SECTION 5. David's First Taste Of Kingship - The Death Final Disobedience And Of Saul (1 Samuel 27:1 -2 Samuel 1:27).
A). David Rises To Petty Kingship Over Ziklag And Continually Destroys The Amalekites (YHWH's Enemies) While Saul Proceeds On In Darkness To His Doom (27:1-30:31).
In this subsection David and his Men flee to Gath, while with Samuel dead Saul falls further into error and confides in a spiritist medium because YHWH too has deserted him. David meanwhile becomes a petty king, continually defeats the Amalekites, YHWH's enemies, and is spared from having to fight against his own people (1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 30:31).
Analysis of 1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 30:31.
a David leaves his haunts in Judah and goes over Achish of Gath to escape from Saul (1 Samuel 27:1-4).
b David becomes a petty king under Achish and attacks and defeats the Amalekites, slaughtering them and obtaining great booty (1 Samuel 27:5-12).
c David swears loyalty to Achish in view of the invasion of Israel (1 Samuel 28:1-2).
d Saul seeks to consult Samuel through a necromancer and is reminded that he is rejected by YHWH (1 Samuel 28:3-20).
e Saul shares hospitality with a woman condemned by YHWH and goes out into the night (1 Samuel 28:21-25).
d David is accompanying the Philistines and is rejected by them (1 Samuel 29:1-7).
c David swears loyalty to Achish in view of the invasion of Israel and goes out into the day (1 Samuel 29:8-11).
b David finds his kingdom despoiled and attacks and defeats the Amalekites, slaughtering them and obtaining great booty (1 Samuel 30:1-25).
a David shows his gratitude to those who had assisted him among the people of Judah when he was escaping from Saul (1 Samuel 30:26-31).
Note than in ‘a' David leaves his haunts in Judah and goes over to the Philistines in order to avoid Saul, and in the parallel he send gifts to his friends who had supported him while he was in his haunts in Judah escaping from Saul. In ‘b' David slaughters the Amalekites, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘c' David swears loyalty to Achish, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘d' Saul is with a woman rejected by YHWH and is reminded that he too is rejected by YHWH, and in the parallel David is with the people rejected by YHWH (the Philistines) but is himself rejected by them. In ‘e' Saul reaches the lowest stage in his fall from YHWH when he enjoys hospitality with a woman rejected by YHWH and goes out into the night.
In some ways the flight of David to Gath appears to conflict with all that has gone before, for up to this point YHWH had always ensured that David remained in Israel/Judah and had protected him there. Indeed when David had previously fled to Gath (1 Samuel 21:10-15), it had resulted in his being humiliated and driven back into Israel, and this fact, combined with the later words of Gad the Prophet (1 Samuel 22:5), suggests that being in Israel/Judah was God's purpose for him at that time even though he was an outlaw. In this regard it has, indeed, been pointed out that in 1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 28:2 there is no mention of God, with the inference being drawn that his action here was also not of God.
On the other hand it is questionable whether this latter fact can really be emphasised for we must bear in mind that we are only talking about fourteen verses, verses which are on the whole the kind where no mention of God was really required, and this is especially so as there are certainly previous passages elsewhere which have also not included the name of God, even when we might have expected it, without it there being especially significant. See for example, 1 Samuel 13:15-23; 1 Samuel 17:1-24; 1 Samuel 17:55 to 1 Samuel 18:9; and especially 1 Samuel 14:47-52. Furthermore we should note that when the account of the stay among the Philistines continues the king of Gath is himself portrayed as swearing by YHWH (1 Samuel 29:6, see also 1 Samuel 27:9), something possibly intended to illustrate the influence that David has had on him, and certainly demonstrating that he recognised YHWH as David's God and that YHWH was with him there. Thus there is no real indication that the writer sees this as a backward move. Rather he seems to portray it as demonstrating a sensible way of escaping from Saul's prevarications, while immediately stressing that he finally took up refuge in Ziklag which was a Philistine occupied town of Judah in the Negeb (as he emphasises). So he had not permanently left Israel after all. The only question that does possibly spring to mind in this regard is as to why David did not at this stage ‘enquire of YHWH' through the ephod. Precedent might suggest that he did in fact do so and that the writer simply does not mention the fact.
Certainly we should note that David would see no difficulty in consulting YHWH when he was in Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:7-8), even though it was outside the current boundaries of Israel (although still in what was part of Israel's inheritance). On the other hand we might argue that Ziklag had been appropriated from Judah/Simeon (Joshua 15:31; Joshua 19:5) by the Philistines, and could really therefore be seen as an ‘Israelite' city. This might be seen as confirmed by the fact that the writer emphasises that from that time on Ziklag was seen as belonging to Judah (1 Samuel 27:6). Consider also the fact that many fighting men of Israel came to join up with him there at this point, including men from Benjamin, Judah, Gad and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 12:1-7; 1 Chronicles 12:20-22). They too probably saw it as a haven from Saul and a kind of little Israel where they could be freer to behave as they wished, even though it did give them responsibilities towards a Philistine king, which YHWH would overrule.
We might thus argue that having established his popularity at home in Israel/Judah (apart from with the Ziphites), his rule over a semi-independent Ziklag with its surrounding territories was now intended by God to be the next stage in his training for the kingship, for through his time there he would be able to gain experience of ruling a city and its environs before he was finally faced up with the greater task of ruling Judah, and then all Israel. It is a reminder that God educates His people as and where He will.
That God was with him there comes out quite clearly in the narrative. Firstly in that he was given this convenient semi-independent position, in a place where YHWH could be consulted, and secondly in that he was later prevented from having to fight against his own countrymen, something which would surely have hindered his later rise to kingship. So whether his first move was pleasing to YHWH or not, it is clear that YHWH did not see him as having been grossly disobedient. (And all of us know of situations in which we have to make difficult decisions which have to be based on our own judgment at the time, and which might even be ‘wrong', with God then acting graciously towards us on the basis of what we have done in all honesty, as He continues to lead us forward).
Furthermore there are good grounds for seeing the writer as deliberately wanting us to contrast this triumphant move into Philistia, along with David being given an honoured position there, with the debacle that had taken place on his previous visit to Gath when he had had to publicly humiliate himself and flee. Then it was clearly being portrayed as a move that he should not have made. Here it can be argued that, as a move that brought him honour and prestige and an opportunity to serve God in destroying the Amalekites, it was clearly of God.
But why should Achish have given Ziklag and its surrounding territories to David? The probable reason must be that it was a part of a suzerainty treaty whereby David was given his own independent city in a spot convenient for raids over the border, on condition that he made such raids and gave to Achish a certain proportion of any booty that he and his men collected. For we must surely recognise that the whole purpose of having David and his army under his umbrella was in order that David might earn his keep by raids over the border, while at the same time being available for any major offensive that had to be made. He would not want to continually provision David and his small tribe while they were idle, and continual raiding was considered to be the sport of kings (2 Samuel 11:1). There appears little doubt that such border raids constantly took place (e.g. 1 Samuel 23:1-6, and compare David's earlier activities against the Philistines, not all of which can have been related to major invasions - 1 Samuel 18:5; 1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Samuel 20:8) as we would in fact expect in those savage days. This certainly also serves to explain David's subsequent activities.