from Hezron. They probably dwelt on the southern frontier of
the tribe of Judah (vid., 1Sa_30:29). The Kenites were protégés of Judah (see at
1Sa_15:6, and Jdg_1:16). In 1Sa_27:11 the writer introduces the remark, that in his
raid David left neither man nor woman of his enemies alive, to take them to Gath,
because he thought “they might report against us, and say, Thus hath David done.”
There ought to be a major point under ‫ד‬ִ‫ו‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ָ‫,ﬠ‬ as the following clause does not
contain the words of the slaughtered enemies, but is a clause appended by the
historian himself, to the effect that David continued to act in that manner as long as
he dwelt in the land of the Philistines. ‫ט‬ָ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ the mode of procedure; lit. the right
which he exercised (see 1Sa_8:9).
GUZIK, "(1Sa_27:10-12) David lies to Achish.
Then Achish would say, “Where have you made a raid today?” And David
89

90. would say, “Against the southern area of Judah, or against the southern area of
the Jerahmeelites, or against the southern area of the Kenites.” David would
save neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to Gath, saying, “Lest they
should inform on us, saying, ‘Thus David did.’ “ And thus was his behavior all
the time he dwelt in the country of the Philistines. So Achish believed David,
saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly abhor him; therefore he will be
my servant forever.”
a. And David would say, “Against the southern area of Judah.” David didn’t
lie to Achish because he was ashamed of what he did. He lied to gain favor
with Achish. He knew that this Philistine leader would be pleased to hear
that David raided his own people of Israel.
b. David would save neither man nor woman alive, to bring news to Gath: In
his raids, David killed all the men and the women, so his lie to Achish would
not be exposed.
i. Much later in his life, David will have a far more notorious season of sin
with Bathsheba, and end up killing Bathsheba’s husband Uriah to cover
his sin. Though that later event is far more famous, the root of sin that
nourished it began way back in 1Sa_27:1-12. Here, many years before
David killed Uriah to cover his sin, he kills these men and women in his
raids to cover his sin. The roots of sin must be dealt with, or they come
back with greater strength.
c. So Achish believed David, saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly
abhor him; therefore he will be my servant forever.” Achish felt he was in a
good place. David was trapped in a web, and Achish was the spider. Achish
believed that David had burned all his bridges with the people of God. It all
looks pretty dark; but David had not - and could not - burn his bridge with
God.
ROE
David is sitting on top of the world. He has been telling Achish, "I am raiding the
south country of Judah, and I am pillaging them, and I am slaughtering all the
inhabitants." He had to claim it was Judah he was pillaging because nobody came
back with him. The conqueror always brought back slaves. Slaves were very much
in demand, especially in Eqypt. Slaves were real booty. In I Samuel 30 when the
Amalekites raided Ziklag they took all the women, all the people small and great.
They didn't kill anybody. They planned to take them to the slave market in Egypt.
David brings nobody back. He can't. He has to kill man, woman, child, even babies.
Why? Because he has to remove anything that might tip off Achish that he is
actually raiding Philistine country.
A baby Amalekite has different facial features than a Jew. The Girzites, Geshurites,
Amalekites probably also have some kind of alliance with the Philistines. Actually
what David is doing is planning for the future. He is securing the borders of Judah.
90

91. He is removing these wandering tribes that strike on camels overnight then dash
back into the desert. He is getting very rich by retaliating. For sixteen months he
does this and every time Achish seeks an accounting of the spoils, he cheats Achish
out of his share. He surely isn't going to give Achish any clothing because Achish
would immediately recognize it as not being Jewish. David could maybe give him
camels or a few things that had no identifying marks, but he isn't going to give him
anything identifiable. So he's even cheating on his feudal lord. Mind you, for sixteen
months he has been slaughtering babies and maintaining this deceit and this is "a
man after God's own heart." All the while, of course, he's feeling more and more
secure, more and more accepted, more and more like he is quite a guy. The thing is
God is letting him do it. He does deceive Achish. Achish says, "He has surely made
himself odious among his people Israel. Therefore he is my servant forever." The
first time in David's life, except for that first brief period with Saul, he finally really
feels accepted, secure and getting what is his, and God is letting him do it. But now
it stops there.
Interesting thing about this particular period of David's life, we have no Psalms. We
cannot trace any psalms back to this period. He is not the beautiful singer in Israel.
He is not having fellowship with his Lord. In fact, there is no place to worship. He
cannot make altars outside of Jerusalem, or where the Arc of the Covenant happens
to be at the moment. He cannot sacrifice any place but with the Arc of the Covenant.
He can hardly talk to his children about Yahweh and the attributes of truth and
love when he is out slaughtering babies. His men cannot either. There is a sizable
spiritual void right through this period of his life. He is no longer the sweet singer of
Israel. He is the butcher of the south country
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:10. 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.”
David the liar
Deffinbaugh
David persuades Achish, the Philistine king, to allow them to leave Gath and settle
instead in the more remote city of Ziklag. From this base of operations, David stages
a number of raids against the enemies of Israel. In each case, David deceives Achish
by telling him that he has just raided another one of the Israelite villages or cities
nearby. To assure that no one will be able to inform Achish of what has really
happened, David is careful to kill off every person, leaving no survivors. David
seems to share some of the spoils of war with King Achish (see 27:9), while also
taking a share (at least on one occasion) to his Israelite brethren (see 30:26-31), the
91

92. very people Achish thinks David is killing off. In short, David is playing both ends
against the middle.
All through the gut-wrenching experiences of Saul at En-dor, our minds have
continually strayed back to David, who has gotten himself into a most precarious
situation. He seems to be in an almost “catch 22” situation, with no way out for
David and his men. If David truly fights for Achish, with the rest of the Philistines,
he will be fighting against his own people (the Israelites), his king (Saul), and his
beloved friend Jonathan. If David does not fight with the Philistines, he will almost
certainly have to turn against them in battle. This also poses almost insurmountable
problems. It is God’s intention to give the Israelites over to the Philistines and to
take the lives of Saul and his sons in battle. If David fights against the Philistines, he
will be fighting (as it were) against the purposes of God. What is David to do? Going
over to the Philistines seemed like such a smart move to David in the early part of
chapter 27. He managed to get safely out of Saul’s reach and succeed at ingratiating
himself with both the Philistines and the Israelites. But now, in a brief moment in
time, David finds himself caught in the middle with no apparent way out. It is at this
point in time that help comes from a very unlikely source – four Philistine
commanders.
ELLICOTT, "(10) And David said, Against the south of Judah.—The answer of
David to his sovereign lord, the King of Gath—for he was now, to all intents and
purposes, a vassal prince of Achish—was simply a falsehood. He had been engaged
in distant forays against the old Bedaween enemies of Israel, far away in the desert
which stretched to the frontier of Egypt; and from these nomads—rich in cattle and
in other property, which they had obtained by years of successful plunder—he
seems to have gained much booty, a share of which he brought to his “suzerain,”
Achish. But David represents that the cattle and apparel had been captured from
his own countrymen, whose territory he was harrying. “The Jerahmeelites were
descendants of Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:9; 1 Chronicles
2:25-26), and therefore one of the three large families of Judah who sprang from
Hezron.”—Keil, They dwelt, it is believed, on the southern frontier of the tribe of
Judah. The Kenites were a race living in friendship with and under the protection of
Judah.
PINK "And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road today?" (v. 10). No doubt
the king of Gath was surprised, as he had reason to be, when he saw David and his
men so heavily laden with their booty, and therefore does he inquire where they had
been. Sad indeed is it to hear the reply given: "And David said, Against the south of
Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the
Kenites." Though not a downright lie, yet it was an equivocation, made with the
design of deceiving, and therefore cannot be defended, nor is to be imitated by us.
David was not willing that Achish should know the truth. He did not now play the
part of a madman, as he had on a former occasion, but fearful of losing his self-
chosen place of protection, he dissembled unto the king. The Amalekites were
fellow-Canaanites with the Philistines, and if not in league with them, Achish and
92

93. his people would probably be apprehensive of danger by harboring such a powerful
foe in their midst, and would want to expel them. To avoid this, David resorted to
deception. O what need has writer and reader to pray daily, "Lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil."
DECEPTION OF DAVID
Deception is a major theme in the life of David. Some of it was necessary to survive,
but much was also due to his lower nature and so it was sinful behavior. Look at the
number of places in his life where deception played a role.
1. In I Sam. 19 his wife Michal deceived her father Saul to save David.
2. In I Sam. 20 Jonathan deceived his father to save David.
3, In I Sam. 21 David lied to the priest about Saul sending him on a special mission.
4. In I Sam. 21 at he end of the chapter he faked insanity to spare his life.
5. In I Sam. 27 David lies about who he is raiding and killing and deceives the king.
6. In I Sam. 28 he pretends to be the enemy of Israel and a friend to Philistines.
1. BAD DECEPTION
One of the problems with advertising is that it is based—in a large part, in this day
and age—on deception. They are willing to lie to you, one way or another (whether
it's a "white" lie, or a shading of the truth, or just out-and-out fraud), about their
products so that you will buy it. You will spend your money and be disappointed
(that's the way it works out) too frequently.
But slick marketing, a pretty face, phony reviews, pressure to buy, or whatever it
happens to be (some other deceptive tactic) will deceive us—if not having already
done so, in the past. But now that you know, from painful experience, that that
product doesn't work—you are never going to touch the stuff again.
The process is similar for spiritual things. Theological ideas, doctrine, and
philosophies are marketed these days the same way as other products. Maybe not
with the "glitz," but some of the same methods are used to get us to quit believing
what God has given us to believe—and to believe what some man has decided is "the
truth." Romans 16:17-20 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions
and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. [This is
one of the major verses on disfellowshipping.] For those who are such do not serve
our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering
speech deceive the hearts of the simple. [Sounds like advertising, doesn't it?] For
your obedience has become known to all [meaning, the Romans' obedience].
Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and
simple concerning evil. [That sounds very similar to what Jesus said: "Wise as
serpents, and harmless as doves."] And the God of peace will crush Satan under
your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
2. GOOD DECEPTION
DECEPTION
In Joshua 7:1-13, 19-26. Here is a clear case of deception where hiding evil was a
93

94. great cause for anger and judgment. We see the same thing in Acts 5:1-11. To lie to
God is folly, for nothing can be concealed from God. The same rule does not always
apply to men, and especially in warfare. Deception can often be the key to victory-
Joshua 8:1-23. We have the great paradox that makes it clear that there are both
absolutes and relatives in dealing with the same subject. Deception is absolutely
wrong and folly when you try to deceive God, but on the level of deceiving men it
can be a tool used to accomplish God’s purpose. It can be the friend of truth and
love.
Great battles have often been won by clever deception. The Jews would sometimes
attack a city and then call for a retreat. The enemy would say they are fleeing and
go after them and finish them off. They would come running and the Jews would
have troops hidden all along the way so that when they were far from their city they
would surprise them and defeat them. All is fair in love and war, which means
deception is one of the weapons of warfare.
Intelligence departments feed the enemy wrong information in order to deceive
them into thinking something that is really not so. Disinformation is a key tool of
deception. John Paul Jones, the famous American Naval hero flew the British flag
from his ship to fool the English so he could get close enough to destroy them before
they ran.
While Spurgeon was still a boy preacher he was warned about a certain woman who
was going to give him a tongue lashing. When she did so he smiled and said, “Yes,
thank you, I am quite well. I hope you are the same.” She did it again and he replied
still smiling, “Yes, it does look rather as if it might rain. I think I had better be
getting on.” She exclaimed, “He’s as deaf as a post. What’s the use of storming at
him?” So her railings ceased and were never again attempted.
God’s deception
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac. God pretended that he really wanted this to
happen, but in reality it was only a test. If Abraham knew God would not really
require him to go through with it his obedience would be a mere act. God has to
conceal His purpose and deceive as to what is really going on for this is the only way
to keep it authentic.
Back in the 1870's passengers alighting from the train in Palisade, Nevada nearly
got thier heads blown off as a street brawl began between two gun fighters. The
passengers screamed and ran for cover as the shots rang out. The paper made a big
issue of the wildness of this town and danger, and for the next three years every
train that pulled into town gave people opportunity to see the wild west in action as
passengers watched bank robberies, battle with indians and shoot outs. The press
demanded that something be done, but nothing was done, for the 290 residents of
the city staged the whole thing to keep people coming out of curiosity. In reality the
town was so peaceful they even hired a sheriff. It was all a show, but it looked real to
94

95. those on the outside. George Burwell wrote,
When the train pulled in, the show would begin.
The fighting, the shooting, the robber and the dyin,
And the passengers watched from the windows with fear,
And the town laughed as the train pulled clear,
And everyone took part, its true,
The cowboys, the Indians, and the cavalry too,
And when the shooting was done, the battle won,
The town of Palisade just hung up their guns.
Salvador Dali wrote about his deception: "But, since I hated to stand guard at the
prison at night, out of laziness and especially fear (for there were sometimes
desperate escapes), I pretended to be subject to nervous fits, while affecting to do all
I could to control them, but making sure that each one was seen by some officer.
The ruse worked. I was exempted, even when I volunteered. My skill at deception
was proving itself once again."
Lowell Thomas, "The customs guards on the frontier between Austria and Hungry
were struck by the number of young Hungarian peasant women who would cross
the border every day with children in their arms. The thing that aroused thier
curoisity was the fact these fond Hungarian mothers left the babies on the Austrian
side when they crossed the frontier again at night to go back home. On the following
morning, however, the same young women would cross over into Austria again with
apparently the same baby.
So one inquistive guard stopped a good-looking peasant damsel and investigated the
baby. It wasn't a baby at all. It was a young pig. The high duties levied by the
Austrian tariff on Hungarian pigs had suggested this ecomony to the thrifty
Hungarian peasants. They would take the porkers and dress them up in babies
clothes with a handsomely embroidered bonnet covering the head. Their ingenuity
went still further. In order to prevent the pigs from squealing, they first fed them
with grain soaked in alcohol, which put the porkers to sleep in a drunken stupor.
I heard of a doctor who became so successful that he could occasionally tell a patient
there was nothing wrong with them. I have pretended to be sick when I was well
and I have pretended to be well when I was sick. I have pretended to know what a
person was talking about when I could not hear them or understand them. I have
pretended to enjoy something that I did not like. I have pretended interest in what I
cared nothing about. We all practice some form of deception.
Otto, king of Bavaria from 1886 to 1913. He felt that he should shoot a peasant
every morning. It was one of his signs of mental illness. He would open drawers and
hold conversations with the spirits which he believed inhabited them. He had two
guards who would deceive him. One would give him a gun loaded with blanks and
the other would hide in the bushes on the lawn. When he would see that Otto was
ready he would walk into view and drop dead when he heard the shot. Their
deception was saving lives from this mad man.
95

96. Columbus kept two logs. One he kept secret was a true reckoning of his course. The
other was a falsified account of the ships location written so the crew would not be
frightened. He was deceiving them so they would not mutiny.
When sixteen and seventeen old boys wanted to volunteer for the Union Army in
1861 they did not want to lie their age and so they wrote the number 18 on a piece of
paper and put it on the sole of their shoe. When they were questioned about their
age they could truthfully reply to their government I am over 18.
Rom. 16:18 ...by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the
unsuspecting.
The survival of many creatures depends upon their ability to deceive so as to
capture food. Lewis Caroll wrote,
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomed little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws.
Look up painting September Morn.
Helmut Thielicke wrote, "Hitler knew how to dissemble. One had to look very
closely at his terrible book Mein Kampf very carefully to see the cloven hoof
beneath the angel's luminous robes. He made free use of the Christian vocabulary,
talked about the blessing of the Almighty and the Christian confessions which
would become the pillars of the new state, he rang bells and pulled out all the organ
stops. He assumed the earnestness of a man who is utterly weighed down by historic
responsibility. He handed out pious stories to the press, especially the church
papers.
It was reported, for example, that he showed his tattered Bible to some deaconness
and declared that he drew the strength for his great work from the word of God. He
was able to introduce a pietistic timbre into his voice which caused many religious
people to welcome him as a man sent from God. And a skilled propaganda machine
saw to it that dispite all the atrocities which were already happening and dispite the
rapid invasions of the Nazis in the churches, the rumor got around that the good
Fuhrer knew nothing about these things."
It is right to deceive another who would use the truth for evil ends. To share the
truth with such a person would be to cooperate in their evil and be a primary cause
of their evil. You have a moral obligation to deceive those who would use truth for
evil. If I tell the Gestapo where the Jews are hiding I sentence them to death. It is
wise to always sin on the side of mercy and love and never for the sake of aiding evil
ends. Corrie Ten Boom and many had to deceive the Nazis in hiding Jews to dave
them. They used fake walls to deceive.
It is always right to choose the lesser of two evils. It is possible to choose to do
something wrong when your only alternative is to choose something even more
wrong. It is wrong to shoot a person, but if I come across a crazed rapist who is
96

97. about to kill a woman he has kidnapped and the knife is raised and ready to kill her
I am obligated to shoot the man. It is awful, but the alternative would be to let him
kill the innocent woman, and this would be the worst of the two evils. The police do
this same thing and are heroes because they prevent a terrible evil.
Drunkeness would be listed with the evils, but if you were seriously injured and
needed surgery to survive and the only anesthetic available was alcohol, it would be
right for you to drink it even to a state of drunkeness in order to survive.
PARADOX
Is it ever right to do something you know will cause much sin and add to the world's
evil?
If you say no, you have just said it is wrong to have children, for to have a child is to
add to histories evil for all sin and will produce evil in the world. You have just said
it would be good to abort a child and prevent a life of sin. So when you have a child
you are choosing to do that which adds to the world's evil.
Self deception is folly. It is like the famous parade of Tardenskjold the Dane. He
used the same troops over and over to march pass the reviewing stand. When they
passed they turned into a side street and backed into the parade so as to give the
impression of an endless force of great and incalculable power.
See deadly deception in Judges 4:17-22.
Daddy did you win? His two youngsters asked when he came home from a round of
golf. "Well, children in golf it doesn't matter so much if you win, but your father got
to hit the ball more times than anyone else."
God told Samuel to deceive Saul to avoid his wrath. You do not have an obligation
to tell the truth to those who would use the truth for evil. I have no obligation to tell
the escaped convict who invades my home that I have a gun hidden away
somewhere.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:10
‘And Achish said, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” And David said,
“Against the South of Judah, and against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and
against the South of the Kenites.” ’
Achish was naturally interested in where David had been carrying out his raids, and
was erroneously informed that it had been ‘against the Negeb of Judah, and against
the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites, and against the Negeb of the Kenites.’ These areas
were far enough off and remote enough for Achish not to be aware of what was
going on there, and they would anyway no doubt constantly experience raids of one
kind or another. That was a consequence of living in such places, which was no
doubt why Samuel had earlier sent his sons to act as war-leaders and judges there (1
Samuel 8:2). There was also probably some truth in his statement. No doubt when
he heard of Amalekite raids on those areas he entered them (with the consent of
their elders) in order to deal with the Amalekite invaders within those territories.
“The Negeb” was a fairly vague term covering a large area of the dry south, with its
97

98. lesser rainfall, which extended into the Sinai peninsula. Thus what David said was a
half truth. He is not depicted as actually saying that he had attacked the peoples
themselves, only their area. He may well have found Amalekites wandering in those
areas. And there were Amalekite ‘cities’ in the Negeb.
The Jerahmeelites were a semi-independent clan similar to the Kenites, who had
friendly relations with Judah, and gradually became Judeans by adoption (compare
1 Chronicles 2:9 ff). The Kenites had been spared by Saul when he had slaughtered
the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:6), and had previous associations with Judah (Judges
1:16). They had assisted Israel on their journey through the wilderness. The Negeb
may well have been at this time a fairly fruitful area as a result of careful use of
what rainwater it experienced, which was cleverly used for irrigation, but it
depended heavily on oases and springs. It was also an area suitable for grazing large
flocks. It would thus be seen by the nomadic tribesmen (and by Achish) as a very
suitable area from which to obtain booty.
11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be
brought to Gath, for he thought, "They might
inform on us and say, 'This is what David did.' "
And such was his practice as long as he lived in
Philistine territory.
Here is David's great coverup. He killed everyone so they could not squeal on him
and let the king know he was really deceiving him and not raiding Israelites. This
was pure lying, and he was willing to kill innocent people to cover up his lies.
BARNES The sense rather is “to bring them to Gath,” as captives and slaves. The
prisoners taken would naturally have been part of the spoil, but David dared not to
bring them to Gath lest his deceit should be discovered. Obviously these tribes were
allies of the Philistines.
CLARKE "There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blameable.
David joins the enemies of his God and of his country, acts a most inhuman part
against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretense of a Divine
authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the
people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act; giving him to understand
that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defense of
98

99. 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.
BARNES, "Tidings - The word is not in the original. The sense rather is “to bring
them to Gath,” as captives and slaves. The prisoners taken would naturally have
been part of the spoil, but David dared not to bring them to Gath lest his deceit
should be discovered. Obviously these tribes were allies of the Philistines.
GILL, "And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tidings to Gath,....
How David had fallen upon these people, and destroyed great numbers of them, and
carried off their substance; which would have given great offence to Achish, and
caused him to have driven him out of his country once more; though Abarbinel is of
opinion that these Geshurites, &c. were haters and enemies of Achish, and therefore
were smitten and spoiled by David; or otherwise it would have been such a piece of
perfidy, rebellion, and ingratitude, as mast have made the name of David to stink,
since it could not but be known sooner or later; but being the enemies of Achish, no
notice was taken of it afterwards, nor inquiry made about it, nor complaint made of
it, by any of their neighbours: nor does he suppose they were all cut off, and much
less that this was done that it might not be told in Gath what destruction he had
made; but that the sense is, that he did not carry the captives to Gath, to be disposed
of there; for they would have told from whence they came, and so have contradicted
what David said, and what he would have Achish understand, as if he had been out
against and smote some of the cities of Judah, that he might place the greater
confidence in him; which end would not have been answered, if he had brought any
of them to Gath; and so the words may be read without the supplement we make,
"spared neither man nor woman alive to bring to Gath": and so could tell no tales.
Though Josephus expressly says (k) that David spared the men, and abstained from
the slaughter of them, fearing lest they should declare to the king what he had done
in plundering them:
saying, lest they should tell on us, saying, so did David: in such and such places,
such numbers of people he destroyed, and such quantities of cattle and goods he
carried off:
and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines:
this is what may be expected will be done by him in one place or another, as long as
he stays here; nothing will be heard of but desolation and destruction, in some part
of the country of the Philistines or another; or among those that were tributaries to
them; so that it was not safe that he should be allowed to abide in it.
HENRY, "David, it seems, was not willing that he should know the truth, and
99

100. therefore spared none to carry tidings to Gath (1Sa_27:11), not because he was
ashamed of what he had done as a bad thing, but because he was afraid, if the
Philistines knew it, they would be apprehensive of danger to themselves or their
allies by harbouring him among them and would expel him from their coasts. It
would be easy to conclude, If so he did, so will be his manner, and therefore he
industriously conceals it from them, which, it seems, he could do by putting them all
to the sword, for none of their neighbours would inform against him, nor perhaps
would soon come to the knowledge of what was done, intelligence not being so
readily communicated then as now. (2.) He hid it from Achish with an equivocation
not at all becoming his character. Being asked which way he had made his sally, he
answered, Against the south of Judah, v. 13. It was true he had invaded those
countries that lay south of Judah, but he made Achish believe he had invaded those
that lay south in Judah, the Ziphites for example, that had once and again betrayed
him; so Achish understood him, and thence inferred that he had made his people
Israel to abhor him, and so riveted himself in the interest of Achish. The fidelity of
Achish to him, his good opinion of him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravate
his sin in deceiving him thus, which, with some other such instances, David seems
penitently to reflect upon when he prays, Remove from me the way of lying.
PULPIT, "1Sa_27:11, 1Sa_27:12
To bring tidings. The A.V. is wrong in adding the word tidings, as the Hebrew
means "to bring them to Gath." Prisoners to be sold as slaves formed an important
part of the spoil of war in ancient times. But David, acting in accordance with the
cruel customs of warfare in his days, and which he practised even when he had no
urgent necessity as here (see 2Sa_8:2), put all his prisoners to death, lest, if taken to
Gath and sold, they should betray him. The A.V. makes his conduct even more
sanguinary, and supposes that he suffered none to escape. And so will be his manner
all the while he dwelleth. The Hebrew is "he dwelt," and thus the rendering of the
A.V; though supported by the Masoretic punctuation, is untenable. But this
punctuation is of comparatively recent date, and of moderate authority. The words
really belong to the narrator, and should be translated, "And so was his manner all
the days that he dwelt in the field of the Philistines." It seems that Achish was
completely deceived by David, and supposing that his conduct would make him
hateful forever to his own tribesmen of Judah, and so preclude his return home, he
rejoiced in him as one who would always remain his faithful vassal and adherent.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 27:11. 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
100

101. 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.
ELLICOTT, " (11) And David saved neither man nor woman.—This and the
following (12th) verse gives the reason for these atrocious acts of murder. The wild
and irresponsible Arab chief alone seemed represented in David in this dark portion
of his career. This saddest of all the chapters in David’s life follows close upon the
death of Samuel. It appears that the holy man of God had exercised, all the time that
he had lived, a great and beneficent influence over the son of Jesse; and when he
passed away, other and less wise counsellors prevailed with David. Want of trust in
God and a craven fear for his own life (see his words, 1 Samuel 26:20; 1 Samuel
26:24) drove him to leave the land of Israel, and to seek a refuge among his
Philistine foes. One sin led on to another, when, in Philistia—to preserve that life of
his—he commenced a course of duplicity, to carry out which he was driven to
commit these terrible cruelties. “The prisoners taken would naturally have been
part of the spoil; but David dared not bring them to Gath, lest his deceit should be
discovered. Obviously these tribes (Geshurites, Gezerites, and Amalekites) were
allies of the Philistines.”
Saying, So did David, and so will be his manner.—The English Version of this
passage is in accordance with the present punctuation in the Hebrew Bible, and
represents these words as the saying of the slaughtered enemies. This is of itself most
improbable. The Hebrew, too, will scarcely bear this interpretation; for the verb “to
dwell” is a past, and cannot correctly be rendered “while he dwelleth.” The
Masoretic punctuation of the present Hebrew text is of comparatively recent date. It
is better, then, in their place, with Maurer and Keil, the LXX., and Vulg. Versions,
simply to put a stop after the words “so did David,” and then begin a new sentence,
which will read, “And so was his manner all the while he dwelt in the land of the
Philistines;” understanding these words as a remark of the narrator of the history.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:11
‘And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring them to Gath, saying,
“Lest they should tell of us, saying, ‘So did David, and so has been his way all the
while he has dwelt in the country of the Philistines’.” ’
The writer now tells us that one reason why David never left any living witnesses to
his attacks was so that no one could inform on his activities. The only purpose for
taking some alive would be to sell them as slaves, something which David forbore to
do. However, we must not discount the fact that he also knew that they were under
YHWH’s curse and therefore dealt with them accordingly. But it was clearly
essential for him that none should be able to counteract what he had told Achish.
The only alternative was to sell them as slaves, for simply letting them go would
have meant that they were free to join up with a similar tribe and continue the
attacks on innocents, or to produce those who did so. It would have been storing up
101

102. trouble for the future. But had he turned up with only Amalekite, Geshurite and
Gerzite slaves for sale it would have been a real give-away. Achish would have
asked, where were the Judeans and Kenites?
He could ,of course, simply have let them go in which case they would never have
had any connection with Gath, but that would then have left them free to attack
innocent people again. So we must probably see his harsh measures as going beyond
just preventing Achish from finding out the truth, and as tying in with the carrying
out of YHWH’s curse on them, as a result of the fact that God had declared them
worthy of the death sentence (Genesis 9:6) because of their savage behaviour.
To us, of course, all this killing is rightly abhorrent. But then most of us live in a
society where there is an adequate police force, and where there are organised
prisons. We do not live on our wits, faced with constant attacks from merciless
tribesmen, with no one to protect us but ourselves. The sentence of death on them
was the consequence of the fact that they were seen as regular murderers who would
never learn their lesson and therefore needed to be finally dealt with in the only way
possible to render them harmless, death (at a time when for all people death by
violence was an everyday occurrence for their households, to be constantly warded
off by killing others, especially in the Negeb).
DEFFINBAUGH "David may not be wise in fleeing to the Philistines for safety, but
he is certainly cunning and clever. King Achish may think himself to be shrewd, but
I am inclined to think he is naVve and gullible.8 David comes to this Philistine as a
“defector,” whom Achish is inclined to view as a real prize, a real “feather in his
cap.” David’s presence among the Philistines looks like a real asset to Achish. After
all, from all appearances David is fighting for the Philistines against the Israelites
(27:10). This must mean the Israelites would never take David back, and certainly
not as their king (compare 21:11; 27:12). Rather than consuming the resources of
Achish, David is a contributor. After every raid, David seems to come to Achish to
report and give a portion of the spoils (27:9). Achish thinks he has David in the palm
of his hand and that he can continue to “use” him to his own advantage.
Achish is not very perceptive. David is not really killing off Israelites at all, but the
enemies of Israel, and all from his sanctuary in Ziklag. While we are not told so in
this text, it will not be long before we are told that David shares some of the spoils of
war with the very people he is supposed to be killing – his kinsmen:
Do you see the dramatic contrast between the way David represents his activities to
king Achish and the way David is actually conducting himself? He tells Achish he is
fighting with fellow-Israelites, leading the Philistine king to conclude he is “making
himself odious among his people Israel” (27:12). The truth is he is killing the
enemies of the Israelites, and then sharing some of the spoils with them, making
frequent visits to their cities (30:26-31). David is ingratiating himself with the
Israelites, while living under the protection of the Philistines. We might say David is
“playing both ends against the middle.”
102

103. "From these, and similar passages, we may observe the strict impartiality of the
Sacred Scriptures. They present us with the most faithful delineation of human
nature; they exhibit the frailties of kings, priests, and prophets, with equal truth;
and examples of vice and frailty, as well as of piety and virtue, are held up, that we
may guard against the errors to which the best men are exposed.
HENRY "Here is an account of David's actions while he was in the land of the
Philistines, a fierce attack he made upon some remains of the devoted nations, his
success in it, and the representation he gave of it to Achish. 1. We may acquit him of
injustice and cruelty in this action because those people whom he cut off were such
as heaven had long since doomed to destruction, and he that did it was one whom
heaven had ordained to dominion; so that the thing was very fit to be done, and he
was very fit to do it. It was not for him that was anointed to fight the Lord's battles
to sit still in sloth, however he might think fit, in modesty, to retire. He desired to be
safe from Saul only that he might expose himself for Israel. He avenged an old
quarrel that God had with these nations, and at the same time fetched in provisions
for himself and his army, for by their swords they must live. The Amalekites were to
be all cut off. Probably the Geshurites and Gezrites were branches of Amalek. Saul
was rejected for sparing them, David makes up the deficiency of his obedience
before he succeeds him. He smote them, and left none alive, 1Sa_27:8, 1Sa_27:9. The
service paid itself, for they carried off abundance of spoil, which served for the
subsistence of David's forces. 2. Yet we cannot acquit him of dissimulation with
Achish in the account he gave him of this expedition. (1.) David, it seems, was not
willing that he should know the truth, and therefore spared none to carry tidings to
Gath (1Sa_27:11), not because he was ashamed of what he had done as a bad thing,
but because he was afraid, if the Philistines knew it, they would be apprehensive of
danger to themselves or their allies by harbouring him among them and would expel
him from their coasts. It would be easy to conclude, If so he did, so will be his
manner, and therefore he industriously conceals it from them, which, it seems, he
could do by putting them all to the sword, for none of their neighbours would
inform against him, nor perhaps would soon come to the knowledge of what was
done, intelligence not being so readily communicated then as now. (2.) He hid it
from Achish with an equivocation not at all becoming his character. Being asked
which way he had made his sally, he answered, Against the south of Judah, v. 13. It
was true he had invaded those countries that lay south of Judah, but he made
Achish believe he had invaded those that lay south in Judah, the Ziphites for
example, that had once and again betrayed him; so Achish understood him, and
thence inferred that he had made his people Israel to abhor him, and so riveted
himself in the interest of Achish. The fidelity of Achish to him, his good opinion of
him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravate his sin in deceiving him thus,
which, with some other such instances, David seems penitently to reflect upon when
he prays, Remove from me the way of lying.
103

104. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, "He
has become so odious to his people, the Israelites,
that he will be my servant forever."
He was totally taken in by David, for he believed all his lies and assumed that David
would be hated by the Israelites because of his raiding and killing them.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And Achish believed David,.... As he would have him understand his story;
imposing upon him by ambiguous terms, insinuating he had been against the
southern parts of Judah, when he had been against foreign nations that lay to the
south of Judah:
saying, he hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; they shall never forgive
him the destruction of their cities, and the inhabitants of them, and the plunder of
their goods and cattle; his name will be had in the utmost detestation and
abhorrence, and he must never return thither any more:
therefore he shall be my servant for ever: would be glad to continue with him as a
servant, and be obliged to serve him faithfully and truly, since his own people, and
even those of his own tribe, would never more receive him; it being, as he
understood it, the south of Judah that he had been plundering.
K&D, "1Sa_27:12 is connected with 1Sa_27:10; Achish believed David's words,
and said (to himself), “He hath made himself stinking (i.e., hated) among his own
people, among Israel, and will be my servant (i.e., subject to me) for ever.”
DEFFINBAUGH "We can also learn from our text (and many others) that the Bible
does not seek to make us into hero worshippers. In Christian and non-Christian
circles alike, people are inclined to have their heroes. This is what Hollywood
provides for many of our youth. We adults like to think we are more sophisticated.
104

105. Televangelists are often the heroes of many who watch them and faithfully send
their gifts to support them. When one of our Christian heroes fails, we are
devastated. We are inclined to throw in the towel, totally devastated by the
realization that our heroes are not all they are chalked up to be. If our leaders can’t
live up to our standards, we say to ourselves, how can anyone expect us to live up to
them? The failure of some public Christian leader often has a domino effect on the
Christian community.
The Bible does not give us such heroes, men or women who have the Midas touch,
successful in all they do, who never seem to fail. The Bible gives us men and women
with all their flaws, men and women just like us, or as James calls them, men “with
a nature like ours” (James 5:17). Abraham, the man who was willing to offer us his
son, Isaac, was also willing to “offer up” his wife Sarah by passing her off as his
sister (and more than once, see Genesis 12:13; 20:10-13). Jacob was a man who
would not meet the requirements of salesman for a mob-owned used car lot, even if
his “uncle” was the mob boss.9 We are beginning to see David’s weaknesses, and we
certainly know about men like Gideon, Jonah, and Peter. In the Bible, there are no
perfect husbands, no perfect fathers, and no perfect wives.10 God does not want us
to “worship” men or to make them our idols. He wants us to worship Him. When we
idolize men , we are not only foolish, we set ourselves, and the one we idolize, up for
trouble.
Let me suggest some of the ways David failed.
First of all, David fell into the “solitary syndrome” (sin-drome).David is the
benefactor of ministry to him by others. There was Samuel, who not only anointed
him as Israel’s next king, but to whom David could flee when Saul was pursuing
him (1 Samuel 19:18-24). There was also Abiathar, the only surviving heir of
Ahimelech, who joined David, along with the ephod (1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:6). Then
there was Jonathan, who constantly stood behind him, assuring David he would be
the next king (1 Samuel 20:12-17, 41-42; 23:15-18). And there was also Abigail, who
greatly encouraged David to do right as Israel’s next king (1 Samuel 25:26-31).
Even though David was accompanied by many, he seems somehow to have
withdrawn into himself. His conversation in 27:1 is with himself (literally, the text
informs us he “said to his heart”). David suffers from what I call the “Lone Ranger
syndrome.” It is that false sense of “being alone” in your spiritual struggle, pain, or
suffering. Even the prophet Elijah was struck with this malady:
9 Then he came there to a cave, and lodged there; and behold, the word of the
LORD came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 And
he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of
Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, torn down Thine altars and killed Thy prophets
with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (1 Kings
19:9-10, emphasis mine).
13 And it came about when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle,
and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. And behold, a voice came to him
and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 14 Then he said, “I have been very
zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Thy
105

106. covenant, torn down Thine altars and killed Thy prophets with the sword. And I
alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (1 Kings 19:13-14, emphasis
mine).
Whenever we think we are alone in our spiritual struggles, we are self-deceived and
ripe for a spiritual fall.David seems to be in that “Lone Ranger” frame of mind. He
is certainly not seeking wise counsel or the will of God here, means available to him
if he but wished to avail himself of them.
Second, David seems to have forgotten things he should have remembered.This is a
very serious malady indeed. The nation Israel constantly forgot how the Lord had
faithfully led them and provided for them in their past, even their very recent past.
In the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses is constantly urging the Israelites to
“remember” all that God had done for them, and warning them not to “forget”
these things. David has forgotten far too much in choosing to flee from the land of
Israel and seek protection and safety in the land of the Philistines. David has
forgotten the words the Lord spoke to him through Samuel and others. He has
forgotten how the Lord saved him time and time again from Saul. He has forgotten
the instruction of the prophet Gad to leave the stronghold (apparently outside the
land) and return to Judah (1 Samuel 22:5). He has forgotten his own words, spoken
not that long ago, about the blessedness of being in the land, and the curse of being
forced to leave it (chapter 26). David even appears to have forgotten the disaster it
was for him to flee to king Achish in Gath (21:10-15). Forgetfulness (of God’s
commands, promises, and faithfulness) is often the starting point for serious failure.
Third, David seems to have closed his eyes to the implications and consequences of
his actions, while minimizing the seriousness of his error. David does not purpose to
fail. He does not intend to end up in the Philistine army, headed for battle with Saul,
Jonathan, and the rest of the Israelite soldiers. All he intends to do is to leave Israel
for a short time, just long enough for Saul to lose heart and give up his pursuit. But
one sin has a way of opening the door to another, and then another. This is the way
it is with David. The situation just keeps going from bad to worse, and David gets in
so deep it doesn’t look like there is any way out. It all starts with what appears to be
a minor lapse in faith, but it ends in a most serious situation in which David finds
himself ready to take Goliath’s place against king Saul and Israel.
Fourth, David’s decision is based upon “sight” rather than on “faith.”David is not
viewing his circumstances through the eyes of faith, but through human sight. His
assessment of the situation is merely human. It ignores God’s previous provisions,
His promises, or His prophetic declarations. David is looking through human eyes,
and all he can see is certain death, if he stays in Israel. His only “hope” is in the
benevolence, power and provisions of a pagan king. It is not faith, but fear, which
triumphs here.
Fifth, David’s failure does not come as his response to a crushing defeat, an
irresistible temptation, or a major crisis.I think we would all be much more
comfortable if David’s decisions in this chapter were made in panic, in the face of
monumental troubles, opposition, or temptation. The simple fact is that our text
indicates nothing of the kind. In fact, David’s failure in chapter 27 follows
immediately on the heels of his “successes” in chapter 26. This is not unlike Elijah,
who virtually caves in (pardon the pun) after a great victory on Mount Carmel.
106

107. What then explains David’s failure here in chapter 27? I think I know. It is one of
the greatest enemies the Christian ever faces – weariness. Listen to these
exhortations about weariness:
And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not
grow weary (Galatians 6:9).
But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (2 Thessalonians 3:13).
For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that
you may not grow weary and lose heart (Hebrews 12:3).
1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars
in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot endure
evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are
not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have perseverance and have endured
for My name's sake, and have not grown weary (Revelation 2:1-3).
I think David simply grows weary of well doing. Think of it. David has now been on
the run for some time. Saul has a price on David’s head. Now even those from his
own tribe, the tribe of Judah (i.e. the Ziphites) are betraying him to Saul. David is
indirectly responsible for the deaths of the priests and their families. He has
alienated Saul from his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. David has
endangered his own family, so that he feels he has to place them in the care of the
king of Moab. David has now accumulated a following of 600 men, and they all have
wives and families to worry about. This kind of burden tends to wear one down.
David does not “blow out” here, so to speak; he “burns out.” David simply gives up.
It is wrong, but this is the way many of God’s people have failed throughout the
centuries. But it need not be this way. Those of us who are weary simply need to
come to God for strength. We need to understand that it is through our weaknesses
that God demonstrates His strength:
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the
Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding
is inscrutable. 29 He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might He
increases power. 30 Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men
stumble badly, 31 Yet those who wait for the LORD Will gain new strength; They
will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk
and not become weary (Isaiah 40:28-31).
28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29
“Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart;
and YOU SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 “For My yoke is easy, and
My load is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
7 And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep
me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of
Satan to buffet me-- to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I entreated
the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, “My
grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly,
therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may
dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with
distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am
107

108. weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).
I know of many young people who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ and
purposed to live their lives in a way that pleases God. Young men and women like
this have said no to pornography, no to premarital sex, no to compromising
relationships, no to drugs. And then one day, they become weary, and in a moment
of time, they cast aside their restraint and their commitment to follow God. It may
not be an instant collapse, but rather a compromise, a concession, which leads to
disaster.
I know of numerous marriages at this very moment on the brink of disaster.
Husbands or wives have become frustrated with their mates and with their
marriages. Like David, they have affirmed their commitment to biblical principles
and reaffirmed their marriages are forever. They have recognized and accepted the
fact that their marriages are an earthly picture of Christ and His church. And then,
they grow weary of the struggle, and simply give up, casting aside their
commitments to each other, and even their commitments before God and His
church. Many of the Christian marriages I have watched dissolve have crumbled as
the result of weariness, on the part of one or both partners.
The same thing happens to Christians in business. These believers know they march
to the beat of a different drum than their competitors. They seek not only to obey
the laws of the land, but to live within the principles of the Word of God. When they
bid a job, they give accurate numbers, knowing that their competition will hedge,
only to gouge the customer later on. And then that Christian in business becomes
weary of losing contracts, or losing profits, and starts to reason and to conduct their
business on human terms, rather than by faith and obedience.
My friend, let us learn from David that even those with a sincere heart for God are
never far from the possibility of failure. The good news is that even when our faith
fails, God remains faithful:
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy
2:13).
Let us cast ourselves on Him who is faithful, and who gives strength to the weary.
Let us acknowledge our weakness, and rely on His strength.
STEVEN COLE
How Sin Snags Us
1 Samuel 27-30
I want to talk about one of the most important subjects for
you to understand if you want to walk with God, namely, “How
Sin Snags Us.” Although I have been walking with God for about
28 years, and I’ve been a pastor who has studied the Word of God
many hours a week for the past 16 years, last year I became aware
that my understanding of the power and deceptiveness of indwelling
sin was woefully inadequate.
I came to this awareness by reading volume 6 of The Works of
John Owen, “Temptation and Sin” (Banner of Truth). I then discovered
that a modern, abridged edition was available, so I read it, too
(Sin and Temptation, abridged and edited by James M. Houston
108

109. [Multnomah Press]). I highly commend it to you. Owen makes
the point that we have a constant enemy of the soul that, unlike
Samson’s enemy, is not only upon us, but also is in us. You come
away from reading Owen alarmed with the knowledge that the
power of indwelling sin is far greater than you ever realized and, as
he points out (p. 5, abridged edition), when this law of sin is least
felt, it is most powerful! Sin always works by deception, which
makes it all the more powerful. Thus we must be aware of how it
works so that we can be on guard against it.
It should be of tremendous comfort to us that when God
paints a portrait of a man after God’s heart, He paints it warts and
all. I want to examine a time in David’s life when he got snagged
by sin. It happened very subtly. It lasted a year and four months
(1 Sam. 27:7), at the end of which we find David at one of the lowest
points of his life (30:6). At that point, David took the path
back to the Lord (we’ll study this next week). David’s experience
teaches us that
Sin snags us by making life more enjoyable at first,
but the consequences always catch up to us.
1. Sin snags us by making life more enjoyable at first.
2
Sin never comes to us and says, “Would you like to ruin your
life and the lives of those you love? Then follow me!” Rather, it
comes to us especially when we’re in a difficult situation and offers
an attractive alternative. Eve yielded to temptation because she
saw that the forbidden fruit “was good for food, ... a delight to the
eyes, and ... desirable to make one wise” (Gen. 3:6). Sin always
snags us by deceiving us into thinking that it will get us what we
want.
In David’s case, he had been running from Saul for about
eight years. Think about that: For eight years you have been pursued
by a madman and his army, intent on killing you! Saul was
relentless in pursuing David (19:11-12; 21:10; 22:1, 5; 23:12-14, 24-
29; 24:1-2; 26:1-2). Finally we read (27:1), “Then David said to
himself, ‘Now I will perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is
nothing better for me than to escape into the land of the Philistines.
Saul then will despair of searching for me anymore in all the
territory of Israel, and I will escape from his hand.’”
What’s wrong with David’s thinking here? It’s contrary to
God’s Word! God had promised that David would succeed Saul
on the throne of Israel (15:28-29; 16:12). David himself had recently
affirmed his trust in God’s promise (26:10). But here there
is no mention of God in David’s decision! He did not seek the
Lord on this major change of direction in his life. In fact, there is
no mention of the Lord in the narrative concerning David from
27:1 through 30:5, except on the lips of Achish, king of Gath (29:6,
109

110. 9)! Rather, David got tired of the extended trial he was under, he
thought of a human solution that would get him out of the pressure,
he took it, and (take note!), it seemed to work: “Now it was
told Saul that David had fled to Gath, so he no longer searched for
him” (27:4). Let’s observe several things:
A. The situation for sin is often a time of trial.
Saul had been seeking for David every day for about eight
years now! David had just spared Saul’s life for the second time.
He probably began to think, “What’s the use? I spared his life before
and he still sought to kill me. It won’t be any different this
time.” Also, remember that David had the pressure of providing
for his own family plus 600 men and their families! It’s tough for a
fugitive to make a living. Anyone who helped David and his men
3
fell under the wrath of Saul. And so the extended pressures caused
David to lose hope.
Satan always hits when you’re down! It’s in the context of trials
that Peter writes, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary,
the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone
to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith ...” (1 Pet. 5:8, 9a).
The flesh is weak, so Satan preys on us during extended times of
trial to get us to doubt the promises and love of God.
B. The sequence of sin is deceptively entangling.
Hebrews 3:12-13 warns us to take care, “Lest any one of you
be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” Satan used deceit to entice
Eve (1 Tim. 2:14). Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that the fallen human
heart is more deceitful than all else. Deceit, by its very nature,
fakes you out. If you’ve ever been taken by a con man, he fooled
you into thinking that he was trustworthy and he was long gone
with your money before you realized what had happened. Before
they are enlightened to the truth, deceived people will protest that
they aren’t deceived. Since we are so prone to deception, we need
to be constantly vigilant, lest we get taken in. Note the sequence of
how David got entangled in the deceit of sin:
(1) Wrong thinking (1 Sam. 27:1). As I mentioned, David’s
thinking was contrary to the word and promise of God! God had
anointed David as the successor to Saul and had promised David
that he would occupy the throne of Israel. Just previously David
had affirmed that God would someday act on his behalf in removing
Saul from the throne (26:10). David’s comment in 27:1 is contrary
to faith.
(2) Wrong feelings. Unchecked wrong thinking leads to
wrong feelings. David began to feel sorry for himself. Note the
preponderance of “I” and “me” in 27:1. He was self-focused
rather than focused on God and His word. Maybe you’re thinking,
“But I’ve heard that feelings aren’t right or wrong; feelings just
110

111. are.” But the Bible teaches that many feelings are wrong and need
to be confronted and changed.
In a time of trial, you must guard against self-pity and
thoughts which are contrary to the Word of God. If you slip into
wrong feelings, you need to check yourself and work your way out.
4
Satan always hits you first in your thinking. Wrong thinking leads
to wrong feelings. This led to ...
(3) Wrong actions (27:2). David did not seek the Lord’s mind
on this decision. God is no where in the picture: “David said to
himself ... (27:1). So David arose and crossed over ...” (27:2). On
numerous occasions God had forbidden His people to form alliances
with the pagan nations around them, because He knew that
they would eventually be influenced by their immorality and embrace
their false gods. And yet David here goes to live with
Achish, king of Gath, without consulting the Lord.
But David was not alone (27:2-3). He had fled to Achish on a
previous occasion when he was alone (21:10-15). On that occasion
David was recognized and had to feign insanity in order to escape.
But this time there was David, his wives, his 600 men and their
households. He wasn’t planning to hide!
Wrong actions never occur in a vacuum. They always have an
effect on others. David’s sin, as we shall see in a moment, had
some severe effects on these men and their families. Always remember:
You never sin privately! Your sin will have consequences
for your family members and for others. David’s wrong
actions led him into ...
(4) Wrong company (27:2-3). Do you know what nationality
Achish was? He was a Philistine, a committed enemy of Israel!
And do you know what city Gath was? It was the home town of
Goliath! David had killed the hometown hero! Yet here he is
moving to Gath! Incredible!
When believers take the path away from the Lord, sooner or
later they will fall in with the wrong crowd. And Satan will use the
wrong crowd to steer you further from the Lord, as we’ll see in a
moment. The Apostle Paul wrote (1 Cor. 15:33), “Do not be deceived!
‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’” If you want to be a
man or woman after God’s heart, then you cannot foster close
friendships with those who are opposed to God and to God’s people.
David undoubtedly shared his tale of woe with Achish and assured
Achish that the two of them had a common enemy: Saul.
Eventually, after David had established some rapport with Achish,
5
he asked a favor, for a city to live in. So Achish gave David Ziklag
(27:5-6). David is getting more deeply entrenched. That led to ...
(5) More wrong actions (27:8-12). David had a lot of mouths
111

112. to feed, and there weren’t a lot of job openings in Ziklag. So they
began making guerrilla raids on the pagan villages. There were
times in Israel’s history when God had ordered them to wipe out
certain pagan groups as judgment for their sin. But God didn’t
command David to do that here. David was acting on his own.
These villagers were apparently allies with Achish. David didn’t
want them talking. So he slaughtered everyone and then lied to
Achish so that he thought David was attacking Jewish villages.
He’s playing a dangerous con game.
When wrong thinking leads you into wrong actions and wrong
company, then you feel constrained to engage in more wrong actions
to cover your tracks and to maintain your lifestyle. Whenever
a person gets snared by sin, there is always deception, both the sinner’s
deceiving others and his deceiving himself by rationalizing his
sin: “I didn’t have any other choice! Besides, the end result is
good.” But you are just digging yourself in deeper! As Sir Walter
Scott wrote (Marmion, Canto 6, Stz. 17.):
“O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to
deceive!”
Thus the situation for sin is often a time of trial; the sequence
of sin is deceptively entangling.
C. The snare of sin is that initially it makes life more enjoyable.
Please notice something very important: To this point,
David’s wrong thinking, wrong feelings, wrong action, wrong
company, and further wrong actions had resulted in what seemed
to David to be very good consequences. Note four initially good
results of David’s wrongs to this point:
(1) Relief from pressure. This felt good! For the first time in
years David was out from under the daily pressure of Saul’s pursuing
him (27:4). That’s often how you’ll feel when you decide to
solve your problems apart from the Lord. Perhaps you’re enduring
the pressure of a difficult marriage and you finally decide, “I’m
bailing out!” You’ll feel relief at first to be free from the pressure.
6
Or maybe you’re single and longing for a Christian mate.
You’ve waited on the Lord for years, but you’re still spending every
weekend alone. Then you say to yourself, “I’m going to die lonely
and single. There is nothing better for me than to start dating non-
Christians.” You will initially feel relief from your loneliness.
(2) Acceptance from the world (27:5-6). In spite of the kind
things he had done for Saul, David had been rejected by Saul for
years. But now, here was a leader who accepted David and sympathized
with his problems. The minute you turn from the Lord to
the world, the world will welcome you with open arms. “Finally,
you’ve seen the light! Those Fundamentalists you used to hang
around with were abusive! But we love you! Welcome to our
112

113. camp!”
(3) The comforts of life (27:6, 9). After years of living in
caves and hiding out in the wilderness, David finally had a place to
call home. He could unpack his duffel bag and his wives could set
up housekeeping. It was a great feeling! And, he was in the
money. David’s raids were netting him a lot of spoil. Finally
David and his men didn’t have to worry about where the next meal
was coming from. Often when a Christian turns from the Lord to
the world, Satan throws in a few material benefits as a welcome
package.
(4) Growing popularity (1 Chron. 12:1-22). Men of valor were
defecting to David at Ziklag from Saul’s army, until eventually
there was a great army. It all felt so good. How could it be wrong
when it felt so right? Often when you begin running with the
world, you receive the popularity you never had when you were
walking with God.
David’s experience was not uncommon. When you take the
path away from the Lord, at first everything seems great. “By-path
Meadow” looks like a nice place to be, until you get caught by the
Giant Despair. Getting snagged by sin is like living on credit cards.
At first, you can have a grand time. You can travel, stay in the best
hotels, eat at the best restaurants, and have the time of your life.
But the bills are going to come due! Sin snags us by making life
more enjoyable at first.
2. Sin’s consequences always catch up to us.
PETT, "1 Samuel 27:12
‘And Achish believed David, saying, “He has made his people Israel utterly to abhor
him, therefore he shall be my servant for ever.” ’
Achish believed David’s half-truths, and gloated. He considered that by turning his
own people and their allies against him it would mean that David for ever remained
faithful to those who had not been turned against him, his employers. In other
words, they would serve Achish faithfully, as bound to him, into the distant future.
They had nowhere else to look.
1 Samuel 28:1
‘And it came about in those days, that the Philistines gathered their hosts together
for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said to David, “Know you assuredly,
that you will go out with me in the host, you and your men.” ’
However, inevitably the day arrived when what David had probably constantly
feared came about. A full scale invasion of Israel was planned by the Philistines, in
contrast with mere border raids. This was not to be merely for booty. The time had
113

114. come when the five lords of the Philistines wanted vengeance for past defeats, to re-
subjugate Israel, and to expand their territory even further. This may partly have
been initiated as a result of Saul’s activities in the valley of Jezreel by which he was
cutting off the Philistine trade routes. With this in mind they had built up their
strength and trained their troops, and now they mustered their whole armies, which
would involve the muster of Canaanite farmers to bolster their numbers, and of
course, any mercenaries. It was for activities such as this that mercenaries were
mainly hired. Along with the Philistine standing armies they would be the core of
the fighting strength, trained fighters who lived for nothing else but warfare. So it is
not surprising that Achish called on David and his men and told them to stand
ready. They would be required to go out with the Philistine host as part of his
contribution to that host.
Achish now had no doubt about David’s faithfulness. Why, had he not already
proved his willingness to despoil his own countrymen? Why then should he hesitate
in taking part in an exercise that would bring him even more booty and reward?
1 Samuel 28:2
‘And David said to Achish, “Therefore you will know what your servant will do.”
And Achish said to David, “Therefore will I make you keeper of my head for ever.”
When David was called on he assured the king that he ‘would know what David his
servant would do’. To Achish this was an assurance of total loyalty and an
indication of a desire for battle. To those who knew David better it might have
appeared to be somewhat of an evasive answer. But Achish was satisfied, and
assured David that it was because of his dedication and faithfulness that he would
make him the permanent ‘keeper of his head’. In other words, David and his men
would be his personal bodyguard and his constant protector. He knew that they
were the toughest of his troops.
It is possible that the writer deliberately used a phrase which was ironical. We
remember, as the writer did, how David had kept Goliath’s head and had taken it to
Jerusalem as a trophy (1 Samuel 17:54). But Achish was not to know that one day
David would be his archenemy, so that he would never have dreamed of such an
interpretation to his words.
114

115. 115