2<\/strong>. Achish, the son of Maoch<\/em> ] If he was the same as the Achish of 1Sa 21:10<\/span>, and the Achish son of Maachah of 1Ki 2:39<\/span>, he must have reigned some fifty years. But more probably the same name was borne by different individuals.<\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. David arose, and he passed over – unto Achish<\/B><\/I>] There is not one circumstance in this transaction that is not blameable. David joins the enemies of his God and of his country, acts a most inhuman part against the Geshurites and Amalekites, without even the pretense of a Divine authority; tells a most deliberate falsehood to Achish, his protector, relative to the people against whom he had perpetrated this cruel act; giving him to understand that he had been destroying the Israelites, his enemies. I undertake no defence of this conduct of David; it is all bad, all defenceless; God vindicates him not. The inspired penman tells what he did, but passes no eulogium<\/I> upon his conduct; and it is false to say that, because these things are recorded<\/I>, therefore they are approved<\/I>. In all these transactions David was in no sense a man after God’s own heart. Chandler attempts to vindicate all this conduct: those who can receive his saying, let them receive it.<\/P> <\/p>\n It might seem a bold adventure; but, <\/P> 1. He thought himself forced to it by Sauls inveterate rage, and continued resolutions to persecute him. <\/P> 2. It is probable he had sent some persons to treat with him, and had agreed upon conditions, and received assurance of his safe and peaceable abode with him. <\/P> 3. David reasonably thought that Achish would gladly receive him, as indeed he did; partly, because he saw Sauls implacable enmity against him; partly, because by this means he should be freed from the most formidable enemy which he had in all Israel, who might do him most mischief in the battle; which it seems at this time he designed; and partly, because he came not now alone, as he did before, but brought with him sufficient pledges of his fidelity to Achish; namely, all his soldiers, and his and their wives, 1Sa 27:3<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 2, 3. Achish, the son of Maoch, kingof Gath<\/B>The popular description of this king’s family creates apresumption that he was a different king from the reigning sovereignon David’s first visit to Gath. Whether David had received a specialinvitation from him or a mere permission to enter his territories,cannot be determined. It is probable that the former was the case.From the universal notoriety given to the feud between Saul andDavid, which had now become irreconcilable, it might appear to Achishgood policy to harbor him as a guest, and so the better pave the wayfor the hostile measures against Israel which the Philistines were atthis time meditating. <\/P> 1Sa27:5-12<\/span>. DAVID BEGSZIKLAG OF ACHISH.<\/P><\/p>\n And David arose<\/strong>,…. From the place where he was:<\/p>\n and he passed over<\/strong>; the borders of land of Canaan:<\/p>\n with the six hundred men that [were] with him<\/strong>; having neither lost any, nor had any added to him, since he was at Keilah, 1Sa 23:13<\/span>;<\/p>\n unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath<\/strong>; whether this was the same Achish David was with before, 1Sa 21:10<\/span>, is not certain; it seems as if he was not the same, since he is described as the son of Maoch, as if it was to distinguish him from him; though it is not improbable that he was the same person. Some think a that he is described not from his father, but from his mother, whose name was Maacha. The circumstances of David were now very much altered from what they were when he went to Gath before; then he went secretly, now openly; then as a person unknown, now as well known; then alone, now with six hundred men; then when discovered he was seized by the princes of Gath, and brought before the king, and was driven from his presence; but now he came either at the invitation of Achish, hearing how he had been treated by Saul, and thinking to attach him to his interest, and make him more and more the enemy of Saul, and so free himself from a very powerful one, and of whose wisdom and prudence, and military skill, and courage, and valour, he might hope to avail himself; or David sent an embassy to him, to treat with him about his coming into his country, and settlement in it, and terms to mutual satisfaction were agreed upon.<\/p>\n a Hieron. Trad. Heb, in 2 Reg. fol. 78. E.<\/p>\n (2) The six hundred men.<\/strong>This was the original number. They still formed the nucleus of the force, but the total number was now far larger. These six hundred had each their households, besides which, many a group of warriors, large and small, had already joined the now renowned standard of the future king.<\/p>\n Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath.<\/strong>The same, we believe, as that Achish to whom David fled before (see 1Sa. 21:11<\/span>), and identical with Achish, son of Maachah (1Ki. 2:39<\/span>). This would involve the necessity of ascribing a fifty years reign to this prince. (Such a lengthy reign is quite possible.) The whole of Philistia subsequently fell under King Davids rule. It seems, however, that he permitted, even after the conquest, Achish to remain in his old city of Gath, most likely as his tributary: thus, we may suppose, paying back the old debt of kindness to Achish.<\/p>\n 2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Achish, the son of Maoch <\/strong> Probably the same person mentioned<\/p>\n 1Sa 21:11<\/span>. But David’s reception in Gath was very different from that of the former occasion. “The inveterate hatred of Saul, now so well known, was his recommendation, and no distrust could be entertained of a man who fled for his life to the enemies of his country exasperated by wrongs, and willing, it might be supposed, to avenge them.” Kitto.<\/p>\n 1Sa 27:2<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Achish, the son of Maoch<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Most writers agree, that this Achish, <\/em>to whom David now fled, was notthe Achish by whom he was so inhospitably received, and from whom he so narrowly escaped, when he was before at Gath. His being called here Achish, the son of Maoch, <\/em>sufficiently indicates that he was another person; for those words can, in the nature of the thing, have no other use, than to distinguish this Achish from another of the same name. And, indeed, this Achish seems as well distinguished from the other by the rest of his character, as by being called the son of Maoch. <\/em>But here, by the way, is a fair proof that this book was written at the time when it is said to have been written; inasmuch as this distinction was information enough to the people of that age, but could neither be given nor received as such either by any writer or reader of a subsequent period. <\/p>\n (2) And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Besides David’s want of faith, here was a breach of obedience. The prophet Gad had been commissioned to tell David to abide in Judah, how then could he think himself either justified, or in safety, in fleeing to Gath? See 1Sa 22:5<\/span> .<\/p>\n 1Sa 27:2 And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that [were] with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath.<\/p>\n Ver. 2. And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men.<\/strong> ] Who might have done far better service in fighting against the Philistines in that fatal battle; 1Sa 31:1-7 and haply have hindered that great slaughter of God’s people: but there was a providence in it, God fetching good out of evil; as the Athenians fancied that their goddess Minerva ordered their evil counsels to the best events. The Philistines entertained them gladly, as the Persians did Themistocles, the Lacedemonians Alcibiades, and the Volscians Coriolanus. But David and his men may no more be excused herein, say some, than if a captain with a band of men being Christian should flee to the Turk to fight for him. Others think that he did well and wisely; from whom I dissent. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Unto Achish king of Gath.] But fide publica,<\/em> it is like; upon better security beforehand given than formerly was had; else he would hardly have ventured.<\/p>\n men. Hebrew. ‘enosh. App-14. <\/p>\n David: This measure of David’s, in uniting himself to the enemies of his God and people, was highly blameable; was calculated to alienate the affections of the Israelites; and led to equivocation, if not downright falsehood. <\/p>\n the six: 1Sa 25:13, 1Sa 30:8 <\/p>\n Achish: 1Sa 21:10, 1Ki 2:40 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jdg 11:3 – vain men 2Sa 2:3 – his men 1Ki 2:39 – Achish 2Ki 12:17 – against Gath 1Ch 12:1 – these are<\/p>\n 1Sa 27:2. Unto Achish the son of Maoch Most writers agree that this Achish, to whom David now fled, was not the Achish by whom he was so inhospitably received, and from whom he so narrowly escaped, when he was before at Gath. His being here called Achish the son of Maoch, sufficiently implies him to have been another person; for those words can, in the nature of the thing, have no use but to distinguish this Achish from another of the same name. And indeed this Achish seems as well distinguished from the other by the rest of his character, as by that of the son of Maoch. But this, by the way, is a fair proof that this book was written at the time that it is said to have been written; insomuch as this distinction was information enough to the people of that age, but could neither be given nor received as such either by any writer or reader of any subsequent age. Delaney.<\/p>\n And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that [were] with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath. 2. Achish, the son of Maoch ] If he was the same as the Achish of 1Sa 21:10, and the Achish son of Maachah of 1Ki 2:39, he must have … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 27:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"