17.01.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

78 Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90<br />

<strong>David</strong> said <strong>to</strong> himself, “Some day I shall certa<strong>in</strong>ly perish at <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> Saul.<br />

Th e best th<strong>in</strong>g for me is <strong>to</strong> flee <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> land <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Philist<strong>in</strong>es; Saul will <strong>the</strong>n give<br />

up hunt<strong>in</strong>g me throughout <strong>the</strong> terri<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Israel, and I will escape him”. 14<br />

Jobl<strong>in</strong>g attributes great importance <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>David</strong> says this only <strong>to</strong><br />

himself (lit. <strong>to</strong> his heart). He takes this as a sign <strong>of</strong> its trustworth<strong>in</strong>ess, because<br />

<strong>David</strong> would not be ly<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> himself. I agree with Jobl<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal<br />

monologue provides reliable <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>David</strong>’s thoughts, but it conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />

no more than it states: <strong>David</strong> decided <strong>to</strong> flee <strong>to</strong> Philistia <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong><br />

escape from Saul. We cannot <strong>in</strong>fer from it that ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>David</strong> or <strong>the</strong> narra<strong>to</strong>r<br />

has given up <strong>the</strong> vision that <strong>David</strong> and his descendants will rule Israel, and<br />

certa<strong>in</strong>ly not that <strong>David</strong> may later be will<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> fight on <strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Philist<strong>in</strong>es<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st his own people. Ano<strong>the</strong>r argument put forward by Rob<strong>in</strong>son<br />

and Jobl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir read<strong>in</strong>gs that <strong>David</strong> was s<strong>in</strong>cere about serv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>Achish</strong> ( Jobl<strong>in</strong>g) or faced a harsh dilemma (Rob<strong>in</strong>son) is that <strong>the</strong> broader<br />

context is at variance with <strong>the</strong> idea that <strong>David</strong> would defect <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Israelite<br />

side dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> battle. Had Saul and <strong>David</strong> survived <strong>the</strong> battle, asks Jobl<strong>in</strong>g,<br />

“where could <strong>the</strong> s<strong>to</strong>ry go <strong>the</strong>n?”. 15 Rob<strong>in</strong>son even argues that if <strong>David</strong> had<br />

deserted <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Israelites dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> battle, ensur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> defeat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Philist<strong>in</strong>es,<br />

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

been realized. 16<br />

We must dist<strong>in</strong>guish, however, between <strong>David</strong>’s <strong>in</strong>tentions and those <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> s<strong>to</strong>ry about him, as well as between <strong>David</strong>’s <strong>in</strong>tentions and <strong>the</strong> consequences<br />

<strong>of</strong> his actions. <strong>David</strong> could have been <strong>to</strong>tally s<strong>in</strong>cere <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>tention<br />

<strong>to</strong> desert <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Israelite camp dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> battle, whe<strong>the</strong>r motivated by deepseated<br />

loyalty <strong>to</strong> Israel and Saul or by o<strong>the</strong>r reasons, some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m utilitarian.<br />

Samuel’s announcement <strong>to</strong> Saul <strong>of</strong> his and Israel’s doom <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> impend<strong>in</strong>g<br />

battle, <strong>of</strong> which <strong>David</strong> is not aware, cannot be part <strong>of</strong> <strong>David</strong>’s considerations<br />

about his conduct dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> battle. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> logic <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>to</strong>ry does<br />

mandate that <strong>David</strong> be removed from <strong>the</strong> battlefield. Th is is precisely what<br />

happens, <strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e plan and <strong>in</strong> <strong>to</strong>tal isolation from<br />

<strong>David</strong>’s <strong>in</strong>tentions and desires. “Many designs are <strong>in</strong> a man’s m<strong>in</strong>d, but it is<br />

<strong>the</strong> Lord’s plan that is accomplished” (Prov. xix 21).<br />

14) Jobl<strong>in</strong>g, 1 Samuel, pp. 234, 238; idem, “<strong>David</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Philist<strong>in</strong>es”, p. 83.<br />

15) Ibid., p. 82.<br />

16) G. Rob<strong>in</strong>son, Let Us Be Like <strong>the</strong> Nations: A Commentary on <strong>the</strong> Books <strong>of</strong> 1 and 2 Samuel<br />

(Grand Rapids, 1993), p. 145.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!