David in the Service of King Achish of Gath: Renegade to His ...

David in the Service of King Achish of Gath: 

Renegade to His People or a Fift h Column 

in the Philistine Army?* 

Yael Shemesh 

Ramat Gan, Israel 

Abstract 

Th e biblical presentation of David’s ostensible willingness to fi ght on the side of the Philistines 

against Israel (1 Sam. xxvii-xxix) is examined. Th rough a literary analysis it is shown that 

David is not depicted as intending to betray Saul and Israel. On the contrary, the narrator 

provides many hints that the Philistine commanders’ assessment of David is correct and that 

had he not been sent away he would have fought against the Philistines and for Israel. His 

dismissal, instigated by the Philistine commanders, is compatible with the divine plan for 

Israel’s defeat, the destruction of the House of Saul, and David’s succeeding Saul on the throne 

of Israel (1 Sam. xxviii 16-19). 

Keywords 

David, Philistines 

Vetus 

Testamentum 

Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90 www.brill.nl/vt 

I. Introduction 

Th e corpus of stories referred to in the scholarly literature as ‘the History of 

David’s Rise’ (HDR) (1 Sam. xvi-2 Sam. v) includes the rather embarrass ing 

incident of David’s desertion, with his private band of 600 fighters, to the 

land of the Philistines, Israel’s most implacable enemy (1 Sam. xxvii 1-2). 1 

Most troubling is David’s failure to demur at Achish’s order that he join him 

* ) All biblical passages are rendered according to the New JPS translation, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

1) Just how embarrassing the story is may be inferred from the fact that Pseudo-Philo, the 

author of Biblical Antiquities, omitted the story from his work. 

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156853307X167864

74 Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90 

in the military campaign against Israel (1 Sam. xxviii 1-2). In fact, David and 

his men did march with the Philistine army as it advanced to the decisive 

battle at Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxix 2). Only the intervention of the Philistine 

commanders 2 kept David and his men out of the battle and sent them to 

the safe distance of Ziklag. Th e biblical narrator says nothing about the true 

intentions of David and his men with regard to the impending battle. Th is 

leaves ample room for speculation: Is it really possible that David would have 

fought against his people and his king, even if only because he had no choice 

in the matter as a result of the bind in which he found himself at the time— 

persecuted by Saul and beholden to his patron, Achish, who had granted him 

asylum? 

In the present paper I hope to demonstrate, relying chiefly on a literary 

analysis, that for the biblical narrator the possibility that David might fight 

against his own people is absurd. Even though the narrator does not say this 

in so many words, he provides ample hints that had David not been sent away 

he would have acted as a fift h column and raised his sword against his patron, 

Achish, and not against Saul and Israel. 

I must emphasize that the discussion deals exclusively with David as a literary 

character, as he is depicted in the stories about him, and not with the 

historical figure, about whom we have no reliable information. Accordingly 

I will not attempt to deal with the arguments of scholars who sought to 

unveil the historical (as opposed to the literary) David and convicted him 

not only of planning to join the Philistine army (or actually joining it, despite 

2) Th ese “commanders” or “officers” (Heb. μyrç) are not the “lords” (μynrs) mentioned in 

verse 2, despite the problems with the story. According to the narrator, the Philistine commanders 

are angry with Achish for bringing David along and demand that he be dismissed 

(vv. 3-5). By contrast, Achish initially tells David that the lords disapprove of his presence 

(v. 6) and urges him to leave so as not to displease the lords (v. 7). Later, however, Achish 

attributes the request that David be excluded from the army to the Philistine commanders 

(v. 9), and this is consistent with what the narrator reports. In several manuscripts of the Septuagint, 

the negative οὐκ is missing from the last clause of verse 6, indicating that Achish and 

the lords approve of David, but not the commanders. Several scholars subscribe to this solution 

(but it cannot explain the reference to the lords in verse 7). Alter proposes a literary solution: 

in order to reinforce his words, Achish attributes the decision to send David away to the 

very highest echelon, substituting the lords for the commanders. See R. Alter, Th e David Story 

(New York and London, 1999), p. 181. See also H. J. Stoebe, Das Erste Buch Samuelis (KOM 

8/1; Gütersloh, 1973), pp. 501, 503. Bar Efrat, for his part, suggests that the lords accepted 

the commanders’ position. See S. Bar Efrat, 1 Samuel (A Bible Commentary for Israel; Tel 

Aviv and Jerusalem, 1996), p. 355 (Hebrew).

Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90 75 

the denial by the biblical narrator), but also of direct involvement in Saul’s 

death. 3 I want to show that the stories about David indicate that he was no 

renegade. Before I present my evidence, however, I would like to survey 

briefly the opinions of traditional Jewish commentators and modern scholars 

about David’s conduct as related in 1 Sam. xxvii-xxix. 

II. David’s Loyalty in the Eyes of Traditional Jewish Commentators 

and Modern Scholars 

Most of the classical Jewish commentators (Rashi, David Kimhi, Joseph Ibn 

Kaspi, and others) stick to a literal interpretation and never ask about David’s 

intentions when he joined the Philistine army. Th e fourteenth-century Jewish 

philosopher and commentator Gersonides (Provence, 1288-1344), by 

contrast, in his commentary on 1 Sam. xxix 2, does raise the question, “How 

could David agree to go with Achish to fight against Israel?” To this question 

he answers uncompromisingly: 

David was compelled to do what Achish ordered because he was subordinate to 

him, and because he had told him that he was continually raiding Israel, to show 

[Achish] that he was in bad odor with his people. In his heart, though, David’s 

plan was to be an adversary to the Philistines and to frustrate their designs 

against Israel, and this would be easier if they trusted him. 4 

Th e Jewish exegete, philosopher, and statesman Don Isaac Abravanel (1437- 

1508) agrees with Gersonides that David was loyal to Saul, but disagrees 

about his treachery toward Achish. In his commentary on 1 Sam. xxix 5 he 

mentions and rejects Gersonides’ view that David intended to turn against 

the Philistines: “But this is not my view! Far be it from so honorable a 

man as David to repay Achish (even though he was one of the kings of the 

3) K. W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Sheffield, 

1979), pp. 104-105, 108, 119; M. Malul, “Was David Involved in the Death of Saul on the 

Gilboa Mountain?”, RB 103 (1996), pp. 517-545; S. L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography 

(Oxford, 2000), pp. 108-110. Malul and McKenzie do not maintain that the narrator intended 

to present David as Saul’s murderer. On the contrary, they agree with the common opinion 

that the stories in HDR constitute an apologia for David and are meant to acquit him of any 

blame associated with the fall of the house of Saul. Th ey assert, however, that precisely these 

attempts to clear him demonstrate the guilt of the historical David. 

4) Gersonides’ commentary in Miqra’ot Gedelot Haketer: Samuel, ed. M. Cohen (Ramat Gan, 

[1993]), p. 145 (Hebrew).


Philistines) evil for good. Th at would have been a conspiracy and most 

unseemly”. In practice Abravanel is trying to have it both ways, and to depict 

David as loyal to both Saul and Achish. Th e only way he can manage this is 

by offering an extremely forced interpretation: 

When he went [to join him] David thought that he would serve as Achish’s 

bodyguard and stay near him, but would not fight against Israel and not raise his 

hand against King Saul; [in this way] he would neither be a help nor a hindrance 

to the Philistines. 5 

Abravanel does not explain how David could have served as Achish’s bodyguard 

without taking an active part in the battle and what role David intended 

his brigade of Hebrews to play in the battle. Similarly, in his commentary on 

1 Sam. xxvii 8, 10, Abravanel argues that David’s raids on the Geshurites, 

Gizrites, and Amalekites were no betrayal of the Philistines and Achish, but 

in their interest, because those tribes pillaged the Philistines, too (as stated 

explicitly, with regard to the Amalekites, in xxx 16). 6 My feeling is that Abravanel 

was influenced by his own biography: aft er serving as treasurer to King 

Alfonso V of Portugal, he was suspected of participating in a conspiracy 

against his successor, João II, and forced to flee to Spain in 1483. It was at this 

juncture in his life that he wrote his commentary on the books of Joshua, 

Judges, and Samuel. With this immediate background, it is easy to understand 

that he would deem it important to emphasize the loyalty of Hebrews/ 

Jews to the foreign rulers they served. 7 

Few modern scholars share the confidence of Gersonides (and the Philistine 

commanders) that David intended to serve as a fift h column and fight 

5) Don Isaac Abravanel, Commentary on the Former Prophets (Jerusalem, [1955]), p. 301 

(Hebrew). 

6) Ibid., p. 292. 

7) Th e same approach, though more moderate than in Abravanel, is taken by Josephus Flavius, 

another Jew who had to prove his loyalty to a foreign power. Josephus does not dispel the 

vagueness concerning David’s true intentions, but supplements the Masoretic text with Achish’s 

reply to David that he will be of great help even if he remains in the rear echelon: “Th ere 

keep guard for me over the country, lest any of the enemy invade it. Th at too is the part of an 

ally” (Antiquities of the Jews VI, 14,5) (tr. Th ackeray and Marcus). Begg notes that the “ally 

terminology” in Josephus’ account of David’s relations with the Philistines is meant to show 

his Roman readers that “Jews are indeed capable of being reliable ‘allies’ of a foreign overlord”. 

See C. Begg, “David’s Dismissal by the Philistines according to Josephus”, Theologische 

Zeitschrift 54 (1998), pp. 111-119 (on 118).


alongside Israel against the Philistines. 8 Even those who do so fail to present 

all the evidence that supports this position. A majority of scholars, including 

those who note the ambiguity of David’s statements to Achish (1 Sam. xxviii 

2 and xxix 8), 9 argue that Achish’s request placed David in a dilemma from 

which only the intervention of the Philistine commanders allowed him to 

escape, to his joy and relief. 10 According to them, we cannot know how David 

would have acted if he had not been dismissed from the ranks of the Philistine 

army. As Alter writes: “Whether David, lacking his providential way 

out, would really have pitted himself against his own people is another 

imponderable in the character of this elusive figure”. 11 A few scholars even 

infer from the story that David was sincere in his willingness to participate in 

the battle against Saul. Whitlam, for example, asserts that the biblical tradition 

found in 1 Sam. xxvii and xxix indicates that “David, as the vassal of 

Achish, was more than willing to take part in the campaign against Saul”. 12 

Jobling holds a similar view and even asserts that the David depicted in 

1 Sam. xxi and xxvii-xxx has given up his hopes of reigning over Israel. He 

adds that these chapters expose an anti-monarchical subtheme that is theologically 

subversive, because it runs counter to the dominant current of the 

Deuteronomic literature. 13 In support of his argument he cites David’s internal 

monologue in 1 Sam. xxvii 1: 

8) Smith notes that the narrator certainly does not assume that David would have fought 

against Saul, though he does not state explicitly that at the moment of truth David was 

planning to turn against Achish. See H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 

Books of Samuel (ICC 8; Edinburgh, 1899), pp. 237, 245. McCarter goes one step further and 

maintains (I think rightly) that, according to the story, “it is subtly but clearly implied that if 

he had been [at the battle on Gilboa], he would have fought with Saul rather than against 

him”. See P. K. McCarter, “Th e Apology of David”, JBL 99 (1980), pp. 500-501. See also his 

book, I Samuel (AB 8; New York, 1980), pp. 427, 428. 

9) On the ambiguity of David’s statement, see below, §III 4. 

10) See, for example, R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, Texas, 1983), p. 276; 

W. Brueggemann, “Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29”, JSOT 43 (1989), pp. 25-26, 30; 

Alter, The David Story, p. 181; A. F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 17; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

2003), p. 277. 

11) Alter, The David Story, p. 181. 

12) Whitelam, The Just King, p. 105. 

13) D. Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minnesota, 1998), pp. 232-241; idem, 

“David and the Philistines: With Methodological Reflections”, in David und Saul im Widerstreit: 

Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit, ed. W. Dietrich (OBO 206; Fribourg, 2004), 

pp. 74-85.


David said to himself, “Some day I shall certainly perish at the hands of Saul. 

Th e best thing for me is to flee to the land of the Philistines; Saul will then give 

up hunting me throughout the territory of Israel, and I will escape him”. 14 

Jobling attributes great importance to the fact that David says this only to 

himself (lit. to his heart). He takes this as a sign of its trustworthiness, because 

David would not be lying to himself. I agree with Jobling that the internal 

monologue provides reliable information about David’s thoughts, but it contains 

no more than it states: David decided to flee to Philistia in order to 

escape from Saul. We cannot infer from it that either David or the narrator 

has given up the vision that David and his descendants will rule Israel, and 

certainly not that David may later be willing to fight on the side of the Philistines 

against his own people. Another argument put forward by Robinson 

and Jobling in support of their readings that David was sincere about serving 

Achish ( Jobling) or faced a harsh dilemma (Robinson) is that the broader 

context is at variance with the idea that David would defect to the Israelite 

side during the battle. Had Saul and David survived the battle, asks Jobling, 

“where could the story go then?”. 15 Robinson even argues that if David had 

deserted to the Israelites during the battle, ensuring the defeat of the Philistines, 

Samuel’s doom of Saul (1 Sam. xv 26-28; xxviii 16-19) would not have 

been realized. 16 

We must distinguish, however, between David’s intentions and those of 

the story about him, as well as between David’s intentions and the consequences 

of his actions. David could have been totally sincere in his intention 

to desert to the Israelite camp during the battle, whether motivated by deepseated 

loyalty to Israel and Saul or by other reasons, some of them utilitarian. 

Samuel’s announcement to Saul of his and Israel’s doom in the impending 

battle, of which David is not aware, cannot be part of David’s considerations 

about his conduct during the battle. Nevertheless, the logic of the story does 

mandate that David be removed from the battlefield. Th is is precisely what 

happens, in accordance with the divine plan and in total isolation from 

David’s intentions and desires. “Many designs are in a man’s mind, but it is 

the Lord’s plan that is accomplished” (Prov. xix 21). 

14) Jobling, 1 Samuel, pp. 234, 238; idem, “David and the Philistines”, p. 83. 

15) Ibid., p. 82. 

16) G. Robinson, Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel 

(Grand Rapids, 1993), p. 145.


III. Proofs of David’s Loyalty to Saul and Israel, According to the 

Biblical Account 

As mentioned, the biblical narrator does not offer us a glimpse of David’s 

intentions when he joined Achish’s forces, on the eve of the battle against 

Saul and Israel on Mount Gilboa. Instead, he offers two opposing assessments 

of David’s intentions, that of Achish and that of his subordinates, the Philistine 

commanders. Here I shall endeavor to show that the narrator provides 

many indications that the Philistine commanders’ evaluation is correct, 

whereas Achish’s is naïve, based on the false information he has been fed 

by David. 

1. Th e utilitarian aspect: Th e implication of the David stories is that he is 

grooming himself to be king of Israel aft er Saul’s death (1 Sam. xvi 13; xxiii 

17-18; xxiv 20-23; xxv 30). Fighting on the Philistine side against his people 

and his king would have delivered a mortal blow to David’s public image and 

put paid to any chance of his being accepted as a legitimate ruler. So calculating 

a person as David would certainly have been aware of the political implications 

of such an act. It is hard to believe that he would not have searched 

for a stratagem to extricate himself from a situation that would strike a mortal 

blow at his plans and hopes of ruling Israel. 

2. David’s behavior in the past: Psychology teaches us that the best predictor 

of a person’s future conduct is his behavior in the past. If we look at 

David’s past conduct toward Saul and Israel on the one hand, and toward 

Achish and the Philistines on the other, we find loyalty toward the former 

and insincerity in David’s relations with Achish and hostility in his relations 

with the Philistines in general. 

David’s actions strongly attest to his loyalty to Saul. So does the evaluation 

of his character by other persons, including Saul himself. When David served 

in Saul’s army he fought his wars (see 1 Sam. xviii 17, 25). Aft er he fled the 

royal court, in danger of imminent death, David took the defensive action of 

running away, but he never crossed the line and took offensive action to harm 

Saul or his followers (see 1 Sam. xxiii 26). When golden opportunities to slay 

the king who was plotting his death fell into his lap, he adamantly refused to 

harm Saul in self-defense and made certain his men were aware of the impiety 

of raising a hand against the Lord’s anointed (1 Sam. xxiv and xxvi). 17 

17) In this article I am adopting a synchronic approach, and accordingly relate to 1 Samuel 

xxiv and xxvi as representing two different incidents. Cf. J. Klein, “Davids Flucht zu den Philistern 

(1 Sam. xxi 11ff.; xxvii-xxix)” VT 55 (2005), pp. 179-180.


Th is stance is not merely theological, of course; it is also based on far-sighted 

political vision and an intention to establish a taboo that would protect his 

own life when he in turn became king and the Lord’s anointed. 18 For our 

purposes, however, it matters little whether David’s motives for not harming 

Saul were theological or political. What is important is that it was crucial for 

him to act according to the principle that one must not harm the Lord’s 

anointed and to indoctrinate his men accordingly (1 Sam. xxiv 7; xxvi 9-11). 

Th e narrator reports that David reproached himself even for the mild lèsemajesté 

of cutting off the corner of Saul’s cloak (1 Sam. xxiv 6). Is it conceivable, 

aft er all this, that he would agree to fight against Saul and raise his hand 

against the Lord’s anointed? 

David’s loyalty to Saul is attested by Jonathan, who, venting his deepest 

emotions, begs his father not to harm David: 

He has not wronged you; indeed, all his actions have been very much to your 

advantage. He took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine, and the Lord 

wrought a great victory for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced. Why then should 

you incur the guilt of shedding the blood of an innocent man, killing David 

without cause? (1 Sam. xix 4-5). 19 

Th e priest Ahimelech, too, characterizes David as the most loyal of all of 

Saul’s courtiers who always does his bidding (1 Sam. xxii 14). Saul himself, in 

a passionate outburst, recognizes the injustice of his persecution of the innocent 

David (1 Sam. xxiv 17-20; xxvi 21). 

An indication of David’s allegiance to his people is the fact that even while 

running for his life, he stops to assist the residents of Keilah and rescue them 

from the Philistines (1 Sam. xxiii 5). Abigail has good cause for describing 

him as a man who fights the battles of the Lord (1 Sam. xxv 28) when she 

urges him to continue in this path so that no evil ever be found in him (ibid.). 

While David was resident in Ziklag, under the patronage of King Achish of 

Gath, he was careful not to attack his own people, instead fighting their enemies—the 

Geshurites, the Gizrites, and especially the archetypical enemy of 

Israel, Amalek (1 Sam. xxvii 8-9). As Herzberg notes, “David is already begin- 

18) See, for example, W. Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory 

(Philadelphia, 1985), p. 37; K. L. Noll, The Faces of David (Sheffield, 1997), p. 57. 

19) See also Jonathan’s defense of David in 1 Sam. xx 32, where he asks his father, “Why should 

he be put to death? What has he done?”


ning the task which he was later to complete: that of conquering the whole 

of the neighboring peoples”. 20 

It is even possible that for the narrator, David’s cruel deeds—annihilating 

the inhabitants of the places he raids (1 Sam. xxvii 11)—are the fulfillment 

of the Lord’s injunction to Moses and Joshua to destroy all the residents of 

the land. 21 Th e narrator even deviates from the chronology of the story to 

inform us of the long-term profit to the Kingdom of Judah of David’s temporary 

alliance with the Philistine enemy: “At that time Achish granted him 

Ziklag; that is how Ziklag came to belong to the kings of Judah, as is still the 

case” (1 Sam. xxvii 6). 22 What is more, aft er defeating the Amalekites who 

had burned Ziklag, David sends some of the spoils to the elders of Judah 

(1 Sam. xxx 26-31). It is true that his motives are undoubtedly political rather 

than altruistic, but the gesture does indicate the importance he attached to 

maintaining good relations with his people. It makes it clear that David did 

not see himself serving Achish for the rest of his life (1 Sam. xxvii 12), but 

fully intended to win the crown of Judah (initially) and Israel. 

In contrast to David’s loyalty to his own people, he was a bitter enemy of 

the Philistines. His first belligerent action, when he was still a youth, before 

he served in Saul’s army, was against Goliath, the Philistine giant from Gat, 

which concluded with his cutting off Goliath’s head. His victory over Goliath 

determined the outcome of the entire campaign and sparked the Israelite victory 

over the Philistines (1 Sam. xvii). When he served Saul, David brought 

him 200 Philistine foreskins (even though the demand was only for 100) as 

the dowry for Michal (1 Sam. xviii 27). He continued to fight against the 

Philistines when he served in Saul’s army (1 Sam. xviii 30; xix 8) and even 

aft erwards, as a persecuted refugee, when he delivered the inhabitants of 

Keilah (1 Sam. xxiii 1-5). To complete the picture we should note that if we 

turn our glance to the future relations between David and the Philistines, he 

20) H. W. Hertzberg, 1 & II Samuel (OTL 8; London, 1964) p. 215. See also Brueg gemann, 

“Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29”, p. 29. 

21) Robinson, Let Us Be Like the Nations, p. 140; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (Th e New American 

Commentary 7; Nashville, 1996), pp. 261-262. But I do not agree with Bergen that David 

“was careful to follow the prescribed rules of warfare” (ibid., p. 262). Th e narrator makes it 

plain that David’s motive was tactical, not theological: destroying the ‘evidence’ so that Achish 

could not find out whom David was really attacking while he was resident in Ziklag (1 

Sam. xxvii 11). 

22) J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. II: The Crossing Fates 

(Assen, 1986), p. 562; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, p. 261.


continues to be their mortal foe even aft er he becomes king of Judah and 

Israel. When Abner urges the elders of Israel to transfer their allegiance to 

David, he argues that “the Lord has said concerning David: ‘I will deliver My 

people Israel from the hands of the Philistines and all its other enemies 

through My servant David’” (2 Sam. iii 18). And aft er David is anointed king 

of all Israel he continues his wars against the Philistines (2 Sam. v 17-25; viii 1). 

As for David’s relations with Achish, we know that David was disloyal and 

insincere from the very beginning, since he brazenly lied to him about the 

targets of his raids (1 Sam. xxvii 8-12) and made sure to leave no survivors 

who might inform Achish of his duplicity. Th e narrator even underscores 

that this was not a one-time matter, but that “such was his practice as long as 

he stayed in the territory of the Philistines” (1 Sam. xxvii 11). 

3. How David and his men react when they hear the bitter tidings of 

Israel’s defeat and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan: When David and his men 

learn of the outcome of the battle at Mount Gilboa they rend their garments, 

lament, weep, and fast until the evening, mourning the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, 

and the house of Israel (2 Sam. i 11-12). Th is is not the reaction of 

persons who only shortly earlier had intended to fight against Israel on 

the side of the Philistines. At the start of David’s dirge for Saul and Jonathan 

(vv. 17-27) he refers to the Philistines as the enemy: “Tell it not in Gath, do 

not proclaim it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistine 

rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (2 Sam. i 20). Even the 

Amalekite lad who brings the news knows where the allegiance of David and 

his men lies (at least officially), because he comes to them with his garments 

torn and ashes on his head (v. 2). It is true that he evidently believes that 

David, in his heart of hearts, will be glad of the news of Saul’s death and 

reward him accordingly; but he also knows that officially David is loyal to 

Saul and will put on the trappings of mourning when he hears his report. 

Th is is why the Amalekite takes the trouble of pretending to grieve himself 

and emphasizes that he slew Saul at the latter’s express request, as an act of 

mercy, since the stricken king had no hope of surviving (vv. 9-10). None of 

this helps him, however, and David orders his execution, because he dared 

raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed (vv. 15-16). Th us David continues 

to strengthen the taboo of harming the Lord’s anointed even aft er Saul’s 

death. 23 His harsh reaction to the news and his order to execute the Amalekite, 

despite the fact that on his own account his intention was to be merciful 

23) See above, §III 2.


to Saul, reinforce the argument that David would never have allowed himself 

to be involved in an action aimed at the anointed of the Lord and Israel. It 

was always important for David to establish his innocence in everything 

associated with the House of Saul, as can be learned from the harsh punishment 

of the assassins of Ish-Boshet (2 Sam. iv 9-12) and his reaction to Joab’s 

slaying of Abner (2 Sam. iii 28-39 and 1 Kings ii 5-6), and, conversely, by his 

blessing of the people of Jabesh-Gilead for burying Saul and his sons (2 Sam. 

ii 5-7). 

4. David’s use of ambiguous language: When Achish informs David that 

he expects him and his men to join the Philistine army in the campaign 

against Saul (1 Sam. xxviii 1), David replies in a vague fashion that can be 

understood both ways: “You surely know what your servant will do” (1 Sam. 

xxviii 2). Achish hears what he wants to hear—a promise of loyal and devoted 

service; but readers are invited to understand it as an implicit threat. David 

employs ambiguous language again when he protests his dismissal by Achish: 

“But what have I done, what fault have you found in your servant from 

the day I appeared before you to this day, that I should not go and fight 

against the enemies of my lord the king?” (1 Sam. xxix 8). 24 Achish, of course, 

believes that David’s “my lord the king” refers to him; David certainly wants 

him to understand it that way. It seems, however, that the true meaning is 

that David wants to fight against the enemies of his king, Saul; that is, against 

the Philistines. Th is reading is strengthened by the fact that David nowhere 

refers to Achish as “my lord the king”, but does refer to Saul in this fashion on 

those occasions when he demonstrates his loyalty by refraining from killing 

him (1 Sam. xxiv 9; xxvi 17, 19). What is more, the assertion that David’s “my 

lord the king” means Saul is supported by the Philistine commanders and 

even by Achish himself. When the former, astonished at the Hebrews’ presence 

in the Philistine camp, ask Achish for an explanation, he somewhat surprisingly 

replies, “that’s David, the servant of Saul, king of Israel” (1 Sam. xxix 3). 

Referring to David in this vein does not seem to be a good way of achieving 

Achish’s objective—allaying the Philistine commanders’ qualms about the 

Hebrew auxiliaries’ participation in the battle. In fact the Philistine commanders, 

naturally enough, angrily retort, “for with what could that fellow 

appease his master if not with the heads of these men?” (1 Sam. xxix 4). 

Above all, even when Achish ultimately orders David to leave the Philistine 

24) See, for example, McCarter, I Samuel, p. 427; Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 278; Alter, The David 

Story, p. 181.


camp, he defines Saul as David’s lord and the Hebrew warriors as the servants 

of Saul: “So rise early in the morning, you and your lord’s servants who came 

with you—rise early in the morning, and leave as soon as it is light” 

(1 Sam. xxix 10). We should note that all this is said immediately aft er David 

expresses to Achish his displeasure that he is not being given an opportunity 

to fight “against the enemies of my lord the king” (1 Sam. xxix 8). What is 

more, David’s desire to fight against the enemies of “my Lord the king” echoes 

Saul’s language when he agreed to make David his son-in-law in exchange for 

his making war on the Philistines: “be my warrior and fight the battles of the 

Lord” (1 Sam. xviii 17) and take “vengeance on the king’s enemies” (v. 25). 

5. Th e reference to the battle in the Elah Valley, in which David played a 

decisive role in the victory over the Philistines: To remind Achish of David’s 

popularity in Israel and of the danger he poses to the Philistines, the commanders 

quote the praises of David sung all over Israel: “Remember, he is the 

David of whom they sang as they danced: ‘Saul has slain his thousands; 

David, his tens of thousands’” (1 Sam. xxix 5). Of course the commanders do 

not state so outright, but readers are well aware that those thousands and ten 

thousands slain by David, in the song they quote, are none other than the 

Philistines themselves, and that the song in question was composed aft er 

David had fought against Goliath and the Philistines in the Elah Valley 

(1 Sam. xviii 7). 25 

Th e story of the Gilboa campaign resembles that of the Elah Valley in several 

ways. In both cases the Philistines initiated the hostilities; in both we 

read of the preparations for the battle and of the disposition of the opposing 

camps (1 Sam. xvii 1-3, 21; xxviii 4). On both occasions Saul’s fear of the 

Philistines is emphasized (1 Sam. xvii 11, 32; xxviii 5). In both wars David 

asks the king (Saul in the former case, Achish in the latter) for permission to 

take part in the battle and tries to convince him of his suitability for this 

(1 Sam. xvii 32, 34-37; xxix 8). Th e doubts about David’s military abilities 

cause his request to do battle with Goliath to be refused initially (1 Sam. xvii 33). 

25) Cf. F. Stolz, Das Erste und Zweite Buch Samuel (ZBK 9; Zürich, 1981), p. 176. I do not, 

however, accept his assertion (ibid.), shared by Stoebe (Das Erste Buch Samuelis, 

p. 502), that since in the end David is released from service and sent away, the question of what 

he would have done if he had been forced to participate in the battle is out of place. Stolz 

maintains that this is a “typically modern question,” but I see no reason to assume that modern 

readers are any different than ancient readers and listeners in such matters. It is only natural 

that a question associated with the extend of David’s loyalty to the king of Israel and the people 

of Israel would also engage the ancient audience for the story.


Th e suspicions about David’s loyalty to the Philistines cause his request to 

join the war against the enemies of “my lord the king” to be rejected once and 

for all (1 Sam. xxix 9-10). In the Elah Valley David saved Israel from 

the Philistines in what seemed to be a hopeless situation: he found a way to 

defeat the terrifying Goliath, killed him, and cut off his head. Th e Philistines, 

seeing their hero dead, fled for their lives (1 Sam. xvii 49-53). Th e Philistine 

commanders’ reference to this less-than-glorious chapter in Philistine history 

on the eve of the battle on Mount Gilboa is a hint that if David is allowed to 

fight on that field, he would repeat his youthful exploit and save his people 

and king from the Philistines. As Achish’s bodyguard he will be well positioned 

to kill him (as the commanders argue), thereby demoralizing the Philistine 

camp and setting off a panic-stricken rout. 26 

6. Achish’s characterization as a naïve if not indeed foolish monarch: 

From the very beginning of the relationship between Achish and David, the 

Hebrew leads the Philistine by the nose. Achish is delighted to accept unquestioned 

David’s report about his ostensible raids into Judahite territory. He 

benefits from the spoils that David brings him and never stops to ask himself 

why he has never received from David any human booty in the form of 

Hebrew slaves. David is lucky that he is never asked to present his patron 

with one hundred circumcised Hebrew organs. . . . Th us Achish bases his 

opinion of David on the false intelligence that David provides him: “Achish 

trusted David. He thought: ‘He has aroused the wrath of his own people 

Israel, and so he will be my vassal forever’” (1 Sam. xxvii 12). 

When Achish informs David that he must march with him to the battle 

against Israel, he is not sensitive enough to register the ambiguity of David’s 

reply, “You surely know what your servant will do” and rewards David for his 

‘loyalty’: “I will appoint you my bodyguard (çar rmwç O , lit. guard/keeper of my 

head ) for life” (1 Sam. xxviii 2). 27 It is hard to miss the irony of his appointment 

to such a sensitive and important position. David, it will be remembered, 

in the past had ‘kept the head’ of another Philistine, he too from Gath 

(1 Sam. xvii 54), but only aft er cutting it off. 28 David’s post as the “keeper of 

26) Similar to the story of Judith who killed Holofernes, causing the Assyrian army besieging 

Bethulia to flee (xv 1-3). On the importance of killing high-ranking commanders, see the 

instructions issued by the king of Aram, 1 Kings xxii 31. 

27) Contrary to the view that Achish appointed David to serve as his bodyguard precisely 

because he was not certain of his loyalty and wanted to keep an eye on him. For the possibility 

of reading the story this way, see J. Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel (NCB; London, 1971) p. 179; 

Alter, The David Story, p. 171. 

28) Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, p. 263.


Achish’s head” reverberates in the Philistine commanders’ allegation that 

David will appease “his master” Saul with “the heads of these men” (1 Sam. 

xxix 4)—meaning themselves and Achish. 

Fokkelman showed that the structure of the scene of David’s appointment 

as Achish’s bodyguard in xxviii 1-2 resembles that of the scene in xxvii 8-12, 

where we read that David deceived Achish about the targets of his raids. 

Both scenes deal with a war (spurious or real) against Israel that is a test for 

David. David follows a wily path, and Achish expresses his confidence in 

David and plans (once in his thoughts, once out loud) to keep him nearby for 

an unlimited term: “He will be my vassal forever” (1 Sam. xxvii 12); “I will 

appoint you my bodyguard for life” (1 Sam. xxviii 2). 29 

To this we may add the verbal echo between the two scenes that sharpens 

the irony in the stillborn appointment: Achish’s intention to make David his 

bodyguard μymyh lb “forever” (1 Sam. xxviii 2) is an ironic echo of David’s 

custom of raiding and exterminating the autochthonous tribes and lying to 

Achish about it μymyh lb “as long as he stayed in the territory of the Philistines” 

(1 Sam. xxvii 11). In addition, David’s response to Achish’s order to 

march against Saul, “You surely know what your servant will do” (1 Sam. xxviii 2) 

echoes “David did this” (1 Sam. xxvii 11). 

Achish’s naïveté is manifested again when he attempts to defend David 

against the Philistine commanders’ suspicions: “Why, that’s David, the servant 

of King Saul of Israel. [. . .] He has been with me for a year or more, and 

I have found no fault in him from the day he defected until now” (1 Sam. 

xxix 3). Evidently he is not sensitive to the contradiction between his description 

of David as Saul’s servant and the full confidence he expresses in David’s 

allegiance to himself. Achish is right, though he does not know it, when he 

describes David as the servant of Saul; but of course he is dead wrong in his 

belief that there has been nothing blameworthy in David’s conduct throughout 

the period he has been in his service (an evaluation he repeats to David 

in verse 6). As we have seen, this evaluation is based on David’s false reports 

to Achish. On the other hand, certainly no fault can be found in David’s 

conduct toward Saul, as David in fact tells the latter (1 Sam. xxiv 12; 

xxvi 18). Were this not enough, the narrator brings Achish’s high regard of 

David to the point of absurdity when the monarch, attempting to mollify 

David, states, “As the Lord lives, you are an honest man” (1 Sam. xxix 6) and 

“You are as acceptable to me as an angel of God” (v. 9). Calling the cunning 

29) Fokkelman, The Books of Samuel, p. 566.


David (see 1 Sam. xxiii 22) an honest man and comparing him to an angel 

of God are no great recommendation for the Philistine king’s powers of 

discernment. 30 Steussy notes the irony of this flattering image, especially if we 

recall that the only angel of God who actually appears in the book of Samuel 

is the angel who destroys the people in the pestilence (2 Sam. xxiv 15-17). 31 

When Achish tells David, “it seems right that you should march out and 

come in with me in the campaign” (1 Sam. xxix 6 [RSV modified]), the monarch 

is unaware of the irony association between his words and what was said 

of David when he fought with such success in Saul’s army and was the darling 

of all Israel: “But all Israel and Judah loved David; for he marched out and 

came in before them” (1 Sam. xviii 16 [RSV modified]). 32 

Achish’s characterization as a crowned fool severely undercuts the reliability 

of his evaluation of David’s loyalty to him. 

7. Th e realistic presentation of the Philistine commanders’ evaluation of 

David: Unlike Achish’s evaluation, the Philistine commanders’ is based on 

solid facts drawn from David’s past as a foe who has caused the Philistines 

heavy losses, and not the expression of heartfelt desires and thralldom to 

David’s personal charm. 33 Th ey counter Achish’s reference to David as an 

angel of God (1 Sam. xxix 9) with the logical assertion that David will prove 

to be “our adversary (ˆfç) in battle” (1 Sam. xxix 4), deserting to the Israeli 

side and appeasing Saul with the gift of Philistine heads (certainly including 

that of Achish, whom David is to guard). Th ere is a precedent for the nightmare 

scenario suggested by the Philistine commanders in an earlier campaign, 

when the Philistines’ Hebrew auxiliaries deserted to the Israelite side at the 

battle near Michmas (1 Sam. xiv 21). It is quite plausible that the Philistine 

commanders are remembering that traumatic event when they refuse to permit 

Hebrew troops to participate in the battle against Israel. 34 

Note that the Philistine commanders are suspicious of David even though 

they, too, are not aware of the true picture; they are no more aware than Achish 

of the double game David has been playing while resident in Ziklag, demonstrating 

his allegiance to his own people, whom he never attacks, and 

30) Cf. ibid., p. 575; R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic 

History (San Francisco, 1989), pp. 216-217; Campbell, 1 Samuel, p. 285. 

31) M. J. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power (Columbia, 1999), p. 78. 

32) As was noted by Fokkelman, The Books of Samuel, p. 575. 

33) Cf. R. P. Gordon, 1 & II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1986), p. 197. 

34) Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, p. 184; Fokkelman, The Books of Samuel, pp. 568, 571; Gordon, 

1 & II Samuel, p. 197.


disloyalty to Achish, whom he deceives. If the Philistine commanders believe 

that David is still loyal to Saul, despite this critical lack of knowledge, how 

much more so should readers, who do have this vital information, reach the 

same conclusion. 

8. Th e analogy between 1 Sam. xxix and 1 Sam. xxi 11-16: 35 Th e argument 

that Achish is naïve and that the Philistine commanders’ evaluation of 

David is reliable is buttressed by the analogy between chapter xxix and xxi 

11-16. Th e plot, structure, and language of the two passages resemble one 

another. Both scenes involve two contrasting evaluations of David, one by 

Achish’s courtiers and the other by Achish himself. In Chapter xxi the two 

opposing opinions have to do with David’s identity: Is the refugee really 

David the “king of the land”, who decimated the Philistines, as Achish’s servants 

maintain (xxi 12)? Or is he only some crazy fool, as Achish counters 

(xxi 15-16)? In Chapter xxix the dispute revolves around David’s inner nature 

loyalty. Is David the Hebrew a faithful subject of Saul and the eternal bane of 

the Philistines, who will be their undoing if he is allowed on the battlefield, 

as the commanders maintain (xxix 3, 4-5)? Or has he renounced his fealty to 

Saul and accepted Achish as his suzerain, as the latter maintains (xxix 3)? 

Th ere are both thematic and linguistic links between the two chapters, for 

Achish’s courtiers/commanders advance the same argument in both. In 

Chapter xxi they say, “Is not this David, the king of the land? Did they not 

sing to one another of him, in the dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and 

David his ten thousands’?” (v. 12 [RSV 11, modified]). Th ey repeat this 

almost word for word in Chapter xxix: “Is not this David, of whom they sang 

to one another in the dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten 

thousands’?” (v. 5 [RSV modified]). 36 

Th e parallels between the two chapters must suggest to readers that just as 

the courtiers were correct in Chapter xxi and Achish was misled by David’s 

feigned insanity, so too in Chapter xxix the Philistine commanders are correct 

and the naïve Achish is again being deceived by David’s feigned loyalty. 

35) For a synchronic literary reading of these chapters, which notes the positive development 

of David’s character in contrast to the deterioration in Saul’s, see Klein, “Davids Flucht zu den 

Philistern”, pp. 176-84. 

36) Achish, too, begins his answer with the same form of rhetorical question (reflected in the 

RSV but not the more idiomatic NJPS quoted above for this verse): “Is not this David, the 

servant of Saul, king of Israel” (1 Sam. xxix 3). Th us far he speaks the truth, just as the Philistine 

officers do. Th e continuation, that he has found no fault with David since the day he 

defected, is factually true (Achish has indeed found no fault with David); of course, it says 

nothing about David’s loyalty to Achish but only about his ability to lead the latter by the nose.


9. Th ere is also an interesting correspondence between Achish and Saul. 

As Bergen noted, “a study of the author’s portrayal of the Philistine king suggests 

that Achish was intended to serve simultaneously as a type and a foil for 

Saul”. 37 Both kings appoint David to a post that requires physical proximity 

to the monarch: Saul as his armor bearer, that is, his aide-de-camp (1 Sam. xvi 21); 

Achish, as his bodyguard (1 Sam. xxviii 2). Both gave him a military position: 

Saul named him commander of a thousand (1 Sam. xviii 13); Achish 

intended for David to accompany him in his battle against Israel (1 Sam. 

xxviii 1). In the end, however, both kings discharged David from their service 

and the ranks of the army. Most important of all, for us, is that both monarchs 

were totally mistaken in their evaluation of David’s loyalty. But their 

misconceptions were mirror images of each other: Saul viewed David as his 

bitter enemy, when in fact David was loyal to him; Achish thought David 

was his faithful vassal, when in fact David deceived him, remained loyal to 

Saul and Israel, and posed a serious threat to Achish. To Bergen’s fine aperçu 

we may add that the evaluation of David by the two kings’ courtiers com - 

plete the picture. In both cases the courtiers’ view of David is diametrically 

opposed to their masters’: the people and Saul’s courtiers esteem David 

(1 Sam. xviii 5) while the Philistine commanders, Achish’s courtiers, dislike 

and distrust him (1 Sam. xxix). Just as both monarchs were mistaken about 

David (one of them excessively suspicious, the other overly trusting), their 

courtiers correctly saw where David’s loyalty truly lay. 

IV. Conclusion 

Whereas most Bible scholars believe that David faced a cruel dilemma when 

Achish asked him to join the battle against Saul, for the biblical narrator the 

situation may be delicate, but there is no dilemma: David never even considered 

the possibility of fighting against Saul and Israel. Th e narrator provides 

many hints that had David not been released from the army, at the urging of 

the Philistine commanders, he would have turned his arms against Achish 

and fought for Saul, just as they allege. 

We cannot really know what David felt when Achish sent him back to 

Ziklag. Perhaps he was relieved that he had been spared from having to turn 

against his patron, an act of treachery that would end his ability to find 

37) Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, p. 272. Cf. B. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study 

of King Saul in 1 Samuel (JSOTSS 365; Sheffield, 2003), pp. 423-424.


asylum in Philistia. If so, we must read David’s complaint that Achish distrusts 

him (1 Sam. xxix 8) as the pretense of someone who knows that the 

decision to exclude him from the battle has already been taken and that nothing 

he says will change it. 38 On the other hand, perhaps David wanted to be 

present at the battle so that he could turn against the Philistines, bring victory 

to Israel, and thereby restore his relations with Saul, as the Philistine 

commanders maintain; 39 if so, his sincere attempt to persuade Achish to 

change his mind fails. 

In either case, his dismissal proved opportune, as he must have realized 

when he returned to Ziklag and discovered what had happened there in his 

absence (1 Sam. xxx). 40 But in addition to the short-term relief for himself 

and his men—rescuing their wives and children who had been captured and 

led away by the Amalekites—David’s absence from the battle was necessary 

for the realization of the divine plan, as announced by Samuel to Saul: Israel’s 

defeat by the Philistines and the fall of the House of Saul, on the one hand, 

and the advent of the kingdom of David, on the other (1 Sam. xxviii 16-19). 

Many scholars see David’s dismissal by Achish (1 Sam. xxix) and his war 

against the Amalekites immediately thereaft er (1 Sam. xxx) as apologetic 

tales intended to provide David with an alibi and make it clear that he had no 

part in the Israelites’ defeat and Saul’s death, since he was far from the 

battlefield. Perhaps, though, these incidents do just the opposite and are 

meant as an apologia for David’s failure to participate in the battle against 

the enemies of his lord the king, Saul, and turn against the Philistines, as the 

Israelites might have hoped and as the Philistine commanders expected and 

feared he would. Th ese stories make it clear that circumstances beyond 

David’s control (though absolutely in the control of God, who pulls the 

strings) sent him far away from the battlefield and prevented him from realizing 

his plan to serve as a fift h column in the Philistine army and save Saul 

and Israel. 

38) Th is is the predominant view in the literature. Most scholars hold that David was relieved 

because he would not have to fight against Saul and Israel or because he was freed of the 

dilemma of what he should do during the battle and to whom he should be loyal. As I have 

attempted to show here, this question does not exist for the biblical narrator. 

39) Th is possibility is considered by McCarter, I Samuel, p. 427; Gordon, 1 & II Samuel, 

p. 198. 

40) As noted by Gordon, 1 & II Samuel, p. 198.

David in the Service of King Achish of Gath: Renegade to His ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?