1 Samuel 29 3

1 Samuel 29:3 kjv

Then said the princes of the Philistines, What do these Hebrews here? And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day?

1 Samuel 29:3 nkjv

Then the princes of the Philistines said, "What are these Hebrews doing here?" And Achish said to the princes of the Philistines, "Is this not David, the servant of Saul king of Israel, who has been with me these days, or these years? And to this day I have found no fault in him since he defected to me."

1 Samuel 29:3 niv

The commanders of the Philistines asked, "What about these Hebrews?" Achish replied, "Is this not David, who was an officer of Saul king of Israel? He has already been with me for over a year, and from the day he left Saul until now, I have found no fault in him."

1 Samuel 29:3 esv

the commanders of the Philistines said, "What are these Hebrews doing here?" And Achish said to the commanders of the Philistines, "Is this not David, the servant of Saul, king of Israel, who has been with me now for days and years, and since he deserted to me I have found no fault in him to this day."

1 Samuel 29:3 nlt

But the Philistine commanders demanded, "What are these Hebrews doing here?" And Achish told them, "This is David, the servant of King Saul of Israel. He's been with me for years, and I've never found a single fault in him from the day he arrived until today."

1 Samuel 29 verses

1 Samuel 29 3 Meaning

This verse reveals the deep suspicion held by the other Philistine commanders towards David and his men, highlighting their understanding of David as a former adversary, a Hebrew, and the "servant of Saul king of Israel." Despite this inherent distrust, King Achish of Gath vehemently defends David's loyalty and blameless conduct during his time in Philistine territory, even proclaiming that he has found no fault in David since his defection from Saul. This statement underscores the unusual trust Achish placed in David and sets the stage for the strategic removal of David from the battle against Israel.

1 Samuel 29 3 Context

Chapter 29 is positioned at a crucial juncture in David's life, shortly before the climactic battle of Mount Gilboa where Saul and his sons will perish. For sixteen months, David and his six hundred men have been residing in Ziklag, a Philistine city given to him by Achish, ostensibly serving Achish but secretly raiding Judah's enemies. The Philistine lords, assembling their forces for a major war against Israel, are gathered at Aphek. Achish, maintaining his trust in David, has brought David and his men along, intending them to participate in the battle alongside him. This verse specifically records the confrontation initiated by the other Philistine commanders, who express their profound skepticism about David's presence and loyalty, compelling Achish to defend David's allegiance based on his own perceived experience. This tension underscores David's perilous position, serving a foreign king against his own people, yet subtly demonstrating divine providence working to remove David from such an ethically compromised scenario.

1 Samuel 29 3 Word analysis

• commanders (סָרְנֵ֣י, sarneiy): Refers to the "lords" or "princes" of the Philistine pentapolis (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, Ekron). These were not just military commanders but rulers of their respective cities, highlighting the political gravity of their objections to David's presence.

• Philistines (פְּלִשְׁתִּ֗ים, Pelishtim): The primary adversaries of Israel during this period, constantly warring over territory and dominance. Their questioning of David underscores the deep-seated ethnic and religious animosity.

• What are these Hebrews doing here? (מָ֚ה הָֽעִבְרִים֙ הָאֵ֣לֶּה, mah ha-‘Ivrim ha-elleh): "Hebrews" (‘Ivrim) is often used by non-Israelites (or by Israelites about themselves when interacting with foreigners) to denote their ethnic identity and perceived "otherness." It highlights David's Israelite origin and inherent opposition to the Philistines from the Philistine perspective. It expresses suspicion, an outsider identity, and a potential threat.

• Achish (אָכִ֕ישׁ, Achish): The king of Gath, the specific Philistine city where David found refuge. Achish had a unique and surprisingly consistent trust in David, contrasting sharply with the other Philistine rulers. His perspective here is a direct endorsement of David, likely based on David's calculated deceptions and military activities (which Achish misinterpreted as hostile to Judah).

• Is this not David (הֲלֹא־זֶ֤ה דָוִד֙, halo-zeh David): An emphatic, rhetorical question designed to dismiss the other commanders' concerns by appealing to David's known identity and what Achish believed to be his established allegiance. It presumes David's recognition and (in Achish's mind) unassailable loyalty.

• servant (עֶבֶד, ‘eved): Here, "servant" of Saul. Achish views David as having legitimately "deserted" (abandoned service) Saul, and thus available to be his own loyal retainer. The term carries connotations of sworn allegiance and dependence.

• Saul king of Israel (שָׁא֣וּל מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, Sha’ul melech-Yisrael): Identification of David's former master and his previous national affiliation. The very titles serve as a stark reminder of David's initial adversarial position to the Philistines.

• has been with me these days, or these years (וַֽיְהִי־עִמָּ֣דִי זֶה֮ יָמִ֣ים אֹו־זֶ֣ה שָׁנִים֒, vayehi-‘immadi zeh yamim o zeh shanim): Achish's emphasis on the duration of David's stay ("days, or years," approximately 16 months, 1 Sam 27:7) implies a long enough period to assess loyalty. He trusts his own judgment based on this tenure.

• I have found no fault in him (וְלֹא־מָצָ֤אתִי בוֹ֙ מְא֣וּמָה, velo-matzati vo me'umah): "Fault" (m'umah) signifies blemish, defect, or wrongdoing. Achish claims David has been blameless, implying perfect fidelity. This is a profound statement of trust from Achish, though dramatically ironic from God's perspective, as David had to walk a very fine line to avoid genuinely betraying his people while appearing loyal to Achish.

• Words-group Analysis

  • "What are these Hebrews doing here?": This phrase immediately signals xenophobia, strategic distrust, and racial prejudice. The Philistine commanders perceive David and his men as an inherent security risk because of their identity as Israelites, Saul's former allies and the enemies against whom they are marching. It implies "Why are potential enemies among us?"
  • "Is this not David... servant of Saul king of Israel...": Achish uses David's well-known identity as leverage. For Achish, David being Saul's former servant, and having supposedly defected, is proof of David's break with Israel, not a reason for suspicion. Achish’s statement, while outwardly logical from his perspective, reflects a deep misunderstanding of David’s ultimate allegiance to God and Israel.
  • "and who has been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him from the day he deserted to me until now?": This entire clause is Achish's primary defense of David. It speaks volumes about Achish's perceived experience and trust, the duration of David's stay as a metric of loyalty, and the claim of David's consistent, unblemished conduct in Achish's eyes. This perfect record, for Achish, seals David's reliability, unknowingly setting David free from a grave moral and theological dilemma.

1 Samuel 29 3 Bonus section

The Philistine leaders' collective apprehension and specific designation of David as "Hebrew" highlights not just ethnic identity, but a tribal-religious distinction. For them, a "Hebrew" like David represented Israel's God, the same God who delivered Israel from Egypt and fought their battles. While not a direct theological polemic, their suspicion taps into the larger spiritual conflict between the pagan Philistines and the worshippers of the LORD. Achish's counter-argument, seeing "no fault" in David, implicitly contrasts a purely utilitarian, humanistic evaluation of character (based on what David did for Achish's personal interests) with the spiritual realities. This echoes themes of discerning true allegiance (e.g., Deut 13:6-9 warns against false prophets or kin leading one astray from God) and the difficulty of serving two masters (Matt 6:24). David's cunning in dealing with Achish, while successful in the short term, underscored the moral tightrope he walked and emphasized the gracious intervention needed to redirect his path towards uncompromised service to the LORD.

1 Samuel 29 3 Commentary

1 Samuel 29:3 unveils a pivotal moment of tension and divine orchestration in David’s narrative. The other Philistine lords rightly saw David as a threat due to his ethnic and national origin, discerning the inherent conflict of interest. Their "What are these Hebrews doing here?" is not just a question but an accusation born of strategic realism and historical antagonism. However, King Achish, swayed by David’s careful deception (as seen in 1 Sam 27) and perhaps genuinely fond of him, expresses unwavering confidence in David’s loyalty. Achish’s repeated commendation of David's "blameless" conduct (from the time David "deserted" to him) highlights the remarkable success of David’s elaborate charade. This deep trust, despite David’s being an acknowledged enemy-turned-vassal, shows Achish's inability to fully grasp David’s true loyalties or David’s astute politicking.

Ultimately, this Philistine discord serves a higher purpose. The forced dismissal of David by the Philistine commanders prevents David from having to fight against his own people, sparing him from direct participation in the battle that would see Saul’s demise. God's hand is subtly evident, using the Philistine commanders' distrust to extricate David from an impossible moral and theological predicament, preserving his anointing and integrity, even as David himself had strategically (and deceptively) placed himself in the compromised position.

• Example for Practical Usage: This scenario highlights that even when individuals find themselves in morally ambiguous situations due to choices or circumstances, God's providence can work through unexpected channels (like the very opponents who accuse you) to guide you out of an untenable position and protect your integrity in service to His plan. It's a reminder of God's sovereign oversight, even when our paths are imperfect.