Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Samuel 30

On the third day: That is, on the third day after King Achish, due to the objections of the Philistine chieftains, had dismissed David and his contingent from the ranks of the Philistine army. This dismissal likely did not take place at Shunem, in the Esdraelon (Jezreel) Valley, because Shunem is some ninety miles distant from Ziklag. Achish's division had marched from Gath with David, and the event where David’s services were dispensed with occurred somewhere in Philistia, after the entire force had assembled.

The Amalekites had invaded the south. This was partly in retaliation for David's recent raids in the Amalekite country, and partly because Amalek had heard that, since the Philistine and Israelite armies had left the southern districts for the central part of Canaan, the entire south country was left unguarded. "The south," that is, "the Negeb," or the dry land—all the southern part of Judea; it also included a part of the Arabian Desert.

And smitten Ziklag. This was an act of vengeance, as Ziklag was the city of that famous Israelite chieftain David, who had done so much damage to Amalek, and who had treated the captives with such cruelty. While other parts of the south were merely plundered, Ziklag was marked for utter destruction: it was sacked and burned.

They slew not any. There was no one in the hapless city to resist the attack of the fierce sons of the desert. David—never dreaming of the sudden invasion—had marched with Achish, accompanied by his whole force. The Amalekites slew none of their captives; they were, we read, women and children. These possessed a marketable value, and were carried off to be sold into slavery, probably in Egypt, with which country the Amalekites, as neighbours, had constant dealings. We read a few verses later specifically of an Egyptian slave in the army.

And behold, it was burned with fire. —A terrible reception for David and his free lances, on their return from their ill-omened expedition with the great Philistine army, to find only the charred and smoking ruins of their homes; not one of all their dear ones, whom they had left behind—as they thought, in security—was left to tell the story of the disaster.

It was an Egyptian slave who gave them the details—one who had fallen sick and, consequently, been deserted, and whom David’s men came upon during the pursuit. He told them the story of the invasion and described the route the marauding force had taken on their return to their country.

Then David and the people. — 1 Samuel 30:1–4 form one period, which is expanded by the introduction of several circumstantial clauses. The apodosis to it came to pass when, etc., 1 Samuel 30:1, does not follow until 1 Samuel 30:4, Then David and the people, etc., but this is formally attached to 1 Samuel 30:3. The statement, So David and his men came, with which the protasis commenced in 1 Samuel 30:1, is resumed in an altered form: It came to pass, when David and his men had come to Ziklag ... the Amalekites had invaded ... and had taken away the women captive ... and had gone their way ... and David and his men came into the city, and behold, it was burned ... . Then David and the people with him lifted up their voice. — Keil.

For the people spoke of stoning him. —Probably the discontent and anger of the people had been previously aroused by David’s close connection with Achish, which had imposed upon these valiant Israelites the bitter degradation of having had to march against their own countrymen under the banner of the Philistine King of Gath. And now, finding that David had neglected to provide against the Amalekite raid, their pent-up fury expressed itself in this way. Then David, as we shall see, threw himself, with all his old perfect trustfulness, upon the mercy of his God.

But David encouraged himself in the Lord his God. —He encouraged himself in prayer, thereby casting himself and his fortunes on the God who, years before, had chosen him to be “His anointed.” It was this trust, as we have seen before in his own case, and in the case of Jonathan too, as it had been in former days with all the heroes of Israel—this perfect, childlike, implicit trust in the “Glorious Arm”—which had been the source of the marvelous success of the chosen people. When they forgot the invisible King, who for His own great purposes had chosen them, their fortunes at once declined; they fell to the level, and often below the level, of the surrounding nations.

We have many notable examples of this. For instance, in the lives of Samson and Saul, we see how, when, with weeping and mourning, they returned to their allegiance and again leaned on the “Arm,” success and victory returned to them. This is what then happened to David at Ziklag, while around the same time Saul, alone and distrustful, fought and fell on the bloody day of Gilboa. David, with the help of his God, on whose mercy he had thrown himself, obtained his brilliant success over Amalek and restored his prestige not only among his own immediate followers but also throughout all the cities and villages of Southern Canaan.