Deeper Commentary

1Sa 29:1 The Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek, and the Israelites encamped by the spring in Jezreel-
"The spring in Jezreel" is now thought to be the fountain at Ain Jalut, "Goliath's fountain", regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath. This would have heightened the connections with that battle, and highlighted the absence of David and Samuel; see on 1 Sam. 28:4, which also presents this battle in the same terms as that with Goliath.

Other battles had been fought on or near the plain of Esdraelon. Here Deborah and Barak defeated the host of Sisera (Jud. 4:15; 5:21). And here was where Gideon’s 300 defeated hordes of Midanites. These similarities were to remind Saul that victory against a vastly superior force was totally possible. He had earlier imitated Gideon and now he was invited to really do so. At the same time, David was leaving behind some of his soldiers in preparing to fight the Amalekites, just as Gideon did. Again we see David and Saul in parallel. They were both invited to follow Gideon's example of faith in victory through a minority. Only David responded positively to this.

In 1 Sam. 28 we have seen Saul in a dilemma, and he isn't helped out of it- because he is impenitent, fundamentally. Now we have David in a dilemma. And he is saved from it. He and Saul sinned about the same, perhaps David moreso. But sin itself isn't the issue. It's man's dealing with it in humility that matters. And so David was preferred over Saul. The king of Israel was called to save Israel from the Philistines (1 Sam. 9:16 "anoint him to be prince over My people Israel, and he will save My people out of the hand of the Philistines"). But it had always been David who had done this- Saul had failed in this regarding Goliath and the liberation of Keilah. Now the Philistines again threatened Israel, and it was the duty of Israel's king to save Israel from the Philistines. Even at this late stage, Saul should have recognized that it was not for him to lead Israel in battle against the Philistines, seeing he had been twice rejected as king, and David was the king God had chosen. What should Saul have done? Desperately beg David to come and be king and lead Israel. But he refused to accept God's word about him right until the end. It was all about him... and not about God's glory and the salvation of His Israel.

The mention of Aphek, not far north of Philistine territory, compares with how in 1 Sam. 28:5, the Philistines are already at Shunem, close to Mount Gilboa where they would fight with Saul. The material in 1 Sam. 29 is backtracking. So when David was dismissed from the Philistine army, they were only at Aphek and had some marching to do before coming to Shunem. So at the point when Saul meets the medium, David is already free from the Philistines and potentially available to Saul. Even at that late point, he could perhaps have resigned the kingship to David and asked for his military help, which may have defeated the Philistines. For the king of Israel was to defeat the Philistines, and by accepting David as that king, Saul may yet have been saved.  

"The spring in Jezreel" was likely the “spring of Harod” at which Gideon tested his men (Jud. 7:1). I have noted earlier that Saul had previously imitated Gideon, externally but not in spirit. Possibly the connection with the spring was to desperately seek to remind Saul, even at this late hour, that victory could be given to a far smaller group by God- if they totally trusted in Him as Gideon had. God's patient nudging of Saul towards true faith is amazing to perceive- and it went on right to the end of his life, right to the last day of that life. Just as God works oftentimes with man today.

 
1Sa 29:2 The lords of the Philistines marched on in units of hundreds and thousands, and David and his men marched in the rear with Achish-
The marching was northwards from Gaza / Gath to the area of Mount Gilboa in the north of the land. Marching in the rear as the vanguard was a place of trust (Is. 52:12). We are left to imagine what desperate plans were going through David's mind. He didn't want to fight his own people, he who had been so careful not to kill Saul. Achish was at the rear, out of danger's way. It appears David was already his personal bodyguard, so David would have been desperately praying that the Philistines would win and he would not be required to fight; or for some Divine intervention to save him. He of course should have done the honest thing and refused to fight. But having failed to do so, he was now in a very compromised situation. It was only by grace that he was saved from it. We have likely experienced such situations ourselves.

1Sa 29:3 Then the lords of the Philistines said, What about these Hebrews?-
This was the grace of Divine intervention. As discussed on :2, David got into it by his own weakness of faith. But God saved him from it now at the last minute by an unforeseen situation. The Philistines refused to have David and his men anywhere near the battle.

Achish said, Isn’t this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, who has been with me these days, or rather these years, and I have so far found no fault in him?-
Achish seems to have been the sole supporter of David amongst the Philistines. Quite why he had this strange sympathy for David, even making him his personal bodyguard, is not explained. Clearly God's Spirit was at work giving this man an unusual attitude towards David. His idea was that David had once been Saul's servant but now was hated by him, and therefore David could be counted on as surely being against Saul. Achish failed to understand the love and grace which David had practiced toward Saul.

"Been with me" is AV "since he fell unto me", in the sense of deserting to his side (as in 1 Chron. 12:19). Achish presents as having totally fallen for David's fake narrative. 

 
1Sa 29:4 But the princes of the Philistines were angry with him and said to him, Send the man back to the place you have appointed for him-
Presumably they refer to Ziklag, perhaps not without a hint of resentment and disagreement that Achish personally had appointed this place for David and his men.

He must not go down with us to battle, in case he turns against us during the fighting-
The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in 1 Sam. 29:4 ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam. 19:22), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word.

How better could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord-
Achish chose to interpret the fallout between Saul and David as meaning that David would be loyal to him and not Saul. But his commanders argued the other way. "This fellow" reflects their deep dislike of David.

Than with the heads of these men?-
They recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (1 Sam. 17:57). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in Jud. 7:25; 2 Sam. 4:8; 16:9; 20:21; 2 Kings 10:6-8. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout. 

1Sa 29:5 Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands?’-
"Sang" is present tense "sing". The song about David having slain ten thousands of the Philistines was probably a battle song amongst the Hebrews, encouraging themselves by remembering previous victories against the Philistines. It was bizarre that Achish could be so taken in by David's narrative, but here we have an example of how God's Spirit can work in a man's mind.

If indeed Saul reigned literally 40 years (Acts 13:21), this celebration would have been quite some time previously. But the memory of that great humiliation was still very much alive amongst the rank and file of the Philistines. Achish seems so out of touch with these feelings that we wonder if he was himself actually a Philistine, or some non-Philistine who had taken power.

1Sa 29:6 So Achish called David and said to him, As Yahweh lives-
I have noted several times that the favour of Achish towards David was most unusual, and out of step with the feelings of the Philistine people in Gath, home town of Goliath. Here he swears by Yahweh [and you only swore by your own god in those times], and so we wonder whether he had been converted to David's God; hence his particular grace toward David. But David had lied to him repeatedly in giving the impression he had been attacking the Israelites, when in fact he had been massacring various non Israelite settlements. So in this case, Achish came to the one true God through the witness of one of His followers who was not of integrity before Him. This would then be a parade example of where truth must triumph over personalities and the bad advertisement for God given by some of His most apparently devoted followers. If Achish was in fact a quiet worshipper of Yahweh, this would explain his otherwise inexplicable favour towards David.

 

You have been upright and your conduct with me in the army has been good in my sight; I have not found evil in you since the day you came to me till this day. But the lords don’t approve of you-
This estimation however was based upon David's inveterate lying to him, and David massacring whole settlements lest a single person should survive to tell Achish what was really going on. We wonder how Achish felt afterwards, when he realized how badly he had been deceived; and whether he retained his faith in Yahweh by whom he has just sworn. But "till this day" could be Achish responding to David's double speak, by likewise hinting that David had previously been "good in my sight" until "this day"- when now, David was not good any longer.

1Sa 29:7 Therefore now return and go in peace; do not displease the lords of the Philistines-
To "return in peace" was a phrase sometimes used of returning from a military conflict in victory (Josh. 10;21; Jud. 8:9; 11:31; 1 Kings 22:28). Perhaps Achish is saying that he knows David wants victory, but he as it were grants this to him. David can be the victor without having to fight. 

And so David was saved from a terrible hole which he himself had dug, by Divine grace alone. Just as happened the previous time he fled to Gath. And yet all this happens at a time when David has been incredibly weak in faith by living with the Philistines and murdering so many people to cover his lies to Achish.

1Sa 29:8 David said to Achish, But what have I done? What have you found against your servant all the time I have been with you to this day, that I may not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?-
This is one of those statements which is left purposefully unclear as to its import, so that we can reflect upon it. There may be no correct answer; it is left for our imagination. David may have been gasping thankfulness to God at the deliverance from his hard situation, and just went along with the appearance he had given of being supportive of the Philistines by making this insincere protest. In this case, this was hardly an example of the “integrity” and “uprightness” which David glorifies in his Psalms, and which he insisted he was full of (Ps. 25:21). Indeed he claims that his integrity is the basis of his acceptance by God (Ps. 26:1).

Or it could be that David evidently wanted to fight against Saul alongside the men of Achish, but planned to turn against them and fight for Saul, sandwiching the Philistines between the Hebrews- as they correctly guessed. This would have been suicidal. For Saul wanted to kill him, and the Philistines also would have tried to kill David as a result of this. He would have had no place to run. But even to the point of political suicide and the serious risking of his own life, David so loved Saul his enemy. This true love leads to and is related to true respect. This kind of respect is  sadly lacking in our society, and has rubbed off upon our relationships within families and ecclesias. But whether all of his 600 men were equally convinced to take this huge risk is unclear. We note that David elsewhere often uses the phrase "my lord the king" to refer to Saul. If indeed David intended to turn against the Philistines and support Saul in a pincer operation against them, Saul could have still won the battle of Gilboa. But Saul didn't repent nor accept David as king, even in the last days of his life. Had he done so, the pincer operation David planned would have happened, Saul's life would have been spared, and he could then have proclaimed David as king. And been finally saved. We see how God tries to give men salvation right to the end of their days.

1Sa 29:9 Achish answered David, I know that you have been pleasing to me, as an angel of God, nevertheless the princes of the Philistines have said, ‘He must not go up with us to the battle’-
Achish clearly felt David was God's representative to him, and thereby had come to accept Yahweh as his God (:6). "Been pleasing" or 'blameless' / 'good', is the same word used of how David was more "blameless / good" than Saul  and so he had been chosen as king (1 Sam. 15:28). One theme of the narrative here is the replacement of Saul by David. And yet David was hardly "good" at this time, what with murdering all the Bedouins in their encampments, lying to Achish etc. Perhaps the idea is that just as Achish naively saw David as "good", God imputed righteousness and likewise saw a 'not good' David as "good". On the basis of counting him righteous because of his faith.

1Sa 29:10 Now get up early in the morning with the servants of your lord who have come with you, and depart as soon as it is light-
Achish seems to be saying that David's men were his servants, and is reminding him that he was David's "lord". Perhaps he too was slightly jittery about the whole idea of David's men coming to the battle. But probably by "your lord" he refers to Saul. For this is the context of :4 "How better could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord?". He would then be hitting back at David's ambiguous statement that he is ready to serve "my lord the king" (:8), without defining who that lord was, and having used the phrase often about Saul in the past. So it may well be that Achish presents as a naive ruler who easily changes his mind- for now he seems persuaded by his military commanders. So many kings are presented in the Biblical record like this, as naieve and fickle. This can be the result of absolute power and wealth. We may well ask why God allowed this whole scenario, with Achish believing David until the last minute and then changing his mind. Surely it was to bring David to his knees, begging God for a way out of what seemed an impossible situation, just as he had with Achish in Gath in 1 Sam. 21.

1Sa 29:11 So David got up early, he and his men, to depart in the morning to return to the land of the Philistines, and the Philistines went up to Jezreel-
Ziklag was considered to be in the land of the Philistines (:4). There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (Gen. 19:27; 21:14; 22:3); Jacob (Gen. 28:18); Job (1:5); Moses (Ex. 8:20; 9:13; 24:4; 34:4); Joshua (Josh. 3:1; 6:12; 7:16; 8:10); Gideon (Jud. 6:38; 7:1); Samuel (1 Sam. 15:12); David (1 Sam. 17:20; 29:11); Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:35; 2 Chron. 29:20). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (Ps. 127:2; Pr. 27:14; Song 7:12; Is. 5:11; Zeph. 3:7). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (2 Chron. 36:15; Jer. 7:13,25; 11:7; 25:3,4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14,15; 44:4). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.