Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 21:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 21:1” utilice nuestra app.

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?

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.

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Sa 21:1-15

Then came David to Nob.

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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXI

David comes to Ahimelech at Nob, receives provisions from him,

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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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,

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 Gods 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 Sauls 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. Then came David to Nob toAhimelechNob, a city of the priests (1Sa22:19), was in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, on the Mount ofOlivesa little north of the top, and on the northeast of the city.It is computed to have been about five miles distant from Gibeah.Ahimelech, the same as Ahiah, or perhaps his brother, both being sonsof Ahitub (compare 1Sa 14:3;1Sa 22:4-11; 1Sa 22:20).His object in fleeing to this place was partly for the supply of hisnecessities, and partly for comfort and counsel, in the prospect ofleaving the kingdom.

Ahimelech was afraid at themeeting of Davidsuspecting some extraordinary occurrence byhis appearing so suddenly, and in such a style, for his attendantswere left at a little distance.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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 1Sa 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, Ne 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, 1Sa 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:

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

1Sa 21:1-2

David at Nob. – The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form stands for here and in 1Sa 22:9, and the attached is merely local, as the name is always written in other places: vid., 1Sa 22:11, 1Sa 22:19; 1Sa 21:1; Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32) was at that time a priests’ city (1Sa 22:19), in which, according to the following account, the tabernacle was then standing, and the legal worship carried on. According to Isa 10:30, Isa 10:32, it was between Anathoth ( Anata) and Jerusalem, and in all probability it has been preserved in the village of el-Isawiyeh, i.e., probably the village of Esau or Edom, which is midway between Anata and Jerusalem, an hour from the latter, and the same distance to the south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tell el Phul), and which bears all the marks of an ancient place, partly in its dwellings, the stones of which date from a great antiquity, and partly in many marble columns which are found there (vid., Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem ii. p. 720). Hence v. Raumer ( Pal. p. 215, ed. 4) follows Kiepert in the map which he has appended to Robinson ‘s Biblical Researches, and set down this place as the ancient Nob, for which Robinson indeed searched in vain (see Pal. ii. p. 150). Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, most probably the same person as Ahiah (1Sa 14:3), was “ the priest,” i.e., the high priest (see at 1Sa 14:3). When David came to him, the priest “ went trembling to meet him ” ( ) with the inquiry, “ Why art thou alone, and no one is with thee? ” The unexpected appearance of David, the son-in-law of the king, without any attendants, alarmed Ahimelech, who probably imagined that he had come with a commission from the king which might involve him in danger. David had left the few servants who accompanied him in his flight somewhere in the neighbourhood, as we may gather from 1Sa 21:2, because he wished to converse with the high priest alone. Ahimelech’s anxious inquiry led David to resort to the fabrication described in 1Sa 21:2: “ The king hath commanded me a business, and said to me, No one is to know anything of this matter, in which ( lit. in relation to the matter with regard to which) I send thee, and which I have entrusted to thee (i.e., no one is to know either the occasion or the nature of the commission): and the servants I have directed to such and such a place.” , Poel, to cause to know, point, show. Ahimelech had received no information as yet concerning the most recent occurrences between Saul and David; and David would not confess to him that he was fleeing from Saul, because he was evidently afraid that the high priest would not give him any assistance, lest he should draw down the wrath of the king. This falsehood brought he greatest calamities upon Ahimelech and the priests at Nob (1Sa 22:9-19), and David was afterwards obliged to confess that he had occasioned it all (1Sa 22:22).

1Sa 21:3

“ And now what is under thy hand? give into my hand (i.e., hand me) five loaves, or whatever (else) is to be found.” David asked for five loaves, because he had spoken of several attendants, and probably wanted to make provision for two or three days (Thenius).

1Sa 21:4

The priest answered that he had no common bread, but only holy bread, viz., according to 1Sa 21:6, shew-bread that had been removed, which none but priests were allowed to eat, and that in a sacred place; but that he was willing to give him some of these loaves, as David had said that he was travelling upon an important mission from the king, provided only that “ the young men had kept themselves at least from women,” i.e., had not been defiled by sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18). If they were clean at any rate in this respect, he would in such a case of necessity depart from the Levitical law concerning the eating of the shew-bread, for the sake of observing the higher commandment of love to a neighbour (Lev 19:18; cf. Mat 12:5-6; Mar 2:25-26).

(Note: When Mark (Mar 2:26) assigns this action to the days of Abiathar the high priest, the statement rests upon an error of memory, in which Ahimelech is confounded with Abiathar.)

1Sa 21:5

David quieted him concerning this scruple, and said, “ Nay, but women have been kept from us since yesterday and the day before.” The use of may be explained from the fact, that in David’s reply he paid more attention to the sense than to the form of the priest’s scruple, and expressed himself as concisely as possible. The words, “if the young men have only kept themselves from women,” simply meant, if only they are not unclean; and David replied, That is certainly not the case, but women have been kept from us; so that has the meaning but in this passage also, as it frequently has after a previous negative, which is implied in the thought here as in 2Sa 13:33. “ 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.” David does not say that the young men were clean when he came out (for the rendering given to in the Septuagint, , is without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word , which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that , i.e., according to Luther’s rendering ( der Knaben Zeug war heilig ), the young men’s things (clothes, etc.) were holy. does not mean merely vessels, arms, or tools, but also the dress (Deu 22:5), or rather the clothes as well as such things as were most necessary to meet the wants of life. By the coitus , or strictly speaking, by the emissio seminis in connection with the coitus , not only were the persons themselves defiled, but also every article of clothing or leather upon which any of the semen fell ( Lev 15:18); so that it was necessary for the purpose of purification that the things which a man had on should all be washed. David explains, with evident allusion to this provision, that the young men’s things were holy, i.e., perfectly clean, for the purpose of assuring the priest that there was not the smallest Levitical uncleanness attaching to them. The clause which follows is to be taken as conditional, and as supposing a possible case: “ and if it is an unholy way.” , the way that David was going with his young men, i.e., his purpose of enterprise, by which, however, we are not to understand his request of holy bread from Ahimelech, but the performance of the king’s commission of which he had spoken. , lit. besides (there is) also that, = moreover there is also the fact, that it becomes holy through the instrument; i.e., as O. v. Gerlach has correctly explained it, “on the supposition of the important royal mission, upon which David pretended to be sent, through me as an ambassador of the anointed of the Lord,” in which, at any rate, David’s meaning really was, “the way was sanctified before God, when he, as His chosen servant, the preserver of the true kingdom of God in Israel, went to him in his extremity.” That in the sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident from Isa 13:5 and Jer 50:25.

1Sa 21:6-7

The priest then gave him (what was) holy, namely the shew-loaves “ that were taken from before Jehovah,” i.e., from the holy table, upon which they had lain before Jehovah for seven days (vid., Lev 24:6-9). – In 1Sa 21:7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of great importance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. There at the sanctuary there was a man of Saul’s servants, , i.e., “ kept back (shut off) before Jehovah:” i.e., at the sanctuary of the tabernacle, either for the sake of purification or as a proselyte, who wished to be received into the religious communion of Israel, or because of supposed leprosy, according to Lev 13:4. His name was Doeg the Edomite, , “ the strong one (i.e., the overseer) of the herdsmen of Saul.”

(Note: The Septuagint translators have rendered these words , “feeding the mules of Saul;” and accordingly in 1Sa 22:9 also they have changed Saul’s servants into mules, in accordance with which Thenius makes Doeg the upper herdsman of Saul. But it is very evident that the text of the lxx is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the expression before us, and does not presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the other ancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in 1Sa 22:9, including even the Vulgate ( potentissimus pastorum ); and the clause contained in some of the MSS of the Vulgate ( his pascebat mulas Saul ) is nothing more than a gloss that has crept in from the Itala; and this is still more obvious in 1Sa 22:9, where is applicable enough to , but is altogether unsuitable in connection with , since is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, than we should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules being used as riding animals by royal princes (2Sa 13:29; 2Sa 18:9); and they are mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses, camels, and oxen, in 1Ch 12:40, where they are said to have been employed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to the festival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David’s time the sons of princes rode upon asses (vid., Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14).)

1Sa 21:8

David also asked Ahimelech whether he had not a sword or a javelin at hand; “ for I have neither brought my sword nor my (other) weapons with me, because the affair of the king was pressing,” i.e., very urgent, , . . , literally, compressed.

1Sa 21:9

The priest replied, that there was only the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the terebinth valley (1Sa 17:2), wrapped up in a cloth hanging behind the ephod (the high priest’s shoulder-dress), – a sign of the great worth attached to this dedicatory offering. He could take that. David accepted it, as a weapon of greater value to him than any other, because he had not only taken this sword as booty from the Philistine, but had cut off the head of Goliath with it (see 1Sa 17:51). When and how this sword had come into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on 1Sa 17:54). The form for is only met with here. On the Piska, see at Jos 4:1.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

David Obtains the Show-Bread; David Gets the Sword of Goliath.

B. C. 1057.

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? 2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth 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 it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 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. 7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul. 8 And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste. 9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth 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.

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 (v. 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 ch. xxii. 10, where it is said that Ahimelech enquired of the Lord for him, as he had done formerly, v. 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 Mark ii. 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 (Ps. xlii. 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 to-day may be deserted to-morrow.

III. David, under pretence of being sent by Saul upon public services, solicits Ahimelech to supply his present wants, 1Sa 21:2; 1Sa 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, ch. xxii. 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, v. 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, Ps. xxxvii. 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, v. 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 (Exod. xix. 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 (1Th 4:4; 1Th 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, v. 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 (v. 6), and some think it was about this that he enquired of the Lord, ch. xxii. 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 (v. 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, ch. xviii. 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, v. 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, v. 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, Ps. xviii. 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 (v. 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. i. 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. ii. 4.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

First Samuel – Chapter 21

Involving the Priests, vs. 1-9

It will be well to note David’s circumstances at this time before looking further in the context. Remember that Saul had in the beginning sought again to thrust David through with his javelin (Review chapter 19). David had fled to his house and escaped with the aid of Michal when Saul sent there to apprehend him. He had gone to the school of the prophets with Samuel in Ramah, where Saul had again sent to apprehend him unsuccessfully. Then (chapter 20) he had sought out Jonathan and waited three days for him to learn the intent of his father toward David. So for more than three days David had been hiding, perhaps with little rest or food and alone. In desperation he came now to the priest at Nob, near Jerusalem.

Ahimelech was acting as high priest. He is also called Ahiah (1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:18), and it is well to remember that he was a descendant of Eli, whose priesthood had been cut off by the Lord in the time of Samuel’s childhood (1Sa 2:27-36). Yet the people allowed these rejected priests to continue in their office.

When David appeared at the tabernacle, now situated at Nob, Ahimelech was greatly afraid. This may have been because of Saul’s enmity as a result of Ahiah’s inability to reach the Lord on his behalf during the Philistine war (1Sa 14:18). Or it might have been because he knew of Saul’s madness and suspicion of David.

David lied to the high priest, in order to get bread and a weapon. Although he was alone David implied that he had men stationed in appointed places, and they were on urgent, secretive mission for the king. The priest seems to have accepted David’s story, for he was surely well acquainted with the bravery and popularity he had acquired. There was nothing for David, however, except the shewbread which had been sanctified for the priests.

But it was about to be replaced with fresh bread, and both David and the priest reasoned that it would be permissible for David and his “party” to have it if they were not ceremonially unclean. David assured the priest that none of them were unclean and was given the bread.

Doeg, an Edomite, chief herdman of Saul was being detained at the tabernacle for some purpose unknown, and very much against his will, it would appear. He took in the whole matter transpiring. David claimed he had left so hastily on his urgent business he had not brought his sword or weapons, so was given the sword of Goliath which had been preserved there in the tabernacle, seemingly as a kind of relic.

David cannot be condoned for his lie, though he was in desperate circumstances. It was a display of weak faith in the Lord who had preserved him to this point. The events of that morning would have strong influences in Israel’s later history and result in the fulfillment a large part of the prophecy of the cutting off of Eli’s priesthood (see 1Sa 22:9 ff).

The Lord used the incident of David’s taking of shewbread to justify the disciples’ taking the grain on the sabbath (Mat 12:1-8). As the bread in itself only portrayed to men the Lord’s requirement for holiness, so the sabbath was for man’s teaching and not for his regulation.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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 Shft. He found there several cisterns hewn in the rock, large building stones, and various other indications of an ancient town. (Smiths 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 Abiathars (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 Sauls hatred to David but not of the most recent occurrences. (Erdmann).

1Sa. 21:2. I have appointed my servants. This was probably true. It is scarcely credible that a person of Davids 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 circumstancesthe 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 Lords will at the holy placeseemed 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 mens 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 Keils rendering. Erdmanns reading is similar, understanding the unholy way, however, to refer not to Davids 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 Sauls time to the possession of herds as a family power, Doegs 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 Doegs 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.) NoteFrom this narrative it appears that David and the Philistines understood one anothers language, as on other grounds it is probable that the Hebrew and Philistine dialects were nearly identical. (Tr. of Langes Commentary.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER

DAVIDS 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 Sauls 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 Gods 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 Davids 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 enemys 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 Gods laws concerning them, and that therefore if a merely ceremonial law interferes with that it must be for the time set aside. Possibly Davids 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 Gods 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 mans 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 Saviours 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 Davids 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 Gods 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 mans rules may be better than the best mans 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 Sauls employment, draws that favour from Ahimelech which shall afterwards cost him his head.

What could Ahimelech have thought too dear for Gods anointed, Gods 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 Gods 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 Davids 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 Gods 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 Lords 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 Gods children, that enmity cannot be abolished till regenerating grace has made of the twain one.Krummacher.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Davids Flight to Gath, 1Sa. 21:1-15.

David At Nob. 1Sa. 21:1-9

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?

2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.

3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.

4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth 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 it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

6 So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shew-bread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.

8 And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the kings business required haste.
9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth 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.

To what place did David first flee? 1Sa. 21:1

David fled first of all to Nob, to Abimelech the high priest, to inquire the will of God through him concerning his future course and induced him to give him bread and the sword of Goliath also, under the pretext of having to perform a secret commission from the king with greatest speed. The town of Nob, or Nobeh, was at that time a priests city, in which, according to the following account, the Tabernacle was then standing and the legal worship carried on. According to Isa. 10:30; Isa. 10:32, it was between Anathoth and Jerusalem: and in all probability it had been preserved in the village of el-lsawiyeh, an hours distance from Jerusalem and the same distance to the southeast of Gibeah of Saul.

Why did David say he was alone? 1Sa. 21:2

The high priest was surprised to see David, the son-in-law of the king and a chieftain among the soldiers, without a company of men with him. He asked David about this, and David replied that he had been sent on a certain business that was secret, therefore, he said he was traveling alone. He explained further that he had dispatched his soldiers to other places. He must have had some young men, but not his usual soldiers, with him.

Was it right for him to eat the bread? 1Sa. 21:3

For David and the young men to eat the shew bread was a departure from the Levitical Law. As is stated in the Law (Lev. 24:9), the bread was for the priests. According to a higher law of love for a fellow man in need, the high priest may have justified himself in giving this bread to David. Jesus made reference to this incident when the Pharisees found fault with the disciples for being hungry and plucking ears of corn to eat on the Sabbath day. Jesus did not expressly justify David in his taking the shew bread, but He referred to the matter in order to give pause to the Pharisees. Jesus might have expected them to find fault with David rather than with his disciples (Mat. 12:1-4).

Why did the high priest ask if the young men were clean? 1Sa. 21:4-5

The high priest was reluctant to give the holy bread to men who were ceremonially unclean. A part of the sanctification of a people for a holy occasion was their refraining from their normal relationships with their wives (Exo. 19:15). If the young men of David were ceremonially clean, the high priest would not feel as reluctant to give them the holy bread. J.

Who was Doeg? 1Sa. 21:7

Doeg was an Edomite. The Edomites were descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:1). These people lived in the country south of the Dead Sea. As the brother of Jacob, Esau was given a secondary blessing of Jacob. Esau had many descendants, and they grew into a prosperous nation. They had kings ruling over them before the monarchy was established in Israel (Gen. 36:31). Doeg the Edomite was a chief herdsman among Sauls servants. He may have come to Israel as a mercenary and been given the responsibility of tending to the kings flocks and herds. If this were the case, he was no doubt grazing the royal herds near Nob and thus in a position to overhear the conversation of David.

Why did the priest have Goliaths sword? 1Sa. 21:9

After the battle in the valley of Elah David put Goliaths armor in his own tent. At that time he took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem. Nothing is said at that time about the ultimate destiny of Goliaths armor, but it was customary for a victorious people to bring some spoils of war to their temple as an offering of thanksgiving to the Lord, who had given victory. It was no doubt that spirit which prompted David to leave the disposition of Goliaths armor with Saul. Saul had evidently sent the sword, at least, to the Tabernacle at Nob.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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 Jerusalemabout an hours ride from the latterhas 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 timesthe 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 Davids 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

To Ahimelech the priest.He was the great grandson of Eli, thus

Died at Shiloh after news of capture of Ark,

Eli

Phinehas

Ahitub

Ichabod

Ahimelech

Abiathar.

Slain by Philistines in battle
Reign of SaulHigh Priest,

Reign of DavidHigh 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 kings son-in-lawthe well-known military chieftain, Davidalone and travel-stained at the sanctuary.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

DAVID’S FLIGHT TO RAMAH, AND SAUL’S PURSUIT, 1Sa 19:18 to 1Sa 24:18.

David fled to Samuel Whither could he better go for help and counsel at a time like this? Surely, he thinks, Samuel will defend me against Saul.

He and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth Naioth is not to be regarded as a proper name. The word means habitations, dwelling places, and refers to the dwellings of the band of prophets over whom Samuel presided. The plural is used because of the number of cells or huts in this locality. The Targum renders the word house of instruction, and Ewald defines it as studium, or school. Here these disciples of Samuel dwelt, and disciplined themselves in holy exercises. How long David enjoyed this society of Samuel and these prophets before Saul ascertained whither he had fled we cannot determine, but probably not long.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

As A Refugee David Visits Ahimelech The Priest And Obtains Provisions And Weapons ( 1Sa 21:1-9 ).

Recognising that he dare not return home to obtain food or weapons, the refugee David seeks help from Ahimelech the Priest (High Priest). He tells him a false story about being on a secret mission for Saul, and obtains his assistance, with the result that Ahimelech provides him with provisions and a weapon. But unfortunately an Edomite servant of Saul is present at the Sanctuary and misinterprets what has happened, something which will later have unfortunate results.

Analysis.

a Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came to meet David deferentially, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no man with you?” (1Sa 21:1).

b And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commanded me an affair of state (a business), and has said to me, ‘Let no man know anything of the business about which I send you, and what I have commanded you,’ and I have appointed the young men to such and such a place” (1Sa 21:2).

c “Now therefore what is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever there is present” (1Sa 21:3).

d And the priest answered David, and said, “There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread, if only the young men have kept themselves from women” (1Sa 21:4).

e And David answered the priest, and said to him, “Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days” (1Sa 21:5 a)

d “When I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey, how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” (1Sa 21:5 b).

c So the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the showbread (literally ‘bread of the presence’), that was taken from before YHWH, to put (be replaced by) hot bread in the day when it was taken away (1Sa 21:6).

b Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before YHWH (1Sa 21:7 a).

a And his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul (1Sa 21:7).

Note that in ‘a’ the lone David, the apparent servant of Saul comes to Ahimelech, and in the parallel the lone Doeg, who is a servant of Saul, is present. In ‘b’ David says that he acts on the king’s business, and in the parallel Doeg is one who belongs to the king and acts on his business. In ‘c’ David asks for bread, and in the parallel is given the showbread. In ‘d’ the condition is that the young men must be holy, and in the parallel David confirms their holiness. Centrally in ‘e’ is the fact that they have kept themselves from women for three days. We know that the reason for this is because David has been in hiding.

1Sa 21:1

‘ Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling (deferentially), and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no man with you?” ’

Now that he was a man on the run, without provisions or weapons, and dared not go back to his hometown Bethlehem, David came to Nob, a town just north of Jerusalem (and within sight of it) where the Tabernacle had been set up and where Ahimelech was High Priest. David’s hope was that news had not yet reached there of Saul’s antagonism towards him. When Ahimelech saw Saul’s great general he met him with great deference, expressing surprise that he was alone. It was not usual for such an important man to be on his own. The question was due rather to puzzlement, than suspicion.

Ahimelech was of the house of Ithamar (and Eli) of which God had forecast that it would be decimated and cease to be holders of the High Priesthood (1Sa 2:27-36). But that was yet to happen.

1Sa 21:2

‘ And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commanded me an affair of state (a business), and has said to me, ‘Let no man know anything of the business about which I send you, and what I have commanded you,’ and I have appointed the young men to such and such a place.”

David’s reply was that he was on a secret mission about which he had been commanded not to talk, and that his young men were waiting for him elsewhere. There was no reason why Ahimelech should have doubted the truth of his words. In fact it is doubtful if there were any young men waiting, (none are mentioned elsewhere), and what is certain is that he was not on a mission for Saul. So the whole thing was probably a fabrication.

1Sa 21:3

“ Now therefore what is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever there is present.”

David then asked him for bread for ‘his men’, and himself. If possible, he explained, he wanted at least five loaves, but if not, as many as could be provided. The fact that it was a secret mission would prevent Ahimelech from looking more widely, even if such bread would have been available on the Sabbath day (the showbread had just been changed). He would have considered that the whole request was subject to the utmost secrecy. But from where was he to obtain sufficient bread without disclosing David’s presence or objective?

The fact that David was looking for bread so urgently is significant. It suggests that he had not in fact been in Bethlehem, where he could have found some and provisioned himself before he left, but had been in hiding in the countryside unable to let anyone know that he was there. That being so he would be hungry and would know that he had to find some provisions from somewhere. And Saul he knew that Saul would be merciless with anyone who tried to help him, except surely to YHWH’s High Priest. That he was desperate comes out in the fact that he had been prepared to take this risk of ‘exposing’ himself so close to Gibeah in order to try to find bread.

1Sa 21:4

‘ And the priest answered David, and said, “There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread, if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” ’

The answer was probably hesitant. He had no ordinary (unholy) bread available. But what he did have was the showbread which had just been taken from the golden table in the Holy Place and had been replaced by new hot showbread (see Exo 25:23-30; Lev 4:5-9). This was, however, holy and strictly only for priests. However that had been before there was a king, which might have been seen as altering the situation, (he also was YHWH’s anointed), and anyway you did not argue with Saul’s representatives. It would thus appear that by this time the levitical restrictions had been relaxed somewhat, so that it was now seen as possible for it to be eaten by anyone who was in a ‘holy’ state in the service of YHWH and His anointed, that is, in the service of the king.

Thus he argued that as long as the young men were in a ‘clean’ state and had not recently had sexual intercourse, they could be permitted to eat the bread. Sexual relations were seen as making a man mildly ‘unclean’, a condition which would continue ‘until the evening’. Compare Exo 19:15; Lev 15:16-18.

The fact that the Table for the showbread was there confirms the fact that the Tabernacle was there, for the two went together. It would appear that all normal ‘services’ had been resumed under Saul now that there was an Aaronic High Priest who qualified for the position (compare 1Sa 14:3).

1Sa 21:5

‘ And David answered the priest, and said to him, “Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days. When I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey, how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” ’

David’s reply was that his men had abstained from sex for the past three days. This would not seem strange as it was in fact quite normal for military personnel in Israel to avoid sex while on a mission. Compare how Uriah the Hittite refused to go home to his wife because he saw himself as on active service (2Sa 11:11). Furthermore he stated that their ‘vessels’ (pouches) had been ritually clean when they had set out, having touched nothing ‘unclean’. How much more then must that be so after three days on their mission when they were being careful to avoid all that was ‘unclean’. Thus the holy bread could be put into them without qualms.

“Though it was but a common journey.” The idea was that when they had first set out they had not known that they would shortly be allocated to a secret mission, and would see it as a ‘common’ journey. Once they were aware of their secret mission it would make their journey ‘holy’.

Whether there were such men waiting to receive the bread must be seen as possible, but doubtful. There is no mention of them elsewhere, and five loaves were not many for such a company, whilst they would be very necessary for a David who would not know where he could next obtain bread.

1Sa 21:6

‘ So the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before YHWH, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.’

So the priest gave him some of the holy bread (you did not say ‘no’ to the general of the ‘anointed of YHWH’ unless you had to), because that was all the bread that was available. It had been taken off the Table that day and replaced by hot bread.

This example is taken by Jesus in order to illustrate the fact that a greater than David had come, and that as such He had the right to be Lord of the Sabbath. For both were seen as being able to override the Law (Mar 2:25-28). (It should be noted that the statement there that it was ‘in the section called Abiathar the High Priest’ was not an error, but an indication of where the lectionary reading was to be found).

1Sa 21:7

‘ Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before YHWH, and his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul.’

But unfortunately for all concerned there was another servant of Saul present at the Tabernacle that day, ‘detained before YHWH’. That would either be because he was in process of becoming a proselyte, or because he was undergoing a vow, or because he was being purified. His name was Doeg, and he was an Edomite. He was the chief of Saul’s herdsmen. Not as important as a general, but important in his own way. And he observed the welcome that Ahimelech gave to David, although he would not realise its significance until later.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Sa 21:1-6 David Eats the Shewbread – Jesus refers to this story in the Gospels (Mat 12:3-4, Mar 2:25-26).

Mat 12:3-4, “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?”

Mar 2:25-26, “And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?”

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?

1Sa 21:1 Comments – Note that the Tabernacle and high priest were no longer in Shiloh. It appears from Scripture that Shiloh lost its place as the center of worship after the ark was removed and taken by the Philistines during the time of Eli and his two sons. Shiloh had been the place of worship from the time of Joshua (1400 B.C.) until the time of Eli and his sons (1050 B.C.).

The tabernacle is now located at Nob, even though the ark was still at rest in Kirjath Jearim (1Sa 7:1).

1Sa 7:1, “And the men of Kirjathjearim came, and fetched up the ark of the LORD, and brought it into the house of Abinadab in the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the LORD.”

1Sa 21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

1Sa 21:4 Comments – The laws on the shewbread are discussed in Exo 25:30, “And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.”

1Sa 21:9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth 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.

1Sa 21:9 “The sword of Goliath the Philistine” – Comments – The Scriptures do not record how this sword made its way to Nob, where the Tabernacle was now erected. It evidently had been dedicated to the Lord after David defeated Goliath. When David was king, he dedicated the spoil to the Lord by putting them in the treasury.

2Sa 8:11, “Which also king David did dedicate unto the LORD, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued;”

1Ch 26:27, “Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD.”

2Ch 15:18, “And he brought into the house of God the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels.”

Other people, especially the kings of Judah, dedicated spoils to the Lord.

Jdg 17:3, “And when he had restored the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the LORD from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee.”

2Ch 24:7, “For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of the LORD did they bestow upon Baalim.”

2Ch 31:12, “And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully: over which Cononiah the Levite was ruler, and Shimei his brother was the next.”

Note that when the Philistines stole the Ark of the Covenant, they also dedicated it to their god by placing it the temple of Dagon. They also took Saul’s armour and dedicated it in the house of Ashtaroth.

1Sa 5:2, “When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.”

1Sa 31:10, “And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.”

1Sa 21:13 And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.

1Sa 21:13 Comments – In developed countries, mad men are usually locked up in institutions. However, in underdeveloped nations, it is common to see crazy people walking the streets.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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.

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

DAVID‘S FLIGHT TO NOB, AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE PHILISTINES (1Sa 21:1-15.).

EXPOSITION

DAVID‘S FLIGHT TO NOB (1Sa 21:1-9).

1Sa 21:1

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 Mar 2:4, Mar 2:5. 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.

1Sa 21:2

The king hath commanded me a business. This pretence of a private commission from the king was a mere invention, but his “appointing his servants to meet him at such and such a place” was probably the exact truth. After parting with Jonathan, David probably did not venture to show himself at home, but, while Saul still supposed him to be at Bethlehem, gave orders to some trusty officer to gather together a few of his most faithful men, and await him with them at some fit place. Meanwhile alone he sets out on his flight, and, having as yet no settled plan, goes to Nob, because it was out of the way of the road to Bethlehem, whither Saul would send to arrest him. Naturally such a visit would seem strange to Ahimelech; but David needed food and arms, and probably counsel; and. but for the chance of the presence of Doeg, no harm might have ensued. As it was, this visit of David completed the ruin of Eli’s house.

1Sa 21:3, 1Sa 21:4

What is under thine hand? This does not mean that Ahimelech was himself carrying the shewbread out of the tabernacle, but simply, “What hast thou? The sense of the whole verse is, “Now, therefore, what hast thou at hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever there may be.” Ahimelech answers, “There is no common bread at hand.” I have no ordinary food; there is only hallowed bread, that is, the shewbread, which, after remaining in Jehovah’s presence from sabbath to sabbath, was then to be eaten by the priests in the holy place (Le 1Sa 24:8, 1Sa 24:9). As Ahimelech could not venture to refuse David’s request, he asks if his attendants are at least ceremonially clean, as in that case the urgency of the king’s business might excuse the breach of the letter of the commandment. Our Lord in Mat 12:3 cites this as a case in which the inward spirit of the law was kept, and the violation of its literal precept thereby justified.

1Sa 21:5, 1Sa 21:6

About these three days since I came out. This exactly agrees with the time during which David had lain concealed (1Sa 20:24, 1Sa 20:27, 1Sa 20:35), and explains the hunger under which he was suffering, as he had no doubt taken with him only feed sufficient for his immediate wants, he wishes, however, the high priest to believe that he had been engaged with his men during this time on public business, whereas they had been at home and some of them possibly were unclean. The whole chapter sets David before us in a very humiliating light. Just as some books of Homer are styled “the prowess” of some hero, so this chapter might be called David’s degradation. The determined hatred of Saul seems to have thrown him off his balance, and it was not till he got among the hills of Judah, wherein was the cave of Adullam, that he recovered his serenity. The vessels of the young men. Their scrips, in which they would carry the bread, and their baggage generally. The bread is in a manner common, etc. The word bread is supplied by the translators, to give some sense to this most difficult passage. Literally translated, the two last clauses are, “And the way is profane, although it be sanctified today in the vessel.” Among the numerous interpretations of these words the following seems the best: “And though our journey be not connected with a religious object, yet it (the bread) will be kept holy in the vessel (in which it will be carried).” There is no difficulty in supplying bread in the last clause, as the shewbread was the subject of the conversation, and a nominative is constantly supplied by the mind from the principal matter that is occupying the thoughts of the speakers. David’s argument, therefore, is that both his attendants and their wallets were free from legal defilement, and that though their expedition was on some secular business, yet that at all events the bread would be secure from pollution. The shewbread that was taken from before Jehovah. The Talmud (‘Menach.,’ 92, 2) points out that this bread was not newly taken out of the sanctuary, but, as the last clause shows, had been removed on some previous day. As after a week’s exposure it was stale and dry, the priests, we are told, ate but little of it, and the rest was left (see Talmud, ‘Tract. Yom.,’ 39, 1). It also points out that, had such violations of the Levitical law been common, so much importance would not have been attached to this incident.

1Sa 21:7

David’s visit to Nob had probably been dictated simply by a desire to get food while a few attendants were being collected for him, and under ordinary circumstances would have remained unknown to Saul. Unfortunately there chanced to be a person present there who informed the king of it, and brought a second terrible catastrophe upon the house of Eli (see on 1Sa 2:33); by working too upon his jealousy he caused Saul to commit a crime which sets him before us as a hateful and remorseless tyrant. This man was Doeg, an Edomite, who had, it seems, long been in Saul’s service, as he was his chief herdsman. According to the Septuagint he had charge of the king’s mules, but the other versions agree with the Hebrew. As herds would form the main part of Saul’s wealth, his chief herdsman would be a person of importance. He was detained before Jehovah. I.e. shut up in close seclusion within the precincts of the tabernacle, either for some vow, or for purification, or perhaps as suspected of leprosy (Le 1Sa 13:4), or, as some think, as a proselyte. Ephrem Syrus thinks he had committed some trespass, and was detained till he had offered the appointed sacrifice. David at once felt that Doeg’s presence boded much ill (1Sa 22:22), and it probably was the cause of his taking the rash resolution to flee for refuge to Gath.

1Sa 21:8, 1Sa 21:9

Is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? The sight of Doeg made David feel how helpless he was in case of attack, and he excuses his request for weapons by saying that he had left home unarmed because of the urgeney of the king’s business. The whole matter must have seemed very suspicious to Ahimelech, but he was powerless, and answers that the only weapon in the sanctuary was David’s own votive offering, the sword of Goliath, carefully deposited in a place of honour behind the ephod with the Urim and Thummim, and wrapped in a cloth for its protection. As the word is used in Isa 9:5 of military attire, it may mean Goliath’s war mantle, but more probably it was a covering to preserve it from rust and damp. In 1Sa 17:54 it is said that Goliath’s armour became David’s private property, and nothing could be more natural than that he should thus lay up the sword in the tabernacle, as a thank offering to God. He now takes it with pleasure, saying, There is none like that; for it was a memorial of his greatest achievement, and might be the presage of good fortune again.

DAVID SEEKS REFUGE WITH THE KING OF GATH (1Sa 17:10-15).

1Sa 21:10

David arose and fled that day. The presence of Doeg at Nob was a most untoward circumstance; and though David could never have anticipated that Saul would visit upon the priests the unwitting assistance they had given him with such barbarous ferocity, yet he must have felt sure that an active pursuit would be at once instituted against himself. He therefore took a most unwise and precipitate step, but one which clearly shows the greatness of the danger to which he was exposed. For he flees to Achish, king of Gath, the first town upon the Philistine border, at the mouth of the valley of Elah (see on 1Sa 17:3). Achish is called Abimelech in the title of Psa 34:1-22; written by David in grateful commemoration of his escape, that being the official title of the kings of Gath handed down through many successive centuries (see Gen 26:1). It has been objected that nothing could be more improbable than that David, the conqueror of Goliath, should seek refuge with a Philistine lord, and that this is nothing more than a popular tale, which has grown out of the real fact recorded in Psa 27:1-14. But when men are in desperate straits they take wild resolutions, and this meeting with Doeg, just after he had broken down with grief (1Sa 20:41), evidently put David to his wits’ end. As, moreover, Saul was degenerating into a cruel tyrant, desertions may have become not uncommon, and though only three or four years can have elapsed since the battle of Elah, as David was only about twenty-four years of age at Saul’s death, yet the change from a boyish stripling to a bearded man was enough to make it possible that David might not be recognised. As for Goliath’s sword, we have seen that it was not remarkable for its size, and was probably of the ordinary pattern imported from Greece. Even if recognised, Achish might welcome him as a deserter from Saul, the great enemy of the Philistines; for as a deserter never received pardon or mercy, he must now use his prowess to the very utmost against Saul. Finally, the historical truth of the narrative is vouched for by Psa 34:1-22; and the details are all different from those in Psa 27:1-14. David there is a powerful chieftain with a large following of trained soldiers, and feels so secure that he takes his wives with him; he asks for some place in which to reside, and occupies himself in continual forays. Here he is in the utmost distress, has no trained band of soldiers, and goes well nigh mad with mental anguish. And this is in exact keeping with that extreme excitement to which David was a prey in his last interview with Jonathan (1Sa 20:41); and only in his first grief at Saul’s cruel bitterness would his mind have been so affected, and his conduct so rash.

1Sa 21:11

David the king of the land. The servants of Achish use the title of king in a very general way. Thus Achish, though really a seren (see on 1Sa 5:11), is called king of Gath; and they meant nothing more as regards David than that he was Israel’s great man, though in accepting Goliath’s challenge he had undertaken what in old time was regarded as the king’s especial duty. Did they not sing one to another of him in dances? The Hebrew method of singing was by choruses, who sang and danced in turns to the music of their tambours (see on 1Sa 18:7). David evidently had hoped not to be recognised, but to be admitted to serve as a soldier, or in some other capacity, without many questions being asked. As we find an Edomite in Saul’s service, Cushites, Maachathites, and other foreigners in the employment of David, there was probably much of this desertion of one service for another, especially as kings in those days had absolute authority and their displeasure was death.

1Sa 21:13

He changed his behaviour. The same word is used in the title of Psa 34:1-22. Literally it means “his taste,” and, like the Latin word sapientia, is derived from the action of the palate, and so from the faculty of discriminating flavours it came to signify the power of discrimination generally. Thus “to change his taste” means to act as if he had lost the power of distinguishing between objects. Feigned himself mad. Literally, “he roamed hither and thither” restlessly and in terror. In their hands. I.e. before them, in their presence. Scrabbled on the doors of the gate. The Vulgate and Septuagint read drummed upon them. Literally the verb means “to make the mark of a Tau,” the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and which anciently was in the form of a cross. The gate, on the leaves of which David scrawled, was probably that of the court or waiting room, in which the servants of Achish passed their time when in attendance upon him. Possibly David had witnessed these symptoms of madness in Saul’s case during his fits of insanity. The idea of some of the older commentators, that David really for a time went out of his mind, is opposed to the general sense of the narrative.

1Sa 21:14, 1Sa 21:15

The man is mad. Achish supposes that David’s madness was real, and “drove him away” (Psa 34:1-22; title). Here we have only his contemptuous words, declaring that he had madmen enough of his own, and needed no more. As madmen were looked upon in old time as possessed by the Deity, and therefore as persons who must not be interfered with, they probably presumed upon the liberty granted them, and gave much annoyance. In my presence. Rather, “against me.” Achish feared personal injury. Shall this fellow come into my house? A strong negative taking the form of a question. It means, David shall not enter into my service (comp. Psa 34:1-22; title). The whole psalm bears witness to the deep perturbation of David’s spirit, and helps to explain his strange conduct.

HOMILETICS.

1Sa 21:10-15

Uncertain light.

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 his hunger, 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 (1Sa 21:5), 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 highestthat 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 selfone of the most important of lawsmust give way when Christ claims submission to his yoke, the submission 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, 1Sa 17:45; 1Sa 19:18-24; 1Sa 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).

3. 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.

4. 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 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.

5. 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 perils from 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 the bitter 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 good men; 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 created on unfriendly observers by one indiscretion.

1Sa 21:10-15

Uncertain light.

The facts are

1. In continued fear of Saul, David flees to the king of Gath.

2. Being recognised as the conqueror of Goliath, he fears the consequences.

3. To escape vengeance he feigns madness.

4. Achish the king thereupon refuses to have him in his service. There is no evidence that David received any Divine direction through the high priest, but the reverse (1Sa 22:15). He appears to have been left to the exercise of his own judgment as to a future place of refuge. To be alone, unable to remain in one’s own land, a hunted fugitive, on religious principle averse to resistance by sword or concerted revolt (1Sa 24:6), with no guide but such as the judgment unhinged by conflicting thoughts could affordthis was certainly being “desolate” and “afflicted.” The result was a determination to seek shelter among the enemies of his God and country, a step most perilous, and of very doubtful character, and which involved farther recourse to a most humiliating expedient.

I. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN GOD‘S SERVANTS ARE APPARENTLY LEFT TO THEIR OWN USE OF PREVIOUS TEACHING, which they find difficult to apply to new and dangerous circumstances. David was placed in great peril, with no other guidance than what his own spirit might gather from a consideration of his calling by Samuel, and the general signs of God’s past favour. There is, as a rule, a difficulty to the inexperienced in applying general principles to novel conditions; and under the physical and mental exhaustion of this crisis David found it hard to extract from the past sufficient light to guide his present steps. He walked in comparative darkness. “Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps” (Psa 88:6). The supposition that it is reserved only to the deliberately wicked to walk in darkness is not correct. The present life of the righteous in a sinful world is one of discipline, in which they both reap some of the fruits of former imperfections and become trained to higher service. Our Christian course is a campaign in which dark nights of watching and groping and trembling are to be expected as well as bright days of onslaught and victory. The degree of clearness in which the pillar of fire and cloud may stand before us may be affected by our disordered visionthe result of imperfect health; or distraction, or sheer exhaustion. The disciples of Christ, during those dark and dreadful hours of his passion and death, were left to the guidance and cheer of such of the truths as he had taught them in the days of prosperity as their judgment might deem appropriate to their present need. To the young man from home, tossed and torn by the adversities of life, unable to find means of sustenance, and destitute of friends, there is left the lessons of his childhood and such truth as may have been gathered from a brief experience of life. In his agitation he sees no clear light. A “horror of great darkness” comes over the soul, and the servant of God asks why his God is so “far from helping” him (Psa 22:1).

II. THE SERVANTS OF GOD, ACTING ON THEIR OWN JUDGMENT AT SUCH TIMES, MAY COMMIT THEMSELVES TO INCREASING DANGERS AND HUMILIATING DEVICES. Exercising his judgment both on his present circumstances and his past experience of God’s dealings with him, David thought he saw amidst the gloom a hand pointing to Gath as a place of refuge. No voice from heaven said, “Go not thither,” and no light led elsewhere. Men would say he did the best under the circumstances, and in all sincerity of purpose. Nevertheless, the step was a false one, apart from his motive, both in itself and in its results. For it was shocking for a pious Hebrewthe assertor of the “name of the Lord” (1Sa 10:1-27; 1Sa 7:1-17 :45), and the victor of Elahto enter the abode and seek the service of the “uncircumcised Philistine,” and the event proved that safety was not secured, but was so imperilled as to suggest the adoption of a most humiliating expedient. Oh, the bitter anguish of those who, having lived in the light of God’s countenance, find themselves sinking deeper and deeper into helplessness and sorrow! Thus may it be with us all in our “dark and cloudy day.” Every new step we take only makes our path more painful, and taxes more severely our ingenuity. Peter’s “following afar off” led him amidst scoffing men and women, and their words (1Sa 21:11; cf. Mat 26:58, Mat 26:69-75) made a demand on his ingenuity more serious in its success than David’s feigned madness. And this has been the experience of multitudes. There are two great dangers of the “hour of darkness” which David’s experience indicates.

1. The danger of causing scandal among the enemies of religion. If the servants of Achish suspected David of the low cunning (1Sa 21:11) which seeks to slay by stealth, then ms Grave, chivalrous character as a defender of the honour of Jehovah’s name (1Sa 17:45) is gone; and if they regard him as a fugitive fleeing from his king and country, then he reveals to the “uncircumcised” the woes and troubles of the people of God. It is a sacred duty in all our times of adversity to avoid whatever would cause irreligious men to think that we can do their base deeds, and not to expose to the eye of the unsympathetic the internal sorrows of the Church of God.

2. The danger of appearing to be what we are not. It may have been a harmless and successful device to simulate madness; but self-respect was gone, and a “more excellent way” of escape might have been sought of God. This is the great peril of us all both in prosperity and adversity. The guise under which the simulation appears is varied. An appearance of wealth covers real poverty; a geniality of manner is adopted when real aversion lies in the heart; a pretence of ill health secures escape from obligations; ambiguous words and evasions are employed to suggest our ignorance of matters when we know them well. To be real, to be known to be just what we are, is the only safe and wise course for a true Christian.

III. THE MORAL VALUE OF THESE SEASONS OF DARKNESS CANNOT BE APPRECIATED AT THE TIME. David was doubtless confounded at the providence that should have him “anointed” to a special service and yet allow him to be hunted as an outcast. He saw not the good of being bereft of friend and counsellor. But God deals with his servants in view of their actual need and the future service they are to render. Unchecked prosperity might have been the greatest curse to such a young man. We do not know what subtle dangers were lurking in his heart, and how necessary it was to cause him to feel his utter helplessness when left to himself. Facts prove that out of this bitter experience he rose a more devout, and humble, and trustful man, and was thereby enabled to be a better king, and to enrich the world forever with psalms expressive of the deepest experience of the human soul. Time is essential to the interpretation of the ways of God. The cruel wrongs of Joseph and the anguish of Jacob proved among the good things of life. The forty years trial in the desert was a blessing to Israel. “No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous;” but history proves how blessed it is. The absolute trust expressed in the Psalms could only have been stated by one who had been very poor, desolate, and afflicted. Even the life of the Apostle Peter was the better for the bitterness and shame of his deed. Many on earth can say that they are grateful for their adversities, for through them they have got nearer to God, have found Christ’s love more precious, and have set their affections more intently on things unseen and eternal. Who can adequately praise the unsearchable wisdom and love that can thus turn our darkness into light, and convert our sorrows into joys, and even build up holy characters out of the ruins of our own actions and follies? (Rom 11:36-39).

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

1Sa 21:1-8. (NOB.)

Deceit.

1. As in the outward life, so in the inward experience of men great exaltation 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 Jonathanif not, indeed, from the time of his leaving NaiothDavid had lost some of his trust in God” (Kitto).

2. The intention to deceive constitutes the essence of lying. Truth is the representation 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”.

3. 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 speaking, no such thing as a lie of necessity. A man may die of necessity, but not lie.

2. 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

3. 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” (Le 1Sa 19:11). “Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile” (Psa 24:1-10 :13; 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 (1Sa 21:8). 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).

2. Even its temporary success often leads to inquiry and discovery (1Sa 22:6).

3. 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 deceiveby their moral deterioration, encouragement in deception 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 of their temptations.

3. To watch against the least approach to deception in ourselves.

4. To seek preservation from it by firmly trusting in God.D.

1Sa 21:2. (NOB)

The sins of good men.

Some of the most eminent servants of God mentioned in the Bible fell into grievous sins. This has often been to some a ground of objection to the Bible, and to others a subject of perplexity. But there is little reason for either. Consider it in relation to

I. THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE. If men had been described therein as wholly free from sin there would have been much more reason for doubt or perplexity concerning its truth than now exists; for its representation of them

1. Proves the impartiality of the writers, who record the failings of good men as well as their excellencies, concealing nothing. It shows that the sacred writers were influenced by the highest principles, and even guided by a higher wisdom than their own.

2. Accords with the results of observation and experience, which teach that men are sinful, that those who are unquestionably good men are liable to fall, and that the most eminently pious are not perfect. Much of the Bible is chiefly a faithful picture of human nature, which (both without and under the power of Divine grace) is essentially the same in all ages.

3. Confirms the doctrines it contains: such as that man is fallen, sinful, and helpless; that his elevation, righteousness, and strength are of God; that he can attain these blessings only through faith and prayer and conflict; that he can continue to possess them only by the same means; and that when he ceases to rely on Divine strength he utterly fails.

II. THE CHARACTER OF GOD. They were accepted and blessed by him notwithstanding their sins. Is he, therefore, unholy, unjust, or partial? Let it be remembered

1. That their sins were not sanctioned by him.

2. That they were forbidden by him.

3. That they were punished by him.

4. That they were forgiven only when repented of.

5. That they were in some cases mercifully borne with for a time because of the good which he saw in his servants, and in order to the ultimate removal of the evil.

6. That if such endurance of some things in them appears strange to us, under the higher light and grace vouchsafed, there are probably some things in ourselves, the evil of which we scarcely perceive, but which will appear hereafter in a different light to others.

7. That the principle on which God deals with the individual and the race is that of a gradual education, the aim of which is that we should be “holy as he is holy.”

III. THE WORTH OF SUCH MEN. If they had continued in conscious and persistent transgression they could not have been held in honour or regarded as really good (1Jn 3:6); but though their sins may not be excused, their names are worthy of being had in everlasting remembrance, because of

1. The surpassing virtues which distinguished their character.

2. The main current of their lifeso contrary to isolated instances of transgression.

3. Their deep sorrow for sin, their lofty aspirations after holiness, and their sure progress toward perfection.

IV. THE EFFECT ON OTHERS. This has doubtless been injurious in some directions. But, on the other hand, it has been, as it must be when the subject is rightly viewed, beneficial in

1. Making others more watchful against falling. If such eminent servants of God fell, much more may we. “Let him that thinketh he standeth,” etc.

2. Preventing despair when they have fallen. If those who fell could be restored, so can we.

3. Teaching them to look to Jesus Christ as the one perfect example, the only propitiation for our sins, the all-sufficient source of “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” “Nothing can be an excuse or apology for sin; yet by God’s mercy it may be turned to account, and made to produce the opposite to itself. To some men’s errors the world has been indebted for their richest lessons and ripest fruit . To the lamentable lapse, the penitence and the punishment of David, we owe some of the most subduing, the most spiritually instructive and consolatory of his psalmspsalms that have taught despair to trust, and have turned the heart of flint into a fountain of tears” (Binney).D.

1Sa 21:3-6. (Nor.)

The letter and the spirit.

“So the priest gave him hallowed bread” (1Sa 21:6). More than half a century had elapsed since the destruction of Shiloh. The remaining members of the family of Eli had greatly increased, so that eighty-five priests now dwelt at Nob, where the tabernacle (and possibly the ark1Sa 7:1) had been placed. But the condition of the priesthood was very different from what it once was. The spiritual power of the nation lay in the “company of the prophets;” and Saul, rejected of God and ruling according to his own will, “assumed the power of giving the high priest orders at all times through his messengers (1Sa 21:2); so far had the theocracy sunk from that state in which the people used to stand before the tabernacle to receive the sole behests of Jehovah their King, through the prophet and priest” (Smith, ‘O.T. History’). Nevertheless Ahimelech (Ahiah, 1Sa 14:36) appears to have been a man of high character (1Sa 22:14, 1Sa 22:15); and when David, in his necessity, requested “five loaves,” he gave them to him from the shewbread which had just been removed from the holy place. He may have been influenced by sympathy with David’s character and position (of which he could not fail to know something), as well as by compassion for his need and by loyalty to the king, or by the advice of Abiathar (his son and successor, afterwards friend and companion of David1Sa 22:20-23; 1Ki 2:26; and removed from the priesthood by Solomon, giving place to Zadok, of the elder branch of the Aaronic family). The shewbread (literally, “bread of the presence”) “set forth Israel’s permanent consecration in obedience and in producing the fruit of good works” (see Fairbairn, ‘Typology,’ 2:324), and was permitted to be eaten only by the priests (Le 1Sa 24:9); but he departed, with some reserve (1Sa 21:4), from the strict letter in observance of the spirit of the law. And our Lord “selected this act of Ahimelech as the one incident in David’s life on which to bestow his especial commendation, because it containedhowever tremulously and guardedly expressedthe great evangelical truth that the ceremonial law, however rigid, must give way before the claims of suffering humanity” (Stanley). Observe that

I. THE LETTER IS DISTINCT FROM THE SPIRIT. To the former belong particular customs, maxims, rules, rites, and ceremonies; to the latter, general principles, and essential moral and spiritual obligations. As a simple illustrationChrist said to his disciples, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet” (here is the rule); “Love one another (here is the principle).

1. The letter rests upon the spirit as its foundation. The whole Mosaic law, as law (moral, ceremonial, political), was a “letter” based upon great principles, springing directly out of the relation of God to mengranite foundations on which more recent strata rest, and which often crop through them into distinct view (Le 1Sa 18:18; Deu 6:5). “There is a ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ in everything. Every statement, every law, every institution is the form of an essence, the body of a soul, the instrument of a power. These two things are quite distinctthey may be quite different” (A.J. Morris, ‘Christ the Spirit of Christianity’).

2. The letter is a means to an end, the spirit is the end itself. The shew bread was set apart for a particular purpose, and permitted to be eaten only by the priests, in order to represent and promote the consecration, good works, and true welfare of the whole people. So “the sabbath was made for man” (Mar 2:27).

3. The letter is restricted in its application to certain persons, places, and times; the spirit is universal and abiding.

4. The letter (as such) is in its requirement outward, formal, mechanical, and in its effect conservative, constraining, and pre paratory; the spirit necessarily demands thoughtfulness, affection, moral choice, and is productive of liberty, energy, perfection. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” (Joh 6:63).

II. THE LETTER MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT. It is not essentially so; it is not always so when men imagine it to be, as, e.g; when it is a restraint only upon their selfish convenience and sinful propensities. The fact that it is such a restraint shows that they still need the discipline of the law and the letter. If they were truly spiritual and free it would not be felt. But generally

1. When it is applied to cases not contemplated by it,to inappropriate times and circumstances,and when it hinders rather than promotes its chief end.

2. More particularly when it prevents the meeting of the real and urgent necessities of men, and the accomplishment of their true welfarethe satisfaction of hunger, the removal of sickness, the preservation of life, the salvation of the soul (Mat 12:1, Mat 12:12). On this principle David “entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread,” etc.

3. When it is opposed to the proper exercise of benevolence. On this principle Ahimelech gave him the bread, and our Lord acted (Luk 6:10). “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice” (Hos 6:6).

4. When it hinders the highest service of God. In all such instances the strict observance of the letter “works mischief and misery, and not only kills, but kills the spirit itself from which it came” (2Co 3:6).

III. THE LETTER MUST BE SUBORDINATED TO THE SPIRIT. It should not be despised or arbitrarily set aside; but the lower obligation (in so far as the “letter” is obligatory) ought to be secondary and subservient, and give place to the higher. And we learn that

1. In the order of God’s dealings with men it was necessary that the dispensation of the letter should be superseded by that of the spirit. This incident affords a glimpse of their predominant elements. “The law was like a book of first lessonslessons for children. Christianity is like a book for men.”

2. In the Christian dispensation what is ceremonial, regulative, temporary (however important) must be deemed of less consequence than what is moral, essential, enduring; and devotion to the former should be surpassed by devotion to the latter. Unduly to exalt external rites or special forms of worship is to return to the bondage of the letter; whilst zealously to contend about them without brotherly love and charity is to lose the substance for the sake of shadows. “Redeemed and sanctified man stands no longer under the disciplinary form of the law, but stands above and controls the form of the requirement” (Erdmann). He is a king and priest. “Pure religion” (literally, outward ceremonial service), etc. (Jas 1:27). It is charity and purity.

3. In the individual liferenewed and sanctifiedthe chief endeavour should ever be to “live in the spirit,” and exhibit “charity out of a pure heart” (1Ti 1:5).

“I’m apt to think the man

That could surround the sum of things, and spy
The heart of God and secrets of his empire,
Would speak but love; with him the bright result
Would change the hue of intermediate scenes
And make one thing of all theology.”

4. In everything Christ must be regarded as supreme, the perfect embodiment and only source of the spirit, Redeemer, Lord, “all and in all” (Col 3:11; 2Co 3:17, 2Co 3:18).D.

1Sa 21:8-10. (NOB)

The sword of Goliath.

“There is none like that; give it me” (1Sa 21:9). When David slew Goliath “he put his armour in his tent” (“the ancient word for dwelling“). But he appears to have afterwards deposited his sword in the tabernacle at Nob as a sacred relic, dedicatory offering, memorial, and sign; and on seeking for means of defence during his flight “from the face of Saul” (1Sa 21:10) it was still there, carefully “wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod,” and was handed over to him by the priest. It was of special significance for him, and (as other memorials often do to others) it must have spoken to him with an almost oracular voice in the way of

I. REMEMBRANCE of the help of God; afforded

1. In the gaining of a notable victory over the enemies of the Lord and his people.

2. At a time of imminent peril and utmost extremity.

3. Through faith “in the name of the Lord of hosts.” David’s deliverance, as he then acknowledged, was accomplished not by the sling and stone, nor yet by the sword, but by the Lord on whom he relied; and he much needed to be reminded of it now.

II. ENCOURAGEMENT to trust in God.

1. In his service, in conflict with his enemies and obedience to his directions, the Lord is with his servants. They are not “alone” (1Sa 21:1), but he is on their side (Psa 118:6).

2. In the greatest extremity, when ordinary means seem unavailing, he is able to deliver them by those which are extraordinary.

3. The confidence which they place in him he never disappoints. “Fear not.” “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.”

III. WARNING against confidence in man. Overwhelmed with fear, he was about to take the daring step of leaving his people and seeking shelter with the Philistines, and eagerly grasped the weapon as an omen of the success of his scheme. But if he had reflected it would surely have taught him that

1. There is no safety for a servant of God in dependence upon or in alliance with his enemies. None might be like “the Sword of Goliath” when used in “the Lord’s battles,” but in no other.

2. His own wisdom and strength avail nothing “without the Lord.” And he was now evidently venturing on an erroneous and presumptuous course, in which he had no assurance of Divine guidance and help.

3. The weapon which has been powerful by faith is powerless without it, and may even be turned against him who employs it. Ancient memorials, institutions, methods are valueless apart from the spirit which they represent. It is probable that David was discovered in the native place of Goliath by the sword he bore; and the next thing we hear is that he and the renowned weapon he so highly prized were in the hands of the Philistines.D.

1Sa 21:10-15. (GATH)

The fear of man.

“And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid” (1Sa 21:12). The fear of man is not always sinful. As in certain cases, and within certain limits, the approbation of others is a natural and proper object of desire, so the disapprobation of others is a like object of dread; and it often restrains from temptation and impels to virtuous conduct. But it is sinful when it exists where it ought not, or in an undue measure; when it hinders us from doing right lest we should incur their displeasure, or incites us to do wrong in order to avoid it. Such fear has often possessed the servants of God (Gen 12:12; Exo 30:11, Exo 30:22; 1Sa 16:2; Mat 26:72). It was felt by David when he fled from Saul; and still more when recognised by the servants of Achish, king of Gath, and brought before him. To avoid what appeared to him inevitable death he feigned madness, and his dissimulation (though no more reprehensible than the stratagems which many others have devised in great straits) was unworthy of his high character. Notice

I. ITS PRINCIPAL CAUSES.

1. Distrust of Divine protection, which he had already exhibited. If he had not, to some extent, “cast away his confidence,” he would hardly have come to Gath at all; for God could assuredly protect him in his own]and. And now, deprived of “the shield of faith,” he became victim to a fear as great as the courage he had formerly displayed.

2. The failure of worldly policy, which, through lack of faith, he had adopted. Like Peter, he went whither he was not called to go; and when his folly and presumption were suddenly revealed he was overwhelmed with dismay. His failure was, in its ultimate result, good; for, although he had no intention of turning his sword against his people, it prevented further entanglements arising out of his relation with his enemies, humbled him, and constrained him to cry to God for deliverance. It is better for a good man to be driven forth from the wicked in contempt than to be retained amongst them in honour.

3. The presence of personal danger; doubtless great, but exaggerated, as it always is, by fear. He that seeketh his life shall lose it. How common is the fear of man, arising from similar causes, in social, political, and religious life!

II. ITS INJURIOUS iNFLUENCE (1Sa 21:13). The intercourse of David with Saul may possibly have suggested the device; which, moreover, was not an inappropriate expression of his inward agitation and misery. Fear

1. Fills the mind with distracting anxiety and distress. He whose faith fails is no longer himself. He is driven hither and thither, like a ship upon the open sea (Luk 12:29).

2. Incites to the adoption of deceitful expedients. “The fear of man bringeth a snare” (Pro 29:25).

3. Exposes to ignominious contempt (1Sa 21:15). “Signally did David show on this occasion that he possessed two of the powers most essential to geniuspowers without which he could never have become the great poet he wasthe power of observation and the power of imitation. He must previously have noticed with artistic accuracy all the disgusting details of madness; and now he is able to reproduce them with a startling fidelity. And in the possession of these powers we may, I think, find not an excuse for, but certainly an explanation of, that tendency to deceit, which otherwise it would be hard to account for in so holy a person. When a man finds it an easy and pleasurable exercise of ability to throw himself into existences alien to his own, he is tempted to a course of unreality and consequent untruthfulness which can hardly be conceived by a more self-bound nature. But if genius has its greater temptations, it also has greater strength to resist them. And the more godlike a genius is, the more unworthy and humiliating are its lapses. What more debasing sight can be imagined than that which David presented in the king’s palace at Gath! Fingers which have struck the celestial lyre now scribble on the doors of the gate. From lips which have poured forth divinest song now drops the slaver of madness. The soul which has delighted in communion with God now emulates the riot of a fiend. And all this not brought on by the stroke of Heaven, which awes us while it saddens, but devised by a faithless craft” (J. Wright).

III. ITS EFFECTUAL REMOVAL by

1. The overruling goodness of God, which often delivers his servants from the snares they have made for themselves, and sometimes mercifully controls their devices to that end; and (as we learn from the psalms which refer to the event) in connection with

2. Earnest prayer for his kelp, and

3. Restored confidence in his presence and favour. Faith is the antidote of fear.

“The following is an approximation to the chronological order of the eight psalms which are assigned by their inscriptions to the time of David’s persecution by Saul: 7. (Cush) 59; 56; 34; 52; 57; 142; 54.” (Delitzsch). See also the inscriptions of Psa 63:1-11, and Psa 18:1-50. Psa 56:1-13, ‘The prayer of a fugitive’ (see inscription):

“Be gracious unto me, O God
In the day that I fear, in thee do I put my trust,
In God do I praise his word.
In God have I put my trust; I do not fear.
What can flesh do unto me.

(Psa 56:1, Psa 56:4, Psa 56:9, Psa 56:12).

Psa 34:1-22; ‘Thanksgiving for deliverance’ (see inscription):

“I will bless Jehovah at all times ….
I sought Jehovah, and he answered me,
And out of all my fears did he deliver me.
This afflicted one cried, and Jehovah heard,
And saved him out of all his troubles”

(verses l, 3, 7, 12-16).

“When David sang these two songs God’s grace had already dried his tears. Their fundamental tone is thanksgiving for favour and deliverance. But he who has an eye, therefore, 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” (Krummacher).D.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Sa 21:6

The letter of the law violated.

How did David, being neither priest nor Levite, venture to eat the presence bread from the sanctuary? How did Ahimelech venture to give it to him?

I. THERE WAS THE PLEA OF NECESSITY. An ox or an ass which had fallen into a pit might be lifted out on the sabbath, notwithstanding the commandment to do no manner of work on the seventh day. The need of the poor animal, and the mercy due to it in its mishap, were justification enough for a breach of the letter of the law. When the disciples of Christ, walking with him along the edge of a cornfield, pulled some ears to relieve their hunger, they were blameless, for what they did was expressly permitted by the Mosaic law (Deu 23:25). But they did it on the sabbath, and this the Pharisees challenged as unlawful. The Lord Jesus, however, held it quite lawful. It was necessary that his followers should relieve their hunger and recruit their strength, and the greater object must be put above the less. “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Our Lord brought out this truth into stronger relief than any other Jewish teacher had done; but it was not new doctrine. We see that while the Mosaic ritual was in the full force of its obligation the priest at Nob felt warranted to suspend one of its most minute regulations in order to relieve pressing human want. Perhaps the tendency in modem Churches is to take too much liberty with rules and ordinances of religion under pleas of necessity which are little more than pleas of convenience or self-will. But there is a golden mean between rigidity and laxity; and it must be left to the judgment and conscience of those who fear the Lord to determine for their own guidance what does or does not constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside regulations or restrictions which are ordinarily entitled to respect. Yet it is only the letter of the law, or the minutiae of religious observance, that may be thus dealt with. There are supreme obligations which not even a question of life and death may overrule. Nehemiah would not flee into the temple to save his life when his duty was to build up Jerusalem. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not worship the golden image at Babylon to save their bodies from the furnace; nor would Daniel desist from prayer to Jehovah to escape the lions’ den. Paul insisted on his right of protection as a Roman citizen, hut he would not for a moment compromise or conceal the gospel to evade persecution. No bonds or afflictions moved him; neither did he count his life dear to himself, so that he might finish his course with joy. It is true that not all the followers of Christ have had such fortitude. In days of persecution some faltered and apostatised, excusing themselves under a plea of necessity. They could not suffer; they dared not to die. But the noble army of martyrs consists of those who felt it the supreme necessity to be true to conscience, to the truth of the gospel, and the Christ of God. Not everything, then, must yield to necessity. David thought his hunger a sufficient warrant for taking from the priest’s hand the sacred bread; but when Goliath blasphemed the God of Israel and defied his army, David had shown that his own life was not so dear to him as the glory of God and the honour and safety of his people.

II. THERE WAS A PROFOUND INSIGHT INTO THE TRUE MEANING OF PRIESTHOOD IN ISRAEL. No doubt the priests formed a hereditary order, wearing a distinctive dress, and having special provision made by statute for their position and maintenance. But they were never intended to be a caste of holy intercessors standing between God and an unholy nation. Neither they nor the Levites, their assistants, were isolated from the common life of their countrymen, as by separate charter of privilege or vows of celibacy. They were just the concentrated expression of the truth that all Israel was called to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The rule was that the priests only should eat the bread which was withdrawn weekly from the table in the sanctuary; but it was no breach of the essence and spirit of the law if other Israelites, faithful to God, should on an emergency eat of this bread. David was as truly a servant of Jehovah as Ahimelech. Though all the Lord’s people never were prophets, they always were, and now are, priests. Knowing this, David took and ate; not at all in a wilful mood, like Esau in his ravenous hunger eating Jacob’s pottage, but with reverential feeling and a good conscience, under sanction of the fact that he was one of a priestly nation, and with confidence that God would not condemn him for exceeding in such a strait the letter of the law, so long as he honoured and obeyed its spirit. The leaders and rulers of the Church, according to the New Testament, are not sacerdots invested with a mystic sanctity and intrusted with a religious monopoly. They are simply the intensified expression of the holy calling of all the members of Christ, all the children of God. All these have a right to worship in the holiest; and as all of them may offer spiritual sacrifices, so all may “eat of the holy things.” Order, indeed, is needful in the Church, and no man may assume a leading place or charge therein until duly called and appointed to the same. If David had for a light cause, or frequently, taken the presence bread, it would have been a sign of irreverence or arrogance. And in like manner if a Christian not intrusted with office in any constituted Church pushes forward when there is no emergency, and assumes to lead the Divine service, or to appoint or conduct the observance of the Lord’s Supper, he steps out of his place, and may be designated “unruly.” But there are places and occasions which do not admit of the usual regulations being observed; and in such cases a private or unofficial Christian may take upon himself any religious function rather than that any soul should suffer damage, and this under the general principle that all Christians form a “royal priesthood.” The teaching of this passage is against religious pedantry and ecclesiastical hauteur. Count form subordinate to life. Value order, and reverence ordinances that are really of God. Play no “fantastic tricks” with sacred things “before high heaven;” but do not reduce religion to a question of meats and drinks, and do not count any one a serious offender who in a strait has violated prescription or usage. One who breaks the letter of the law may keep the law itself better than another who knows nothing but the letter. We are called to liberty; not licence, indeed, but order and liberty. If we are true to God and to our consciences we need not dread that, for a formality or an informality, Christ will cast us off. The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath and of the table, “Minister of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle,” Lord of all the ordinances that are binding on his followers. And there is a freedomnot from order, but in God’s orderwith which the Son of man, being Son of God, has made his people free.F.

1Sa 21:8-15

The hero unheroic.

I. A WEAPON WAS GIVEN TO DAVID AT NOB THAT SHOULD HAVE STIRRED ALL THE HEROIC ELEMENT IN HIM AND RESTORED HIS FALTERING FAITH. Had he forgotten that the sword of Goliath was in custody of the priests? Or did he remember it, and was it for a sight and a grasp of this mighty weapon that he longed? Who can tell? The priest reminded him of the day when, with that very sword, he beheaded the prostrate giant in the valley of Elah. The words must have sent a thrill through David’s heart, and touched some chord of shame. Why was he now so much afraid? Why could he not trust the Lord who had saved him in that dreadful combat to protect him now? He was all eagerness to have the sword in his hand again”There is none like it; give it me.” It may have been too ponderous for a man of ordinary size and strength to wield with any freedom, but its associations and memories made it more to David than ninny weapons of war. He ought to have been of good cheer when in one day he got both bread and sword out of the sanctuary. Is not this suggestive of a way of help and encouragement for all who know the Lord? In new emergencies let them recall past deliverances. As Matthew Henry says, “experiences are great encouragements.” The God who helped us in some past time of need is able to help us again. The grace which gained one victory is strong enough to gain another. But

II. RECOLLECTION WITHOUT ACTIVE FAITH AVAILS LITTLE. The courage which must have leaped up in David’s breast at the sight and touch of Goliath’s sword soon ebbed away. His mood of despondency returned as he neared the frontier, and he relapsed into shifts unworthy both of his past and of his future. It must be owned that his position was very critical. To cross the western frontier was to expose himself to suspicion and obloquy in Israel, and to run great risk of his life among the Philistines. He was between two fires: enraged Saul behind him, and before him the king of Oath, who might very probably avenge upon him the humiliation and death of the great champion of Oath, Goliath. When the latter of these risks actually threatened him, David, always quick to scent danger, perceived his extreme predicament; and, equally quick in suggestion and resource, fell on an ingenious plan to save his life. It was not dignifiedit was not worthy of a devout and upright man; but it was clever and successful. David had often seen Saul in his frenzy, and knew how to counterfeit the symptoms. So he feigned insanity, and was allowed to leave the Philistine town unmolested, and to escape to his native land. What may pass without censure in heathen Greeks and Romans may not so pass in a Hebrew like David, who knew the true God; and though we should not judge severely the action of a man under imminent mortal peril, we are disappointed to see the son of Jesse betake himself to stratagem and deceit. We are vexed to find the hero unheroic, the saint unsaintly. But

III. ALL THE WHILE THERE WAS A DEEP VEIN OF DEVOUT FEELING IN DAVID‘S MIND. Two of his psalms are said to refer to this time of trouble at Oath. The first of these is the thirty-fourth. It makes no definite allusion to the events related here, but we see no reason to disregard the old tradition embodied in its title, which refers its origin to the time of David’s narrow escape from the Philistines. Not that he composed it on the spur of the moment, for the elaborate acrostic structure of the ode forbids that supposition. But the sweet singer, recalling his escape, recalled the devout feeling which it awakened. He did not introduce into his song any of the actual incidents at Gath, for he must have felt that, so far as his own behaviour was concerned, the incidents were not worthy of celebration; but he recorded his experience of Divine succour for the consolation of others in their extremity, ending with “Jehovah redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.” The other psalm to which we allude is the fifty-sixth. This, too, is ascribed to “David when the Philistines laid hold on him in Gath.” It vividly describes his condition and his alarm, and tells where his hope of deliverance really lay. God knew his wanderings and regarded his tears; and thoughts of God were in David’s heart even when he was playing the part of a maniac to delude the Philistines. “In God I put my trust: I am not afraid: what can man do unto me?” We do not palliate anything in David’s conduct at Nob or at Gath that was unbecoming a servant of God. We must go to the great Son of David to learn a faultless morality, so that no guile may proceed out of our mouths, and we may use no pretexts to gain our objects, but count the keeping of a good conscience superior to all considerations of comfort and even of life, and have no fear of them who can kill the body, “but are not able to kill the soul.” But the Psalms come in well to prevent our doing David any injustice. All through this painful passage of his lifein his flight, his grief, his mortal perilhis heart was crying out for God. So he was saved out of the hands of enemies. Goliath could not hurt him, nor Saul, nor Achish either. Not that God sanctioned any shift or subteruge; but God heard him, and saved him out of all his distresses.F.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Sa 21:1. Then came David to Nob Nob was in the tribe of Benjamin, about twelve miles from Gibeath, not far from Anathoth, Neh 11:32 and Jerusalem, Isa 10:32. It appears from the 19th verse, of the next chapter, that it was one of the sacerdotal cities; and it is probable that Saul had removed the tabernacle from Shiloh thither. It should be observed, that Ahimelech is no where called the high-priest, but simply the priest. From the whole of this affair it is manifest, that Ahimelech knew nothing of the circumstances of David. He knew nothing of Saul’s displeasure against him, or of his determined purpose to destroy him; and therefore, as he was the king’s son-in-law, he is surprised to see him without any attendants, and asks him the reason of his being alone. David, concealing the reason, pretends a hasty and secret message from the king, and that he had ordered his attendants to wait for him. This is made use of as a pretence for asking a supply of bread, and after receiving it David requests a supply of arms; still keeping the priest entirely ignorant of the true reason of his being alone and unarmed: a demonstration this, if any thing can be so, that Ahimelech was not in David’s secret, and was ignorant that he fled from Saul to escape his indignation.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

III. Davids flight to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech and to Gath to king Achish

1Sa 21:1-15 (216)

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 kings 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. 19]. 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 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 determinableonly 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 (Palst. p. 215, 4 ed.) [and Grove] suppose, cannot be decided; the objection is that Jerusalem is not visible from this place.15See 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 Gods 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 Davids 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 Sauls 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 Sauls 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. ( is Po. of , 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 Ahimelechs 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 Davids hurry and eagerness. ( is not a question, which would require something like (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 breadbut 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). Ahimelechs 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 circumstancesnamely, 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 Lords will at the holy placeseemed 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 Ahimelechs 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 ones self and ones neighbor.

1Sa 21:6 (5). In Davids answer the introductory but ( ) relates to the negative in Ahimelechs 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 () and way (). As to the former, the reference here to purity of body does not justify us in understanding it figuratively of the body, as 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, , 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 ( for ), 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 () = 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 kings 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 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, Gods chosen servant, the upholder of Gods true kingdom in Israel, the way was sanctified through him as instrument, as ambassador of the Lords 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 senseapart 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 ( instrument, organ) is so used of men also, Gen 45:5; Isa 13:5; Isa 32:7; Jer 50:25; comp. , 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 Davids request. The yea, verily ( , 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 Davids 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 Davids 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 Davids trouble to conceal his way from Saul, the latter received information of his visit to this very place. Detained, shut in (), 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 Sauls herdsmen, and so all ancient versions except Sept., which has wrongly tending the mules of Saul. ( ). On account of the importance which still attached in Sauls time to the possession of herds as a family-power, Doegs 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 kings business was hasty, literally pressed (), stronger than pressing. Vulg.: the kings word was urgent; Sept.: in haste ( ).Hast thou not here spear or sword? a question which, like the demand for bread above, clearly reveals in part Davids 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 Goliaths 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 Goliaths armor except his sword, or that this sword was afterwards deposited for safe keeping in the national sanctuary (Then.) See on 1Sa 17:54. ( for , 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 [1015]. 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 Doegs 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 [1015]) 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 Sauls schemes and Davids 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 Davids 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 [1015] 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, Davids inner excitement, consequent on Sauls 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 Sauls 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 Goliaths sword, that, as well-known to the Philistines, it would certainly have betrayed David, Ngelsbach 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 ( [Eng. A. V. unto him]), which phrase from the connection (their thoughts and talk naturally turning on David) refers to David, not to Achish.20Is this not David, the king of the land?This question exhibits the great impression which Davids 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 Goliaths 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 Achishs presence (Thenius) is nowhere supported, is improbable from the form of the words, which rather indicate the immediate impression made on them by Davids appearance, and is untenable from Davids 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 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 Gods 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 ( from instead of from ), 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 Davids 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. () = 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. Davids 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 anothers 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 Davids 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 Davids 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 Davids moral conduct. On the one hand David shows, in this time of hard trial and waiting, passive resignation to Gods 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 Lords help. In his deviation from truth for a good end he follows the principle often expressed by the Greek poets, e. g., Eurip.: [when truth, brings ruin it is pardonable to speak untruth.] Hamann: The Holy Spirit is become the chronicler of mens foolish, yea, sinful actions. He has narrated the lies of an Abraham, the incest of Lot, the simulation of a man after Gods 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 Gods 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 Israels 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 Gods 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 Davids 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. Beitrge [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 (13) a vow to praise God continually, and an exhortation to the pious to unite in this praise, 1Sa 21:5-11 (410), the reason for this vow and exhortation, namely, personal deliverance from great fear and danger, then 1Sa 21:12-15 (1122), 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 Langes 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 kings 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.27To 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 Gods help and faith in Gods 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, Gods 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 singers 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 Lords word has counsel and consolation for all the necessities and perplexities of our lifeand he who heartily seeks and longs for the Lords 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 Davids 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 priestfor we may suppose that if he had told him thetruth, 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 lawall Gods 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 Davids 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 Gods 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 ones own wisdom and in the suggestions of his own heart.) 2) What delivers from such lies? (Gods 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: Davids 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 Davids 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 Gods 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. supposes a verb of going before it.Tr.]

[2][1Sa 21:2. Literally in respect to the business.Tr.]

[3][1Sa 21:2. Poel of to know=taught, instructed. Some take it as error for (Buxtorf.) not so well. Sept. = , Poel of , which is a better reading. The Syr. supports the Heb. textother 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 , faith of God, and transfers by Phellani mmoni. On the derivation of the Heb. words see Ges. Lex. s. v. Frst 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 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 Erdmanns Exposition and a long list of translations in Pooles 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 mens 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 ( for ).Tr.]

[9][1Sa 21:7. Sept. keeper of the mules, , perhaps by inversion and misreading of the text; comp. the designation of Doeg in 1Sa 22:9.Tr.]

[10][1Sa 21:8. is somewhat strange. Sept. = (Wellh.), Chald. if there is here! Syr. is there not ()? Vulg. si habes hic. Gesen. supposes that the Interrog. has fallen out. We may perhaps take as Interrog, = .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 .Tr.]

[14][1Sa 21:15. Literally: unto.Tr.]

[15][So Hackett in Smiths 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 Smiths 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 Goliaths name is not mentioned by the Philistines, perhaps from natural indisposition to recall a grievous calamity, and out of regard for Goliaths family and friends.Tr.]

[22][Luther has geberde = mien, gestures, the Sept. has 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 tendenzis, 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 Smiths 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.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The troubles of David are prosecuted in history through this chapter. Being driven from home, and like one banished the land, he visits Nob; receives from Ahimelech, the priest, hallowed bread: and the sword of Goliath, which was there. David hastens to Achish, at Gath; is but poorly received, and full of fears lest the men of Gath should betray him, he feigns himself mad. These are the principal points in this chapter.

1Sa 21:1

(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?

Poor David, though the conqueror of Goliath, and the deliverer of his country, yet being proscribed by the king, and wandering about in the preservation of his life, excites fear in all that he approacheth. If what Doeg, the Edomite, told Saul be true, as is related in the succeeding chapter, (see 1Sa 22:9-10 ), the priest Ahimelech, enquired of the Lord about him; that is David came to the tabernacle to seek counsel from the Lord. And what more proper for a tried, exercised soul? Reader! it is sweet when our afflictions lead us to the Lord; and do not keep us from the Lord. Beloved Jesus! in his unequalled agonies, cried unto his Father; and in proportion as his sorrows increased, the more vehement was his prayer. Luk 22:44 . It is not meant by Ahimelech’s saying, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? that he had no company; for our blessed Lord in referring to this history of David, speaks of him and those that were with him, as eating of the show-bread. See Mar 2:26 . But it means that David had no suit able companions, so that he looked as if he were in haste for his life, and which was really the case.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Tried Weapons

1Sa 21:9

THE world is old enough now to have laid by in store weapons upon whose quality and strength it can pronounce with the emphasis of experience. What occasion is there for us to try newfangled instruments of fantastic shape and unproven temper? Is there an old steel? Are there no historical swords? Are we left altogether without the spell of rousing memories? Are there yet amongst us swords whose touch is an inspiration, because they connect us with the heroisms and victories of other days? It appears from the context that David was flying from the face of Saul, that he came in his course to Nob to Ahimelech the priest, and made a statement of his case more or less correct. At the conclusion of the interview, David told the priest that he had no sword, and asked him for his assistance under these destitute circumstances. “And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is none other save that here.” All the weapons of the enemy will one day fall into the hands of the Church, and great will be the slaughter in the name of the Lord. Goliath never dreamt of the destiny of his sword. It was Philistinian property, intended for Philistinian purposes, and lo! it was wrenched from his hand, and reddened with his own blood. It is so with all evil. It is always preparing a weapon for its own destruction, and twisting a rope for its own neck.

What a companion and friend would this sword be to David! How it would link him with events gone far away! How he would speak in pathetic soliloquy as he looked upon that sword! Would not old stains come upon it and say to him, “All that do wrong shall be put down, and every foul tyranny shall be slain and hidden in the dust, where no man can find it any more”? Would he not think of the call of Samuel, and of the anointing oil, and of the secret with which he had been entrusted; and as he regarded the sword that was in his hand, would not his soul feel the inspiration of a new impulse, would not his lips be opened in a new and tender prayer at the throne of the heavenly grace? It is even so with ourselves. We have old books in our libraries the very touch of which makes us young again; we have passages marked in books the very marking of which causes us to forget the years that have taken away aught of our strength, and rouses us to do, with the old prowess, the old and beautiful deeds. Blessed are they who are rich in memories, who can commune with old milestones on the road, and old stiles where they have lingered, and old trysting-places, and yellow old memories that have the keeping of life within their grasp. Are we living so as to lay up such memories? Or is our life just a superficial scramble, leaving behind us no footprints, no wayside marks, and never enriching our hearts with one recollection that can destroy time and make us young, as if we could draw upon eternity?

How ignoble a thing for Goliath to have been slain with his own sword! To have the weapon wrenched out of one’s own hand, and thrust into one’s own heart! Well might the eagle, on the poet’s page, be made to mourn that out of its own breast had been taken the feather which caused the arrow to fly with a deadlier speed to drink the blood of its heart! It is always so. Whoever is doing wrong will be slain with his own sword; whoever is building upon false foundations will be “hoist with his own petard.” You know the case of the minister who, speaking to his friends, in tones too solemn to be other than artificial and untrue, said to them, “Do not read Shakespeare; it is a waste of time to read the pages of such a writer; read other and better literature; else what an account will you be called upon to give when you go to that ‘undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns’!” Goliath slain with his own sword; and the minister quoting in the pulpit the very author against whose writings he was cautioning the young geniuses that waited upon his ministry!

We propose to treat this text with special reference to the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and to contend that in all the conflicts of life there is none like it for routing the foe and adding victories to truth. “The word of the Lord is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

The Bible is a complete armoury, as we may read in the sixth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. We in these latter days have seen some curious specimens of cutlery. We have seen the boy with that wonderful thing in his hand of which he is so proud. He says, “That is the great blade for cutting wood and leather and hard substances; and this is a little blade for making pens and cutting pencils; and this is a lancet blade, and this is a bodkin, and this is a piercer of another kind, and this is a screw.” And so he turns them all out under one haft. It is even so with this better haft. We can turn all sorts of blades out of it in every possible direction, and hold it up like a complete armoury. We now propose to do so, and to ask whether in all the equipments of life there is aught to be compared to the sword of the Lord.

There is none like it for variety of adaptation. We find in the word of God weapons that we can turn in every direction; weapons that suit every mood, and every combination of circumstances by which we are surrounded. We need not go out of the book for a single answer. Whatsoever may be the peculiar gift of mind or tongue, we find in the word of God without consulting any other author the precise answer to every difficulty, the right method of meeting every opposition, and the one true solace that can get into the heart and heal it with the succour which it needs. Sometimes it is needful to meet spiritual and intellectual opposition by the blade of irony. Behold, we have a blade in this book; for did not Elijah taunt the priests and worshippers of Baal, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god”? And may we not, following his example, mock, in many cases, those who with impotent rage are seeking to summon another god than the Jehovah of the universe to take the supreme seat in creation? Yet there are some people who do not understand what irony is.

As for argument, where can we find a blade more keenly argumentative? In the Holy Scriptures we have specimens of the keenest, most lucid and persistent reasoning that can be found within the bounds of all literature. And as for casuistry, cases of conscience which cannot be settled, the sword of the Lord is quick and powerful, piercing to the dividing asunder, getting into the most critical parts of our life, searching out the intents and purposes of the soul: not dealing with broad, general statements only, but dealing with the most subtle, recondite, difficult conditions and experiences of the heart. No man need have any difficulty in piercing any casuistical question to its very marrow, if he will only avail himself of the services of the sword of the Spirit. Then, if aught might be needed to ward off those who would give sorrow to the soul, enemies that would plague the heart with much difficulty, infuse into our troubled life much grief, there is no blade that can reach so far, and strike so keenly, and defend so completely, as the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

I would impress all young readers with the comprehensiveness of the Bible, with its universality of adaptation to all the circumstances and necessities of human life. We may be accused of boldness for making this statement, yet we assert it; for we fear a good many young people and others are going elsewhere for defence, instead of going into the sanctuary of the Lord, where the weapons of Heaven are provided in rich and exquisite profusion. Many men are going to hard books, to elaborate treatises, to severe arguments, conducted by uninspired genius, in the expectation of finding there the answer to some particular difficulty. Men are inquiring again and again, “What books can be recommended to meet certain classes of objections?” We recommend the word of God as the best answer to every objection that can be brought against it. Let the word of the Lord be the defence of the Lord. Let the Lord’s own word be the answer to the suggestion of every devil and the seductiveness of every tempter. We find in the Book of God all we need, and we recommend those who are going elsewhere for weapons with which to fight the battles of life to turn back to the old armour set in order by the hand of the Living One himself.

There is none like it for ease of carriage. There are weapons that are very difficult to carry, but the sword of the Lord is not one of them. There are weapons of war very intricately constructed and very difficult of management, very cumbrous, and altogether oppressive; but the sword of the Lord does not belong to that class. Consider how little a book the Bible is, and regard that circumstance as one of the finest proofs of its presumptive inspiration and adaptation to the wants of man. Given the “Encyclopdia Britannica” as a work of inspiration for the guidance of men and who could have read it? Who could have got through its mile on mile of lettered stationery? Who could have comprehended its genius and its scope? Instead of the word of God being the largest book in the library, it is, in some respects, the smallest. “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed;” “The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal.” The word of the Lord is short as to extent, is compassable as to magnitude. Yet who can exhaust it? It is like some of our own monosyllables, pronounceable by the infantile tongue, inexhaustible by the most stupendous intellect. Take one word of the kind which is signified: the word love. A little child can say the word love, but is there an angel in heaven that has touched the shore of that sea? You can carry the word of the Lord in one hand; you can carry it in your smallest pocket, you can read it through from end to end, and keep the memory and all the intellectual and spiritual faculties in concentrated attention while you pass through the exercise. Have you ever tried this? Are we not in danger of snapping off little pieces of the sword and mistaking them for the whole weapon: of taking the mere filings of the steel, and complaining that the sword is without strength or edge? Take it as a whole; abide by it in its entirety; strike with the whole force of it. It is possible to do this, not in the letter, but in the spirit; and when a man wields the whole weapon, he never strikes but to kill the foe; he never puts out his hand but in omnipotent and complete defence.

There is none like it for universality of use. Children and sick persons can use it; the poorest man can avail himself of it; the busiest man may find a moment for its exercise. Are we wrong in mourning the disposition to take away the sword of the Spirit from the use of children? We should never exclude, directly or indirectly, by the law of the land, the Bible from the common schools of Britain. We would exclude the priest and the minister, and the dogmatic teacher, and the sectarian zealot, but never would we consent to have the Bible excluded. Let the Bible be there. Thomas Guthrie tells us that as soon as the children could put letters and syllables together in the elementary schools in Scotland they were turned into the Book of Proverbs; and he traces a great deal of the sagacity and strength of the Scottish character to this early training in that richest of all ethical and philosophical books. Says he, “Think of a child being put down to read such sentences as ‘Tom has a dog,’ ‘The cat is here,’ when he might be reading such words as ‘God is love.’ ‘Train up a child in the way he should go’!” Do not take the Bible away from children, but do not make it a task-book. Do not gather around the memories of childhood any evil recollections regarding your severity in compelling them to commit to memory the sacred word. Make it the joy and privilege of their lives; show them how it is the richest of luxuries to be able to know what God has said, and to be able to quote God’s wishes in God’s own words.

The sick can use this sword of the Lord. It can be wielded in sighs, in broken expressions; it can be hinted at; it can be whispered; the weakest, frailest creature, just trembling on the edge of the grave, can use the sword of the Lord. And the poor man has a weapon which he can use. He is not learned; he cannot speak the language of many who assail his Christian faith; but let him speak a word from the heart, steadfastly and reverently, and in the long run he will slay Goliath with his own weapon, and be more than conqueror through him in whose word his heart has believed.

What sword must we have? It must be the sword of the Lord. There is none like that. It is one, it is simple, it is complete, it is sufficient; it has the testimony of ages written upon it. Who, then, says that he will take the sword of the Lord and fight the battles of life with that? Could the dead bear witness, in countless thousands they would say, with all the emphasis of infinitely varied experience, “There is none like it!” And they have tested many; they know one sword from another, the true steel from the false lead; and all history says in our hearing this day, “If you want a sword that can do execution, that has inspiration in its very touch, victory in its very steel, take the sword of the Lord, for there is none like it.”

We have need of it. We have not the answer in ourselves; it is put into us by the breath of the Spirit of the Lord. Life is a war, a fierce and terrible fight. Some of us seem to have no rest night or day; we are besieged by the enemy; we are well-nigh overwhelmed by the foe. What is our defence? The sword of the living God. Let us take the sword of the Lord and of Gideon it smiteth down a host like one man, and cleaveth the banes of the mighty like straw; the helmet of brass is as a covering of ivy before it, and the breastplate of iron as a flimsy gauze Oh, dear, dear sword! The grand old veterans of other days have passed it on to us, and we, with added victories, ought to hand it on to generations yet to come. Every day the Bible seems to be newer, deeper, richer, mightier than ever it did before. It is the sum of all literature, the consummation of all genius, a repository of consolation, a solace of healing and redemption for all the ills and woes and griefs of this poor life. Blessed are they who have hidden this word in their innermost hearts.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XII

SAUL’S MURDEROUS PURSUIT OF DAVID

1Sa 19:18-22:23

Let us trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the clothes,” answering this fivefold question: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or the second commandment? (4) What the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Protestants and Romanists, and what the danger of their use even as a help toward the worship of God.

We find the first use of it in Gen 31:19 ; Gen 31:26 ; Gen 31:31 ; Gen 31:34 . That chapter shows how Jacob and his wives and children and property left his father-in-law, Laban, on their return to the Holy Land, and that Rachel stole her father’s “teraphim;” and when Laban pursues, as we find in the same chapter, it is one of his accusations against Jacob that he had stolen his household gods. Jacob invites him to make a search and Rachel puts them under a camel saddle and sits down on the saddle and won’t get up, and so Laban can’t find them. Then, in Gen 35:2 Jacob orders all of his family to put away those false gods.

The next use of the word comes in Judges 17-18. The history is this: Micah, in the days of the judges, makes to himself molten and graven images and teraphim and puts them in a separate room in his house, i.e., has a little temple, and consecrates his own son to be a priest, but eventually there comes along a Levite, who is a descendant of Moses through Gerghom, and Micah employs this Levite on a salary to be his priest and to conduct his worship through these images graven, molten and the teraphim, using an ephod. A little later the Danites on their migration capture all these household gods of Micah, and the priest as well. Micah pursues and complains that they robbed him of his gods. The Danites advise him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and in the meantime they capture Laish in the northern part of the Holy Land and set up these same images and use that same descendant of Moses with the ephod to seek Jehovah through those images. The next time we find the word is in this section, where Michal took a teraphim and put it in David’s bed and made it look like somebody asleep. The next usage of the word is found in 2Ki 23:24 , in the early part of the great reformation led by King Josiah, who, after the law of the Lord had been found, causes all Judah to put away the teraphim and everything that was contrary to the Mosaic law.

We find it next in order of time in Hos 3:4 , where a prediction is made that Israel for a long time shall be without king or ephod or teraphim, and the last use is in Eze 21:22-23 . Ezekiel in exile shows how the king of Babylon came to the forks of the road and used divinations, etc., by the use of teraphim.

The word is never used in a good sense. Jehovah appoints his own way of approach to him and of ascertaining the future) condemning the use of teraphim in approaching him. Even that passage in Hosea only shows that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews for a long time the present time included will have no king, no ephod, no teraphim. That is, they would in no sense be idolaters, and yet their worship of Jehovah for this long period including the present time will be empty and vain until just before the millennial times, when they in one day accept the long-rejected Messiah.

A teraphim is an image, but it is distinguished from graven or molten images in two particulars: (1) it is carved out of wood; (2) it always represented a human form, whereas the graven and molten images were always of metal and oftenest took the form of the lower animals, like the calf that Aaron made at Sinai, and the calves set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel. To make the distinction clearer by a passage in the New Testament, the image of the great goddess Diana at Ephesus (Act 19 ), which was said to have fallen down from heaven, was a teraphim; that is, was a wooden image in human form and a very ugly one, but the little silver shrines of the temple of Diana made by Demetrius, the silversmith, and other silversmiths, were either graven or molten images. Another distinction is that the graven and the molten images were oftenest worshiped as gods, the teraphim oftenest used as a method of approach to their gods, and both of them were violations of the Second Commandment.

The teraphim in David’s house was Micah’s, not David’s, as the stolen teraphim of Laban’s was Rachel’s and not Jacob’s. There is no evidence that either Jacob or David ever resorted to teraphim or favored their use.

Coming now to the last part of the question, one of the chief issues between the Protestants and the Romanists in the Reformation was that the Romanists multiplied images in their worship metallic or wooden images. For instance, an image of Jesus on the cross, an image of the virgin Mary, the cross itself, or the image of some saint when carved out of wood representing human form, were teraphim, but when they were made out of metal were graven or molten images. While the better and more learned class of the Romanists only use these images as objective aids to worship, the masses of the people become image worshipers, bowing down before the image of the virgin Mary and ascribing adoration to her and praying to her, and ascribing all the grace of salvation to her. Even the pope himself says, in one of his proclamations, that the fountain of all grace is in Mary. In this way they violate that fundamental declaration of our Lord that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The Greek word, eikon , an image, equals in sense the Hebrew word, ” teraphim, ” and other images, so when the Protestants, in their fury against what they called idolatry, would break up these images wherever they found them they were called “iconoclasts,” i.e., “breakers of images.” Hence, when Charles I wrote that famous book, Eikon , Oliver Cromwell demanded of Milton that he write a reply to it, and he named his reply Iconoclast, a breaker of the image. The image question is a big one in history. There is a relation to that teraphim of Michal and her wifely relation to David. It showed that while indeed she loved David when he was a prosperous man, she had no sympathy with his religion, nor was she willing to share his exile and its sufferings. She could never say to him what Ruth said to Naomi: “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor cease from following after thee; for where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be buried.” When David’s fortunes were eclipsed she readily enough consented to become the wife of another man, to whom her father gave her, and whom she loved more than she had ever loved David. When David, after he became king, sent for her to be returned to him, as we learn from 2Sa 3 , she came unwillingly, and at a still later date when David brought the ark of the covenant from Kirjathjearim to put it in Jerusalem and participated in the religious exercises of the day, Michal looked out of the window and saw him and despised him, and when he came in she broke out on him in scornful speech, mocking him for the part he had taken in that day’s religious service. When a wife differs so radically from her husband in his religion as Michal did, the marital relation is much affected by it.

The reconciliation of the declaration in 2Sa 6:23 that Michal to the day of her death had no children, with the declaration in 2Sa 21:8 that there were five sons of Michal, is this: In the second passage the word Michal should be Merab, the older sister of Michal, who was married to Adriel, the Meholathite, and bare him five sons who were gibbeted to appease the wrath of the Gibeonites.

Fleeing from Saul, David rightly seeks refuge with Samuel at Ramah, and Samuel took him to Naioth of Ramah. Being banished from the king, quite naturally and appropriately he sought the prophet, and when he came to Samuel, the prophet took him from Ramah to Naioth; that means the Seminary, buildings where the school of the prophets was assembled, as if we had said, “He went from Waco to Fort Worth and to Naioth of Fort Worth,” i.e., the Seminary of Fort Worth. That is a very important passage. It refers to the buildings in which the school of the prophets assembled for instruction. But Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifested itself in this place of refuge. Hearing that David was there, he sent messengers to take him, but when the messengers came within the orbit of influence of that school of the prophets the spirit of the prophets fell on the messengers and they prophesied. This happened three times in succession. Finally Saul came himself, and it fell on him so violently that he tore off his outer clothing and in an ecstasy of prophesying fell down in a trance before Samuel and remained in that helpless condition all night long.

The compliment to Naioth is this: A number of God’s people, together studying his word, filled with his Spirit, the spiritual atmosphere of the place becomes a bar against the approach of evil. The evil-minded who come to mock remain to pray. I have seen revival meetings get to such power that emissaries of the devil, children of Belial, who would come there to break up the meeting, would be overpowered by its force. That was notably illustrated in the early days of Methodism, and particularly in the rise of the Cumberland Presbyterians. My son has given a very vivid account of that time, and of how wicked men would be seized with jerks and finally fall helpless into a trance when they attended these revival meetings.

The main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection are as follows: Doubtless through Samuel’s advice, David, while Saul lay in that trance, left Naioth and went back to make another appeal to Jonathan. The reason that he did this was that Jonathan, in his first intercession in behalf of David, had succeeded in pacifying the wrath of his father toward him. Their meeting is graphically described in the text. There isn’t a more touching passage in any piece of history than Jonathan’s solemn promise that if his father meant evil that he would inform David, and the plan they arranged to test whether Jonathan’s second attempt would be successful.

With the Jews the new moon was a sabbath, no matter on what day of the week it came, and they had a festival, and there was one just ahead. On these new moon festivals all of the official household of Saul had to be present, so it was arranged that when Saul observed that David’s place was vacant at that festival and he made inquiry about it, Jonathan would say, “He asked me to give him permission to go to his brother’s house and partake in the new moon sacrifices at home with his family,” then if Saul manifested no anger, that would be a sign that David could return. So on the second day of the new moon festival, Saul looked around, and seeing David’s seat empty on such an important occasion, directly asked Jonathan where he was, and Jonathan told him, according to the arrangement made with David, at which Saul became furious against Jonathan and denounced him in awful language, and when Jonathan makes his last appeal, Saul hurls a Javelin at him. Jonathan, insulted, outraged, gets up and leaves the table and goes out and shows David that it will never do to return to Saul, that he must seek refuge elsewhere, and they renew their covenant. Jonathan says, “I know you will be king, and I will be next to you, and when you are king be good to my family.” We will have some sad history on that later, about whether David did fulfil his solemn pledge to Jonathan to be good to Jonathan’s family when David had the power.

David next seeks refuge at Nob, where the priests and the’ tabernacle were not the ark that was at Kirjathjearim but the priests were assembled in the village of Nob with the high priest. David came, and did not relate to the priests the malice of Saul toward him, but came worn out, exhausted, famished with hunger, and the priest gives him to eat of the shew bread, unlawful for any but a priest to eat. The priest inquires through the Ephod what David wants to find out from Jehovah, and gives to him the sword of Goliath. You know I gave you a direction to trace that sword of Goliath’s; to ascertain what became of it. It had been carried to the tabernacle at Nob, and the priest gave it to David. David left there because he saw a rascal in the crowd, Dog, the Automat, one of Saul’s “lick-spittle” followers, and he said to the high priest, “That fellow will tell all of this to Saul when he gets back home.”

The New Testament reference to that is when the Pharisees were springing questions on our Lord he showed them that the sabbath law, like other laws, always had exceptions in cases of judgment, mercy, and necessity. Though it be the sabbath day when a man found an ass crushed under his burden or an ox in the ditch, he must work to relieve that poor beast, so, while it was against the law for anybody but a priest to eat the shew bread, yet, in a case of necessity, David being famished, the priest did right to give him the shew bread and he did right to eat it.

What the result? We learn that when this Dog went back and told Saul, he sent for the whole family of the priests and they came, and he demanded why they had sheltered and fed his enemy and used the Ephod in his behalf. The high priest explained. Saul told him that everyone of them should die, but he could find no officer who would put them to death. It seemed to be sacrilegious, until Dog, this Automat, took great pleasure in killing all of them except one. Then Saul sent and destroyed, root and branch, women and children, the entire village and all the priests at Nob.

David’s next attempt to find a refuge failed, but he succeeded later. He went to Achish, the king of the Philistines at Gath, and they were not ready to greet him. They believed that he came upon an evil mission. They said he was the man that had brought all the ruin on the Philistines, concerning whom the women sang, “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” To preserve himself from the danger of death that threatened him he feigned madness, and so deceived the king. A North American Indian would have done the same thing. They never shoot or strike the insane, believing them under the hand of a spirit.

David’s next effort at self-protection was at the cave of Adullam, and the record states that everyone that was in distress or in debt or discontented gathered unto him and he became a captain over them. Quite a number of mighty men, the greatest fighters then known to the world, came to him. A company came to him from Judah and Benjamin; his father’s household came, fearing that Saul would destroy them, so that he organized a fighting force of 400 men that has never been equalled by the same number of men. A little later we will see that it had grown to 600 men by other accessions. All of them were heroes and great fighters. Then there came to him Abiathar, the last one of the high priest’s family when Saul had destroyed the village of Nob, and there came to him some of the prophets, especially Gad, who remains with him all the time, and who wrote a part of the history we are discussing.

So that cave was the scene of the change in the fortunes of David. It makes little difference now whether he stays in Judah or goes anywhere else with that crowd back of him; nobody is able to harm him. It was at this time that he took his father and mother, who were old and couldn’t move swiftly with his fighting force, over to Moab, across the Jordan, doubtless relying upon the fact that Ruth, the Moabitess, was an ancestress of his, and the king of Moab sheltered the father and mother of David; but Gad, the prophet, admonishes David to leave Moab and go back to Judah. God would take care of him in his own land if he trusted him, and so he went back to Judah.

In view of Moab’s kindness to David’s family, the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day, to the history of which we will come later. They say that the king of Moab murdered David’s father and mother who had been left in his charge, and that David swept them with fire and sword for it when he got to them.

The great sermons in our day which have been preached on this part of David’s career are: (1) Melville’s sermon on David’s feigning madness at the court of Achish. A remarkable sermon. (2) Spurgeon’s great sermon on the Cave of Adullam from the text, “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain over them.” Spurgeon used that to illustrate how a similar class of people gathered around Christ, and he became a captain over them. Everyone that was in debt, or distress, or sick, or poverty-stricken, whatever the ailment, or in despair about the affairs of life, came to Jesus and be became a captain over them. It is a great sermon.

QUESTIONS

1. Trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in chapter 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and puts a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the “clothes,” answering the following questions: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or second commandment? (4) What is the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Romanists and Protestants, and what the danger of their use, even as a help toward the worship of God.

2. What bearing has Michal’s teraphim on her wifely relation to David, and what the proofs in later times?

3. Fleeing from Saul, with whom does David rightly seek refuge, and what the distinction between Ramah and Naioth in 1Sa 19:18-19 ?

4. How does Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifest itself in this place of refuge, what the result, and what the compliment to Naioth?

5. Give the main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection, show why he resorted to it, and what the result.

6. With whom next does David seek refuge, what the main incidents, what the New Testament reference thereto, why did David leave that refuge, and what the results to the priests for sheltering him?

7. What was David’s next attempt to find a refuge, why did it fail this time but succeed later, what was David’s expedient to escape from the danger, and why did that expedient succeed?

8. What was David’s next effort at self-protection, what accessions came to him, and what was the result on his future fortunes?

9. In view of the Moab’s kindness to David’s family, how do the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day?

10. What great sermons in our day have been preached on this part of David’s career?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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.

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ahimelech. So called here and in 1Sa 22:9, 1Sa 22:11, 1Sa 22:14, 1Sa 22:16, 1Sa 22:20. See note on 1Sa 14:3 and Mar 2:26,

man. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 21

So David now fled to Nob to Ahimelech who was the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said to him, Why are you alone, why aren’t there men with you? [You know David was a captain over a thousand men, “Where’s your-where are your troops?”] David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has commanded me on a business, and said, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabouts I’m sending you, and what I’ve commanded thee: and I’ve appointed my servants to such and such a place ( 1Sa 21:1-2 ).

So David’s saying, “I’m a CIA agent, I’m on a special mission for the king, and nobody knows about this special mission. It’s just a secret mission that I’m on for King Saul. So my men are over here, and I need some bread for them.

The priest said, I don’t have any common bread, all I have is this bread that I baked for the shew bread for the table of the Lord; [It was that bread that had been sanctified to set out before God on the table of shew bread. And David said, Well give it to me five loaves, and for me and my men. He said, Well are the men clean?] He said, Have they not touched women? He said, We’ve not been around women for at least three days since we’ve been on this trip. So the fellow gave them the holy bread [which was not lawful for any man to eat but the priest.] They took it and gave it to David and his men ( 1Sa 21:4-6 ).

Now in the New Testament Jesus makes reference to this particular incident. When the Pharisees are trying to nail Him in some of the fine, technical aspects of the law, Jesus said, “Did not David take the shew bread, which was not lawful for a man to eat?” They were getting on Him because they felt He had violated the Sabbath, one of the fine points of the law of the Sabbath. The disciples had gone through the field on the Sabbath day and they took some wheat, corn of wheat. They called it the wheat, the tassel of wheat tares, they called it the corn actually. They took it and they were rubbing it in their hands.

Now you can take the dry wheat from the stalk and you can rub it in your hands, and as you rub it in your hands it has the effect of sort of threshing it. What you’re doing is rubbing off the hard, outside hull. Then you can hold it in your hands and blow on it and you can actually blow off the hulls, then you can eat the wheat raw. It’s actually very good.

One of the trips over in Israel we were there in the latter part of May when the wheat fields were about ready for harvest. Up in the area near Mount Gilboa where Saul and Jonathan were ultimately killed, which is up at one end of the Valley of Megiddo. It’s about eight miles, ten miles south of the Sea of Galilee, Mount Gilboa there. There in that valley are some beautiful wheat fields. So we were there and I went out and I took some of this wheat. I rubbed it in my hands, and blew off the hulls and ate this wheat.

Of course when we were kids we discovered out of the chicken feed, if we took the wheat out of the chicken feed, we were kids, it’s soft enough that you can crunch it in your teeth and chew it. If you chew it long enough it turns into a gum. We used to always chew wheat gum when we were kids. We didn’t have enough money to buy regular chewing gum. So we’d pick all the wheat out of the chicken feed and then we’d chew it and after awhile it turns into gum. Then we’d have our gum with wheat. So it’s very nutritional, very healthy.

So the disciples were with Jesus, they were hungry; it was the Sabbath Day. They were going through the wheat fields, and they began to pick the corn of wheat and rub it in their hands, and blow it off and began to eat it. So they said, “Oh, look at your disciples. They’re doing that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day. You’re not supposed to do any work.” So that constituted work rubbing the wheat in your hands.

So Jesus said, “Don’t you remember what David did when he was hungry, how he went in and ate the shew bread which was not lawful for a man to eat?” So Jesus makes an illusion to this thing of David showing that human need rises above the law. Human hunger, these guys are hungry, forget this little work bit of rubbing the wheat in your hands, their hunger. The hunger supercedes the fine point of the law, even as with David, the guys are hungry. Yes, it’s not lawful that they should eat this shewbread. Yes, it’s supposed to be only there for the priest to eat but the guys are hungry. The human hunger supercedes the fine points of the law. The point that Jesus was making, and of course using this particular instance with David as the illustration of the point, which of course everybody accepted that David had done. In other words, there was no wrong doing here.

“So the priest gave him the hallowed bread,” verse six, “for there was no bread except the shewbread, that was taken from before the Lord, and put hot bread in the day it was taken away.”

So they ate the bread that had been sitting there all week before the Lord when it was replaced by this new hot bread.

Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, and his name was Doeg, and he was an Edomite, [“Doeg”, and you could very well pronounce it “dog,” because he turned out to be a real dog.] and he was the head over the herdsmen that belonged to Saul. And David said to Ahimelech, Do you have here any spear or any sword? for I didn’t bring any sword or weapons with me, for the king’s business required haste. The priest said, Well, I have the sword of Goliath that you took from him when you killed him, and it’s wrapped here in a cloth behind the ephod: if you will take it: there’s no other but that one here. So David said, Ah, there’s no sword like that one; give it to me. So David arose, for fear of Saul, and he went to Achish the king of Gath. [So actually he fled down to the camp of the Philistines, to the enemy, the city of Gath and to king Achish.] And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did not they sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands? And David laid up these words in his heart, and he was afraid of Achish the king of Gath. [I mean they said, “Hey, this is that David you know that wiped out the giant. This is David they were singing about killing his thousands,” and so David thought, “Uh oh, the king’s gonna do me in.” So they brought David in before the king.] And David changed his behaviour, and he acted like he was a madman, he began to scrabble on the doors of the gate, and he let his spit run down his beard. [Just acted like he was insane.] And so Achish said to his servants, Hey, the guy is crazy: why have you brought him to me? I don’t need any mad men, that you’ve brought this fellow to play a madman in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house ( 1Sa 21:7-15 )?

So he sent David away and he escaped, of course, out of the guy’s hand. Of course he wasn’t afraid of some guy that was so weird. I personally like it. I think David’s just, you know, he’s a neat kind of a shrewd kind of a guy. I just like him. Yet here’s an interesting thing, my hero, but I sort of admire his wit and his little act here and getting out of trouble, yet there’s an interesting verse of scripture that says, “The fear of man brings a snare” ( Pro 29:25 ).

Now it does definitely declare that David was afraid of Achish. The fear of man can oftentimes cause a person to act like a fool. It brings a snare. So my brave David, he’s not afraid of the giant, he’s afraid of the king. So acting like a madman, he’s reduced to a man with spit running down his beard and scrabbling on the doors and gates, but he did escape out of the hand of Achish. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Under such trying stress, the land itself seemed too hot to hold David, and he takes refuge in flight. The story of his period of exile, with its varied experiences, follows. His movements during this time were characterized sometimes by faith and sometimes by fear.

He first found his way to the city of the priests, where Ahimelech fed him with the shewbread, the justification of which, interestingly enough, was declared long after by our Lord Himself in the days of His ministry. David’s going to Ahimelech, although an exile, was an action of faith.

We next find him at Gath among the Philistines, with Achish their king. It is impossible to read this without feeling how unworthy a picture he presents. Whereas it is easy to understand his state of mind at the time, it remains true that the picture of God’s anointed reduced to the necessity of feigning madness to protect himself is full of sadness. It affords a perpetual warning against the folly of taking refuge from peril among those who are the enemies of God.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Food and Weapon: a Side Step

1Sa 21:1-15

David fled to Nob, at the north of the Mount of Olives, where Ahimelech presided over the relics of the ancient sanctuary. His suspicions were removed by an evasion on Davids part, which he must have regretted to the end of his life. If we are right with God and know ourselves to be on the predestined path, we need not resort to deceit nor subterfuge-if we adopt such means, the results are likely to be disastrous to ourselves and others, our innocent fellow-sufferers.

It was the Sabbath day, for the show-bread had just been removed from the table, Lev 24:8. This was the perquisite of the priest, but, in subordinating the ceremonial to the urgency of human need, Ahimelech acted in strict harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation. This is the distinct teaching of Mar 2:25, and of our Lords insistence on his right to heal on the Sabbath day. Read Psa 34:1-22; Psa 56:1-13 with the closing paragraph of 1Sa 21:1-15. Davids behavior was unworthy, yet, in his heart, he was hiding in God. We must not judge by appearances, but with discerning judgment. There is a large measure of humanity in all Gods saints.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

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.

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.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

6. Davids Varied Experiences

CHAPTER 21

1. David at Nob with Ahimelech (1Sa 21:1-9)

2. Davids flight to Achish, King of Gath (1Sa 21:10-15)

With this chapter begins the record of Davids wanderings as an exile. A number of Psalms were written by him during this period of the rejection of the Lords 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 Kings 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 Davids 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 Davids 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.)

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Ahimelech

called Ahiah, also Abiathar. 1Sa 14:3.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Nob: Nob appears to have been a sacerdotal city of Benjamin or Ephraim. Jerome says, that in his time the ruins of it might be seen not far from Diospolis or Lydda. But the Rabbins assert that Jerusalem might be seen from this town. The tabernacle resided some time at Nob; and after it was destroyed, it was removed to Gibeon; “and the day of Nob and Gibeon were fifty-seven years.” Maimonides in Bethhabbechirah, c. 1. 1Sa 22:19, Neh 11:32, Isa 10:32

to Ahimelech: 1Sa 14:3, called Ahiah, 1Sa 22:9-19, called also Abiathar, Mar 2:26

afraid: 1Sa 16:4

Reciprocal: 1Sa 22:22 – I have occasioned 1Ch 24:3 – Ahimelech Eze 25:15 – to destroy

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

DAVID IN EXILE

DECEIVING THE PRIEST (1 Samuel 21)

Nob was northeast of Jerusalem and about five miles from Gibeah. Davids unexpected presence there, and alone, caused alarm (1Sa 21:1). His falsehood was unnecessary and wrong (1Sa 21:2), and is not commended of God (Psa 119:29). Hallowed bread (1Sa 21:4) was the shew-bread in the tabernacle, which we studied in Exodus and Leviticus. It was removed the day before the Sabbath when it became lawful for the priests to use it (Lev 24:9). David might have it under the circumstances, if only he and his companions (supposed to be elsewhere) had complied with a requirement of the Levitical law. (Compare verses 4-5 with Exo 19:15.) The last clause of verse 5 is in the margin thus: especially when this day there is other sanctified in the vessel. It was the Sabbath, and with the new bread having been put on the table, there was no risk in giving David the old. (Compare 1Sa 22:10 with Mat 12:3, Mar 2:25, and Luk 6:3.) Doeg, the Edomite, was a proselyte of the Jewish religion. Perhaps he was detained at Nob because of the law forbidding journeys on the Sabbath (1Sa 21:7).

Davids going down to the Philistines at Gath (1Sa 21:10-15) is unaccountable, except as he may have had special divine guidance. He was not safe in his own country. Go somewhere he must; Philistia was the less of two evils.

LEADING THE OUTLAWS (1 Samuel 22)

The cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:1) has been identified as the present Deir-Dubbon, on the border of the Philistine plain and about six miles southwest from Bethlehem. It is a location of natural pits or vaults, some of them fifteen to twenty feet deep.

It was undesirable for David to dwell in hiding if innocent, and if he desired to commend himself to the people as Sauls successor, hence Gaffs advice (1Sa 22:5).

Sauls motive in seeking to arouse Benjamin against David of the tribe of Judah is not hard to find (1Sa 22:6-8), but it is notable that the Edomite is the first to respond (1Sa 22:9-10).

Abimelech, whom Doeg gets into trouble, is innocent of wrong against the king. David seemed faithful; he was the kings son-in-law; why should he not aid him when asked, seeing he knew nothing of the trouble (1Sa 22:14-15)? But his plea is in vain, though only the Edomite would lift his hand against him (1Sa 22:16-19). Compare Psa 52:1-3, and note that this slaughter of the priests was a fulfillment of the earlier prophecy against Eli.

DEFENDING A CITY (1 Samuel 23)

Keilah was southwest from Jerusalem and near the Philistine country, though not far from the wooded district of Hareth where David had located himself (1Sa 22:5). The event now recorded seems to have occurred prior to the destruction of Nob, as we judge by comparing 1Sa 22:6 with the closing verses of the preceding chapter.

How David inquired of the Lord (1Sa 23:2) is not stated, but is suggested by verse 8. We have seen what the ephod was, and know from Exo 28:26-30 that it contained the breastplate of the high priest in which was the mysterious Urim and Thummim by means of which God was pleased to communicate with His people (Num 27:21).

It will be interesting to read Psalms 31, which David is supposed to have written and which remarkably tallies with his experiences here.

BEFRIENDING THE KING (1 Samuel 24)

Engedi will be found southeast of Keilah on the Dead Sea.

The diversion in Sauls pursuit of David caused by the attack of the Philistines (1Sa 23:27-29) has come to an end, and he is seeking him again. To cover his feet (1Sa 24:5) means to go to sleep.

Notice Davids wonderful self-restraint and the motive for it (1Sa 24:4-6), another illustration of his being a man after Gods own heart. (Read Psalms 142.) The chapter affords a striking illustration of heaping coals of fire on an enemys head with the promised result of overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:20-21). But alas! the evil did not stay overcome, nor, if we may judge by the last verse, does David expect it will.

QUESTIONS

1. Can you identify Nob, Hareth, Keilah and Engedi on the map?

2. What is the meaning of hallowed bread?

3. What prophecy did the slaying of Abimelechs family fulfill?

4. Describe the ephod.

5. Have you read Psalms 31, 52, 142?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

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 Sauls enmity to him, and determined purpose to destroy him. But, as David was the kings 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Sa 21:1. Nob; fifteen miles west of Jerusalem, and on the road to Gath, where the wandering ark now rested. It was a little city of priests. After they were all murdered, by Saul, the ark was removed to Gibeon. 1Ch 21:29. Thence to the house of Obed-Edom; from thence to Zion, and lastly to the temple. Our great and splendid cathedrals are of small avail; the ark still wanders, and dwells in tents.

1Sa 21:5. From women; that is, from their wives, as Moses commanded during the purification. Exo 19:15. This opinion of the priest concerning holy bread, was not contrary to the spirit of the law in cases of need, and is justified by our Lord. Mar 2:25.

1Sa 21:7. Doeg; detained here for mischief, by some evil genius.

1Sa 21:13. He changed his behaviour. Hebrew, he changed his taste. Septuagint, he changed his countenance. That is, he changed his reason with gestures and motions, and scratched or marked the posts of their gates. Others say, he fell against the posts of the gates, and hurt himself. Davids great fears on hearing the king report his achievements, might really throw him into some sort of delirium. And the 34th and the 57th Psalms which he composed on this occasion, thanking God that he had preserved him from guile, strongly indicate that his behaviour before Achish was the effect of Gods afflicting hand.

1Sa 21:14. Lo, you see the man is mad. The LXX, , an epileptic man. Saurin has reprinted the essay of a learned man who justifies this reading.

REFLECTIONS.

Never was a prayer offered to God with more need than one in the psalms: Lord remember David, and all his troubles. While a shepherd he knew neither wants nor woes; but while a prince he was a stranger to repose. His laurels were all converted into thorns: and it is often a rule with providence in the elevation of a good man to worldly honour, to try and prove him by some severities of affliction. So now, the awful hand of providence drove this favourite into adversity and exile, the best school of self-knowledge, and safest preparative for public life. And why be so much afraid of adversity? Woods, caves, and deserts were all preferable to the palace of Saul.

David in his troubles ran to the house of God; and whither can a man flee from the wrath of a king, but to the King of heaven? Here he hoped his prayers would be heard, and that some counsel and comfort would be afforded to his affliction and grief. But ah, strange to say, Ahimelech was afraid because he saw him alone. The priest was not unacquainted with the temper of the king. He feared that some misunderstanding had taken place; that David had fled to the sanctuary, and that he should be implicated by affording him protection.

David, not wishing to alarm the aged highpriest, suddenly and without forethought said, the king had sent him on a secret business. This however was not true; it was sinful in the sight of God: and the bitter consequences which followed in the massacre of Nob, should teach us to act a faithful part in exile and in all our difficulties. One fault of this kind may make a man ashamed as long as he lives.

This priest, relieved of his fears, gave David what few favours he could spare. Being at a distance from his house, and living on the altar, he had nothing but holy bread. This was exclusively for the sons of Aaron; yet in cases of necessity others might not only eat of it, but even partake of unclean beasts. Our Saviour has justified this deviation from the letter of the law; for the life of man is more than meat.

Having obtained bread to nourish life, he next solicited armour for his defence. Though the house of God was not an arsenal; it had however a monument of salvation in the sword of Goliath. This David most gladly received. Being a memorial of past favours, it was in his hand a pledge of future safety. Thus equipped with bread and armour, he fled from all his friends to seek a refuge among his foes: many of the oppressed Hebrews had no doubt sheltered in Philistia. But greatness in calamities cannot obscure itself, like the abject and the poor. What strange things occur in the course of providence. David the favourite of Israel, the conqueror of Goliath appears in Gath among Goliaths friends, and with the giants sword rusty in his hand. Here he cannot be in safety. All his fame had reached their ears; the court is jealous and uneasy at his presence. But God saves him by epilepsy; for his words indicate that he used no guile. Psa 34:13. Men, suddenly over-taken with calamities, are sometimes so agitated with anxiety and passion, as not to act with sober deliberation and caution. The operations of reason are the purest when the storm of passion has subsided. Hence persons peculiarly tried should pray very earnestly for the guidance and counsel of the Lord.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1 Samuel 21. David at Nob and Gath.

1Sa 21:1-9 (J). From one of the ancient documents; it is not clear which of the previous sections finds its sequel here. It is often connected with 1Sa 19:17 : if this is right, David fled straight from his own house to Nob. It is likely that originally stories of single episodes of Davids adventures circulated separately by oral tradition or otherwise, not forming a connected narrative. When they were collected, different editors might arrange and connect them in different ways.

David fled to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. Nob was probably a little N. of Jerusalem, on the way from Gibeah to Bethlehem. According to 1Sa 22:9 Ahimelech was the son of Ahitub, and therefore (1Sa 14:3) the great-grandson of Eli. Probably Ahijah (1Sa 14:3) and Ahimelech are equivalent names of the same person, the Divine title Melech, king, replacing the Divine name Jah. In LXX this priest appears as Abimelech, and in Mar 2:26 as Abiathar. Ahimelech is usually the father of Abiathar, but in 2Sa 8:17, we have Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar; facts which illustrate the tendency to an inaccurate transmission of names; a tendency not confined to the Bible. The LXX has Abimelech here. The genealogies imply that after the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh, (p. 277), its priesthood migrated to Nob. They no longer had charge of the Ark (1Sa 7:1).

David appeared before Ahimelech alone, unarmed, and without provisions, showing in his person the signs of sudden departure and hurried flight; all of which would be explained by precipitate descent from a house beset by enemies. Ahimelech is startled to see the foremost captain of his day, the kings son-in-law, in this plight. David asks for food; the priest can only offer him the shewbread (Lev 24:5-9*); but he is willing to give him this, if he and the companions, whom David has invented for the occasion, are ceremonially clean. David reassures him on this point, entering into technical details which we cannot altogether understand, partly because both text and translation are uncertain. David also obtained Goliaths sword, which was kept behind the ephod (here again something standing by itself and not a garment; cf. p. 275). All this was witnessed by Doeg, one of Sauls officers. The nature of Doegs office is uncertain, owing to doubtful text and translation: alternatives are, chief of the herdmen, muleherd, chief of the runners. He was detained before Yahweh, i.e. he had to remain in the sanctuary for some time in order to undergo purificatory ritesspiritual quarantine.

1Sa 21:10-15. David at Gath.Another anecdote, of uncertain origin and not connected with its present context: it is a premature duplicate of 1Sa 27:1 f. It is commonly regarded as a late addition; possibly the sequel of 1Sa 19:18-24, and by the same hand. The conception of the author who could put the question [Is not this David, the king of the land?] into the mouth of the Philistines at this date is naively unhistorical (ICC).

David flees to the court of Achish, king of Gath: fearing the vengeance of the Philistines, he feigns madness, taking advantage of the fact that in the East then, as now, Junatics were respected as inspired.

1Sa 21:13. scrabbled: scrawled; LXX has drummed.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

David came down to Nob, which was a cause of alarm to Ahimelech the priest, who asks why he had no man with him. It would seem from the history here that he had no-one identified with him, yet there must have been others in the vicinity who where with him, because the Lord Jesus, in commenting on this occasion, definitely speaks of “those that were with him (David)” (Mat 12:3). As he told Ahimelech, he evidently appointed his servants to a place in the area. Still, his words were not true that the king had sent him on some secret mission. He did not want Ahimelech to know of Saul’s determination to kill him, for this might make him fear to show any evident kindness to David. Ahimelech was easily deceived by his words, however, and was persuaded to give David the used bread of the sanctuary. He did want to make sure that the men were ceremonially clean, and he took David’s word for this (v.45).

Strictly speaking, it was unlawful for David and his men to eat this bread, for it was the property of priests only. But there are matters that make a difference. First, the priesthood had seriously failed in Israel. Secondly, the service of the tabernacle was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Thirdly, the ark was not present. And fourthly, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. This last matter alone was reason for Ahimelech’s giving the bread to David. The question of genuine need takes precedence over mere formal exactness.

David also makes the point that the bread was “in a manner common, and the more so, because today (new) is hallowed in the vessels” (v.5 — J.N.D.trans.). Fresh bread had just been put in the vessels of the sanctuary to replace that had been there before, so that David was not asking for the actual showbread, but what had been removed from the table. Only the priests were lawfully entitled to this, but due to the circumstances, Ahimelech rightly gave it to David. The Lord Jesus speaks approvingly of this in Mat 12:3-4.

An ominous note is introduced at this point, however, concerning Doeg an Edomite, the chief of Saul’s shepherds. He had been “detained before the Lord” in that place. Does the Lord not allow circumstances of this kind to take place in order to remind us that we have not first sought His own guidance before acting? For there is no indication that David asked for His leading. David knew Doeg was there (ch.22:22), and expected he would tell Saul. Could he not then have been more cautious in asking for bread while Doeg was aware of it?

Doeg also knew that David had asked and received the sword of Goliath (ch.22:9-10). David evidently did not stop to consider that it was unfair of him to endanger Ahimelech without Ahimelech’s knowledge of the facts. But if we act without depending on the Lord for His guidance, we are likely to find ourselves exposed to further failure. He tells Ahimelech that because of the urgency of the king’s business he had no weapons, and yet that he needed one. Goliath’s sword was there wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. This was no doubt kept as a reminder that it was God who had annulled the power of the enemy. Did David actually require the world’s weapons for his protection? But he took it.

Leaving Ahimelech David went to Gath, where Goliath had lived! First, he accepts the world’s weapon, then he descends to the world’s level. This is the same devoted, bold man who had stood so faithfully for the Lord before. How easily we slip when faith begins to waver! In fact, he goes to Achish, the king of Gath, whose name means “only a man.” How poor a substitute for “the living God” of whom David had spoken when Goliath challenged Israel (ch.17:26)! It was fear of Saul that moved him, however, the same Saul who had been afraid of Goliath, and was also afraid of David (ch.18:12).

The servants of Achish were alarmed at the presence of David there, and reminded their king that the song was sung in Israel to the effect that Saul had slain his thousands and David his ten thousands (v.11). They recognized that David was more entitled to be king of Israel than Saul was. They clearly saw the inconsistency of David’s making friends with the Philistines when he had before consistently fought against them. David heard that these things were being said He was afraid of Saul, now he becomes afraid of Achish– “only a man,” though he had not been afraid of the giant Goliath who was of the same city. But again, he had not depended on God to lead him, and he finds himself descending further to the level of a humiliating deception (v.13), acting publicly like an insane man.

The Philistines might have detected the deception if they had been discerning enough. For it is not likely that one could be acting perfectly normal and then suddenly change to become totally insane, as he appeared to be. But when Achish, because of his servants words, had his attention more drawn to David and saw David acting like a madman, he was only disgusted and dismissed the whole matter as of no account (vs.14-15). This was the result that David apparently desired, that he might escape from there without hindrance.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

21:1 Then came David to {a} 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?

(a) Where the ark then was to ask counsel of the Lord.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. David’s initial movements chs. 21-22

"The two chapters comprise a literary unit of three sections arranged in chiastic order. Chapters 1Sa 21:1-9 and 1Sa 22:6-23 are concerned with the priestly compound at Nob in Benjamin while the central section (1Sa 21:10 to 1Sa 22:5) summarizes David’s flight to Gath in Philistia, Adullam in Judah, and Mizpah in Moab." [Note: Youngblood, p. 727.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

David’s flight to Nob 21:1-9

Nob stood one and one-half miles northeast of Jerusalem and two and one-half miles southeast of Gibeah. It stood on what is now called Mt. Scopus. There Ahimelech served as high priest. Priestly activity, and evidently the tabernacle, were now there (cf. 1Sa 17:54). It is significant that David’s first place of refuge was among God’s chosen representatives on earth. He wanted to get help from the Lord through them (cf. 1Sa 22:10) as he had done in the past (1Sa 22:15). Apparently Ahimelech was trembling because David was alone (cf. 1Sa 16:4). Had Saul sent him to harm the priests (cf. 1Sa 22:6-23), or was David in some kind of trouble? Bear in mind that David was Saul’s general, and as such he usually traveled with escorting soldiers.

David appears to have lied to Ahimelech (1Sa 21:2). However, he may have been referring to Yahweh when he mentioned "the king" who had sent him (cf. 1Sa 20:22; 1Sa 21:8). Even so he wanted Ahimelech to think that Saul had sent him. This was deception at best and a lie at worst, rooted ultimately in selfishness and lack of faith in God. David made some mistakes in his early years as a fugitive. He handled himself better as time passed. During this time God was training him for future service. David proceeded to explain that the reason he was alone was that he had sent his soldiers elsewhere. He intended to rendezvous with them shortly, and had come to Nob by himself to obtain provisions, protection, and prayer (cf. 1Sa 22:10).

Ahimelech gave David the showbread that the priests ate (Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5-9). This was the bread that for a week lay on the table of showbread in the tabernacle. Each Sabbath the priests replaced this bread with fresh loaves. Ahimelech was careful that David’s men were ritually clean, not having had sexual relations with women that day (1Sa 21:4; cf. Lev 15:8; Exo 19:14-15). David assured him that their bodies were clean ritually (1Sa 21:5). This made it permissible for them to eat the consecrated bread. Ahimelech correctly gave David the provisions he needed (1Sa 21:6).

Jesus said this was proper for David to have done (Mat 12:1-4). The reason was that human life takes precedence over ceremonial law with God. [Note: See F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, p. 33.] David was probably not at the point of starvation. Certainly the Lord’s disciples were not (Matthew 12). Nevertheless human need should always be a higher priority than the observance of a ritual used to worship God. We acknowledge the same priority today. Suppose you pass a house that is on fire. You stop, run up to the front door, bang on the door, and ring the doorbell. You look in the window and see someone lying on the floor. You then kick in the door and drag the unconscious person outside to safety. Even though breaking into someone else’s house is a criminal offense, the law will not prosecute you since you saved that person’s life.

The mention of Doeg, an Edomite who had risen high in Saul’s government (1Sa 21:7), prepares the reader for his informing Saul about what happened at Nob (1Sa 22:9-19). Perhaps Doeg was "detained before the Lord" because he had come to the tabernacle to present an offering or to conduct some other business there.

Having previously requested provisions of Ahimelech (1Sa 21:3), David now asked for protection, namely, a sword (1Sa 21:8). Goliath’s huge sword, which had initially rested in David’s tent (1Sa 17:54), was now in the tabernacle wrapped in the priest’s ephod, perhaps because it was a historic relic. David eagerly accepted it from Ahimelech since there was no sword like it. It is interesting that David, and later Solomon, used the same expression to describe the Lord (2Sa 7:22; 1Ki 8:23). Though there was no better protection than Goliath’s sword physically, the Lord was an even better protector spiritually. There is none like Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XXVIII.

DAVID AT NOB AND AT GATH.

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).

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles