Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no man with you?”
Parallel Translations
-
Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no man with you?”
-
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
-
(21-2) Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto him: 'Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?'
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (2)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (6)
Passages linked to 1 Samuel 21:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Nehemiah 11:32 at Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah,
- Mark 2:26 How he entered into God’s house at the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the show bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?”
- 1 Samuel 14:3 including Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of Yahweh in Shiloh, wearing an ephod. The people didn’t know that Jonathan was gone.
- 1 Samuel 16:4 Samuel did that which Yahweh spoke, and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, “Do you come peaceably?”
- Isaiah 10:32 This very day he will halt at Nob. He shakes his hand at the mountain of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.
- 1 Samuel 22:9-19 Then Doeg the Edomite, who stood by the servants of Saul, answered and said, “I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. He inquired of Yahweh for him, gave him food, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine.” Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s house, the priests who were in Nob; and they all came to the king. Saul said, “Hear now, you son of Ahitub.” He answered, “Here I am, my lord.” Saul said to him, “Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, in that you have given him bread, and a sword, and have inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as it is today?” Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, “Who among all your servants is so faithful as David, who is the king’s son-in-law, captain of your body guard, and honored in your house? Have I today begun to inquire of God for him? Be it far from me! Don’t let the king impute anything to his servant, nor to all the house of my father; for your servant knows nothing of all this, less or more.” The king said, “You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you, and all your father’s house.” The king said to the guard who stood about him, “Turn, and kill the priests of Yahweh; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew that he fled, and didn’t disclose it to me.” But the servants of the king wouldn’t put out their hand to fall on the priests of Yahweh. The king said to Doeg, “Turn and attack the priests!” Doeg the Edomite turned, and he attacked the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five people who wore a linen ephod. He struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and nursing babies, and cattle and donkeys and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (25 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Where the ark then was to ask counsel of…
Where the ark then was to ask counsel of the Lord.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 1Sa 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech…
1Sa 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?
Ver. 1. Then came David to Nob.] Not to that Nob beyond Jordan, {Num 32:42 Jdg 8:11} - as more remote from Saul; Procul a Iove, et procul a fulmine, - but to Nob a city of Benjamin near unto Anathoth, {Neh 11:32 1Ki 2:26} where, at this time, was the tabernacle, with the altar; and therefore great store of priests attending upon it. {a} Hither resorted David in this distress: as to consult with God, {1Sa 22:10; 1Sa 22:13; 1Sa 22:15} so to get relief in that necessity from the high priest: to whom he flieth, when hunted from the prophet Samuel; as knowing that justice and compassion should dwell in those breasts which are consecrated to God.
Read full note →
To Ahimelech the priest.] Otherwise called Ahiah, {1Sa 14:3} but certainly Abiathar. {Mar 2:26}
And Ahimelech was afraid.] As were likewise the Bethlehemites at the coming of Samuel. {1Sa 16:4} See the note there. The priest suspected David fled as a proscribed person.
Why art thou alone?]
“ Tempera si fuerint nubila, solus eris. ”
Herein appeareth the inconstancy of courtly favour, saith Peter Martyr. David, who was before beloved, admired, and reverenced of all, is now left and forsaken of all. If the sun shine not on the dial, no man will look at it; so fareth it with great subjects, when out of favour with their prince.
{a} Serrer. Jun.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Nob; a city of priests, as it is called…
Nob; a city of priests, as it is called 1Sa 22:19; either,
1. Because it was assigned to the priests. For though it be not expressed by this name among their cities, Jos 21, yet it might be one of those cities there named by some other name, which name might be changed; or another new name added to the old for some reason now unknown, as was very usual among the Hebrews: compare 1Ch 6. Or,
Read full note →
2. Because it was now inhabited by the priests for the service of the tabernacle, which now was here; as appears from 1Sa 21:7,9; for as the kings of Israel were to consult with God’s oracle in all their weighty affairs, so they endeavoured to have it in or near their own habitations. Hence it was first carried by Joshua to Shiloh in his tribe of Ephraim; and afterwards by David into his tribe and city; and now, as it seems, had been by Saul carried to Nob, a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Neh 11:32, near to Anathoth, 1Ki 2:26. Hither David resorted, partly for a supply of his necessities, which he supposed he might receive here, without danger of being betrayed into Saul’s hands; and principally, that in this great distress, and his resolution of going out of the kingdom, he might seek and receive comfort and counsel from the Lord. Ahimelech the priest, to wit, the chief priest, brother to that Ahiah, 1Sa 14:3; and he being now dead, his successor in the priesthood, for they were both sons of Ahitub, 1Sa 14:3; 22:11. Ahimelech was afraid; suspecting some extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner, and fearing the worst, as men usually do in such cases. Why art thou alone? for though David had some servants and companions, as is manifest from 1Sa 21:4,5, and from Mat 12:3,4, whom Jonathan probably had sent to a place appointed to serve and guard him; yet they were left at another place, as David himself affirmeth, 1Sa 21:2. And David was now alone, as also he was when he fled to Achish, 1Sa 21:10.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here, I. David, in distress, flies in the tabernacle…
Here, I. David, in distress, flies in the tabernacle of God, now pitched at Nob, supposed to be a city in the tribe of Benjamin. Since Shiloh was forsaken, the tabernacle was often removed, though the ark still remained at Kirjath-jearim. Hither David came in his flight from Saul's fury (Sa1 21:1), and applied to Ahimelech the priest. Samuel the prophet could not protect him, Jonathan the prince could not. He therefore has recourse next to Ahimelech the priest. He foresees he must now be an exile, and therefore comes to the tabernacle, 1. To take an affecting leave of it, for he knows not when he shall see it again, and nothing will be more afflictive to him in his banishment than his distance from the house of God, and his restraint from public ordinances, as appears by many of his psalms. He had given an affectionate farewell to his friend Jonathan, and cannot go till he has given the like to the tabernacle. 2. To enquire of the Lord there, and to beg direction from him in the way both of duty and safety, his case being difficult and dangerous. That this was his business appears Sa1 22:10, where it is said that Ahimelech enquired of the Lord for him, as he had done formerly, Sa1 21:15. It is a great comfort to us in a day of trouble that we have a God to go to, to whom we may open our case, and from whom we may ask and expect direction.
II. Ahimelech the priest is surprised to see him in so poor an equipage; having heard that he had fallen into disgrace at court, he looked shy upon him, as most are apt to do upon their friends when the world frowns upon them. He was afraid of incurring Saul's displeasure by entertaining him, and took notice how mean a figure he now made to what he used to make: Why art thou alone? He had some with him (as appears Mar 2:26), but they were only his own servants; he had none of the courtiers, no persons of quality with him, as he used to have at other times, when he came to enquire of the Lord. He says (Psa 42:4) he was wont to go with a multitude to the house of God; and, having now but two or three with him, Ahimelech might well ask, Why art thou alone? He that was suddenly advanced from the solitude of a shepherd's life to the crowd and hurries of the camp is now as soon reduced to the desolate condition of an exile and is alone like a sparrow on the housetop, such charges are there in this world and so uncertain are its smiles! Those that are courted today may be deserted tomorrow.
Read full note →
III. David, under pretence of being sent by Saul upon public services, solicits Ahimelech to supply his present wants, Sa1 21:2, Sa1 21:3.
1. Here David did not behave like himself. He told Ahimelech a gross untruth, that Saul had ordered him business to despatch, that his attendants were dismissed to such a place, and that he was charged to observe secresy and therefore durst not communicate it, no, not to the priest himself. This was all false. What shall we say to this? The scripture does not conceal it, and we dare not justify it. It was ill done, and proved of bad consequence; for it occasioned the death of the priests of the Lord, as David reflected upon it afterwards with regret, Sa1 22:22. It was needless for him thus to dissemble with the priest, for we may suppose that, if he had told him the truth, he would have sheltered and relieved him as readily as Samuel did, and would have known the better how to advise him and enquire of God for him. People should be free with their faithful ministers. David was a man of great faith and courage, and yet now both failed him, and he fell thus foully through fear and cowardice, and both owing to the weakness of his faith. Had he trusted God aright, he would not have used such a sorry sinful shift as this for his own preservation. It is written, not for our imitation, no, not in the greatest straits, but for our admonition. Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall; and let us all pray daily, Lord, lead us not into temptation. Let us all take occasion from this to lament, (1.) The weakness and infirmity of good men; the best are not perfect on this side heaven. There may be true grace where yet there are many failings. (2.) The wickedness of bad times, which forces good men into such straits as prove temptations too strong for them. Oppression makes a wise man do foolishly.
2. Two things David begged of Ahimelech, bread and a sword.
(1.) He wanted bread: five loaves, Sa1 21:3. Travelling was then troublesome, when men generally carried their provisions with them in kind, having little money and no public houses, else David would not now have had to seek for bread. It seems David had known the seed of the righteous begging bread occasionally, but not constantly, Psa 37:25. Now, [1.] The priest objected that he had none but hallowed bread, show-bread, which had stood a week on the golden table in the sanctuary, and was taken thence for the use of the priests and their families, Sa1 21:4. It seems the priest kept no good house, but wanted either a heart to be hospitable or provisions wherewithal to be so. Ahimelech thinks that the young men that attended David might not eat of this bread unless they had for some time abstained from women, even from their own wives; this was required at the giving of the law (Exo 19:15), but otherwise we never find this made the matter of any ceremonial purity on the one side or pollution on the other, and therefore the priest here seems to be over-nice, not to say superstitious. [2.] David pleads that he and those that were with him, in this case of necessity, might lawfully eat of the hallowed bread, for they were not only able to answer his terms of keeping from women for three days past, but the vessels (that is, the bodies) of the young men were holy, being possessed in sanctification and honour at all times (Th1 4:4, Th1 4:5), and therefore God would take particular care of them, that they wanted not necessary supports, and would have his priest to do so. Being thus holy, holy things were not forbidden them. Poor and pious Israelites were in effect priests to God, and, rather than be starved, might feed on the bread which was appropriated to the priests. Believers are spiritual priests, and the offerings of the Lord shall be their inheritance; they eat the bread of their God. He pleads that the bread is in a manner common, now that what was primarily the religious use of it is over; especially (as our margin reads it) where there is other bread (hot, Sa1 21:6) sanctified that day in the vessel, and put in the room of it upon the table. This was David's plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done. He brings it to justify his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, for which the Pharisees censured them, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4. [3.] Ahimelech hereupon supplies him: He gave him hallowed bread (Sa1 21:6), and some think it was about this that he enquired of the Lord, Sa1 22:10. As a faithful servant he would not dispose of his master's provisions without his master's leave. This bread, we may suppose, was the more agreeable to David for its being hallowed, so precious were all sacred things to him. The show-bread was but twelve loaves in all, yet out of these he gave David five (Sa1 21:3), though they had no more in the house; but he trusted Providence.
(2.) He wanted a sword. Persons of quality, though officers of the army, did not then wear their swords so constantly as now they do, else surely David would not have been without one. It was a wonder that Jonathan did not furnish him with his, as he had before done, Sa1 18:4. However, it happened that he had now no weapons with him, the reason of which he pretends to be because he came away in haste, Sa1 21:8. Those that are furnished with the sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith cannot be disarmed of them, nor need they, at any time, to be at a loss. But the priests, it seems, had no swords: the weapons of their warfare were not carnal. There was not a sword to be found about the tabernacle but the sword of Goliath, which was laid up behind the ephod, as a monument of the glorious victory David obtained over him. Probably David had an eye to that when he asked the priest to help him with a sword; for, that being mentioned, O! says he, there is none like that, give it to me, Sa1 21:9. He could not use Saul's armour, for he had not proved it; but this sword of Goliath he had made trial of and done execution with. By this it appears that he was now well grown in strength and stature, that he could wear and wield such a sword as that. God had taught his hands to war, so that he could do wonders, Psa 18:34. Two things we may observe concerning this sword: - [1.] That God had graciously given it to him, as a pledge of his singular favour; so that whenever he drew it, nay, whenever he looked upon it, it would be a great support to his faith, by bringing to mind that great instance of the particular care and countenance of the divine providence respecting him. [2.] That he had gratefully given it back to God, dedicating it to him and to his honour as a token of his thankfulness; and now in his distress it stood him greatly in stead. Note, What we devote to God's praise, and serve him with, is most likely to redound, one way or other, to our own comfort and benefit. What we gave we have.
Thus was David well furnished with arms and victuals; but it fell out very unhappily that there was one of Saul's servants then attending before the Lord, Doeg by name, that proved a base traitor both to David and Ahimelech. He was by birth an Edomite (Sa1 21:7), and though proselyted to the Jewish religion, to get the preferment he now had under Saul, yet he retained the ancient and hereditary enmity of Edom to Israel. He was master of the herds, which perhaps was then a place of as much honour as master of the horse is now. Some occasion or other he had at this time to wait on the priest, either to be purified from some pollution or to pay some vow; but, whatever his business was, it is said, he was detained before the Lord. He must attend and could not help it, but he was sick of the service, snuffed at it, and said, What a weariness is it! Mal 1:13. He would rather have been any where else than before the Lord, and therefore, instead of minding the business he came about, was plotting to do David a mischief and to be revenged on Ahimelech for detaining him. God's sanctuary could never secure such wolves in sheep's clothing. See Gal 2:4.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Then came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest,....…
Then came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest,.... The high priest, as Abarbinel rightly calls him; he was the brother of Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, who being dead he succeeded him; though some say (a) he was the same; see Sa1 14:3; who was now at Nob, the tabernacle being there, whither probably it was removed by Saul, and where and at Gibeon, according to the Jews (b), it continued fifty seven years; as in the times of Joshua it was in Shiloh, in the tribe of Ephraim, of which tribe he was; and in the times of David it was placed in the tribe of Judah, to which he belonged; so in the times of Saul it was in Nob, a city of his tribe, twelve miles from Gibeah, according to Bunting (c); for that it was in the tribe of Benjamin appears by its being mentioned along with Anathoth, Neh 11:32; and according to Jarchi and Kimchi (d) it was near Jerusalem, and so near that it might be seen from thence; some say they are the same (e); Jerom (f) speaks of it as near Diospolis or Lydda. David, before he departed further off, was willing to see the tabernacle once more, and there worship his God, and inquire of him by the high priest, as he did, Sa1 22:10; to direct him what way he should take, and that he would prosper and succeed him in it, grant him his presence, and keep him in safety:
and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David; hearing that he was come or coming, he went out to meet him, but when he saw him alone he trembled; especially if he had heard of his having fallen under the displeasure of Saul, and that he now fled from him, therefore he might fear that he should fall into disgrace and danger should he entertain him:
Read full note →
and he said unto him, why art thou alone, and no man with thee? he might well wonder at it, and put such a question, seeing he was so great a man, both in the court and camp, and the king's son in law; he might therefore reasonably suspect something more than ordinary was the case, and which occasioned his fears.
(a) Hieron. Trad. Heb. in lib. Reg. fol. 76. H. (b) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zebachim, c. 14. sect. 7. (c) Travels, &c. p. 136. (d) Comment. in lsa. x. 32. (e) Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 8. 1. (f) Epitaphium Paulae, fol. 59. A.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain David coming to Nob, takes the shew-bread, and Goliath's…
David coming to Nob, takes the shew-bread, and Goliath's sword, ver. 1-9. Goes to Achish, and feigns himself mad, ver. 10- 13. Is dismissed by Achish, ver. 14, 15.
Nob - A city of priests, where the tabernacle now was. Hither David resorted, for a supply of his necessities, which he supposed he might receive here, without danger of being betrayed into Saul's hands: and principally, that in this great distress, he might receive comfort and counsel from the Lord. Ahimelech - The chief priest, brother to that Ahiah, chap. xiv, 3, and he being now dead, his successor in the priesthood, for they were both sons of Ahitub. Was afraid - Suspecting some extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Alone - For though David had some servants as is manifest from ver. 4, 5, whom Jonathan probably had sent to a place appointed, yet they were left at another place: as David himself affirmeth, ver. 2. And David was now alone, as also he was when he fled to Achish. He who had been suddenly advanced to the highest honour, is as soon reduced to the desolate conditions of an exile. Such changes are there in this world, and so uncertain are its smiles.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain David comes to Ahimelech at Nob, receives provisions from…
CHAPTER XXI
David comes to Ahimelech at Nob, receives provisions from him,
Read full note →
and the sword of Goliath; and is noticed by Doeg, one of the
servants of Saul, 1-9.
He leaves Nob, and goes to Achish, king of Gath, 10.
But on being recognised as the vanquisher of Goliath by the
servants of Achish, he feigns himself deranged, and Achish
sends him away, 11-15.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXI
Verse 1. Then came David to Nob] There were two places of this name, one on this side, the second on the other side of Jordan; but it is generally supposed that Nob, near Gibeah of Benjamin, is the place here intended; it was about twelve miles from Jerusalem.
Why art thou alone] Ahimelech probably knew nothing of the difference between Saul and David; and as he knew him to be the king's son-in-law, he wondered to see him come without any attendants.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 1Sa 21:1. Then came David to Nob — A…
1Sa 21:1. Then came David to Nob — A city of the priests in the tribe of Benjamin, about twelve miles from Gibeah, not far from Anathoth and Jerusalem, Neh 11:32; Isa 10:32. The tabernacle, it appears, had been removed hither, and hither David now resorts, in hopes of finding shelter for a season, and a supply of his necessities, which he supposed he might obtain here without danger of being betrayed into the hands of Saul; and principally that in this great distress he might receive direction and comfort from the Lord. To Ahimelech the priest — Probably the chief priest. David, in his first flight from Saul, had recourse to the prophet of God, and now his next is to his priest. Ahimelech was brother to that Ahiah, mentioned 1Sa 14:3, (who was now dead,) and his successor in the priesthood, for they were both sons of Ahitub. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David — “Lest he was forced to flee from Saul,” say some commentators, “and so it might be dangerous to entertain him.” But it seems evident that Ahimelech knew nothing of the circumstances that David was in, or of Saul’s enmity to him, and determined purpose to destroy him. But, as David was the king’s son-in- law, he was surprised to see him without any attendants, and suspected that there must be some extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Why art thou alone? — It appears from 1Sa 21:4-5, and from Mar 2:25, that David had some persons with him, probably servants, whom Jonathan had sent to meet him some where, and accompany him; yet David had left these at another place, as he himself affirms, (1Sa 21:2,) and he was now alone, as he was when he fled to Achish. He who had been suddenly advanced to the highest honour, is as soon reduced to the desolate condition of an exile. Such are the changes which are frequently happening in this world, and so uncertain are its smiles.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Nob was a city of the priests, the high…
Nob was a city of the priests, the high priest resided there, and the tabernacle was pitched there 1Sa 21:4, 1Sa 21:6,1Sa 21:9; 1Sa 22:10. It was situated on the road from the north to Jerusalem, near Anathoth, and within sight of the holy city Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32. But the site has not been identified with certainty.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Nobe. A city in the tribe of Benjamin, to…
Nobe. A city in the tribe of Benjamin, to which the tabernacle of the Lord had been translated from Silo. (Challoner) --- It was about 12 miles south-west of Gabaa. (Tudelensis.) --- There was another Nobe on the east side of the Jordan, to which Serarius thinks David was three days in travelling. But when David made that assertion, he wished to conceal the real state of his affairs, as he had not seen Saul since he was at Najoth, ver. 5. Nobe was afterwards accounted a sacerdotal city, ver. 19., and 2 Esdras xi. 32. --- Achimelech, who is perhaps the same with Achia (chap. xiv. 3,) and Abiathar, Mark ii. 32. --- With thee. He would not expose his men to the resentment of Saul, (Calmet) though he afterwards gave the priest to understand that he had some attendants, (ver. 2) as the gospel relates, Matthew xii. 3. He dismissed them before he entered Geth. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain III. David’s flight to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech…
III. David’s flight to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech and to Gath to king Achish
1Sa_21:1-15 (2–16)
Read full note →
1Then came David [And D. came] to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David [Ahimelech went frightened to meet David]1 and said unto him, Why art thou alone and no man with thee? And David 2said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business2 whereabout I send thee and what [which] I have commanded thee; and I have appointed3 my servants 3[the young men] to such and such4 a place. Now, therefore, what is under thy 4hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed [holy] bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least5 5from women. And David answered the priest and said unto him, Of a truth6 women have been kept from us about these three days since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though 6it were sanctified this day in the vessel.7 So [And] the priest gave him hallowed [holy] bread, for there was no bread there but the show-bread, that was taken from before the Lord [Jehovah], to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.8 7Now [And] a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day detained before the Lord [Jehovah], and his name was Doeg an [the] Edomite, the chiefest 8of the herdsmen9 that belonged to Saul [of Saul]. And David said to Ahimelech, And is there not10 here under thy hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste. 9And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold it is here [om. here] wrapped in a cloth [the garment] behind the ephod; if thou wilt take that, take it, for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.11
10And David arose and fled that day for fear of12 Saul, and went to Achish the 11king of Gath. And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul 12hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands? And David laid up these 13words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. And he changed13 his behaviour [understanding] before them [in their eyes] and feigned himself mad [acted like a madman] in their hands, and scrabbled [scrawled]13 on 14the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish [And Achish said] unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad; wherefore 15then [om. then] have ye brought [do ye bring] him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? shall this fellow come into14 my house?
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Sa_21:2-10 [Eng. A. V. 1–9]. David flees to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech.
1Sa_21:2 (1). According to 1 Sam. 22:11, 19, 32; 2Sa_21:16; Isa_10:32; Neh_11:32, the name of this refuge of David is Nob. (The Heb. form here and 1Sa_22:9 is with ה local (with short vowel) after a verb of coming, Ges. § 90, 2.) According to 1Sa_22:19 Nob was at this time a priestly city. Here at this time was the tabernacle, which, as we under David and Solomon find it in Gibeon, was probably carried thither in consequence of the destruction of Nob by Saul (1 Samuel 22). The position of Nob is no longer determinable—only from Isa_10:28-33 we know that it was near Jerusalem on the road northward between Anathoth (Anata) and Jerusalem in the tribe of Benjamin (Neh_11:32). According to Jerome (on Isa. l. c.), in whose time nothing remained of the place, Jerusalem was visible from it. Whether it stood on the site of the present village El Isawieh, between Anata and Jerusalem, about two and a half miles from the latter, and as far south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tuleil el Ful), which Tobler (Topog. von Jerus. II. 719 sq.) describes, as Kiepert (Map to Rob.’s Researches) and Raumer (Paläst. p. 215, 4 ed.) [and Grove] suppose, cannot be decided; the objection is that Jerusalem is not visible from this place.15—See Herz. R.-E. and Winer s. v.—Thither David betook himself, as the nearest place of refuge from Gibeah, where he might for the present find shelter and concealment with the priests. From 1Sa_22:10-14 [15] it appears, though it is not mentioned here, that he wished in this holy place to inquire God’s will concerning his further way. He wished besides to provide himself with arms and food for-his continued flight. His stay there was therefore intended to be temporary, as his whole conduct shows. We may assume that he stood in intimate relations with the priests there, and especially with their head, from whom therefore he expected not only the announcement of the divine will, but also consolatory and strengthening words.—Ahimelech is the same person with Ahiah (1Sa_14:3), son of Ahitub (1Sa_22:9; 1Sa_22:20), the elder brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, therefore great-grandson of Eli. His son was the high-priest Abiathar (1Sa_30:7), with whom he is confounded in Mar_2:26.16 The designation “priest” here=high-priest, as in 1Sa_14:3.—He is frightened at David’s appearing alone, without retinue or arms; therefore he went to meet him fearfully, supposing such an appearance to be a sign of impending misfortune. We must presume that he knew of Saul’s hatred to David, but not of the most recent occurrences. David must have feared that if he told the high-priest of these, the latter, for fear of bringing Saul’s wrath on himself, would refuse him refuge. Therefore he has recourse here again to a lie; he pretends that the king has given him a secret commission, of which no one is to know, and represents to the high-priest that he has appointed his men some place at which to meet him. Maurer: “I ordered my servants to go to a certain place.” (יוֹדַעְתִּי is Po. of ידע, “to know”=“appoint.”) “At such and such a place,” comp. Rth_4:1. Clericus remarks that he really took some faithful followers with him, at least to the Philistine border, and during his stay in Nob assigned them to some place, where he would meet them, and Keil supposes that he left his few attendants (1Sa_21:3 [2]) near by, in order to speak privately with the high-priest; but against this is the fact that in his flight, after his interview without witness with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20.), there is no mention of any attendant, nor afterwards in his flight to Gath. He seeks to quiet Ahimelech’s apprehension by the double statement that his commission is secret, and that he has appointed his people a place to stay. Clericus’ remark: “all these things are inventions,” is to be accepted of everything, not merely of his commission from the king.—[But in Mar_2:25-26, it is asserted that there were men with David, and it is in itself natural and probable that a man of his high official position and popularity should find some willing to share his flight.—Tr.]
1Sa_21:4 (3). Now, what thou hast in hand, the five loaves, give me, a request in keeping with David’s hurry and eagerness. (מַה־יֵּשׁ is not a question, which would require something like לֶאֱבל (Then.) to follow.) He asks for five loaves with apparent reference to his retinue, but really for his own needs, since his way would lead him into the wilderness, and he must avoid meeting men.
1Sa_21:5 (4). No common bread—but holy bread have I here, answers Ahimelech. The five loaves which Ahimelech then had were a part of the twelve loaves which were laid up in the tabernacle, as the offering of the Twelve Tribes to the Lord, before his face, and thence called “Bread of presence, show-bread” (Exo_25:30; Exo_35:13; Exo_39:36; Exo_40:23). They had just been taken away (1Sa_21:7 [6]) to be replaced by fresh ones (Lev_24:8). The legal precept was that this bread, as something most holy, could be eaten only by the priests in the holy place (Lev_24:9). Ahimelech’s answer to David therefore means that if he is here to make an exception to this rule, he must at least insist on ceremonial purity as a condition.—If the men have only kept themselves from women. See Lev_15:18. Thereby the principle of the legal prescription of levitical purity was satisfied, inasmuch as the circumstances—namely, the lack of ordinary bread, the haste which the alleged important commission of the king required, the duty of aiding in its execution as much as possible, and the pious behaviour of David in inquiring the Lord’s will at the holy place—seemed to justify a deviation from the rule concerning the eating of the show-bread. But it is inferring too much from this isolated case when Clericus remarks: “It is clear from Ahimelech’s demand as to women that the eating of the consecrated bread was not absolutely forbidden to the laity in case of urgent necessity.” See Mat_12:3, where the Lord uses this example to justify divergence from the letter of the Law when its outward observance would violate the inner spirit of the Law and hinder the fulfilment of sacred duties to one’s self and one’s neighbor.
1Sa_21:6 (5). In David’s answer the introductory “but” (כִּי אִם) relates to the negative in Ahimelech’s last words: “they are not unclean, but;” we may therefore render “rather” [Eng. A. V. “of a truth.”] David affirms the purity of his men and of himself in this regard: “Women have been kept from us.” The following words from “since I came out” to “in the vessel” present many difficulties. The “came out” may be connected with the preceding or the following context. In favor of the former it may be said that it naturally connects itself with the phrase “yesterday and the day before” [= about these three days] as an exacter statement of time; David says: “this abstinence has existed from the day of my departure till now.” In fact this connection is necessary in order to establish the assertion that the men had refrained from women since “yesterday and the day before,” for from the day of departure it could not be otherwise. S. Schmid: “in the words ‘yesterday and the day before’ David seems to refer to his three days’ hiding in the field or in Bethlehem.” Further we have to consider the meaning of the words “vessel” (כְּלִי) and “way” (דֶּרֶךְ). As to the former, the reference here to purity of body does not justify us in understanding it figuratively of the body, as σκεῦος in 2Co_4:7; 1Th_4:4 (Ewald), for the word never has this sense in Hebrew literature. Bunsen: “that is certainly not Hebrew usage.” Keil, expressly departing from the usual meaning “vessels,” takes the word (from Deu_22:5) in the sense of “clothing,” and with reference to Lev_15:18 (on the defilement of “garments” by seminal discharge) makes David say: “The garments of my men were clean.” But the word cannot mean “garment” in Deu_22:5 (where it is in the Sing.); it never means garment as such, as we should here have to take it in the supposed reference to defilement by seminal flow. But what would be the bearing of such a remark after David had already affirmed that, in consequence of their removal from women, no such defilement could be found in them?—We must do what we can with the usual meaning of the word “implement, vessel.” The “vessels of the men” = apart from their arms, everything that pertained to personal preparation for the journey; see Jer_46:19, כְּלֵי גוֹלָה, “exile-gear,” [Eng. A. V. “furnish thyself to go into captivity.”] So S. Schmid: “the reference is to packs and sacks for food for the journey.” Such leathern and other articles might as well as persons become unclean, according to the Law, Lev_11:32 sq.; Lev_13:47 sq. Comp. Sommer, bibl. Abhandlung, “Rein und Unrein” [Clean and Unclean], p. 204, 211, 223. The gear or baggage of the men, as well as their persons, might be unclean. But the holy bread, which even exceptionally could be eaten only by levitically clean persons, could not be carried in vessels which were legally unclean. David therefore says that the vessels of his men were holy at starting, in order to assure Ahimelech that there was not the slightest legal objection to their taking the bread, nothing unclean either in their persons or in their baggage. So the Vulg.: “and the vessels (vasa) of the young men were holy.” S. Schmid: “David means to say: since we have just left home, whence people usually take clean things, you may readily suppose that no impurity has been contracted; it would be different if we were returning home from a journey, where on the way, especially in war uncleanness might be contracted by the blood of enemies, or otherwise.”—The rendering of the Sept. “all the young men” (כֹּל for כְּלֵי), adopted by Thenius as a necessary emendation, is suspicious from its easiness, and must be rejected, since we can derive a good sense from the text.—We have next to examine the meaning of the word “way.”17 In the first place, no explanation is allowable which does not maintain the reference to the subject in hand, namely, the showbread. We reject therefore those explanations in which this word is made to mean the way in which David was going, and the last word (כְּלִי) = “gear.” Vulg.: “and this way is unclean, but itself also will be sanctified to-day in the vessels.” So the Sept.—Maurer: “I am sure that it (the way) is sanctified to-day,” etc. De Wette: “and if the way is unholy, it is to-day sanctified by the vessels.” Dathe and Schulz: “though the journey is undertaken on profane business.” O. v. Gerlach and Keil: “though it is an unholy way that we go, namely, in performing the king’s commission.” From the connection one does not at all see how the way, or the undertaking is unholy, profane. To supply: “the way has no religious object” (O. v. Gerl.), “ordinary business, not ecclesiastical” (Ew.), is to insert a new idea into the words. Nor does the connection warrant O. v. Gerl. and Keil (taking כְּלִי as Sing. in the sense of “instrument, organ”) in making David say: “The way was holy before God, since it was through necessity trodden by him, God’s chosen servant, the upholder of God’s true kingdom in Israel, the way was sanctified through him as instrument, as ambassador of the Lord’s Anointed.” Thenius rightly says that the words must contain a remark by which the priest is to be induced to give the bread, and that it is important to keep in mind the Sing. “vessel,” which has not always been regarded. Clericus is quite correct in saying: “way is everywhere used for the manner of doing a thing.” But he is wrong in taking “way” = “somehow” (aliquo modo), supplying “bread” [as Eng. A. V.], and, with the remark that otherwise there is no sense in the passage, explaining: “This holy bread, removed from the presence of the Lord, had become in some sort (aliquo modo) profane, because other (bread) was to be substituted for it that day, and this was now sanctified in the vessels in which it was to be placed, that it might be carried into the holy place, and set on the table;” this is an arbitrary and violent treatment of the words, and moreover, gives no clear sense—apart from the fact that it is not true that the bread, when taken from the table, thereby becomes profane, since, even when so removed, it remains the consecrated bread, for the eating of which levitical purity is a necessary condition. So the translation of S. Schmid “but itself (the bread) is of the nature of profane (bread), yet it will be holily carried in the vessel,” is neither in accordance with the words nor at all intelligible. The word “way” = conduct, mode of procedure, here refers to the procedure demanded by David, by which the high-priest was, contrary to the legal prescription, to give the showbread to persons who were not priests; “though it is an unholy procedure, yet to-day it becomes holy through the instrument.” The Heb. word (כִּלִי “instrument, organ”) is so used of men also, Gen_45:5; Isa_13:5; Isa_32:7; Jer_50:25; comp. σκεῦος, Act_9:15. The instrument is here the sacred person of the priest, Ahimelech himself, as bearer of the high-priestly dignity. So also Thenius. The “to-day” points with emphasis to the special circumstances of that day, which induced Ahimelech to grant David’s request. The “yea, verily” (אַף כִּי, so 1Sa_14:30) is in keeping with the excitement with which David speaks, in order to persuade the high-priest.
1Sa_21:7 (6). The priest yields to David’s representation, and gives him the “holy.” Lack of other bread is expressly said to be the reason of his compliance, he departed from the legal prescription through sheer necessity only. It seems to be mentioned as an alleviating fact, that the bread had already been taken away from before the Lord, having remained on the table in the holy place seven days according to the Law (Lev_24:6-9); “to-day” was the “day of removal,” that is, when it was exchanged for fresh bread. It is probable that in the “today” of 1Sa_21:6 (5) there is a reference to this “day of removal.”
1Sa_21:8 (7). Mention of a servant of Saul, Doeg the Edomite, which brings the narrative into pragmatic connection with 1Sa_22:9 sq., and at the same time exhibits the divine providence, by which David’s lie, intended to conceal his real position and flight from Saul, proved useless, rather led to the destruction of Nob and its inhabitants. A man of the servants of Saul.—These words stand significantly first, in order to show that, in spite of David’s trouble to conceal his way from Saul, the latter received information of his visit to this very place. “Detained, shut in (נֶעְצָר), before the Lord,” not continens se, “lingering, remaining” (S. Schmid); that is, detained for some religious or ceremonial purpose, housed at the holy place, whether as a proselyte received by circumcision, or in fulfilment of a vow, or received for a purification-offering, or on account of a temporary Nazarite-vow, or for suspected leprosy (Lev_13:4); in any case, as one “who was committed to the custody of the priests ministering in the tabernacle” (Cler.). Vulg.: “Within the tabernacle.” His name was Doeg, the Edomite, “he had probably come over to Saul in his war with Edom,” (Ew.).18 His official position was “Ruler over the herdsmen of Saul.” Vulgate: “Most powerful of Saul’s herdsmen,” and so all ancient versions except Sept., which has wrongly νέμων τὰς ἡμιόνους “tending the mules of Saul.” (רֹעֶה אֶת־פִּרְדֵי שּ׳). On account of the importance which still attached in Saul’s time to the possession of herds as a family-power, Doeg’s position as Overseer of Herds and Herdsmen must have been a prominent one.
1Sa_21:9 (8). Besides food, David needed arms. That in such pressing danger he fled without arms is to be explained on the ground that he “feared that he would be recognized, or, as an armed man concealing himself, be suspected” (Cler.)—or that he fled in great haste. This last is the reason he gives to Ahimelech, carrying out his pretence about the royal commission: “I did not bring my sword and weapons, because the king’s business was hasty,” literally “pressed” (נָחוּץ), stronger than “pressing.” Vulg.: “the king’s word was urgent;” Sept.: “in haste” (κατὰ σπουδήν).—“Hast thou not here spear or sword?” a question which, like the demand for bread above, clearly reveals in part David’s haste, in part his anxiety to conceal by a light tone the pressing danger of his situation.
1Sa_21:10 (9). The priest answers by referring to the sword of Goliath, with which David had slain him in the Terebinth-valley (1Sa_17:2). To preserve it from dust, moisture and rust it was carefully wrapped in a garment or cloth, and kept in the holy place behind the priestly ephod (not hung on a nail (Ew.), but in a safe and visible place). How it came hither, David having carried Goliath’s armor to his tent, that is, taken possession of it (1Sa_17:54), is nowhere said. There is no contradiction of the earlier statement; the apparent difference is removed “by the perfectly natural supposition that David carried home Goliath’s armor except his sword, or that this sword was afterwards deposited for safe keeping in the national sanctuary” (Then.) See on 1Sa_17:54. (בַּזֶּה for בָּזֶה, here only.)—David here declared the particular value of this sword for him, thinking, undoubtedly, of its importance for his whole life in connection with that deed of heroism. He thus received not merely a weapon, but, by the divine arrangement, “a holy weapon, promising victory” (O. v. Gerl.).
1Sa_21:11-15 [10–15]. Provided with arms and bread David flees to Gath to the Philistine king Achish.
1Sa_21:11 (10). The that day shows that David stayed in Nob only long enough to consult the oracle and procure arms and food; the same day that he arrived he continued his flight. We do not know whether he had already determined to go to Philistia, or now first suddenly resolved on it, possibly in consequence of Doeg’s unexpected appearance. The words he fled before Saul do not mean that this flight began with his departure from Nob (Keil), for in the narrative of his parting from Jonathan (and indeed before that) we see him in flight. The expression “from before Saul” indicates the significance of his further flight in respect to Saul as his king and lord, in that he now entirely abandons actual subjection to him, appearing as a deserter to king Achish and into a foreign country. This expression does not require us to regard this section (1Sa_21:11-15 [10–15]) as coming from another source and here arbitrarily interpolated (Thenius). Even supposing (as is possible) that the section is from another source than the preceding, in which not the account of Saul’s schemes and David’s flight from the beginning is given, but only this flight to Philistia, it does not appear that the words “David fled that day from Saul” are an arbitrary interpolation. However, this opinion rests on the view that the flight here is the same as that in chap. 27, only in the form of a popular story, and here inappositely inserted, while the correct recension is given in 1 Samuel 27, where it is suitably put in David’s time of extremest need towards the end of his fugitive wandering (Then.). But the difference of the circumstances is an objection to identifying this flight with that in chap. 27.—especially that here David goes to the Philistines alone and tries for some time to gain a safe residence by feigning madness, while there [ch. 27] he goes with his family and a numerous retinue, and gains the favor of the Philistine king by numerous military undertakings and expeditions. Nor can it be admitted that the narrative in 1Sa_21:11-15 [10–15] is historically improbable, and therefore has no historical value. It is said that David would not in the beginning of his flight have taken the step of going over to the Philistines, which was possible only in extremest necessity; but, we answer, the expression “extremest necessity” is a very indefinite one, and further, as appears from the connection, David’s inner excitement, consequent on Saul’s enduring murderous hate and present intense rage, from which he could never feel safe in his own land, made his need and danger seem to him so great and pressing, that a flight over the border cannot appear in the least historically untrustworthy. He thought that appearing as a deserter he would be safest with Saul’s enemy. That is psychologically easily intelligible. But, as he could not even thus mollify the hatred and suspicion of the Philistines, he was obliged to play the madman; nor does this bring him security, his stay is a very short one,—this is all truly historical, these are traits of real life, which oppose the supposition that we here have an improbable unhistorical narration. As to the objection from Goliath’s sword, that, as well-known to the Philistines, it would certainly have betrayed David, Nägelsbach justly remarks (Herz. XIII. 403), that it is said in 1Sa_21:9 only that David took it from Nob, not that he carried it to Gath.19 He needed a weapon immediately for the long and possibly dangerous road to the Philistine border; on the way he might provide himself with other arms, so that, if he needed weapons on the other side, he might not betray himself by the sword of Goliath.—In the title to Psalms 34. the Philistine king is called Abimelech, which along with Achish was the standing official name of the Philistine princes of Gath (comp. Gen_26:1).
1Sa_21:12 [11]. The courtiers soon recognize the fugitive, though some time had elapsed since his victorious combat with Goliath. Let the situation be considered: David must have been an object of astonishment, and his appearance as fugitive and deserter an object of wonder to the Philistines, who knew what he had done for his country by that heroic exploit. Hence first, such talk, as is here narrated, about him (אֵלָיו [Eng. A. V. “unto him”]), which phrase from the connection (their thoughts and talk naturally turning on David) refers to David, not to Achish.20—Is this not David, the king of the land?—This question exhibits the great impression which David’s exploit had made on the Philistines in their ideas concerning his position in his nation and country. They call him king of the land “because David had appeared as such in taking up Goliath’s challenge, and had thrown Saul entirely into the shade” (Then.).21 This impression was favored by their recollection of the song of triumph, in which David was honored above Saul, and which was still well known to them. Sang they not of him in dances?—See 1Sa_18:7. With this astounding recollection is connected the apprehension that this dangerous enemy of the Philistine people comes with evil intent. The supposition that with these words of 1Sa_21:12 (11) the courtiers introduced David into Achish’s presence (Thenius) is nowhere supported, is improbable from the form of the words, which rather indicate the immediate impression made on them by David’s appearance, and is untenable from David’s consequent behaviour, (1Sa_21:13 (12)). Then, for the first time, David lays them to heart and reflects on them, and then fear of Achish comes over him. He sees that he is recognized, and fears that, if the courtiers remind the king of the past, they will take vengeance on him and kill him. Therefore, when brought to the king as a dangerous enemy, he suddenly resorts to the device of acting as a madman. This would have been an absurd procedure, if he had already been presented to Achish by the courtiers, and so was already acquainted with them. Rather it must be supposed that, at the moment when David heard those words, the above reflection occurred to him, and he straightway determined on and carried out this simulation, before the servants of Achish could suspect that he was only pretending. He changed his sense [1Sa_21:14 (13)], he perverted his understanding (Luther wrongly, after Sept. and Vulg., “his features”),22 feigned madness; the same words are found in the title of Psalms 34. (The apparently superfluous suffix in וַיְּשַׁנּוֹ is either to be taken as reflexive, and the following word explicative or objective, “he changed himself, his spiritual being, in respect to his understanding” (Then.), or with Keil we must explain it “from the circumstantial character of common popular speech, as in 2Sa_14:6, and in the not quite analogous cases Exo_2:6; Pro_5:22; Eze_10:3, (comp. Ges. Gr., § 121, 6 Rem. 3”).—The following words show that David played the part of an insane person. The view of some older expositors (and recently Schlier) that by God’s permission, under the excitement produced by fear and anguish of soul, David really fell into temporary insanity, is in direct contradiction to the words of the narrative. He moved hither and thither like a madman [Heb., “played the madman.”—Tr.]. Thenius refers to Jer_25:16; Jer_51:7; Neh_2:5, under their hands, they seeking to hold the madman. He smote (drummed on) the gate-doors, so we must read with Sept. and Vulg. instead of “scribbled” (וַיָּתָף from תָּפַף instead of וַיְתַו from תָּוָה), the latter not being the gesture of a madman, and not agreeing with the last word:23 And he let his spittle fall on his beard. This is to be understood of the foam which comes from the mouth of madmen.
1 Samuel 21:15, 16 [1Sa_21:14-15]. By his pretended madness David was safe from the servants of Achish, since in ancient, times the persons of madmen were looked on as inviolable, in a certain sense as sacred. Danger from Achish he likewise avoided by so cleverly counterfeiting insanity when brought before the king, that the latter declared he should not come to his court, he had already mad folks enough.24 Behold, ye see.—This expression shows the impression that David’s gestures made on the king, so that he did not doubt that he had a madman before him. A man who acts insanely, that is, not “who so represents himself,” but who objectively exhibits himself as a madman. For the question of reproach: Why do ye bring him to me? the reason is first given in the question, 1 Samuel 21:16 [1Sa_21:15]: Have I need, etc. … to play the madman against me?—The Prep. (עָלָי) = not in my presence (De Wette), but against me. Achish fears personal harm from him. With the third question: Shall this fellow come into my house? he thrusts him away. David’s plan, to remain unknown and concealed among the Philistines, did not succeed; but he succeeded in so simulating madness as to escape the dangerous situation into which he had gotten so soon as he was recognized as the victorious enemy of the Philistines. [From this narrative it appears that David and the Philistines understood one another’s language, as on other grounds it is probable that the Hebrew and Philistine dialects were nearly identical.—Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The more the history of David’s providential guidance in this troublous time unfolds itself, the more gloriously does his God-devoted, humbly-obedient spirit shine forth out of this gloomiest period of his life. But the prophetic-historical narrative is so little concerned to make prominent this light in David’s life, that it contents itself with a simple presentation of facts, and with equal freedom from tendentiousness25 and prepossession, brings out sharp and unsoftened the dark spots in David’s moral conduct. On the one hand David shows, in this time of hard trial and waiting, passive resignation to God’s will and complete abnegation of his own will, and though he is sure of his calling to be king of Israel, he takes no steps at all to realize his calling by his own efforts against Saul. But, on the other hand, we see him falling into great fear in Nob and Gath (as formerly in his interview with Jonathan), his strong faith tottering, himself resorting to lies and pretence, and putting self-help, unbecoming an obedient servant of God, in the place of the Lord’s help. In his deviation from truth for a good end he follows the principle often expressed by the Greek poets, e. g., Eurip.: “ὅτω̣ δ’ ὄλεθρον δεινὸν ἡ ἀλήθει’ ἄγει συγγνωστὸν ἐιπεῖν ἐστι καὶ τὸ μὴ καλόν [“when truth, brings ruin it is pardonable to speak untruth.”] Hamann: “The Holy Spirit is become the chronicler of men’s foolish, yea, sinful actions. He has narrated the lies of an Abraham, the incest of Lot, the simulation of a man after God’s heart. O God, Thy wisdom, by counsel which no reason can sufficiently wonder at and honor, has made the foolishness of men our instructor unto Christ, our glory in Christ.”—Grotius: “Something must be forgiven those times, when eternal life was scarcely known.”
2. Though the national sanctuary could not be re-established in Nob for the whole people, yet the high-priest and the other priests resided there, the will of God was inquired by Urim and Thummim, the legal prescriptions relating to worship were carried out as far as possible; and though the ark was wanting in the tabernacle, the latter was still regarded as the visible symbol of God’s gracious presence. And so, though there were several centres of worship (see on 1Sa_7:5), Nob was the most prominent of them, and with its incomplete arrangements was a substitute for the sanctuary for whose legal completeness for the whole people the presence of the ark was necessary. This more general significance for the whole people Nob had not merely by the presence of the ark, but also by the sacred vessels and arrangements connected with it. Among these were the twelve loaves of showbread according to the number of the twelve tribes on the sacred table appointed for them; for these were a covenant-sign to set forth Israel’s permanent consecration in obedience and in producing the fruit of good works, which were offered to the Lord as His well-pleasing food.
3. The precepts of the Old Testament law were the outer shell of eternally valid demands of God’s holy will on the will of His people. That the bread, consecrated by its holy meaning and use, could be eaten only by clean males of the priestly order in the holy place, was only the clothing of the [real] requirement, which read: only when you keep yourselves pure from the stain of sin and disobedience, and sanctify yourselves to me in heart, life, and walk, are ye in My sight a truly priestly people, and have part in the enjoyment of the gifts and goods of My house, and are members of My kingdom. The outer form and shell, the letter of the legal precept might be broken, if only the content, the essence was maintained; yea, this outer form, inadequate to the eternal ethical spiritual content of the Law, must be broken through, when its external preservation involved the violation or destruction of the essence and inner kernel. The duty of self-preservation justified David in eating the show-bread, to which, according to the letter of the law, he was not entitled; neighborly love required Ahimelech to deviate from the outer prescription in order to help the needy fugitive.26 Both acted in the higher sense as priests. On this Christ grounded the application of this instance to Himself and His disciples, who broke the sabbath-law by plucking corn (Mat_12:3; Mar_2:26; Luk_6:3). “The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath-day,”—in Him, and by communion with Him, in the power of His Spirit, is the true fulfilment of the eternal will of God hidden in Old Testament precepts, so that redeemed and sanctified man stands no longer under the disciplinary form of the law, but stands above and controls the form of the requirement. Even the Old Testament ritual law itself pointed involuntarily beyond itself to the fulfilment of its hidden truths and ideas by regulations and injunctions which of necessity violated the legal ordination [Mat_12:5]. The rabbis themselves well say: “In the sanctuary is no sabbath; sacrifice abolishes the sabbath.”
4. The history of David’s flight to the Philistines, and his escape thence by simulating madness, is, in the first place, the basis of Psalms 34, which bears the title: “By David, when he changed his understanding before Abimelech, and he drove him away and he departed.” This title agrees precisely with the principal points of the narrative in 1Sa_21:11-15, and is, as it were, a brief compendium of it. The Abimelech of the title is identical with the Achish of the history, for the former name was the nomen dignitatis of all the Philistine kings, like Pharaoh among the Egyptians and Agag among the Amalekites. So Basilius in Euthym. Zigab. in the Introduction to this Ps. Comp. Hengst. Beiträge [Contributions] III., 306 sq., and Introduction to this Ps. That the private name should appear in the history, and the official name in the title of the Ps., is perfectly natural.—The Psalm, however, contains no express reference to the history, but is rather didactic and reflective; it contains: 1Sa_21:2-4 (1–3) a vow to praise God continually, and an exhortation to the pious to unite in this praise, 1Sa_21:5-11 (4–10), the reason for this vow and exhortation, namely, personal deliverance from great fear and danger, then 1Sa_21:12-15 (11–22), the teaching that only through the fear of God is one saved in time of need. This didactic poem, with its reflective, gnomic character and its alphabetic arrangement, cannot have been produced contemporaneously with the events of the history; but we cannot on this account, and from the absence of direct references to the history, reject the Davidic authorship, if we keep in view its genuine Davidic features and the concurrence of some of its thoughts and expressions with undoubtedly Davidic Psalms (see Moll on the Psalter [in Lange’s Biblework]). The content is a reflection of that experience of David of divine help (set forth in this history), which sunk so deep into his soul, and an application of it to the instruction, consolation, and edification of the pious. The difference in the Philistine king’s name shows indeed that the writer of the title did not have our history before him, and must have had other authority for referring the Ps. to this occurrence; this authority we may with Delitzsch and Moll hold to be the written tradition in the Annals of David, this Psalm, like others (as 2Sa_22:1 compared with Psalms 18 shows) being found in the historical account, which is given in the title in the words of that authority.27—To the same dangerous situation of David refers Psalms 56, the words of the title “when the Philistines took him in Gath” being confirmed by the expression in our history “in their hands,” 1Sa_21:14 (13). Compare also 1Sa_21:9 (8) of the Psalm: “Thou countest my flight,” or “hast counted my fugitive life” (Moll). From the recollection of these dangers David colors the portraiture of his dangers from his enemies, but at the same time exhibits throughout the Psalm confidence in God’s help and faith in God’s support, closing with a vow of thanksgiving for the divine aid, which he with assurance expects, through which he will walk before God in the light of life.—“When David sang these two songs, God’s grace had already dried his tears. Their fundamental tone is thanksgiving for favor and deliverance. But he who has an eye therefor will observe that they are still wet with tears, and cannot fail to see in the singer’s outpourings of heart the sorrowfulest recollections of former sins and errors” (F. W. Krummacher).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa_21:1. Schlier: When David finds no more help in the world, he goes to the Lord and His sanctuary. There he hopes certainly to find counsel and consolation. The Lord’s word has counsel and consolation for all the necessities and perplexities of our life—and he who heartily seeks and longs for the Lord’s word finds what he wants.
1Sa_21:2. [From Hall]: God lets us see some blemishes in His holiest servants, that we may neither be too highly conceited of flesh and blood, nor too much dejected when we have been miscarried into sin.]—Schlier: How good it would be if we should never indeed imitate David’s “lie of necessity,” but should always lay to heart the fact that in his need he betook himself to the sanctuary in Nob.—J. Disselhoff: It is one thing to show faith when a single wave of trouble rolls in upon us, and another to continue in faith when wave after wave bursts upon us, and the terrified eye sees spreading out before it an endless sea. This latter temptation David did not yet encounter.—Two lies in one breath!—[Henry: Here David did not behave like himself; he told Ahimelech a gross untruth. …… What shall we say to this? The Scripture does not conceal it, and we dare not justify it: it was ill done and proved of bad consequence (1Sa_22:22). It was needless for him thus to dissemble with the priest—for we may suppose that if he had told him the—truth, he would have sheltered and relieved him as readily as Samuel did.—Tr.]
1Sa_21:4 sq. Schlier: What right and custom required under the Old Covenant is all well, but love goes beyond this; love is the royal law, to which all other ordinances must yield, and any fulfilling of the law which forgets love commits a wrong.—Love is the royal law—all God’s commandments call for nothing else than love. That which is love is worth something; but the apparently best and noblest things have no value if love is not manifested in them.—Cramer: The love of our neighbor surpasses ceremonies (Mar_2:27; Mat_12:5). [1Sa_21:6. Our Lord simply justifies this giving and eating the show-bread in a case of necessity as His hearers would do. If He had stopped to explain about David’s falsehood, it would have interrupted His argument and thus diminished its force; and no one had a right to imagine that He approved the falsehood. We cannot be always pausing to guard against the possibility of mistake or misrepresentation, or we shall never say any thing with vigor and effect.—Tr.]
1Sa_21:8. Schlier: It is not wrong if in time of need we seek weapons too, if we do not neglect human means and precautions; that too we may and ought to keep in view. But we should never place our confidence therein. Our confidence should be in the Lord alone.
1Sa_21:9. Cramer: God has wonderful and manifold means of consoling a troubled man and strengthening him in the faith.
1Sa_21:10. S. Schmid: If one must flee, lot him so flee as to have recourse to God rather than to men.—Wuertemburg Bible: Through God’s government our enemies are often compelled to do us more good than our friends. Pro_16:7; Mat_2:13.—[1Sa_21:10-11. Taylor: Nothing more salutary could have happened to David than such a reception as that which was given to him at Gath. When a youth is going on a wrong course, the best thing that can befall him is failure and disgrace, and the worst thing that can come to him is what the world calls success. If he succeed, the probability is that he will go farther astray than ever; but if he fail, there is hope that he will return to the right path, and seek alliance with Jehovah.—Tr.]
1Sa_21:14-15. Starke: God always holds His hand over His people to protect them, and rescues them from the power of the ungodly. Psa_34:5; Psa_34:7.
J. Disselhoff to chapters 21, 22, 27. Lies in the mouth of the Anointed one. 1) Whence are lies in such a mouth? (From shaken faith in the living God and the unrest of unbelief, from seeking refuge in one’s own wisdom and in the suggestions of his own heart.) 2) What delivers from such lies? (God’s great mercy and His holy chastisement in the consequences of lies as being the chastenings of His righteousness, and a return to genuine repentance and to living faith.)—F. W. Krummacher: David’s mad wanderings. 1) His behaviour at Nob, 2) His flight to Gath and experiences there.
The opposite ways in which one may seek refuge in want and opposition: 1) The way of humble, believing obedience, in which one takes refuge in the living God, searches to know His will, and unreservedly commits himself to His guidance. 2) The way of little faith and unbelief, in which one takes refuge in flesh and blood, and in which self-will and self-wisdom are to lead to a self-determined aim.
[Chap. 21. Mingling of good and evil in David’s behaviour. 1) Though a brave and devout man, he falls into grievous falsehood and degrading deception, through cowardly fear and lack of trust in God.—A warning to us. Comp. Neh_13:26; 1Co_10:12. 2) Though so weak and erring, he remembers God’s help in the past (1Sa_21:9), cries to Him now (Psa_34:6), rejoices in Him anew (ib. 1Sa_21:1), and resolves henceforth to speak truth and do good (ib. 1Sa_21:13-14; comp. Psa_56:13).—An encouragement to us. Comp. 1Jn_2:1.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa_21:1. לִקְרַאת supposes a verb of “going” before it.—Tr.]
[2][1Sa_21:2. Literally “in respect to the business.”—Tr.]
[3][1Sa_21:2. יוֹדַעְתִּי Poel of יָדַע “to know”=“taught, instructed.” Some take it as error for הוֹדַעְתִּי (Buxtorf.) not so well. Sept. διαμεμαρτύρημαι = יוֹעַדְתִּי, Poel of יָעַד, which is a better reading. The Syr. supports the Heb. text—other versions not decisive.—Tr.]
[4][1Sa_21:2. Heb. “Peloni almoni.” This is translated by Syr. and Chald. “secret and hidden.” Sept. (Vat.) has a duplet; it translates by θεοῦ πίστις, “faith of God,” and transfers by “Phellani mœmoni.” On the derivation of the Heb. words see Ges. Lex. s. v. Fürst suggests that peloni may be from palmoni, and in the Annot. to Dan_8:13 in the ed. princeps of Codex Chis. the latter is held to be the original form, and is derived from the Egyptian Ammon (with prefix ל and Egypt. article = pa. l. ammon = palmoni), which is wholly improbable. Buxtorf (after Kimchi) says that the words here after “place” indicate a person: “to the place of such a one.”—Tr.]
[5][1Sa_21:4. Or: “have only kept themselves.”—Tr.]
[6][1Sa_21:5. More exactly “(nay) but women.”—Tr.]
[7][1Sa_21:5. On this sentence see Erdmann’s Exposition and a long list of translations in Poole’s Synopsis. The principal renderings are as follows: 1) “And though it is a profane (i.e., military) way, yet it is sanctified to-day in the vessel” (i.e., David or Ahimelech or the young men’s body). Ewald: “how much more will they (the young men, changing the Numb. of the verb) be holy in the vessel” (i.e., their bodies), since, namely, they were clean at starting, how much more now the third day! 2) “Though it is a profane (i.e., ceremonially illegal) procedure (to take the show-bread), yet it is sanctified by the vessel (David or Ahimelech)”—so Thenius and Erdmann. 3) “If this is our way with profane things (i.e., we have not defiled ourselves on the road), how much more will the bread now given us be kept holy in our vessels” (Philippson); 4) “And though this is the manner of common bread (i.e., to give it to us), yet surely to-day the bread in the vessel (i.e., the fresh show-bread) is holy” (Bib. Comm.). 5) “It (the show-bread) is in a manner profane, even though it were to-day sanctified” (Rashi, Eng. A. V.).—There is no good ground for changing the text, and the word “vessels” cannot be taken (according to O. T. usage) in the N. T. sense (2Co_4:7). It is a hurried, excited sentence, almost utterly obscure. The second rendering above given (that of Thenius, adopted by Erdmann) seems the least open to objection.—Tr.]
[8][1Sa_21:7. Sept.: “the Syrian” (ר for ד).—Tr.]
[9][1Sa_21:7. Sept. “keeper of the mules,” רֹעֵה הַפֶּרֶד, perhaps by inversion and misreading of the text; comp. the designation of Doeg in 1Sa_22:9.—Tr.]
[10][1Sa_21:8. אֵין יֶשׁ is somewhat strange. Sept. ἴδε εἰ ἔστιν = רְאֵה הֲיֵשׁ (Wellh.), Chald. “if there is here!” Syr. “is there not (לית)?” Vulg. si habes hic. Gesen. supposes that the Interrog. הֲ has fallen out. We may perhaps take אין as Interrog, = אי.—Tr.]
[11][1Sa_21:9. Sept. adds “and he gave it to him,” a natural completion of the transaction, but the omission of a self-understood act like that is also natural.—Tr.]
[12][1Sa_21:10. Literally: “from the face of.”—Tr.]
[13][1Sa_21:13. On these words see Erdmann. For the first Wellh. proposes to read וַיְשַׁנֶּה.—Tr.]
[14][1Sa_21:15. Literally: “unto.”—Tr.]
[15][So Hackett in Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. “Nob.” Porter (Hand-book II. 307, ed. of 1868) identifies Nob with a conical tell opposite Shafat, where are remains of a small, but apparently ancient town, with cisterns and a tower, whence Mount Zion is visible.—Tr.]
[16][On possible explanations of this, see Comms. of Lange and Alexander in loco, and Hackett in Note to Art. “Abiathar” in Smith’s Bib. Dict., and on the general chronological difficulties see Comms. on 2Sa_8:17 and 1Ch_18:16; 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31.—Tr.]
[17][Rendered incorrectly in Eng. A. V. (and by others) “in a manner.”—Tr.]
[18][On rabbinical opinions about Doeg see Philippson in “Die Israel. Bibel” in loco.—Tr.]
[19][To which it may be added that, even if he carried the sword to Gath, he might have kept it concealed during his stay there.—Tr.]
[20][So Maurer: De eo, but other Comms. and ancient vss., as Eng. A. V.—Tr.]
[21][It is noticeable that Goliath’s name is not mentioned by the Philistines, perhaps from natural indisposition to recall a grievous calamity, and out of regard for Goliath’s family and friends.—Tr.]
[22][Luther has geberde = mien, gestures, the Sept. has πρόσωπον and the Vulg. os.—Tr.]
[23][On this reading see “Text and Gram.” David might have learned the signs of madness from his association with Saul.—Tr.]
[24][According to Jewish tradition or fancy the wife and daughter of Achish were insane (Philippson).—Tr.]
[25][We have no word in English to express the German tendenz-schrift, “a writing which has a special aim or object” (in politics or religion), and the adjective tendenziös, tendentious, “having a tendency or aim, written in the interest of some idea.” Here it would set forth that the Book of Samuel was written for the purpose of glorifying David.—Tr.]
[26][But the priest did not know that David was a fugitive; he helped him as an official of the king in momentary need. Whether David, as an official person, could not have gotten food elsewhere, does not appear.—Tr.]
[27][As, however, the name Abimelech may be otherwise accounted for (see Smith’s Bib.-Dict., s. v. Abimelech), and the opinion of Basil is of doubtful authority, and the content of this Ps. agrees as much with the Hokmah-period as with David, it is to say the least, very doubtful whether David is its author.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain DAVID’S FLIGHT TO NOB, 1Sa_21:1-9.
DAVID’S FLIGHT TO NOB, 1Sa_21:1-9.
Finding that his beloved Jonathan cannot defend him from the wrath of Saul, David next flies to the high priest, to inquire of the Lord concerning his way. The presence there of Doeg, the Edomite, was an obstacle in his way.
Read full note →
1. Nob — This city was situated a little to the north of Jerusalem, and apparently upon an eminence in sight of it, so that the Assyrian army, having advanced thus far, could “shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion.” Isa_10:32. Many travellers have sought in vain to identify its sight. Dr. J.L. Porter made the discovery of Nob a special subject of research, and as the result of his investigation gives us the following: “Less than a mile south of Tuleil el-Ful, the site of Gibeah, is a conical rocky tell [hill] separated from the former by a valley. On the summit and sides of this tell are traces of a small but very ancient town — cisterns cut in the rock; large, hewn stones: portions of the rocky sides levelled and hewn away; and on the southeast the remains of a small tower. From the summit there is a wide view. Mount Zion is distinctly seen, though Moriah is hid by an intervening ridge. The position, south of Gibeah and not far from Anathoth; the elevation, commanding a view of Zion, against which Isaiah represents the Assyrian as shaking his hand; the ancient remains — all convinced the writer that this is the site of the long-lost Nob.”
Ahimelech the priest — Supposed to be the same as the Ahiah mentioned 1Sa_14:3. This high priest was assisted by eighty-five priests who wore linen ephods, and hence Nob was called the city of the priests. 1Sa_22:18-19. The mention of these, and also of the show-bread, shows that the tabernacle was at this time at Nob.
Ahimelech was afraid — At seeing a person of David’s rank coming to him unattended and alone.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 1Sa_21:1-9. David’s visit to Nob
1Sa_21:1-9. David’s visit to Nob
1. to Nob] Nob was at this time a city of the priests (1Sa_22:19), though it is not specified among the places assigned to them by Joshua: here, as is clearly to be inferred from 1Sa_21:6, the Tabernacle, which has not been mentioned since the death of Eli, was now standing. The site of Nob has not been identified. The description of Sennacherib’s march in Isa_10:28-32 shews that it was a day’s march south of Geba on the road to Jerusalem, and within sight of the city. Dean Stanley supposes it to be the northern summit of Mount Olivet, the place of worship which David passed in his flight from Absalom (2Sa_15:31). Sin. and Pal. p. 187. Hither David betook himself not as a permanent refuge, but to inquire the will of God concerning his future movements, and to procure food and weapons, for in the hurry of his flight he had brought nothing away with him.
Read full note →
Ahimelech the priest] See note on 1Sa_14:3.
was afraid at the meeting of David] Came to meet David trembling. Cp. 1Sa_16:4. Seeing the king’s son-in-law unattended, he may have suspected the truth, and have been afraid of incurring Saul’s displeasure.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) Then came David to Nob.—Before leaving his native…
(1) Then came David to Nob.—Before leaving his native land, David determined once more to see, and if practicable to take counsel with, the old high priest of Israel, with whom, no doubt, in the past years of his close connection with Samuel, he had had frequent and intimate communion. He hoped, too, in that friendly and powerful religious centre to provide himself and his few companions with arms and other necessaries for his exile; nor is it improbable that he purposed, through the friendly high priest, to make some inquiry of the Divine oracle, the Urim and Thuinmim, concerning his doubtful future. The unexpected presence of Doeg, the powerful and unscrupulous servant of Saul, at the sanctuary, no doubt hurried him away in hot haste across the frontier.
The town of Nob, situated between Anathoth and Jerusalem—about an hour’s ride from the latter—has been with great probability identified with the “village of Esau,” El-Isaurizeb, a place bearing all the marks of an ancient town, with its many marble columns and ancient stones. There, in these latter days of Saul, “stood the last precious relic of the ancient nomadic times—the tabernacle of the wanderings, round which, since the fall of Shiloh, had dwelt the descendants of the house of Eli. It was a little colony of priests; no less than eighty-five persons ministered there in the white linen dress of the priesthood, and all their families and herds were gathered round them. The priest was not so ready to befriend as the prophet (we allude to David’s reception by Samuel at Naioth by Ramah, 1 Samuel 19). As the solitary fugitive, famished and unarmed, stole up the mountain side, he met with but a cold welcome from the cautious and courtly Ahimelech.”—Stanley, Lectures on the Jewish Church, Lect. 12
Read full note →
To Ahimelech the priest.—He was the great grandson of Eli, thus—
Died at Shiloh after news of capture of Ark,
EliPhinehasAhitubIchabodAhimelechAbiathar.Slain by Philistines in battle
Reign of Saul—High Priest,
Reign of David—High Priest, (See 1Sa_22:19-20.)
He was probably identical with Ahiah (1Sa_14:3); this, however, is not certain. Dean Payne Smith believes Ahiah was a younger brother of Ahimelech, who, while Ahimelech remained with the Ark, acted as high priest at the camp for Saul, especially in consulting God for him by means of the ephod with the breastplate (the Urim).
Why art thou alone?—The not unfriendly but cautious priest, who, though unaware of the final rupture of Saul and David, was of course cognisant of the strained relations of the king and his great servant, was uneasy at this sudden appearance of the king’s son-in-law—the well-known military chieftain, David—alone and travel-stained at the sanctuary.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain DAVID"S FLIGHT TO NOB (vers. 1-9).
DAVID"S FLIGHT TO NOB (vers. 1-9).
Then came David to Nob. Nob means a knoll or hill, and apparently was situated a little to the north of Jerusalem on the road leading to Gath. The ark had evidently been removed thither by Saul early in his reign, after it had remained for twenty years in the house of Abinadab; and as eighty-five priests wearing an ephod were murdered there by Doeg at Saul"s command, (1Sa_22:18, 1Sa_22:19) it is plain that the worship of Jehovah had been restored by him with something of its old splendour. And this agrees with Saul"s character. At the commencement of his reign we find Ahiah with him as high priest, and even when he fell his excuse was the necessity for performing the public rites of religion. (1Sa_15:15) But with him the king"s will was first, the will of Jehovah second; and while he restores God"s public worship as part of the glory of his reign, he ruthlessly puts the priests with their wives and families to death when he supposes that they have given aid to his enemy. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David. More literally, "went trembling to meet David." Ahiah, described as high priest in 1Sa_14:3, was either dead or, more probably, was a younger brother, who, while Ahimelech remained with the ark, acted as high priest at the camp for Saul, especially in consulting God for him by means of the ephod with the breastplate. Why art thou alone? Nevertheless, in Mar_2:26 our Lord speaks of those "who were with David," and the "young men" are mentioned in vers. 4, 5. While David went alone to consult Ahimelech, that his visit might be kept quite secret, he had taken a few of his servants with him, and had left them somewhere in the neighbourhood, or even, more probably, had instructed some one to meet him with such men as he could collect. The arrival of the king"s son-in-law without an escort would naturally strike the high priest as strange, and therefore as alarming.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-7.
Weakness in embarrassment.
The facts are
1. Arriving at Nob, David quiets the suspicions of Ahimelech by stating that he was on the king"s secret business.
2. On this ground he asks for and obtains hallowed bread to appease hishunger, and the sword of Goliath.
3. Doeg the Edomite, being detained there that day, is observant of David"s proceedings. Hitherto David had held position as an officer in Saul"s household or in the army, and therefore, despite Saul"s private jealousy, had a right to the respect and protection of every man. Henceforth loyalty to Saul meant death to David. Therefore the paternal home at Bethlehem was out of the question, and there were reasons for not compromising Samuel with any appearance of open revolt. To a devout mind it was natural under these circumstances to flee to the sanctuary, and there seek solace and aid. The narrative relates how good and evil were blended in the conduct of the man of God at this critical juncture, and it suggests for consideration several important truths.
I THE HIGHER LAWS OF LIFE. David desired the shewbread to appease his hunger, and the priest in charge at first objected to the request on the plea that it was contrary to the ceremonial law to give it to him. The fact that David, a devout and reasonable man, ventured to ask for it, combined with his argument on the priest"s own ceremonial principles (ver. 5), shows that he perceived the existence of a law which rose above the ceremonial. Some would perhaps regard David"s action as typical of the prerogatives of the real King and Priest of Zion, and even interpret his statement about the "king"s business" as a spiritual enigma, pointing to the "Father"s business" which Christ was commissioned to accomplish. (Luk_2:49; Joh_17:4-9) But, at all events, it is certain that our Saviour regarded David"s request and the response of the priest as indicative of the subordination of a lower to a higher law. (Mar_2:24-28) To save and sustain the life of a man, though a fugitive, was more important than the observance of a ritual. This subordination of law runs through all things, till we come up to the highest that of supreme love of God. Health, and even life, may have to be set aside for the assertion of a moral principle. Hence the paradox. (Mat_10:39) Class distinctions, official relations, domestic claims, and private rights may be, in seasons of extreme national peril, entirely ignored for the maintenance of public safety. On this principle it is that attention to the affairs of this life, though right and good, is to yield to the higher obligation of regard to eternal things; and deference to self one of the most important of laws must give way when Christ claims submission to his yoke, thesubmission of love. Thus it could be shown how entirely in harmony with the scientific principle of interaction and subordination of laws is the cardinal teaching of the gospel.
II WEAKNESS IN EMBARRASSMENT. The embarrassment of David was great, and not unlike what many fall into when called to high service for God. He was evidently under the impression that he was being led by God to some service for Israel not yet explicitly revealed. (cf. 1Sa_16:13 1Sa_17:26, 45 19:18-24 20:13-15) At the same time he had neither the will nor the thought to rise in revolt, nor would Samuel or Jesse encourage it; yet, without home, friend, or covering, whither could he flee, and what do? To aid him would be deemed by the enraged king as treason. Under these circumstances, as a devout man, he naturally fled from his hiding place to the sanctuary at Nob. But the considerations which hindered him from compromising Samuel, Jesse, and Jonathan also operated with him to save Ahimelech from the cruel suspicion of Saul. Hence, for covering the priest as well as for saving life, he fabricated the falsehood.
1. God"s service and approval afford us no exemption from embarrassment. No man was ever more truly called to service and more distinctly approved than was David, and it is difficult to find in history a case of more undeserved and painful embarrassment. The Psalms, especially 7., 10., 13., 35., 52., 54., reveal how keenly he felt his position. Those who think that the service of God is free from cares and trials know little of history and life. The Apostle Paul had his full share, though chief of apostles. (2Co_11:23-28) The purifying fires easily enkindle in this world. There are materials for them in domestic affairs, in business, in the developments of private experience.
2. The causes of weakness in embarrassment are often traceable. If we fall, as did David, it is because of either
(1) Partial consideration of the facts of our position. We may dwell too much on the difficulties, too little on the Unseen Hand. Peter looked at the waves, and not at Christ, and then began to sink. "Man does not live by bread alone". (Deu_8:3)
(2) Physical exhaustion conduces to this partial consideration, and also renders the action of the mind less steady. David was suffering mentally by the recent suspense, parting from his friend, and long abstinence from food. The inception of many a sin takes place when the flesh is literally weak. Our Saviour recognises this. (Mat_26:40, Mat_26:42)
1. Education may have impaired our moral perception in reference to some actions. Custom does in one age tolerate what in another is abominated. Good men have bought and sold slaves. In David"s time the tongue that lied for bread may have committed only a venial offence.
1. There may be too much inventiveness in seeking an outlet from embarrassment. It is possible to think and scheme too much, not leaving to God that which in our desperate need always belongs to him. In this state of mind evil suggestions are sure to arise, and they lay hold of the spirit just
2. in proportion as, in extreme self-reliance, we lose trust in God. Our Saviour seems to have this in view in Mat_6:25-34.
3. It is possible that amidst the pressure of life we do not keep near enough to God. Possibly David had been too hurried and worried by the purely human aspect of affairs to have strengthened his faith by fellowship with God. The soul, as in the case of Peter, is weak if it fasts too long, as is the body when bread fails.
III THE PRESENCE OF AN UNFRIENDLY EYE. Doeg the Edomite was present, and David"s conduct was noted. Little sympathy had this proselyte with the lofty aspirations of the "anointed;" great his pleasure in revealing to Saul anything gratifying to his wicked malice. The lesson is obvious. The servants of God live in the midst of a "perverse generation," and any inconsistencies, in their conduct are. sure. to be used against them. Some men take unusual delight in detecting the frailties of professing Christians, as though these were an excuse for their own habits. Deeds which attract no attention in other men become conspicuous in Christians, because of the utter contrast with their holy profession. (1Ti_6:1; Tit_2:4-8)
IV A PARALLEL AND A CONTRAST. There is a singular parallel in many of the circumstances of David"s life at this period and those of our Saviour"s. David, the anointed, was destined to work out a great issue for Israel, but for years carried the secret in his own breast, and was now despised, persecuted, unsustained openly by any in authority, without food, shelter, and visible means of defence, and, moreover, exposed to strong temptations arising out of his sorrows. And so the "Anointed of the Lord," later on, kept for a longwhile the purpose of his life in his own heart, and only by degrees unfolded it to men. He also was despised and rejected of men; unrecognised by the authorities; cruelly persecuted, being charged with motives and intentions most base; not knowing "where to lay his head;" without means of defence against physical injury; and not unacquainted with hunger and weariness. No wonder if the Psalms which assert the "righteousness" of David. (Act_2:29-31; 2Pe_1:21) shadow forth the "righteousness" of the "Holy One" (Act_2:27) and his more glorious triumph. But the contrast is manifest. David in poverty and distress trusts in God, but not perfectly. He proves his frailty in common with all others. He knows the shame and bitterness of sin. Not so the Christ. He would have no recourse to expedients for obtaining bread or relief from apprehension. (Mat_4:2-4 Mat_26:38, Mat_26:39, Mat_26:50) "Of the people there was none with him." "He trod the winepress alone." But in all things he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." In the deepest sense, therefore, do we see the appropriateness of the reference of the Psalms to him in all ascriptions of right and dominion by virtue of purity and righteousness. (Psa_24:3-10) Not in David, but in Christ is the solution of the grandest language of the Psalms. How impossible of solution are the problems when men eliminate the inspiration of the Holy Ghost from the Old Testament!
General lessons:
1. We should be careful to avoid such a rigid adherence to useful and approved ordinances and arrangements as might deprive the poor and needy of spiritual nourishment. This danger attends some Church regulations.
2. It should be laid down as a rigid rule that no embarrassment, no perilsfrom men, should ever justify even the thought of deception or wrong. Such a principle engrained into the soul will be a "breastplate of righteousness.
3. The prime consideration in times of peril is to commit our way to God,and be willing if need be to suffer and die.
4. We are justly indebted even to the failures of good men; for, out of thebitter review of their sins, they have borne testimony to the value of righteousness and the blessedness of trusting in God. Hence many of the Psalms.
5. We should guard against partiality in judging of the weakness of goodmen; for an occasional falsehood may be shocking to a man who thinks little of his own habit of backbiting or self-righteous censoriousness.
6. It requires many righteous deeds to remove the bad impression createdon unfriendly observers by one indiscretion.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-8. (NOB.)
Deceit.
1. As in the outward life, so in the inward experience of men greatexaltation is often followed by great depression. Whilst David was with Samuel and the prophets his faith in God appears to have been strong, and it was justified by the extraordinary manner in which he was preserved. But soon afterwards (some events which are not recorded having taken place in the interval) he was in mortal fear for his life, and resorted to an unworthy pretext in order to obtain an assurance of safety, and now took another false step. "There seems ground for suspecting that from the time of his parting with Jonathan if not, indeed, from the time of his leaving Naioth David had lost some of his trust in God (Kitto).
1. The intention to deceive constitutes the essence of lying. Truth is therepresentation of things as they are, and it may be departed from in many ways without such an intention. But veracity is always obligatory. Even if intentional deception be ever justifiable, as some have supposed, it clearly was not in the case of David. The sacred historian records the fact without approval, and without comment, except as the mention of its disastrous consequences may be so regarded. (1Sa_22:2) "Whoso thinketh that there is any kind of lie which is not sin deceiveth himself" (Augustine).
2. The amount of guilt involved in lying depends upon its circumstances,nature, and motives. The forms which it assumes are endlessly varied (direct, equivocation, suppression of truth, for advantage, pious frauds, malicious, etc.); but that which is marked by hatred and malice is the most reprehensible. This element was absent from the deception practised by David. The age in which he lived, too, was one in which a "lie of necessity" was deemed comparatively venial; and it was borne with, though not approved, by the "God of truth" until men should be trained to a higher moral state. Concerning deceit observe that
I IT IS USUALLY URGED BY SPECIAL INDUCEMENTS; such as
1. The pressure of circumstances. When David presented himself alone before the high priest at the commencement of the sabbath (the evening of Friday) he was pressed by hunger and fear, and thereby tempted to invent a falsehood. If he had steadfastly set his face against the temptation his need would probably have been met in some other way. There is, strictly
2. speaking, no such thing as a lie of necessity. A man may die of necessity, but not lie.
3. The promise of advantage. He thought that no harm could possibly come of his deceit. But how little do men know, when they enter upon a false way, to what end it may lead I
4. The possession of a natural tendency or susceptibility to such a temptation. There was in him (notwithstanding he abhorred lying from his heart) "a natural disposition which rendered him peculiarly open to this temptation: a quick, impulsive genius fertile in conceiving, and a versatile cleverness skilful in colouring things different from the actual fact. And does it not read a most striking lesson to those who are in any way similarly constituted?" (J. Wright, "David, King of Israel").
Ever to the truth Which but the semblance of a falsehood wears A man, if possible, should bar his lip, Since, although blameless, he incurs reproach (Dante).
II IT IS ALWAYS DESERVING OF STRONG REPROBATION, inasmuch as
1. It is a violation of the bond by which society is held together. Without confidence in each other"s truthfulness men could not live together in social union. It is a sin against the justice and the love which we owe to our neighbour. What the apostle says with reference to the Christian community applies to all: "Wherefore putting away lying," etc.: "for we are members one of another". (Eph_4:25)
2. It is contrary to the dictates of an enlightened conscience.
3. It is prohibited and condemned by the word of truth. "Ye shall not lie one to another". (Lev_19:11) "Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile". (Psa_24:1-3 Psa_119:29; Pro_12:22; Col_3:9; Rev_21:8) "Lying in a base, unworthy vice; a vice that one of the ancients portrays in the most odious colours, when he says that "it is to manifest a contempt of God, and withal a fear of man." It is not possible more excellently to represent the horror, baseness, and irregularity of it; for what can a man imagine more hateful and contemptible than to be a coward toward men and valiant against his Maker?" (Montaigne).
III IT IS OFTEN DETECTED BY UNEXPECTED MEANS (ver. 8). Little did David think of seeing Doeg the Edomite detained (literally, shut up) in the tabernacle, to witness his deception with quick eyes and ears, and ready to reveal it with a tongue "like a sharp razor, working deceitfully". (Psa_52:2) But
1. However cautious men may be in practising deceit, they can never calculate upon all the means by which it may be discovered. "A bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter". (Ecc_10:20)
1. Even its temporary success often leads to inquiry and discovery. (1Sa_22:6)
2. God, before whom "all things are naked and open," causes the whole course of things to work together for its exposure, (2Sa_12:12) in order to teach men to avoid "the way of lying," and "speak the truth in their heart." It was through the operation of his providence that Doeg was there that day. Human history and individual life afford innumerable instances of the exposure of deceit in unexpected ways. (Ecc_12:14)
Lie not; but let thy heart be true to God, Thy tongue to it, thy actions to them both. Dare to be true! Nothing can need a lie; The fault that needs it most grows two thereby (Herbert).
IV IT INVARIABLY PRODUCES PERNICIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
1. In those who deceive by their moral deterioration, encouragement indeception when they are successful, and filling them sooner or later with bitter regret. (1Sa_22:22)
2. In those who are deceived, to an extent which cannot be anticipated.
3. In other men, by lessening their confidence in one another, and giving"occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". (2Sa_12:14)
Learn
1. That we may not "do evil that good may come.
2. To judge charitably of others, inasmuch as we know not the strength oftheir temptations.
3. To watch against the least approach to deception in ourselves.
4. To seek preservation from it by firmly trusting in God. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Then came David to Nob.
1Sa_21:1-15
Then came David to Nob.
Read full note →
Almost gone
It is not easy to walk with God.
I. The steps of Davids declension. The first sign of what was impending was his remark to Jonathan, that there was but a step between himself and death (1Sa_20:3). Evidently his faith was beginning to falter; for nothing could have been more definite than the Divine assurances that he was to be king. The winds and waves were more daunting than the promise of God was inspiring. Perchance David relied too absolutely on what he had received, and neglected the daily renewal of the heavenly unction (Joh_1:33-34; 1Jn_3:24). Next he adopted a subterfuge, which was not worthy of him, nor of his great and mighty Friend. Late in the afternoon of the day preceding the weekly Sabbath, the kings son-in-law arrived, with a mere handful of followers, at the little town of Nob, situated among the hills about five miles to the south of Gibeah. Probably the great annual convocations had fallen into disuse, and the path to the simple sanctuary was only trodden by occasional visitors, such as Doeg, who came to pay their vows, or be cleansed from ceremonial pollution. There was, evidently, no attempt made to prepare for large numbers; the hard fare of the priests only just sufficed for them, and the presence of two or three additional strangers completely overbalanced the slender supply; there were not five loaves of common bread to spare. It was necessary to answer the questions, and allay the suspicions of the priest; and David did this by pleading the urgency of the mission on which his royal master had sent him. But a chill struck to his heart whilst making these excuses to the simpleminded priest, and enlisting his willing cooperation in the matter of provisions and arms, as he saw the dark visage of Doeg, the Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul. He knew that the whole story would be mercilessly retailed to the vindictive and vengeful monarch. Ten miles beyond lay the proud Philistine city of Gath, which at that time had sent its champion forth in all the pride of his stature and strength. What worse fate could await him at Gath than that which threatened him each hour he lingered within the limits of Judah! He therefore resolved to make the plunge. Not a little to his dismay, and perhaps on account of Goliaths sword hanging at his belt he was instantly recognised; and the servants of Achish recalled the refrain, which had already awoke the jealousy of Saul. He was instantly regarded with hatred, as having slain his ten thousands. He saved himself by descending to the unworthy subterfuge of counterfeiting the behaviour of a madman.
II. The Psalm of the silent dove. At first sight we are startled with the apparently irreconcilable discrepancy between the scenes we have just described and the 56th Psalm, the inscription of which associates it with them. Closer inspection will reveal many resemblances between the singers circumstances and his touching words. First stanza (1-4).
He turns to God from man; to the Divine mercy from the serried ranks of his foes, who, surging around him, threaten to engulf and swallow him up. Thus he climbs up out of the weltering waves, his feet on a rock, a new song in his mouth, the burden of which is, I will not be afraid. Second Stanza (5-9).--Again, he is in the depths. The returning wave has sucked him back. His boast changed to a moan, his challenge to complaint. Yet as we condole, we hear the voice of faith again ringing out the positive assurance, I know that God is for me, and again the old refrain comes back. Third Stanza (10-13).--There is no further relapse. His heart is fixed, fruiting the Lord; the vows of God are upon his head. And now, as once again he regains the sunny uplands, which he had so shamefully renounced in his flight from Gibeah to Nob, from Nob to Gath, from Gath to feigned insanity, he is sure that henceforth he will walk before God in the light of life. Truth, purity, joy, shall be the vesture of his soul.
III. The consequences to ahimelech. A child of God may be forgiven and restored, yet the consequences of his sin may involve sufferings to many innocent lives. So it was in this instance. Doeg took the opportunity of ingratiating himself in the royal favour, by narrating what he had seen at Nob. He carefully withheld the unsuspecting innocence and ignorance of the priest, and so told the tale as to make it appear that he and his house were accomplices with Davids action, and perhaps bent on helping David to gain supreme power. By one ruthless act, the entire priestly community was exterminated. There was but one survivor, for Abiathar escaped, carrying the ephod in his hands; and one day, to his horror, David beheld the disheveled, blood-besmeared form of the priest, as he sped breathless and panic-stricken up the valley of Elah, to find shelter with the outlaw band in the Cave of Adullam. We shall hear of him again. Meanwhile, let children of God beware! Sin is bitter to the conscience of the sinner and in its consequences upon others. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain
CHAPTER X X V I I I.
DAVID AT NOB AND AT GATH.
Read full note →
1Sa_21:1-15.
WE enter here on a somewhat painful part of David's history. He is not living so near to God as before; and in consequence his course becomes more carnal and more crooked. We saw in our last chapter the element of distrust rising up somewhat ominously in that solemn adjuration to Jonathan, "Truly as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death." These words, it is true, gave expression to an undoubted and in a sense universal truth, a truth which all of us should at all times ponder, but which David had special cause to feel, under the circumstances in which he was placed. It was not the fact of his giving solemn expression to this truth that indicated distrust on the part of David, but the fact that he did not set over against it another truth which was just as real, - that God had chosen him for His service, and would not allow him to perish at the hand of Saul. When a good man sees himself exposed to a terrible danger which he has no means of averting, it is no wonder if the contemplation of that danger gives rise for the moment to fear. But it is his privilege to enjoy promises of protection and blessing at the hand of the unseen God, and if his faith in these promises be active, it will not only neutralize the fear, but raise him high above it. Now, the defect in David's state of mind was, that while he fully realized the danger, he did not by faith lay hold of that which was fitted to neutralize it. It was Jonathan rather than David who by faith realized at this time David's grounds of security. All through Jonathan's remarks in chapter 20. you see him thinking of God as David's Protector, - thinking of the great purposes which God meant to accomplish by him, and which were a pledge that He would preserve him now, - thinking of David as a coming man of unprecedented power and influence, whose word would determine other men's destinies, and dispose of their fortunes. David seems to have been greatly indebted to Jonathan for sustaining his faith while he was with him; for after he parted from Jonathan, his faith fell very low. Time after time, he follows that policy of deceit which he had instructed Jonathan to pursue in explaining his absence from the feast in Saul's house. It is painful in the last degree to see one whose faith towered to such a lofty height in the encounter with Goliath, coming down from that noble elevation, to find him resorting for self-protection to the lies and artifices of an impostor.
We cannot excuse it, but we may account for it. David was wearied out by Saul's restless and incessant persecution. We read in Daniel of a certain persecutor that he should ''wear out the saints of the Most High," and it was the same sad experience from which David was now suffering. It does not appear that he was gifted naturally with great patience, or power of enduring. Rather we should suppose that one of such nimble and lively temperament would soon tire of a strained and uneasy attitude. It appears that Saul's persistency in injustice and cruelty made David at last restless and impatient. All the more would he have needed in such circumstances to resort to God, and seek from Him the oil of grace to feed his patience, and bear him above the infirmities of his nature. But this was just what he seems not to have done. Carnal fear therefore grew apace, and faith fell into a state of slumber. The eye of sense was active, looking out on the perils around him; the eye of faith was dull, hardly able to decipher a single promise. The eye of sense saw the vindictive scowl of Saul, the javelin in his hand, and bands of soldiers sent out on every side to seize David or slay him; the eye of faith did not see - what it might have seen - the angel of the Lord encamping around him and delivering him. It was God's purpose now to allow David to feel his own weakness; he was to pass through that terrible ordeal when, tossed on a sea of trials, one feels like Noah's dove, unable to find rest for the sole of one's foot, and seems on the very eve of dropping helpless into the billows, till the ark presents itself, and a gracious hand is put forth to the rescue. Left to himself, tempted to make use of carnal expedients, and taught the wretchedness of such expedients; learning also, through this discipline, to anchor his soul more firmly on the promise of the living God, David was now undergoing a most essential part of his early training, gaining the experience that was to qualify him to say with such earnestness to others, "O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him."
On leaving Gibeah, David, accompanied with a few followers, bent his steps to Nob, a city of the priests. The site of this city has not been discovered; some think it stood on the north-eastern ridge of Mount Olivet; this is uncertain, but it is evident that it was very close to Jerusalem (see Isa_10:32). Its distance from Gibeah would therefore be but five or six miles, much too short for David to have had there any great sense of safety. It appears to have become the seat of the sacred services of the nation, sometime after the destruction of Shiloh. David's purpose in going there seems to have been simply to get a shelter, perhaps for the Sabbath day, and to obtain supplies. Doeg, indeed, charged Ahimelech, before Saul, with having inquired of the Lord for David, but Ahimelech with some warmth denied the charge.* The privilege of consulting the Urim and Thummim seems to have been confined to the chief ruler of the nation; if with the sanction of the priest David had done so now, he might have justly been charged with treason; probably it was because he believed Doeg rather than Ahimelech, and concluded that this royal privilege had been conceded by the priests to David, that Saul was so enraged, and inflicted such dreadful retribution on them. Afterwards, when Abiathar fled to David with the high priest's ephod, through which the judgment of Urim and Thummim seems to have been announced, David regarded that circumstance as an indication of the Divine permission to him to make use of the sacred oracle. (*See 1Sa_22:15 : - ''Have I to-day begun to inquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father; for thy servant knoweth nothing of all this, less or more" (R.V.) To deny beginning to do a thing is much the same as to deny doing it.)
But what shall we say of the untruth which David told Ahimelech, to account for his coming there without armed attendants? "The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know anything of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee; and I have commanded my servants to such and such a place." Here was a statement not only not true, but the very opposite of the truth: spoken too to God's anointed high priest, and in the very place consecrated to God's most solemn service; everything about the speaker fitted to bring God to his mind, and to recall God's protection of him in time past; yet the first thing he did on entering the sacred place was to utter a falsehood, prompted by distrust, prompted by the feeling that the pledged protection of the God of truth, before whose shrine he now stood, was not sufficient. How plain the connection between a deficient sense of God's truthfulness, and a deficient regard to truth itself! What could have tempted David to act thus? According to some, it was altogether an amiable and generous desire to keep Ahimelech out of trouble, to screen him from the responsibility of helping a known outlaw. But considering the gathering distrust of David's spirit at the time, it seems more likely that he was startled at the fear which Ahimelech expressed when he saw David coming alone, as if all were not right between him and Saul, as if the truce that had been agreed on after the affair of Naioth had now come to an end. Probably David felt that if Ahimelech knew all, he would be still more afraid and do nothing to help him; moreover, the presence of Doeg the Edomite was another cause of embarrassment, for Saul had once ordered all his servants to kill David, and if the fierce Edomite were told that David was now simply a fugitive, he might be willing enough to do the deed. Anyhow, David now lent himself to the devices of the father of lies. And so the brave spirit that had not quailed before Goliath, and that had met the Philistines in so many terrific encounters, now quailed before a phantom of its own devising, and shrank from what, at the moment, was only an imaginary danger.
David succeeded in getting from Ahimelech what he wanted, but not without difficulty. For when David asked for five loaves of bread, the priest replied that he had no common bread, but only shewbread; he had only the bread that had been taken that day from off the table on which it stood before the Lord, and replaced by fresh bread, according to the law. The priest was willing to give that bread to David, if he could assure him that his attendants were not under defilement. It will be remembered that our Lord adverted to this fact, as a justification of His own disciples for plucking the ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath. The principle underlying both was, that when a ceremonial obligation comes into collision with a moral duty, the lesser obligation is to give place to the heavier. The keeping of the Sabbath free from all work, and the appropriation of the shewbread to the use of the priests alone, were but ceremonial obligations; the preservation of life was a moral duty. It A is sometimes a very difficult thing to determine duty, ''when moral obligations appear to clash with each other, but there was no difficulty in the collision of the moral and the ceremonial. Our Lord would certainly not have sided with that body of zealots, in the days of conflict between the Maccabees and the Syrians, who allowed themselves to be cut in pieces by the enemy rather than break the Sabbath by fighting on that day.
David had another request to make of Ahimelech. ''Is there not here under thy hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapon with me, because the king's business required haste." It was a strange place to ask for military weapons. Surely the priests would not need to defend themselves with these. Yet it happened that there was a sword there which David knew well, and which he might reasonably claim, - the sword of Goliath. "Give it me," said David; '' there is none like that." We read before, that David carried Goliath's head to Jerusalem. Nob was evidently in the Jerusalem district, and as the sword was there, there can be little doubt that it was at Nob the trophies had been deposited.
So far, things had gone fairly well with David at Nob. But there was a man there '' detained before the Lord," - prevented probably from proceeding on his journey because it was the Sabbath day, - whose presence gave no comfort to David, and was, indeed, an omen of evil. Doeg, the Edomite, was the chief of the herdmen of Saul. Why Saul had entrusted that office to a member of a nation that was notorious for its bitter feelings towards Israel, we do not know; but the herdman seems to have been like his master in his feelings towards David; he would appear, indeed, to have joined the hereditary dislike of his nation to the personal dislike of his master. Instinctively, as we learn afterwards, David understood the feelings of Doeg. It would have been well for him, when a shudder passed over him as he caught the scowling countenance of the Edomite, had his own conscience been easier than it was. It would have been well for him had he been ruled by that spirit of trust which triumphed so gloriously the day he first got possession of that sword. It would have been well for him had he been free from the disturbing consciousness of having offended God by borrowing the devices of the father of lies and bringing them into the sanctuary, to pollute the air of the house of God. No wonder, though, David was restless again! ''And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath."
How different his state and prospects now from what they had been a little time before! Then the world smiled on him; fame and honour, wealth and glory, flowed in on him; God was his Father; conscience was calm; he hardly knew the taste of misery. But how has his sky become overcast! A homeless and helpless wanderer, with scarcely an attendant or companion; in momentary fear of death; fain to beg a morsel of bread where he could get it; a creature so banned and cursed that kindness to him involved the risk of death; his heart bleeding for the loss of Jonathan; his soul clouded by distrust of God; his conscience troubled by the vague sense of unacknowledged sin! And yet he is destined to be king of Israel, the very ideal of a good and prosperous monarch, and the earthly type of the Son of God! Like a lost sheep, he has gone astray for a time, but the Good Shepherd will leave the ninety- and-nine and go among the mountains till He find him; and his experience will give a wondrous depth to that favourite song of young and old of every age and country, ''He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness, for His name's sake."
And now we must follow him to Gath, the city of Goliath. Down the slope of Mount Olivet, across the brook Kedron, and past the stronghold of Zion, and probably through the very valley of Elah where he had fought with the giant, David makes his way to Gath. It was surely a strange place to fly to, a sign of the despair in which David found himself! What reception could the conqueror of Goliath expect in his city? What retribution was due to him for the hundred foreskins, and for the deeds of victory which had inspired the Hebrew singers when they sang of the tens of thousands whom David had slain?
It will hardly do to say that he reckoned on not being recognized. It is more likely that he relied on a spirit not unknown among barbarous princes towards warriors dishonoured at home, as when Themistocles took refuge among the Persians, or Coriolanus among the Volscians. That he took this step without much reflection on its ulterior bearings is well nigh certain. For, granting that he should be favourably received, this would be on the understanding that his services would be at the command of his protector, or at the very least it would place him under an obligation of gratitude that would prove highly embarrassing at some future time. Happily, the scheme did not succeed. The jealousy of the Philistine nobles was excited. "The servants of Achish said unto him. Is not this David, the king of the land? Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?" David began to feel himself in a false position. He laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish. The misery of his situation and the poverty of his resources may both be inferred from the unworthy device to which he resorted to extricate himself from his difficulty. He feigned himself mad, and conducted himself as madmen commonly do. "He scrabbled on the door of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard" But the device failed. "Have I need of madmen," asked the king, ''that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?" A Jewish tradition alleges that both the wife and daughter of Achish were mad; he had plenty of that sort of people already: no need of more! The title of the thirty-fourth Psalm tells us, ''he drove him away, and he departed."
Have any of you ever been tempted to resort to a series of devices and deceits either to avoid a danger or to attain an object? Have you been tempted to forsake the path of straightforward honesty and truth, and to pretend that things were different with you from what they really were? I do not accuse you of that wickedness which they commit who deliberately imprison conscience, and fearlessly set up their own will and their own interests as their king. What you have done under the peculiar circumstances in which you found yourselves is not what you would ordinarily have done. In this one connection, you felt pressed to get along in one way or another, and the only available way was that of deceit and device. You were very unhappy at the beginning, and your misery increased as you went on. Everything about you was in a con strained, unnatural condition, - conscience, temper feelings, all out of order. At one time it seemed as if you were going to succeed; you were on the crest of a wave that promised to bear you to land, but the wave broke, and you were sent floundering in the broken water. You were obliged to go from device to device, with a growing sense of misery. At last the chain snapped, and both you and your friends were confronted with the miserable reality. But know this: that it would have been infinitely worse for you if your device had succeeded than that it failed. If it had succeeded; you would have been permanently entangled in evil principles and evil ways, that would have ruined your soul. Because you failed, God showed that He had not forsaken you. David prospering at Gath would have been a miserable spectacle; David driven away by Achish is on the way to brighter and better days.
For, if we can accept the titles of some of the Psalms, it would seem that the carnal spell, under which David had been for some time, burst when Achish drove him away, and that he returned to his early faith and trust. It was to the cave of Adullam that he fled, and the hundred and forty-second Psalm claims to have been written there. So also the thirty-fourth Psalm, as we have seen, bears to have been written "when he changed his behaviour" (feigned madness) "before Abimelech" (Achish?), ''who drove him away, and he departed." So much uncertainty has been thrown of late years on these superscriptions, that we dare not trust to them explicitly; yet recognizing in them at least the value of old traditions, we may regard them as more or less probable, especially when they seem to agree with the substance of the Psalms themselves. With reference to the thirty-fourth, we miss something in the shape of confession of sin, such as we should have expected of one whose lips had not been kept from speaking guile. In other respects the psalm fits the situation. The image of the young lions roaring for their prey might very naturally be suggested by the wilderness. But the chief feature of the psalm is the delightful evidence it affords of the blessing that comes from trustful fellowship with God. And there is an expression that seems to imply that that blessing had not been always enjoyed by the Psalmist; he had lost it once; but there came a time when (1Sa_21:4) "I sought the Lord, and He answered me, and delivered me from all my fears." And the experience of that new time was so delightful that the Psalmist had resolved that he would always be on that tack: ''I will bless the Lord at all tunes; His praise shall continually be in my mouth." How changed the state of his spirit from the time when he feigned madness at Gath! When he asks, ''What man is he that desire the life and loveth many days that he may see good?" (1Sa_21:12) - what man would fain preserve his life from harassing anxiety and bewildering dangers? - the prompt reply is, ''Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile." Have nothing to do with shifts and pretences and false devices; be candid and open, and commit all to God. ''O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him O fear the Lord, ye His saints" (for you too are liable to forsake the true confidence), "for there is no want to them that fear Him. The young lions do lack and suffer hunger, but they that seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. . . . Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivereth them out of them all."
"The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me; I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord: O Lord, I beseech Thee, deliver my soul. Gracious is the Lord, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful. The Lord preserveth the simple; I was brought low, and He helped me. Return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee" (Psa_116:3-7).
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 1Sa_21:1. The position of Nob cannot now be determined,…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
1Sa_21:1. The position of Nob cannot now be determined, only from Isa_10:28-33, we gather that it was on the road northward between Jerusalem and Anathoth. Porter identifies its site with “a low peaked dell a little to the right of the northern road and opposite to Sháfát. He found there several cisterns hewn in the rock, large building stones, and various other indications of an ancient town.” (Smith’s Biblical Dictionary). Others place it at the modern village of El-Isawiyeh, about a mile north-west of Jerusalem, but the objection to this spot is that the words of Isaiah imply that it was nearer the city of Jerusalem. “Ahimelech.” Most likely the same as the Ahiah mentioned in 1Sa_14:3 (see notes on that chapter). In Mar_2:26 Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (see 1Sa_22:20) is said to be the person who was high-priest at the time when David ate the shew-bread. Professor Hackett in the Biblical Dictionary shews that in 2Sa_8:17, and in 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31, the two names are confused with each other, and the same is probably the case in Mark. It is possible that father and son might have borne both names, or, as Hackett suggests, “Abiathar might have been the person who persuaded his father to allow him to have the shewbread, and it is probable the loaves were Abiathar’s (Lev_24:9), and given by him with his own hand to David.” “Why art thou alone?” As the son-in-law of the king it would be unusual for David to travel unattended. “We must presume that Ahimelech knew of Saul’s hatred to David but not of the most recent occurrences.” (Erdmann).
Read full note →
1Sa_21:2. “I have appointed my servants.” “This was probably true. It is scarcely credible that a person of David’s rank and consideration should not have secured some attendants and followers.… Moreover, our Lord (Mar_2:26) distinctly asserts that the priest gave the shew-bread to David, and ‘them that were with him.’ ” (Biblical Commentary.)
1Sa_21:4. “There is no common bread” “Common as opposed to holy. Thus the English word is also used in Act_10:14-15; Act_10:28.… It gives an idea of the depressed condition of the priesthood at this time that Ahimelech should have had no bread at hand except the shew-bread.” (Biblical Commentary.) “If the young men,” etc. “Thereby the principle of the legal prescription of Levitical purity was satisfied, inasmuch as the circumstances—the lack of ordinary bread, the haste which the alleged important commission of the king required, the duty of aiding in the execution as much as possible, and the pious behaviour of David in inquiring the Lord’s will at the holy place—seemed to justify a deviation from the rule concerning the eating of the shew-bread.” (Erdmann.)
1Sa_21:6. “The vessels of the young men are holy,” etc. This phrase to the end of the verse is very obscure, and has been variously rendered and understood. Some understand the word vessel in the New Testament sense of body, others of the clothes of the men, or other articles connected with their person. It is generally admitted that the word translated in a manner should be rendered way. The principal renderings of the clause are as follows:—“When I came out the young men’s things were holy (Levitically clean); and if it is an unholy way, it becomes even holy through the instrument, i.e., on the supposition of the important royal mission, upon which David pretended to be sent; the way is sanctified before God, when he, his chosen servant, is the instrument.” This is Keil’s rendering. Erdmann’s reading is similar, understanding the unholy way, however, to refer not to David’s enterprise, but to the act of ceremonial illegality of eating the shew-bread, and the word translated vessel at the end of the verse to refer to Ahimelech. “And though this is the manner of common bread (i.e., though it is treating it like common bread to give it to me), yet surely to-day the bread in the vessel is holy, (i.e., there is fresh shew-bread baked and put on the table in place of what you give us; the day being Friday, as is indicated in the verse following.” (Biblical Commentary.)
1Sa_21:6. “That was taken from before the Lord,” etc. “It seems to be mentioned as an alleviating fact, that the bread had already been taken away from before the Lord, having remained on the table in the holy place seven days according to the law.” (Erdmann.)
1Sa_21:7. “Detained before the Lord,” i.e., at the tabernacle, either for the purpose of purification, or as a proselyte received by circumcision, or in the fulfilment of a vow, or for suspected leprosy. “It is not impossible that Doeg may have been in custody or in sanctuary for some crime.” (Biblical Dictionary.) “Edomite, the chiefest of the herdsmen.” “He had probably come over with Saul in his wars with Edom.” (Ewald.) “On account of the importance which still attached in Saul’s time to the possession of herds as a family power, Doeg’s position must have been an important one.” (Erdmann.)
1Sa_21:8. “I have neither brought my sword.” That in such pressing danger David fled without arms, is to be explained on the ground that “he feared he would be recognised, or as an armed man concealing himself be suspected (Clericus), or that he fled in great haste.” (Erdmann.)
1Sa_21:9. “In a cloth behind the ephod.” “A sign of the great value attached to this dedicatory offering.” (Keil.) “There is none like that.” “Not only for its size and superior temper, but for its being a pledge of the Divine favour to him, and a constant stimulus to his faith.” (Jamieson.)
1Sa_21:10. “Fled that day.” “He only stayed in Nob long enough to get arms and food … We do not know whether he had already determined to go into Philistia, or now first suddenly resolved upon it, possibly in consequence of Doeg’s unexpected appearance.” (Erdmann.) Achish, or Abimelech. (See Psalms 34) This last was the standing title of the Philistian princes of Gath. (See Gen_26:1.) “As some years had passed since the defeat of Goliath, and the conqueror of Goliath was probably not known personally to many of the Philistines, he might hope that he should not be recognised in Gath, and that he might receive a welcome there as a fugitive who had been driven away by Saul, the leading foe of the Philistines.” (Kiel.)
1Sa_21:11. “The King,” i.e., the hero. They could not have known of his Divine election.
1Sa_21:15. “Shall this fellow come?” etc. “Whether Achish had David taken over the border, or at any rate out of the town; or whether David went away of his own accord; or whether he was taken away by his servants, is not mentioned, as being of no importance to the narrative.” (Keil.) Note—“From this narrative it appears that David and the Philistines understood one another’s language, as on other grounds it is probable that the Hebrew and Philistine dialects were nearly identical.” (Tr. of Lange’s Commentary.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
DAVID’S FLIGHT TO GATH
I. Men who have courageously encountered a formidable enemy may be found fleeing before a meaner foe. In military history we have records of panics which have overtaken armies which had hitherto been renowned for bravery, and for these temporary failures of courage no adequate reason can be assigned. The fact is there, but it does not admit of full explanation. And it is the same sometimes with men individually, whether they are fighting against foes of flesh and blood or against less tangible but not less real opponents. The heart of the bravest man may sometimes give way, and give way when there does not seem so much real danger as at a former period when he showed no sign of quailing. In the case both of the many and the one the panic may be partly attributable to an overwrought state of the imagination, which magnifies the present peril and adds to the real foes “an army of phantoms, vast and wan.” Or it may arise from the struggle having lasted long, and then the spirit which could rise to a high pitch of enthusiasm for a single encounter finds itself unequal to the task of sustaining itself at so high a level of heroism. These suggestions apply to cases in which the courage displayed appears to have a purely human origin, and to those when the great deeds of valour have been performed by the inspiration of strong faith in an unseen God. And they are quite as applicable to the warfare of every-day life as they are to that which is “with confused noise and garments rolled in blood.” For the world is full of men and women fighting every day of their lives against adverse circumstances outside of them or against sin within them, with a fortitude that gives them full title to be ranked among the heroes of their age. But whoever are the warriors, and in whatever kind of warfare they may be engaged, they do sometimes flee from a lesser foe after having conquered a greater. It was so with David now. The sword of Saul was more terrible to him than the sword of Goliath had been. He had fearlessly looked in the face of the giant, but though he had been helped to slay this most formidable foe, and all the trust that he then placed in the arm of Jehovah had been fully justified, he is now seen fleeing before the man who had quailed before the Philistine, and faith seems now to have no abode in his soul, not so much as a resting-place for the sole of her foot. Without doubt he permitted his mind to dwell upon Saul’s malignity, and upon the many agents whom he could employ against him, to the exclusion of the signal token of Divine help which had been afforded him in the valley of Elah, and the assurance of Divine protection of which the anointing oil had been a pledge. And thus neglecting by meditation upon God’s past goodness to stay himself upon the Divine arm in the present, he becomes a prey to his over-wrought imagination, and presents himself before us in his full manhood in a much less admirable light than in the days of his youth. We must not forget, however, that stronger faith in God is required to sustain a man in a long-continued trial or in a succession of trials than to carry him victoriously through one which, although it makes a great demand upon him for the moment, is soon over. And this helps us to understand David’s failure at this time, and to sympathise with his frailty though we may not excuse his sin.
II. The fear of losing a lesser life may lead men to imperil a life which is greater. There is a life of the body and there is a condition of character which is moral life, and though it is natural and right for men to be careful in a measure of the former, yet a desire to preserve it should never lead to the sacrifice of the latter. The sword of the most bitter enemy is less to be dreaded than the sword of conscience. The most terrible bodily death is infinitely preferable to wounding the moral sense and perhaps doing permanent injury to the character. The retaining of bodily life is by no means necessary to a blessed existence, but existence can nowhere be blessed if there is not integrity of soul. Hence our Lord warns His disciples not to be over-solicitous concerning the life of the body, lest by so doing they endanger a higher and more precious life. “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” (Luk_9:24). Here loss is gain and gain is loss. Nevertheless, so strong is the love of bodily life, and so instinctively do men shrink from a violent death, that even good and true men have not seldom yielded for a time to the temptation to endanger the most precious for that which is comparatively worthless. David did so when he lied to Ahimelech in order to obtain from him the succour that he needed, and when he feigned madness in the presence of the Philistine nobles. In both cases he inflicted upon himself far more grievous and real injury than any that Saul could have dealt out to him. His enemy’s sword could only have killed his body, but his sin damaged his soul. No weapon forged by man can take away peace of mind, but wilful transgression must fill a man with remorse if his conscience is at all awake, and a man like David could hardly fail to reproach himself afterwards for having thus wandered from the path of rectitude. But even if he did not do so, the harm done to his moral nature was the same and even greater, inasmuch as unrepented sin deadens the conscience and makes further trangression more easy. When a man is suffering acute pain from a dangerous wound his life may be in great danger, but if while the wound is unhealed there is no pain, the surgeon has good reason to fear that mortification has set in and that all hope of life is past. So in the moral nature that wound which is followed by no pain is the most fatal.
III. A Divine law which is limited and temporary must yield to one which is universal and permanent. Our Lord Himself justifies the action of David and Ahimelech in the matter of the shew-bread (Mar_2:25), on the principle that the happiness and well-being of man is the end of all God’s laws concerning them, and that therefore if a merely ceremonial law interferes with that it must be for the time set aside. Possibly David’s words in 1Sa_21:5 may also have some such meaning. (See Critical Notes.) All the ceremonial laws given to Israel by God had for their end the elevation of a nation of idolatrous slaves to a higher moral level by creating within them a sense of their own sinfulness and of God’s infinite majesty and purity, and their own highest interests were bound up in the strict observance of them. But just because the end of all was man’s good, so it followed that if in a particular case that good was only to be obtained by a temporary violation of the ceremonial observance, that violation was in accordance with the will of God. Ahimelech showed that he understood the real intention of the law of the shew-bread when he broke it to satisfy the needs of hungry men, for he acted on the principle that the ceremonial laws were made for man and not man for the ceremonial laws, and thus in a measure anticipated Our Saviour’s exposition of them. Although all the details connected with the Jewish worship were symbols of unchangeable truths and of immutable moral laws, they were symbols only, and therefore the laws of their observance were at all times subordinate to those universal and changeless moral laws which never clash with each other, and the violation of which no exigency can ever justify.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
Mingling of good and evil in David’s character.
(1) Though a brave and devout man, he falls into grievous falsehood and degrading deception, through cowardly fear and lack of trust in God. A warning to us. Compare Neh_13:26; 1Co_10:12.
(2) Though so weak and erring, he remembers God’s help in the past (1Sa_21:9), cries to Him now (Psa_34:6), rejoices in Him anew (ibid, 1Sa_21:1), and resolves henceforth to speak truth and to do good (ibid, 1Sa_21:13-14); compare Psa_56:13. An encouragement to us; compare 1Jn_2:1.
1Sa_21:2. Who can look to pass this pilgrimage without infirmities, when David dissembleth to Ahimelech? A weak man’s rules may be better than the best man’s actions. God lets us see some blemishes in His holiest servants, that we may neither be too highly conceited of flesh and blood, nor too much dejected when we have been miscarried into sin. Hitherto hath David gone upright; now he begins to halt with the priest of God, and under pretence of Saul’s employment, draws that favour from Ahimelech which shall afterwards cost him his head.
What could Ahimelech have thought too dear for God’s anointed, God’s champion? It is not like but that, if David had sincerely opened himself to the priest as he had done to the prophet, Ahimelech would have seconded Samuel in some secret and safe succour of so unjust a distress, whereas he is now, by a false colour, led to that kindness which shall be prejudicial to his life. Extremities of evil are commonly inconsiderate; either for that we have not leisure to our thoughts, or perhaps (so we may be perplexed) not thoughts to our leisure. What would David have given afterwards to have redeemed this oversight!—Bp. Hall.
There is nothing will keep a man from sin more surely than confidence in God; but despair is the most dangerous condition into which one can fall. While faith and hope last, there will be energy, and watchfulness, and purity; but with despair come recklessness and folly. We are saved by hope; but when we despair of God’s help, we run into extremes of wickedness. When a merchant is in difficulties, there is no great danger so long as he believes that he can retrieve himself, and hopes that he will come out all right. But when he falls into despair, he becomes regardless alike of God or man, and runs headlong into practices of which in other circumstances he would never have thought, thereby destroying alike his character and future.—Dr. W. M. Taylor.
1Sa_21:10-15. David had lost his faith in Jehovah, and put his confidence in Achish, and nothing more salutary could have happened to him than such a reception as that which was given to him at Gath. When a youth is going on a wrong course the best thing that can befall him is failure and disgrace, and the worst thing that can come to him is what the world calls success. If he succeed the probability is that he will go farther astray than ever; but if he fail there is hope that he will return to the right path, and seek alliance with Jehovah. This last was the case with David in the instance before us, if at least we may judge of the effect which his experience produced upon him, from the songs which he wrote with special reference to the incidents at which we have been looking. The titles of the 34th and 56th Psalms connect these odes with David’s residence in Gath; and though there are few acknowledgments of sin in them, yet they indicate that, as the result and outcome of his trials, he was led to look away from all earthly helpers to the Lord alone. “This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him and saved him out of all his troubles.” Perhaps, too, there may be an implied condemnation of the course which he had been pursuing, and a virtual resolution to abstain from it in the future, when he says, “What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” And it is scarcely possible to doubt that, from his own penitence for the sins of which he had just been guilty, and his own experience of God’s favour when he returned to him, he was led to sing, “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all.”
It may appear strange that all this should have happened immediately after his pleasant and profitable sojourn with Samuel at the school of the prophets. But perhaps the very contrast between his happiness at Naioth and his continual suspense at Gibeah, where he felt himself to be like one standing on the very edge of an active volcano, may help to account for his depression. In any case it is by no means an uncommon experience that times of great spiritual elevation are followed by periods of deep dejection. Every height has its hollow; and as Peter went from the first Lord’s Supper to his denial of the Master, David went from Naioth to Nob, and from Nob to Gath. It is a suggestive incident, bidding us be always on our guard against temptation, and then, most of all, when we have been enjoying the most exalted privileges.—Dr. W. M. Taylor.
It is always a dangerous course when believers betake themselves in their necessities to the children of this world for protection and help. Without taking into account that too easily in the circle of such benefactors and deliverers do they lose their balance, and, making court to them for their favour, yield to the temptation to disown their faith, and in word and conduct to place themselves on an equality with the world, such a step gives to the latter occasion secretly to triumph, and they who are so willing to be called “the chosen,” when distress comes upon them know not how to be contented with their God and his help alone, but gladly permit themselves to seek for aid from those to whom they do not even concede the name of brethren. Never will they succeed in truly reconciling the enemies of their faith by means of affected accommodation to them and their forms of life; for, according to the well-known testimony of God, the enmity between those who are “after the flesh,” and those who are “after the spirit,” is a fixed principle, and though covered with many a fair garland of courtesy and politeness, yet, even when universal love bears the sceptre in the heart of God’s children, that enmity cannot be abolished till regenerating grace has made of the “twain one.”—Krummacher.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain 1Sa 21:8-9
1Sa 21:8-9
The token of the victories of youth. There is nothing like that—no such talisman, no such weapon as that to be borne or wielded—no marvel that David rejoices to hear it is within reach.
Read full note →
The sword was to David: (1) The token of a good deed which he had done in singleness of heart. (2) The token of God’s certain help in answer to faith. (3) The memory of a great danger past.
I. The thought of a good deed done in singleness of spirit lies at the heart as the warmest of God’s comforts. Forty days the Philistine drew near, morning and evening, and presented himself. What lay before Israel, if the boy champion had not arrived, was to be the servant of the enemy; yet no one stirred. But David’s spirit had not been overpowered. His instinct was not to watch till the fascination of fear had overcome him as it did the other warriors. It was to strike; strike with the simple weapon he was used to, and lo, the terror was gone. Our solitary souls as well as the great world are such a battlefield. The struggle is daily renewed. Two principles within—one godless and defying, one whose eyes are lit with the eternal light. Sin will overcome faith or faith will overcome sin; and each memory of a victory of faith is a strength in itself.
II. And then again, to look back on the signs of God’s ready help, old answers to prayer when we were in trouble, the expected strength which did not disappoint us but was with us in some trial; these things bring home to us the sense of God’s presence and of God’s help, until we are most sure of this, that all things work together for good to them that love Him.
III. But above all sources of strength, the memory of a great danger past is the most fruitful A terror taken possession of, the assurance that it will terrify us no more; this is what God gives to good men in the evening of life.
Archbishop Benson, Boy Life: Sundays in Wellington College, p. 171.
References: 1Sa 21:8, 1Sa 21:9.—J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii., p. 15. 1Sa 21:9.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 19 (see also The Ark of God, p. 241); Johnstone, Sunday Magazine, 1873, p. 350. 1Sa 21:10.—F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 118.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Flight of David
The Flight of David
David first of all flees to Nob, where Ahimelech supplies him with food and gives him the sword of Goliath. He next takes refuge with Achish at Gath.
Read full note →
1. Nob] see on 1Sa_17:54. Alone] He had no escort or retinue.
3. Better, 'Now, therefore, what is under thine hand? Five loaves? Give them into mine hand.'
4. Hallowed bread] i.e. the shewbread. It was removed every sabbath and fresh loaves substituted.
5. Better, 'of a truth women have been kept from us as is usual, when I go on an expedition.' The bread is in a manner common] The meaning is obscure. RV 'though it was but a common journey; how much more then today shall their vessels be holy?' i.e. their wallets and utensils were clean when they started and there had been no chance of defiling them since, although their journey was an ordinary one. Ewald understands 'the vessels' to refer to the young men's bodies, as in 1Th_4:4. They were ceremonially clean, so that they might partake of holy things.
6. This incident was referred to by our Lord (Mat_12:3).
10. Fled that day] He feared that Doeg would give information and that pursuit would begin at once. Gath] This connexion with Gath brought David some of his most faithful followers.
13. Feigned himself mad] to allay suspicion. Easterns have a religious awe of madness and would not think of injuring those so afflicted. Scrabbled] i.e. scratched, made meaningless marks. LXX 'beat,' 'drummed' is much more forcible.
15. In my presence] rather, 'to my annoyance.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain called Ahiah, also Abiathar. 1Sa 14:3.
Ahimelech
called Ahiah, also Abiathar. 1Sa 14:3.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 6. David’s Varied Experiences
6. David’s Varied Experiences
CHAPTER 21
Read full note →
1. David at Nob with Ahimelech (1Sa 21:1-9)
2. David’s flight to Achish, King of Gath (1Sa 21:10-15)
With this chapter begins the record of David’s wanderings as an exile. A number of Psalms were written by him during this period of the rejection of the Lord’s anointed. We shall point out some of them. These Psalms are prophetic also foreshadowing the rejection and the sufferings of Christ as well as the tribulations of the pious remnant of Israel during the closing years of the age, preceding the coming and enthronement of the King of Israel, our Lord. He reached Nob after his separation from Jonathan. At Nob the tabernacle of the Lord had been established and Ahimelech (my brother is King) the son of Ahitub (22:9) and great-grandson of Eli, was now exercising the priesthood. Nob was not far from Jerusalem, north of the city (Isa 10:32).
He appeared before Ahimelech in a deplorable condition. It was on a Sabbath when the King’s son-in-law appeared unarmed and hungry. Ahimelech became afraid and suspicious, but David invented a falsehood to allay the suspicions of the high priest. The truthfulness of the Word of God is demonstrated in this faithful report of David’s failure. He was not fully trusting in his God and the result was the exercise of an endeavour to protect himself which led to the deception. How different the actions of Him who according to the flesh was the son of David! “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who when He was reviled, reviled not again” (1Pe 2:22-23). Then he and his companions ate the hallowed bread. Our Lord called the attention of the Pharisees to this when they murmured because His disciples had plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath (Mat 12:1-8; Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). There are no discrepancies between the account in Samuel and the words of our Lord. Our Lord speaks of David and they that were with him, while in the record here we read that Ahimelech asked David “Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?” The young men who are mentioned later (verses 4 and 5) may have at first kept out of sight. In Mar 2:26 our Lord mentions Abiathar as high priest. This is not a discrepancy, for Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and exercised priestly function and also was high priest (1Sa 30:7). The story of eating the shewbread which was not lawful for him to eat is full of interest if compared with the words of our Lord. There was an inquiry of the Lord and then Ahimelech gave him the hallowed bread. (See 1Sa 22:10.) On account of the ruin in Israel everything had become common and David and his companions did not sin in eating the shewbread; the “bread of presence” as it is called. And so our Lord was rejected, as David was, and justifies the conduct of His disciples by referring the Pharisees to David’s action. (For a complete exposition see the annotations on Matthew, chapter 12.) “We can see in David rejected the type of a greater, who as such has abrogated Jewish and legal ordinances in order to give to His, people the true communion with Himself of which the shewbread speaks.” Thus the shewbread typifies the true bread, which we use for our sustenance, as David needed it for his physical keeping.
Then Doeg (the fearful) is mentioned. He was an Edomite and a prominent servant of Saul. David knew with the presence of Doeg that his secret was now discovered and Doeg later told Saul about it (1Sa 22:9). He also received the sword of Goliath. With it he had slain the giant and, as we showed before, it is the type of Him who by death has destroyed him who has the power of death. The victory our Lord has won through death is the weapon against all our enemies.
Then we find David in Gath among the Philistines. Strange place he had selected for his protection! Why should he have gone to the strongest enemies of God and of His people? He had acted in unbelief and unbelief was dragging him down lower and lower. Instead of fleeing to God, he turned to Gath. And then for self preservation, because he had been discovered, he feigned madness. The King of Gath drove him away. The Lord was far better than his fears. The gracious deliverance set his heartstrings vibrating with praise. Here we would ask the reader to turn to Psalm 34, which David wrote, according to the inscription, when Ahimelech drove him away and when he departed. (There is no discrepancy here. The Philistine kings were called “Abimelech” as the rulers of Russia are called “Czar,” the rulers of Turkey, “Sultan.” Achish was Abimelech of the Philistines.)
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain David at Nob
David at Nob
v. 1. Then came David to Nob, a city of priests between Gibeah and Jerusalem, on a hill in whose neighborhood the Tabernacle seems to have been located for some years, at least temporarily,4) to Ahimelech, the priest, either he or his father or his son also bearing the name Abiathar, Mar 2:26; and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, full of apprehension, since he may have known of Saul’s hatred of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? For David had left the few companions who had joined him in a safe place, since he wanted to talk to the high priest alone.
Read full note →
v. 2. And David said unto Ahimelech, the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know anything of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee, he was to reveal neither the reason for, nor the contents of, his commission; and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. The glib falsehood which David here told had evil results, and was not even justified by the fact that Ahimelech might have refused to assist him in case he had known that he was fleeing from the wrath of the king.
v. 3. Now, therefore, what is under thine hand? David wanted anything in the line of food upon which the priest could quickly lay his hand. Give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present, whatever he could find in a hurry.
v. 4. And the priest answered David and said, There is, no common bread under mine hand, no kind of ordinary bread, such as was commonly used for food, but there is hallowed bread, for apparently the cakes of showbread had just been replaced by a fresh set, Lev 24:8, the ordinance requiring that the bread which had been removed be eaten by the priests in the Holy Place; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women, Lev 15:18. The high priest was willing to make an exception in this case, but felt that he must insist upon ceremonial, Levitical purity.
v. 5. And David answered the priest and said unto him, of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, the time since they had started on this expedition, since I came out, and the vessels, the gear and baggage of the soldiers, which might also become Levitically unclean, Lev 11:32-33; Lev 13:47-48, of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, literally, "Though it is a profane way or procedure, yet it is sanctified today by the vessel," namely, by David himself as a chosen, anointed servant of the Lord; that fact set aside the ceremonial impurity of the act, particularly since it was a work of mercy which the high priest performed.
v. 6. So the priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away; the cakes having been standing on the golden table for seven days, they had just been renewed or replaced by a new set, Lev 24:6-9.
v. 7. Now, a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord, either as a proselyte, expecting to be received into the congregation of the Lord, or for the sake of some purification, or under suspicion as a leper; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul. This remark is here inserted on account of the subsequent history of Ahimelech. Note: Love is the fulfillment of the Law; love is the queen of all commandments, since all our works should be done in love. Even the outward ordinances of the Church are intended to serve the ends of love and peace.
v. 8. And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand, in his charge, spear or sword? For I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste, literally, "it was pressed," David had to be on his way without a moment’s delay.
v. 9. And the priest said, The sword of Goliath, the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the Valley of Elah, 1Sa 17:2-50, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, deposited for safe-keeping in the national Sanctuary, as a thanksgiving offering to the Lord and as a constant reminder of His merciful help in overcoming the enemies; if thou wilt take that, take it; for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me. It was valuable not only on account of its great size and good workmanship, but also on account of its associations. David may have felt that it was a holy weapon, promising him victory. He who goes forth to the battles of life with the blessing of God, with the weapons sanctified by His presence, may rest assured that no danger can really harm him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 place name (See: How to Translate Names)
Nob
place name (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
Ahimelech
a man's name (See: How to Translate Names)
trembling
shaking in fear
on a mission
"to do work for him"
I have directed the young men to a certain place
"I have told the young men to go to another place, and I will meet them there later"
translationWords
David
priest
king
know
send
command
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 21:1 Nob was just north of Jerusalem, in the…
21:1 Nob was just north of Jerusalem, in the southern part of the territory of Benjamin. • Ahimelech the priest was a descendant of the condemned family of Eli (14:3; 22:9). • The elders of Bethlehem had also trembled when Samuel unexpectedly came to their city to anoint David as Saul’s replacement (16:4). On both occasions, a prominent individual who had strained relations with Saul showed up unannounced. Both Ahimelech and the Bethlehem elders were concerned about being suspected of supporting an enemy of the king, which could result in death. In this case, what was feared came about (see 22:9-19).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.