1 Samuel 27: Sneaking In and Out

After another near encounter with Saul, David comes to realize he can’t play this hide and seek game anymore. Eventually, Saul will catch up to David and kill him. So David decides to run away from Saul by heading into Philistia and living with the Philistines. So Saul has all his men pack up their families and their possessions and move to Gath. David’s plan works. Sure enough, when Saul hears David moved to Gath, Saul quits his pursuit.

At this point the reader has to pause and ask “Why?” Why does David move to Philistia, after killing so many Philistines (especially Gath, the home of Goliath)? Wasn’t it wrong for David to leave his home country to live in the enemy’s territory? And what about Saul? Why did Saul stop pursuing? Really, it’s common sense. In common sense terms, David made the right decision to leave the nation of Israel and go to the Philistine country. A king only has jurisdiction in his own country. Only in rare circumstances, with permission, could a king go into a foreign nation after his adversary, but that would never happen when the two nations were enemies. David knew that and took advantage of it. Saul could only hunt David down while David was in Israel. Once David left Israel and entered Philistia, Saul could not follow him into Philistia. There was no way that King Achish would help Saul get David because Achish saw Saul as his enemy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Achish went by the old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and thus decided to house David in his land. Saul must have already realized too that he could not pursue David into a foreign land. But it’s not like it’s going to bother Saul. Saul probably saw David only as a threat to his throne while David was in Israel. Now with David out of Israel, Saul believes there is no way for David to get the throne of Israel. So Saul ceases his search.

While David has moved into the land of Philistia, he’s not willing to fully integrate his life and his men’s lives into the Philistine society and Philistine culture. He boldly asks King Achish for a plot of land or some kind of territory for him and his men and their families to be separate from everyone else. David uses the guise of servants like himself living separate from a royal family, like Achish’s family. Achish likes the sound of David being his servant, so he grants David a whole town, called Ziklag. Ziklag is another town that borders Philistia and Israel. It’s about 15 miles northwest of Beersheba, the southern-most point of Israel. The author makes a note that this city has been in the hands of the kings of Judah since David received it. This side note makes two statements. First, it shows that this book was written during the days of the Divide Kingdoms of Israel and Judah because it separates the kings of Judah from the kings of Israel. Second, this verse demonstrates that even when David is in Philistia, he’s already gaining territory for the nation of Israel. David stays in this town for 1 year and 4 months.

So what’s a man to do while living in a foreign town for 1 year and 4 months? Invade foreign people groups of course! Verse 8 explains that the area between Egypt and Shur was occupied by 3 different people groups: the Amalekites, the Geshurites and the Girzites. The fact the author needs to explain this demonstrates a late date where the audience would not have known of these people groups, or at least would not know that these people were in that region. David’s method was simple. David would take his men to their land, kill all the men and women, and take the animals and the clothes. Then David would return to Ziklag. It’s key that David is killing all the men and women. Saul was commanded by the Lord to do the same thing. Saul failed, keeping people alive, but David succeeded.

Obviously King Achish knows David is raiding, for David keeps bringing back animals and clothes. What Achish does not know is where David is raiding or who David is raiding. Achish asks David, but all David gives is the generic answer, “Against the Negev of the [people’s name].” This explains why David killed everyone: so no one could rep ort back to Achish who David is really killing and why. King Achish has no reason to doubt David, so he believes David. His thinking: If David keeps attacking the Negev, he’ll only be seen poorly by the Israelites. According to Achish, it only helps the Philistines and hurts the Israelites.

I am going to continue to 1 Samuel 28:1,2 because I believe these two verses fit better with 1 Samuel 27 than 1 Samuel 28. The transition is much more smooth when those 2 verses are added to 1 Samuel 27. King Achish probably wants to attack because he believes that David has weakened Israel with all the attacks in Negev. But he still needs one more piece. So Achish requests that David fight with the Philistines against Israel. David replies by saying, “Then you will see for yourself what your servant can do.” Does this mean that David, the one the Lord anointed as King of Israel, will fight God’s people in Israel? Some scholars would say yes, that’s exactly what David had in mind. Other scholars disagree, claiming David is using word play and irony here. While Achish might interpret it as a “Yes,” what David means is, “You will see for yourself what your servant can do…when I turn on you in battle.” I have to stick more with the second interpretation.

Do you see what happened in the story? In the beginning, David leaves Israel for Philistia. The reader might think that, by doing so, David has disobeyed God and sinned. But instead of jumping to that conclusion, we let the narrative help us determine whether are not David’s actions are good or sinful. The narrative would lean the decision towards the good. By moving to Philistia, David gets Saul off his back, and allows his men peace and safety. Because of the move, David can focus on invading and raiding the pagan people groups still in the Promise Land. But also remember that David and his men aren’t assimilating into the culture. David insists that his Israelite men and their families have their own separate town. This town will eventually become part of the territory of Judah. In all these ways, David is helping the kingdom of Israel grow, even when he’s not in the land of Israel. David sneaks into Israel to get rid of the foreign people groups, and he sneaks out to deceive the Philistines into peace. David helps Israel, both internally and externally. Although I think God might have appreciated David more if David would have lived by faith and stayed in the land, God took David’s positions and used that to bring blessing to both David and the whole land of Israel.

So I think a good application is God can use you wherever you are in life, even if you are sinning. I want to make clear this is no permission to sin. Rather, I’m saying that no one can get so far off the path of God’s will that he or she can never be used by God ever again. David could account for this. At sometimes it would seem like David trusted the Philistines more than God for safety. Yet God used the Philistines to provide David with the safety and the town of Ziklag so David could grow the kingdom of Israel. Perhaps you too have fallen away from God’s will in your life, and you are doing your own thing, depending on yourself rather than God. Take this time to call God back into guiding you through His will. I guarantee you the first thing God will do is get you back onto His will.

1 Samuel 21: Just In Case

What does the phrase “just in case” mean? You’re not going to be able to find a definition in a typical dictionary, for a typical diction defines words, not phrases. But the Free Dictionary by Farlex (thefreedictionary.com) does have definitions for phrases, and even idioms, such as the idiom “just in case.” The Free Dictionary defines the idiom “just in case” to mean “in the event that…” or “only if something happens.” These definitions are quite true, but to me, they seem a bit broad. I thought about the phrase myself. I realized that a lot of time I hear or say the phrase “just in case” it’s a back plan. I bring an umbrella just in case it rains. I buy extra batteries just in case the batteries I’m using die. I pack a snack just in case I have to skip lunch. See what I mean? I plan to have lunch, but if something were to come up, my back up plan is to snack while working. I plan to have a dry walk back and forth from my classrooms to my car, but if it were to rain, my backup plan is to use an umbrella to keep me dry. Then I thought about it more, and I started to think that the phrase “just in case” does subtly and subconsciously reflects doubt. I might not see a cloud in the sky in the sky, and the weatherman could report a clear day, but I doubt both the weather report and my vision, it will be reflected in grabbing an umbrella. The phrase “just in case” could display how much you trust something or someone.

When you grew up in church and heard the stories of David, it’s very possible you were told that, besides David’s 2 sins (Bathsheba and the census), David was a righteous and upright man, always pleasing God. But that’s just not human. In our human nature, we don’t just sin, get over it and move on. Some of the “worst” sins to get over are the ones that habitual and addicting, the ones the sinful nature wants to keep going back to. Such examples would be envy, wrath, pride, lust and doubt. That last one, doubt, is the key one when it comes to David. I am going to argue that in 1 Samuel 22, David doubts God by not trusting God for help in his time of need. Instead of going to God, he goes after material possessions for help. I am going show that David does this at least 5 times in this chapter: 3 times in Nob and 2 times in Gath. I also know that this viewpoint isn’t the most popular viewpoint, although there are scholars who do agree with me. So at the end, I will show an alternative interpretation to the events of 1 Samuel 21.

Let’s set the scene before we go into these doubts. After saying goodbye to Jonathan, David heads to Nob, a Levitical city just northeast of Jerusalem, where priests and Levites lived and worshipped. There David meets Ahimelech. From the context of 1 Samuel 21-22, the readers gets the idea that Ahimelech is the priest running worship at Nob. When Ahimelech sees David, the Bible says Ahimelech trembles in fear. Perhaps Ahimelech knows that Saul considers David and enemy and Saul is hunting down David and anyone in between. Maybe Ahimelech is think about how David went to Naioth, the home of the prophets, and almost endangered the prophets there. Surely Ahimelech doesn’t want David bringing the same danger to the priests. So Ahimelech asks David why he’s alone with no company. On the surface, it seems to be a simple question. But rhetorically, Ahimelech asks, “What sneaky business are you here to do if you don’t want any witnesses around?”

Doubt #1: Lying about his purpose. The first instance of doubt we see is right away in 1 Samuel 21:2. David creates this deceptive lie, in which he claims that the king sent him on a secret mission, and he is meeting with his men at a secret place. This is clearly a lie, for it is quite opposite of the truth. King Saul did not send David to do anything. If anything, Saul sent men on a mission for David. Saul and David could not be any further apart socially. Why couldn’t David tell the truth and say, “I am running away, for I am hiding from Saul.” David’s lie shows David’s distrust. David did not trust the priest, not even a holy priest. He must have been afraid that the priest would report to Saul his whereabouts if he told the priest where he was hiding, or he might have thought the priest would not help if he was fugitive of the king. What makes this lie so bad, the worst, is that he isn’t just lying to anyone, but a priest, who is a holy man working for a holy God. It’s almost as bad as lying to God Himself. Maybe David lying to the priest demonstrates that David not only doesn’t trust the priest, but doesn’t trust God.

Doubt #2: Food Provisions. After stating his purpose, David quickly asks for five loaves of bread, and if the priest doesn’t have that, whatever food he can scramble together will do. Ahimelech replies that he does not have any household bread, but it does have the consecrated bread. Every week the priests were to offer 12 loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table of showbread at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. This bread was to be only eaten by the priest, for it symbolically represented the fellowship God had with the priests. David was well aware of this. David should have said (all of it or some of it), “Far be it from me to take the consecrated bread that is meant only for the Lord and his priests! To take that bread would be like stealing from the Lord Himself! I will not take the bread because I know that the Lord will provide food along the way. And if he does not, then he will give me the strength to not feel the pains of hunger.” But that’s not what David said. Instead, David pretty much says, “That’ll work. Good enough.” Then he proceeds to take the bread. Why does David take the bread? Doubt. David does not trust the Lord will provide food for him, so he’s got to fetch his own food. Even if he does believe God will provide the food, he takes the bread, just in case God doesn’t. Not the best of faith.

Now before you get to the bottom, both you and I can already suspect what my opponents would say. They would bring up that Jesus used this story, in Matthew 12:3,4 and in Mark 2:25,26, to explain that the disciples aren’t breaking God’s Law by picking wheat on the Sabbath. I’m not going to give details on how my opponents would use this passage to defend their view, but I will take the time to use this story to defend my point. Actually, I’m not going to use it to defend my point, but I will use it to counter-argue the typical defense we might be expecting. Simply, I will say that David is not sinning when he takes the bread. That’s the point Jesus is making, and I will also make the same point: David is not sinning. But on the same subject on the opposite end, I’m not ready to say David is making a great act of faith either. A great act of faith would be turning down the consecrated bread and depending on God and His promises to sustain you (see Deut. 8:9. It is repeated by Jesus in Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4, but David would have only known the Deut 8:9 passage). In a way, what I’m saying is David didn’t do anything wrong, but David didn’t do the right thing either. The space between the wrong thing and the right thing is doubt.

Before we move on any further, pay attention to verse 7. In the English language and literature, it’s known as an aside, but in the Hebrew language and literature it’s known as a parenthetical clause. It’s when the author wants to put information into the narrative that doesn’t belong in any special place in the narrative. This parenthetical clause mentions there’s a witness to all this. His name is Doeg. Doeg is an Edomite. Edomites are the descendants of Edom, better known to us as Esau, the brother Jacob/Israel. So you’d think the Edomites would see Israel as their cousins. Actually, you’d be wrong. Since Israelites wandering in the desert, as recorded by Numbers, the Israelites and Edomites have been enemies. We even see them battling each other in 1 Samuel 14. Now 1 Samuel 21:7 tells us that Doeg the Edomite was detained. Now the Hebrew word is netsar, and scholars debate what do with the word in both Hebrew and English. What does netsar mean and what does detain mean? Some scholars think that Doeg is an Edomite whose converted to the Israelite’s religion and become a legal immigrant to Israel. Other scholars believe that Saul captured Doeg as a prisoner of war in the Israelites’ battle in 1 Samuel 14. I personally believe the second to be the more plausible answer. The aside also tells us that Doeg was the head shepherd of Saul’s flocks. In those days, it was naturally for kings to own large flocks of animals to tailor to their personal needs. Of course, the king himself would not take care of them, so he would hire shepherds to take care of the animals. Doeg was the head of the shepherds, so he had close ties to Saul. What’s Saul doing trusting an Edomite, no one knows. This could be a sign of Saul falling even further away from God. But the text wants us to know that he was witnessing the exchange between David and Ahimelech. That’s going to be important for the next chapter, for there we will find out Doeg is a bad egg.

Doubt #3: Protection. Next David asks for some kind of weapon to protect him. Ahimelech informs David that there are no weapons there but the sword of Goliath, which David had placed there himself. David quickly takes it. Once again, I ask, “Where is David’s faith?” Remember we said that in 1 Samuel 17 David clearly demonstrates that victory is given through the Lord and not through earthly weapons. David even supports that himself when he turns down the king’s armor (which probably also included a sword) for his regular clothes because He is confident that the Lord will bring him victory. The fact that David insists he needs a sword shows that David doesn’t have that confidence that he had when he face Goliath. He needs a sword, just in case the Lord doesn’t protect.

Doubt #4: Fleeing to Gath. This doesn’t take much explanation if you know the geography and the history. Israel is God’s chosen people in the Promised Land. Gath is the land of the Philistines, the enemy of God’s people who keep invading the Promised Land. Gath is also the hometown of Goliath, and even might be a capital of Philistia. No good, God-fearing Israelite would dare leave Israel for that land. That’s exactly what David does. He leaves the Promised Land, God’s land, for a foreign land. To me, this shows doubt. To me, it seems like David does not trust God to provide him protection in the kingdom that has been promised to him. So he leaves everyone and everything behind to tread in the enemies territory.

Doubt #5: Acting insane. David goes to Gath, hoping that no one will notice him and that everyone will leave him alone. It’s hard, though, to try to keep yourself hidden in the hometown of the champion you just slaughtered. Everyone immediately recognizes David as the one the sing about in Israel. So much for leaving your past life behind. Now David fears that the Philistines will also seek to kill David in order to avenge Goliath. So David comes up with a brilliant plan: to act like an insane madman. In Bible times, if someone were to act like an insane madman, people would automatically assume he’s demon-possessed and would want to avoid such evil. David acts insane so people think he’s demon-possessed and will leave him alone. I hope that you see where this is going. This cannot be the godly response to danger. Instead of trusting in God, David relies in a deceptive act to keep him safe. What makes it even worse is that David acts like there’s demons inside of him, not the Holy Spirit. David should be living a life that lets the Holy Spirit shine, not hide it.

Alright, as promised, now I will quickly give my opponents objections to my 5 doubts that David has. Their objections will be followed by what they see in those 5 sections.

#1: Lying about his purpose. While David may not have told the full truth, he did not lie. He was generic. David doesn’t say “King Saul” or even “Saul,” David just says “king.” Many times in the psalms David refers to the Lord God as king. So David might be saying he’s sent on a secret mission from King Yahweh because many times in the Bible both Yahweh and Jesus have asked people to keep secrets to themselves.

#2: Food provisions. David was not sinning by taking the bread. The bread had already completed its week-long life cycle as an offering to God, and now it’s up to the priests to decide what to do with it. The priest Ahimelech decides it’s alright for David and his men to eat of it as long as they act like priests; they must be ceremonially clean. Just as God used this bread to provide food to the priests, so God used this bread to provide food to David. Besides, Jesus mentions this story in Matthew 12:3,4 and Mark 2:25,26. If David had done something wrong, would Jesus really use this story as part of an argument? Speaking of Jesus, these few verses provide foreshadowing. Remember that Jesus was prophet, priest and king. If Jesus is to be the second, last and final David, David needs to foreshadow Jesus as prophet, priest and king. This is the priest part, as David acts like a priest.

#3: Protection. When Goliath’s sword enters the holy sanctuary, the sword becomes God’s property. Thus the priest giving David the sword is God’s way of providing protection of David. God provides protection by giving David the sword of Goliath. (Something similar to that could be said for point 2 on food provisions.

#4: Fleeing to Gath. This is just common sense. King Saul only has control over Israel; he does not have control in Philistia. If David goes to Philistia, he doesn’t have to worry about Saul because Saul does not reach him. Besides, leaving the Promise Land does not mean leaving God or leaving His will. Even Abraham and Jacob, with their families, left the Promised Land for Egypt when things got bad.

#5: Acting insane. A deceptive act is nothing new for the Israelites. We see the Israelite forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob deceiving left and right. Just like David deceived Achish to keep himself safe, so Abraham and Isaac deceived the king of Gerar, telling the king their wife was their sister, in order to keep themselves safe.

Now you’ve heard both sides, and both have given their reasons. With the reasons, you can choose which one to believe. But let me give you a few more reasons why I believe it’s best to see them as doubts. First, I want to remind you that I’m not suggesting that David sinned or is doing anything sinful. But at the same, it’s not that David’s doing the right thing or the good thing. He’s somewhere in the middle, struggling with doubts, having backup plans, just in case God doesn’t come through. So it doesn’t mess with the character of David, being a man after God’s heart. Second, there are application reasons. If you believe David was doing the good, right thing, then David’s example is to be followed: it’s ok to lie and deceive, take from God when he doesn’t provide, and flee from all danger. Those applications don’t seem Biblical. In fact, God seems to want the opposite from us. Third, take into consideration discourse analysis. Think about where we are in David narrative part of 1 Samuel. Some scholars seem 1 Samuel 21:10-15 and 1 Samuel 22:1-5 as a pivotal turning point in David’s story in 1 Samuel. David is faced with the question “In what or whom am I trusting in?” and he makes the pivotal change for the better. You’ll just have to wait for 1 Samuel 22 to see how David does that.