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

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