I Samuel 27:11 · Bible study
1 Samuel 27:11 Commentary: Understanding David's Actions
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore why David killed captives and lied to Achish. A study of moral complexity in the Bible, with commentary from historic sources.
Research Summary
- Meaning: David killed all prisoners to prevent his deception of Achish from being discovered; the narrator notes this was his consistent practice in Philistia.
- Key words: “let live” (חָיָה, Piel imperfect), “bring” (הביא, Hiphil infinitive), “lest” (פֶּן), “custom/practice” (מִשְׁפָּט).
- Main debate: Whether David's actions were a justified execution of divine judgment on Canaanite nations or a morally compromised survival strategy that Scripture reports without approval.
- Theological theme: The honesty of Scripture: it records the failures of its heroes, showing that God's purposes advance through flawed people.
- Best use: Teaching about the complexity of biblical characters, the relationship between calling and conduct, and the cost of pragmatic decisions made in fear.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
David did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he said, “Otherwise they will report us, saying, ‘This is what David did.’” And this was David’s custom the whole time he lived in Philistine territory.
WEB World English Bible 2000
David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring them to Gath, saying, “Lest they should tell about us, saying, ‘David did this, and this has been his way all the time he has lived in the country of the Philistines.’”
KJV King James Version 1769
And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring them to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell of us, saying, So did David, and so hath been his manner all the while he hath dwelt in the country of the Philistines.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Neither man nor woman doth David keep alive, to bring in word to Gath, saying, `Lest they declare it against us, saying, Thus hath David done, and thus is his custom all the days that he hath dwelt in the fields of the Philistines.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And David left neither man nor woman alive, to bring [them] to Gath, for he said, Lest they should tell of us, saying, So did David. And such was his custom as long as he abode in the country of the Philistines.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And David saved neither man nor woman, neither brought he any of them to Geth, saying: Lest they should speak against us. So did David, and such was his proceeding all the days that he dwelt in the country of the Philistines.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Ni hombre ni mujer dejaba á vida David, que viniese á Gath; diciendo: Porque no den aviso de nosotros, diciendo, Esto hizo David. Y esta era su costumbre todo el tiempo que moró en tierra de los Filisteos.
Nem homem nem mulher deixava à vida Davi, que viesse a Gate; dizendo: Porque não deem aviso de nós, dizendo: Isto fez Davi. E este era seu costume todo aquele tempo que morou em terra dos filisteus.
David ne laissait en vie ni homme ni femme, pour les amener à Gath; car, pensait-il, ils pourraient parler contre nous et dire: Ainsi a fait David. Et ce fut là sa manière d’ agir tout le temps qu’ il demeura dans le pays des Philistins.
David aber ließ weder Mann noch Weib lebendig gen Gath kommen und gedachte: Sie möchten wider uns reden und schwätzen. Also tat David, und das war seine Weise, solange er wohnte in der Philister Lande.
En David liet noch man noch vrouw leven, om te Gath te brengen, zeggende: Dat zij misschien van ons niet boodschappen, zeggende: Alzo heeft David gedaan! En alzo was zijn wijze al de dagen, die hij in der Filistijnen land gewoond heeft.
E Davide non lasciava in vita né uomo né donna per menarli a Gath, poiché diceva: “Potrebbero parlare contro di noi e dire: Così ha fatto Davide”. Questo fu il suo modo d’agire tutto il tempo che dimorò nel paese dei Filistei.
Ale Dawid nie żywił męża, ani niewiasty, ani ich przywodził do Get, mówiąc: By snać nie skarżyli na nas, mówiąc: Tak uczynił Dawid. I był to jego zwyczaj po wszystkie dni, póki mieszkał w ziemi Filistyńskiej.
И не оставлял Давид в живых ни мужчины, ни женщины, и не приводил в Геф, говоря: они могут донести на нас и сказать: "так поступил Давид, и таков образ действий его во все время пребывания в стране Филистимской".
無論男 女，大衛 沒有 留下 一個帶到 迦特來。他說：「恐怕 他們將我們的事 告訴人，說 大衛 住在 非利士 地 的 時候 常常 這樣 行。」
Not one living man or woman did David ever take back with him to Gath, fearing that they might give an account of what had taken place, and say, This is what David did, and so has he been doing all the time while he has been living in the land of the Philistines.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Samuel 27:11
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that David killed every captured man and woman to prevent his deception from reaching Achish. Barnes notes that the Hebrew does not say “bring tidings” but rather “to bring them to Gath” as captives, prisoners who could later reveal that David had raided Philistine allies, not Judah. The Cambridge Bible observes that David's falsehoods “are not of course to be judged by the Christian standard of morality” and that such brutality was unexceptional in that era. Keil and Delitzsch point out that the final clause, “and so was his custom”, likely belongs to the narrator rather than David's speech, making clear that this was a settled pattern during his sixteen months in Philistine territory. Matthew Henry, writing in the Reformed tradition, defends the violence as the execution of God's long-standing judgment against the Amalekites and related tribes, and notes that David, as Israel's anointed king, was the appropriate agent. Overall, the passage confronts readers with a morally ambiguous chapter in the life of God's chosen king.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Divine judgment view: These tribes were under God's ban (1 Samuel 15) and David was God's agent; Matthew Henry defends the killings as justice.
- Pragmatic survival view: David acted out of fear and self-preservation, seeing no other way; Cambridge and Barnes emphasize the moral compromise.
- Narrative honesty view: The narrator simply reports David's actions without praise or censure, inviting the reader to reflect on the tension between calling and conduct.
What is clear: David killed all captives and deceived Achish to conceal his true raids; the narrative does not explicitly approve or condemn his behavior.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Morality of David's killings | Scripture records that David killed all captives to avoid exposure. | Some (Matthew Henry) see it as execution of God's judgment on cursed nations; others view it as ruthless pragmatism that the narrator includes without endorsement. |
| David's lies to Achish | David deceived Achish by claiming he raided Judah when in fact he attacked Philistine allies. | Some consider this permissible deception in wartime; others see it as a failure of trust in God's protection (cf. Proverbs 29:25). |
| The narrator's perspective | The verse gives David's own rationale and notes this was his practice. | Whether the final phrase 'and so was his custom' is approving (describing normal practice) or merely reporting. |
| David's spiritual condition | David was God's anointed and is later called a man after God's own heart. | Whether this period represents a serious moral lapse or a situational necessity that God allowed for David's preservation. |
| Application for today | The passage does not command us to imitate David's actions. | Christians differ on how much weight to give the moral complexity: some emphasize God's grace over human failure; others stress the danger of pragmatism. |
Historical & Cultural Context
David had fled to Philistia after Saul's repeated attempts on his life (1 Samuel 27:1). He settled in Ziklag under the protection of King Achish of Gath. The tribes David raided, the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites, inhabited the southern desert region between Canaan and Egypt, near the boundary of Judah. Keil and Delitzsch explain that these groups lived “close to the southern boundary of Judah,” which allowed David to tell Achish that he had attacked “the South of Judah” while in fact striking Israel's traditional enemies. Barnes notes that these tribes “were allies of the Philistines,” so David was simultaneously weakening Philistine allies and deceiving Achish into believing he was fighting Judah.
The total destruction of captured towns was common practice in ancient Near Eastern warfare. The Cambridge Bible comments that “such barbarity was nothing strange at the time,” meaning readers should not retroject modern ethical standards onto David's world. David's motive was survival. He needed Achish's trust to remain safe from Saul. Killing prisoners eliminated witnesses who could expose his double game. Earlier in his flight, David had learned how easily secrets could leak; at Nob, Doeg the Edomite reported his visit to Saul (1 Samuel 22:22). That memory likely sharpened his vigilance. The wisdom tradition warns that fear of man is a snare (Proverbs 29:25). The narrator offers no explicit critique; instead, he records David's explanation without comment, leaving the reader to weigh the morality of the man described elsewhere as a man after God's own heart.
Textual Notes
The Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 27:11 is well preserved with no significant variants. Barnes and others note that the word “tidings” in older translations (e.g., KJV) does not correspond to any word in the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew construction lehavi gat means “to bring to Gath,” implying prisoners as part of the spoil. The addition of “tidings” clarifies the purpose of the seizure, but the original text simply says he refrained from bringing captives to Gath. The rest of the verse is textually secure.
Reception History
Interpreters have long wrestled with this verse. Josephus (first century AD), as noted by Gill, claimed that David spared the captives, a reading that softens the violence but contradicts the plain sense of the text. The Geneva Bible (1599) prints the verse with no marginal comment, perhaps leaving the moral question open. Matthew Henry (1710) defends David by appealing to the divine mandate against the Amalekites: David was both king and executor of God's judgment. The Cambridge Bible (1880) takes a different approach, acknowledging the barbarity as normal for the time and cautioning readers not to judge David by Christian standards. Modern readers often feel the tension more keenly, using the passage to discuss how Scripture honestly portrays the flaws of its heroes.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- The Strategy of Deception. David lies about his targets to Achish and destroys all witnesses. Fear for his safety leads him to a pattern of calculated cover-ups.
- The Silence of the Narrator. The writer reports David's actions and his own rationale but does not praise or condemn them. This invites readers to reflect on the gap between God's calling and human failure.
- The God Who Works Through Flawed Vessels. Despite David's moral compromise, the larger story continues. God preserves David through this season and later shapes him into a king who knows his need for forgiveness.
Five-Point Outline
- David's Dilemma. A fugitive living among enemies must survive. He is afraid of Saul and alienated from his homeland.
- His Strategy. David raids Israel's traditional enemies but tells Achish he has raided Israel. He kills prisoners to keep the story intact.
- The Cost of Deception. Lies require more lies. The pattern becomes David's custom throughout his stay in Philistine territory.
- Scripture's Honesty. The Bible does not airbrush its heroes. David is called a man after God's own heart, and here his heart is divided.
- Grace for the Journey. God does not abandon David. He preserves him, matures him, and brings him to the throne. The same God walks with us in our own failures.
Illustration Hooks
- The job application with half-truths. A person is so desperate for a position that they exaggerate their experience, then must keep up the story in every meeting. What started as survival becomes a trap of its own.
- The double life of a hidden believer. A Christian in a hostile environment pretends to share the values of the group. Each denial of their true identity demands another. The story of David reminds us that such camouflage carries heavy costs.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- If David was a man after God's own heart, why does he act so brutally and deceptively here? How do we reconcile the two?
- Does the Bible approve of David's lies and killings? How do we know when Scripture describes without endorsing?
- When does self-preservation become a snare that leads us into sin? How can we trust God without resorting to David's kind of pragmatism?
Leading a Discussion
This passage confronts us with a moment in David's life that is deeply uncomfortable. The narrator records violence and deception without apology. As you discuss, remember that Scripture often describes without approving, and that God's greatest servants are not immune to failure.
Discussion Questions
- Observation: What does David do in verse 11? What reason does he give for his actions?
- Interpretation: Why was it so important to David that no one report his raids to Achish? What does this reveal about the situation he was in?
- Interpretation: The narrator says David's practice was “his custom all the while he dwelt in the country of the Philistines.” What does that tell us about the pattern of David's life during this period?
- Connection with earlier Scripture: Read 1 Samuel 22:22 where David laments the consequences of Doeg's report. How might that experience have influenced his decision to kill all captives?
- Theological reflection: Consider Proverbs 12:19:
How does this proverb speak to David's pattern of deception?“Truth’s lips will be established forever, but a lying tongue is only momentary.”
— Proverbs 12:19 (WEB) - Application: David was afraid for his life and took extreme measures. When have you felt pressured to compromise your integrity out of fear? What helped you, or what could help you, choose a different path?
- Grace note: Despite this low point, God used David and forgave him. How does knowing that God works with imperfect people encourage you?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| I Samuel 22:22 | David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the death of all the persons of your father’s house. |
| Proverbs 12:19 | Truth’s lips will be established forever, but a lying tongue is only momentary. |
| Proverbs 29:25 | The fear of man proves to be a snare, but whoever puts his trust in Yahweh is kept safe. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes points out that the original text does not say David sent tidings to Gath but rather that he brought captives there as slaves. David dared not do this, however, because those tribes were Philistine allies and the act would have exposed his deception.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator notes that David's deceit and violence while living among the Philistines cannot be judged by Christian moral standards. He was a man of his time, following the brutal practices common in that era.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
Geneva notes that David killed every person in the towns he raided, sparing no one to carry word back to Gath. His motive was not cruelty but concealment: he feared the Philistines would learn that he was attacking their allies while pretending to be their vassal.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights David's calculated slaughter of every captive to prevent any survivor from reporting to Gath. By leaving no witnesses, David could make Achish believe he had been raiding Judahite towns instead of Philistine allies. This deliberate cover‑up, in Gill's reading, was the method by which David secured Achish's trust through deception.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch highlights David's careful deception: by raiding tribes whose territory bordered Judah's southern desert, David could truthfully tell Achish he attacked the south of Judah while actually striking enemy tribes. He then killed all survivors specifically to prevent news of his true targets from reaching the Philistine king.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange treats David's flight to Philistia as a self-willed act born of little faith. David proceeds without consulting the Lord, leading him into deception and lying to secure Achish's favor. His weakness of faith, not outright unbelief, produces a chain of sins he would not otherwise have committed.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry defends David's attack by arguing it was neither cruel nor unjust. Those nations were doomed by heaven, and David as God's anointed was the proper instrument to carry out that judgment, not acting from personal ambition but fulfilling a divine commission.