I Samuel 27:9 · Bible study
1 Samuel 27:9 Commentary: Killing and Lying
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
David's total destruction of enemies and deceptive report to Achish raise hard questions about his character. Explore the theological and ethical tensions here.
Research Summary
- Meaning: David destroys entire populations of enemy tribes, takes their livestock and goods, and reports to Achish with a fabricated story about raiding Judah.
- Key words: Struck (H5221, 'strike, slay'), saved no man or woman alive (H2421 Hifil, 'let live'), took (H3947), returned (H7725), symbols of nomadic wealth.
- Main debate: Is David executing divine judgment on Canaanite nations (Gill, Henry) or using pragmatic but morally dubious tactics to survive in exile (Keil, Cambridge)?
- Theological theme: God's sovereignty working through morally complex human agents. The tension between covenant loyalty and survival ethics.
- Best use: Teaching on the difficulty of maintaining integrity under pressure, the historical context of holy war in the Old Testament, and God's patience with flawed leaders.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Whenever David attacked a territory, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but he took the flocks and herds, the donkeys, camels, and clothing. Then he would return to Achish,
WEB World English Bible 2000
David struck the land, and saved no man or woman alive, and took away the sheep, the cattle, the donkeys, the camels, and the clothing. Then he returned, and came to Achish.
KJV King James Version 1769
And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And David smote the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel; and he returned, and came to Achish.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and David hath smitten the land, and doth not keep alive man and woman, and hath taken sheep, and oxen, and asses, and camels, and garments, and turneth back, and cometh in unto Achish.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And David wasted all the land, and left neither man nor woman alive: and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achis.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y hería David el país, y no dejaba á vida hombre ni mujer: y llevábase las ovejas y las vacas y los asnos y los camellos y las ropas; y volvía, y veníase á Achîs.
E feria Davi o país, e não deixava à vida homem nem mulher: e levava-se as ovelhas e as vacas e os asnos e os camelos e as roupas; e voltava, e vinha-se a Aquis.
David ravageait cette contrée; il ne laissait en vie ni homme ni femme, et il enlevait les brebis, les bœufs, les ânes, les chameaux, les vêtements, puis s’ en retournait et allait chez Akisch.
Da aber David das Land schlug, ließ er weder Mann noch Weib leben und nahm Schafe, Rinder, Esel, Kamele und Kleider und kehrte wieder und kam zu Achis.
En David sloeg dat land, en liet noch man noch vrouw leven; ook nam hij de schapen en runderen, en de ezelen, en kemels, en klederen, en keerde weder en kwam tot Achis.
E Davide devastava il paese, non vi lasciava in vita né uomo né donna, e pigliava pecore, buoi, asini, cammelli e indumenti; poi se ne tornava e andava da Akis.
I pustoszył Dawid ziemię onę, a nie zostawiał żywego męża i niewiasty; a zabrawszy owce, i woły, i osły i wielbłądy, i szaty, wracał się zasię, i przychadzał do Achisa.
И опустошал Давид ту страну, и не оставлял в живых ни мужчины, ни женщины, и забирал овец, и волов, и ослов, и верблюдов, и одежду; и возвращался, и приходил к Анхусу.
大衛 擊殺 那地的人，無論男 女 都沒有 留下一個，又奪獲 牛、羊、駱駝、驢，並衣服，回 來 見 亞吉。
And David again and again made attacks on the land till not a man or a woman was still living; and he took away the sheep and the oxen and the asses and the camels and the clothing; and he came back to Achish.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Samuel 27:9
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that David's raid on the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites (v.8) was understood by him as an act of divine judgment. Gill points to Deuteronomy 7:2 and 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commands the utter destruction of these peoples as a holy war. Matthew Henry argues that David 'was very fit to do it' because heaven had doomed those nations. Keil and Delitzsch add that the attack likely responded to plundering incursions by these tribes into Israel.
All agree on the military necessity behind killing every man and woman: verse 11 says David did it to prevent any survivor from reporting his true target to Achish. The Cambridge Bible notes that Achish expected David to hand over a share of the plunder as tribute. The booty list, sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, clothing, reflects the portable wealth of nomadic peoples.
There is no disagreement that David both killed noncombatants and then lied to Achish about the raid's location. The commentators either justify the killing as obedience to God's earlier commands (Henry, Gill) or describe David's behavior as a morally compromised survival strategy suited to his exile (Keil, Cambridge).
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: High
Main views:
- Divine-command view: David was fulfilling the herem command from Deut 25:19 and 1 Sam 15:3, as argued by Gill and Henry.
- Pragmatic-survival view: David killed all witnesses to protect his cover with Achish (v.11), as noted by the Cambridge Bible and Keil.
- Moral-failure view: David's actions represent a low ethical point, blending violence and deception under fear, as implied by Ellicott and many modern readers.
What is clear: David attacked these tribes, killed everyone, took their property, and then falsely reported to Achish that he had raided Judahite territory.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Justification for total destruction | David's targets (Amalekites especially) were under divine herem command (Deut 25:19; 1 Sam 15:3). | Some interpreters (Gill, Henry) see David as faithfully executing God's judgment; others see a self-serving strategy to keep his cover with Achish. |
| David's deception of Achish | David lied about the target of his raid, claiming he attacked Judahite territory (v.10). | Catholics and many Protestants consider this a sin, though potentially venial given the context of survival; some Reformed traditions emphasize David's faith in God despite moral failures. |
| Moral evaluation of David in this chapter | David was in a compromised position, living among Philistines, and his actions were not his finest hour. | Is this a regrettable but necessary survival tactic (pragmatic view) or a serious moral lapse that shows David's character decline (normative view)? Both traditions exist. |
| Theological significance of the booty | The livestock and clothing were standard spoils of war and provision for David's men. | No debate: all commentators agree on the practical purpose. |
Historical & Cultural Context
David had been living in Philistine territory for sixteen months (v.7), having fled Saul's pursuit. Achish, king of Gath, granted him Ziklag (v.6). David needed to maintain Achish's trust while also providing for his six hundred men and their families. He chose to raid the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites, tribes dwelling in the Negev desert region between Gaza and Egypt, in the area of Shur (see Genesis 16:7, 25:18; 1 Samuel 15:7).
These were ancient enemies of Israel. The Amalekites in particular were under a divine ban (herem) from the time of the exodus: Deuteronomy 25:19 commands Israel to 'blot out the memory of Amalek.' Saul had failed to carry out that command fully (1 Samuel 15:8-9), a failure that cost him the kingdom. David may have seen himself as completing that unfinished work.
The total destruction of a population was standard practice in ancient Near Eastern warfare when a city was placed under 'the ban', devoted to God for destruction. It was brutal, but it followed a theological logic: these nations represented a corrupting influence that could seduce Israel away from covenant loyalty.
The pastoral sting in this verse is David's strategy of killing everyone to keep his real targets secret from Achish (v.11). He then lied, claiming he had raided Israelite territory in the Negev of Judah (v.10). This deception made David look like a traitor to his own people while actually he was destroying Israel's longtime enemies. The double life took an ethical toll, as the next chapter shows when the Amalekites retaliate and burn Ziklag (1 Samuel 30).
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for I Samuel 27:9. The ancient versions (Septuagint, Vulgate) agree closely with the Masoretic Text. The only minor difference is that the Greek may have omitted 'and the apparel' in some manuscripts, but this does not affect the meaning.
Reception History
Across church history, readers have struggled with this verse. Early church fathers like Augustine allegorized David's warfare as the believer's battle against sin and demons. Medieval commentators saw David typologically as Christ destroying spiritual enemies. Reformation figures such as Luther and Calvin focused on David as a flawed but forgiven king, arguing that his actions here were part of a divine commission against the Amalekites. In the modern era, the chapter has sparked intense ethical debate: some defend David as a military leader following God's commands, while others see him as a morally compromised fugitive. The tension between God's sovereignty and human sin continues to shape how pastors and scholars read this passage.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Divine judgment or survival strategy? David's total destruction reflects the herem command, but verse 11 reveals a pragmatic motive: keep Philistines in the dark. Both layers are present.
- The cost of deception. David lies to Achish about the raid's target. This compromise erodes trust and sets him up for future trouble (Ziklag burned, 1 Sam 30).
- God's sovereignty over flawed servants. David is anointed king, yet his path includes moral gray areas. God works through imperfect people, without endorsing every action.
Five-point outline
- Context: David's precarious exile. He needs to feed his men and maintain Achish's goodwill.
- The targets: God's ancient enemies. Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites were under divine judgment (Deut 25:19).
- The method: utter destruction. Killing everyone prevents intelligence leaks (v.11).
- The plunder: provisions from providence. Sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, clothing, needed supplies.
- The report: a deliberate lie. David claims he raided Judah, solidifying Achish's trust (v.12).
Illustration hooks
- A commander in occupied territory must report to his enemy overlord; he raids enemy supply lines but files a false report to protect his real mission. The tension between strategic necessity and integrity.
- A refugee family giving false information at a checkpoint to avoid being sent back to danger. Survival sometimes bends the truth, where is the line?
- Someone taking on a job with an unethical organization to provide for their family while secretly trying to do good from the inside. The cost of compromise.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does the Bible approve of David killing women and children if God commanded it? How do we reconcile that with Jesus' teaching to love enemies?
- Was David's lie to Achish a sin? Could he have been honest and still survived?
- If David is called 'a man after God's own heart' (1 Sam 13:14), how do passages like this fit?
Leading a Discussion
This chapter presents one of the most ethically challenging moments in David's life. As you read 1 Samuel 27:8-12, consider the pressures David faced: a hunted man, living among enemies, trying to keep his people alive. The decisions he made, total war and deception, raise hard questions about faith, survival, and compromise.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What does the text tell us about who David attacked and why he killed everyone (vv.8-11)?
- Observation: What evidence is there that Achish's expectations influenced David's actions (v.12; cf. 1 Sam 28:1)?
- Interpretation: Gill and Matthew Henry argue David was carrying out God's command to destroy the Canaanites. Do you think that fully explains his actions here? Why or why not?
- Interpretation: How does David's lie to Achish (v.10) compare with other biblical characters who deceived enemies (Rahab in Joshua 2, the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1)?
- Application: David used deception to protect his people and undermine Israel's enemies. When, if ever, is deception justified for a greater good?
- Application: This story shows David serving two masters, Achish and God. What pressures in your own life pull you toward compromising your integrity?
- Hope: Despite this dark episode, God remained faithful to David and used him. How does God's patience with flawed leaders give you hope in your own walk with Him?
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)
| Genesis 16:7 | Yahweh’s angel found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain on the way to Shur. |
| Genesis 25:18 | They lived from Havilah to Shur that is before Egypt, as you go toward Assyria. He lived opposite all his relatives. |
| Exodus 15:22 | Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. |
| Deuteronomy 25:17 | Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came out of Egypt, |
| Deuteronomy 25:19 | Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky. You shall not forget. |
| Joshua 6:21 | They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword. |
| I Samuel 15:3 | Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don’t spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” |
| I Samuel 15:7 | Saul struck the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is before Egypt. |
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
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary highlights that the sheep and cattle listed represent the typical wealth of nomadic peoples, as observed in later Arab camps. David’s return to Achish with a share of the plunder implies that Achish expected a form of tribute, not merely David’s personal service in war.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Note explains that David left no survivors not from cruelty but from political necessity. By killing everyone, he ensured no witness could report his true actions to Achish, allowing him to maintain his cover as a Philistine ally while actually destroying Israel’s enemies.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill defends David's slaughter of Canaanites and Amalekites by noting that God's law required their total destruction, so the act was not cruelty but obedience. He adds that David only killed those he could reach, since these peoples still existed later. This frames David's report to Achish as lawful warfare, not ruthless pillaging.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch argues that David's attack on these desert tribes must have been provoked by their own plundering raids into Israel. He notes David would not have taken such a risky military action without cause, since it could easily have made Achish suspicious and endangered his position at Ziklag.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange stresses that David’s flight to Philistia was a self-willed act born from weak faith, since he abandoned his post in Judah without seeking God’s counsel. This disobedience led to further sins: deception, lying to Achish, and even bloodshed. David’s lapse shows that even the faithful can falter under prolonged pressure.
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.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that the command to destroy the Amalekites was only carried out in the part of the land where the attacking force came. He points out that other Amalekites remained alive in a different area, meaning the destruction was not complete.