The stories in 1 Samuel 28-29 are out of chronological order. The dischronologization serves both a literary and theological/ethic purpose.
How do we know the stories are out of order? The geographical and chronological details make it clear that the events of chapter 29 actually happened before the events of chapter 28. The writer has actually telegraphed this to us without stating it explicitly. The sequence of events is not supposed to a secret or mystery.
In chapter 28, Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would die tomorrow, so Saul’s visit to the witch took place on the eve of the battle at Mount Gilboa. That battle is recorded in chapter 31.
We know from 28:4 that the Philistines were gathered initially in Shunem; by the start of chapter 29, they have moved far to to the south, to Aphek. That’s where Achish and David join them. By the time Saul goes to the witch, everything recorded in chapter 29 has already happened. This means that as Saul traveled from where his army was to Endor, he skirted right past the Philistine army; he had seen firsthand what he would be up against, contributing to his response of fear.
Further, putting together the chronology suggests that the victory David wins over the Amalekites in chapter 30 happened simultaneously with Saul’s defeat to the Philistines in chapter 31. The two battles in the last two chapters of the book are concurrent. David’s smashing triumph coincides with Saul’s tragic death.
Now, we are getting even further ahead of ourselves here, but let me go ahead and connect some dots with a little more of a preview of what’s to come. David will get back to Ziklag, discover the Amalekites have taken his wives hostage, and burned the city. David and some of his men go in pursuit of the Amalekites and defeat them. When David returns to Ziklag with plunder to share, he gets news that Saul has died. The joy of victory is tempered by the grief of loss. 1 Samuel opens with Hannah’s son; 2 Samuel closes with a psalm of David; in the middle, in 2 Samuel 1, we have another song, as David laments the passing of Saul and Jonathan.
Why would a trustworthy, indeed inspired and inerrant, historian like the author of 1 Samuel tell these stories out of order? Again, there is a literary purpose and a theological/ethic purpose.
Literarily, it makes for great storytelling. The author lets suspense build in chapter 27. He gives us a to-be-continued cliffhanger. When God has brought David through so many narrow escapes, how can anyone doubt God is with him? His last minute salvation, strangely accomplished by angry and suspicious Philistine lords, just further emphasizes that David is the right man for the throne. The text highlights David’s secret but deep loyalty to Israel even when most of Israel was arrayed against him, even when he was living amongst friendly Philistines.
But there is also a theological/ethic purpose. The switching back and forth between David and Saul is not just so we will see the story from each of their perspectives. It’s not even so we will see that each man has his own dilemma to solve. It’s so that we can compare and contrast the two men.
All throughout Scripture, there are two ways/paths. The whole book of Proverbs sets these two paths side by side. “There is way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” That’s the path Saul chose. But there is also the way of wisdom, the way of trusting and obeying God, that leads to life and blessedness. That’s the path David chooses. The fool and wise man of Proverbs are being set before us in this part of 1 Samuel.
The Sermon on the Mount, especially the final chapter, is all about these two ways – the broad way that leads to destruction and the narrow way that leads to salvation. Either your sin or your faith is growing at all times. You are traveling one path or the other. Again, Saul and David represent these two ways.
We should always be asking ourselves: Which path am I on? Which way am I traveling? Am I a David or a Saul?
—
In Achish’s first speech to David, he lavishes praise on David. This is interesting not only because he is praising a man who has been deceiving him; he seals the praise with an oath in YHWH’s name (the special covenant name of God).
Some take this as a sign that David evangelized and converted Achish, even as he was deceiving Achish. Achish, like many other Gentiles in the OT, including Gentiles kings, became a God-fearer. I certainly think that’s possible.
It’s interesting that the Jewish king (Saul) is hostile to David, while the Gentile king (Achish) welcomes him with open arms. Typologically, this foreshadows the kind of dual reception the preaching of the gospel receives in the apostolic period.
No doubt, Achish was deeply impressed with David as a man, a warrior, a leader. And because he was impressed with David the man, he was impressed with David’s God. At the very least, Achish honors David’s God; it’s entirely plausible that he came to trust in David’s God as the supreme God.
God is only mentioned two times in this chapter and both of them are by Achish. He swears to David in YHWH’s name, and later on calls David an “Angel of God.” (Since the Philistines are basically Egyptians, there’s a good chance he knew stories of how the Angel of the Lord led the Israelites out of Egypt and to the promised land. Achish is basically calling David a theophany, a appearance of God, or a messenger of God. These connections could also explain why the Israelites are referred to as “Hebrews” in this chapter; it’s recalling the exodus narrative, when the same label is applied to Abraham’s descendants.)
Whatever the case with all these details, it’s noteworthy that from this time on, the king of Gath seems to have a special, and friendly, relationship with the house of David. See, e.g., 1 Kings 2:29ff. Later, when God pronounces judgment on the Philistines, only 4 of the 5 Philistine cities get named – Gath is notably absent from these declarations of judgment (Amos 1, Zechariah 9). It seems that Gath gets special treatment after this Achish/David bond forms in 1 Samuel 27, 29.
—
Whatever we think of David’s initial response when Achish tells him that the other Philistine lords will not allow him to join the fighting, he must have certainly breathed a sigh of relief. Whether his protestations were sincere (in that he really did want to fight – precisely so he could launch a surprise attack on the Philistines from behind enemy lines) or part of the ruse (to keep the deception going), he had to be happy to know he was out of the jam he gotten into.
—
Most of this chapter is either Achish speaking glowing words of praise to David or defending David’s honor to the other Philistine lords.
Frankly, it’s hard to not like Achish. He may not been too bright but he certainly seems likable. It’s a shame he had to wrong for the wrong team, so to speak.
—
Oddly enough, David is loyal to Saul despite Saul’s treachery, and Achish is loyal to David despite David’s deception (which obviously Achish does not know about). David is doing what he has to do to navigate a terribly difficult situation. His deception is righteous under the circumstances.
But note: The Gentile king Achish is far more righteous in his treatment of David than the Israelite king Saul is. Achish is more noble than Saul.
—
It might come down to the wire, but God always beats the clock. 1 Samuel 29 is a good example.
—
Now that we are almost finished with 1 Samuel, it’s good time to provide some bibliography. Peter Leithart’s and Tim Chester’s commentaries have been helpful. Both are very concise, but provide plenty of insight into the text. Leithart excels in making biblical-theological connections; Chester is very helpful for preaching. Leithart is a good summation of Jim Jordan’s recorded lectures on 1-2 Samuel, but Leithart goes down some rabbit trails of his own. Gordon Keddie and John Woodbridge have been less helpful, especially later in 1 Samuel. Doug Wilson’s sermon series has been useful; he usually follows Leithart, but adds his own touches (and I borrowed some of them this past week – Wilson is very good at capturing the “God loves a cliffhanger” dynamic in the Bible). Joel McDurmon’s commentary is of mixed quality; earlier in 1 Samuel, he had some helpful political insights from the text, but his commentary gets less helpful later on in the book, perhaps because he allows his own political agenda to drive so much of what he gleans from the text. Ralph Davis gives a reliably Reformed reading of the text; he often has excellent illustrations and practical applications. There are certainly places where I disagree with his interpretation of the text, but his work is still a very beneficial read. I have used handful of other commentaries, but these are the best. Robert Alter’s translation is also a very helpful resource. Everett Fox’s work is also useful but not quite as helpful as Alter.
TPC Pastor's Page 