1 samuel 21 commentary

1 SAMUEL 21 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
Deffinbaugh wrote, “Saul made numerous attempts on David’s life. Some were concealed,
such as offering David one of his daughters in marriage (which required David to act
valiantly in war to prove his worthiness as a husband – 18:17-29). Other efforts were more
open, such as Saul seeking to run David through with his spear (18:10-12). Finally, Saul
gave orders for David to be killed (19:1). As a result of his son Jonathan’s appeal, this
order was rescinded for a time (19:1-7), but before long Saul once again actively sought to
kill David (19:8ff.). Jonathan and David met and devised a plan which would make it very
clear that Saul indeed was intent on killing David. This resulted in David fleeing from Saul,
and sadly parting from Jonathan (chapter 20).
Now in chapter 21, we find David a political refugee, a man without a country. We have
come to a new chapter in David’s life. It is a painful time of separation from his wife, from
his position in Saul’s employ, and from his beloved friend Jonathan. It is also a dangerous
time, but one in which God’s anointed cannot be killed, no matter how great the danger
might appear. It is a time of growth and preparation for David, a time that prepares him
for the day he will rule over Israel as God’s anointed king.”
David at Nob
1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest.
Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked,
"Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"
Nob means a knoll or hill, and this one, it is said, was just outside of Jerusalem. We
have a radical encounter here, for it is the meeting of the priest of the reigning king
Saul with the anointed king David. They are enemies, and this puts the priest in the
middle of a civil war. It is a dangerous place to be, and he knows it.
At this point the priest had to know something was brewing that meant danger, for
he trembled when he saw David coming alone. He knew there was a problem
1

between Saul and David, and he did not want to do anything to offend Saul, for he
had the power to cause big problems. You had to stay on his good side or you would
not survive, and so seeing one who was falling out with Saul coming to him alone
was scary, and he was shaking with fear. David was a big shot and always came
with a good number of assistants, but now he walks in like a lonely straggler
without a friend in the world, and it is frightening because it is so out of character
for David.
BARNES, "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.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "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, Neh_11:32; and according to
Jarchi and Kimchi (d) it was near Jerusalem, and so near that it might be seen from
thence; some say they are the same (e); Jerom (f) speaks of it as near Diospolis or
Lydda. David, before he departed further off, was willing to see the tabernacle once
more, and there worship his God, and inquire of him by the high priest, as he did,
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:
2

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.
BENSON, ". 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,
Nehemiah 11:32; Isaiah 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 1 Samuel 14:3, (who was now dead,) and his successor in the priesthood,
for they were both sons of Ahitub. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David —
“Lest he was forced to flee from Saul,” say some commentators, “and so it might be
dangerous to entertain him.” But it seems evident that Ahimelech knew nothing of
the circumstances that David was in, or of Saul’s enmity to him, and determined
purpose to destroy him. But, as David was the king’s son-in- law, he was surprised
to see him without any attendants, and suspected that there must be some
extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Why art thou alone? — It
appears from 1 Samuel 21:4-5, and from Mark 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, (1
Samuel 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.
GUZIK, "DAVID AT NOB AND AT GATH
A. David meets Ahimelech the priest at Nob.
1. (1Sa_21:1-2) David, fleeing from Saul, comes to the city of Nob.
Now David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid
when he met David, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with
you?” So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some
business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business
on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my
young men to such and such a place.”
a. Now David came 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
3

Nob, near Gibeah of Benjamin, is the place here intended; it was about
twelve miles from Jerusalem.” (Clarke)
b. To Ahimelech the priest: Ahimelech was a priest, and he was where a
priest should be - at the house of God, the tabernacle of the LORD, where the
sacred altar and Ark of the Covenant were. David, in leaving on a bleak road
where all what is certain is behind him, and all what is uncertain is ahead of
him, does a great thing: he goes to the house of the LORD.
i. David didn’t write Psa_73:1-28 (it is a Psalm of Asaph), but he had the
same heart Psa_73:1-28 shows. In that Psalm, Asaph describes how
troubled he was at injustice and the prosperity of the wicked. It really
troubled him, and didn’t make any sense at all. He says, When I thought
how to understand this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the
sanctuary of God; then I understood their end. (Psa_73:16-17). Nothing
made sense to Asaph until he went to the house of the LORD, then he
could understand things in light of eternity. That is how it should always
be for us when we come to God’s house.
ii. So, David begins his days as a fugitive in a good way - he comes to the
house of the LORD.
c. Ahimelech was afraid when he met David: It seemed unusual to Ahimelech
that a prominent man like David would wander around the villages of Judea
all by himself. It made Ahimelech think something must be wrong, so he
asked David, Why are you alone, and no one is with you?
i. As the story unfolds, it seems that Ahimelech knew nothing of the
conflict between David and Saul. In fact, he knew that David was Saul’s
son-in-law. It seemed strange, and dangerous to him, that David was
traveling alone. Plus, we can imagine that David looked tired, weary,
disheveled, and probably looked like he had been crying a lot!
ii. “David, who was before beloved, admired, and reverenced of all, is
now left and forsaken of all.” (Trapp)
d. The king has ordered me on some business: This was a plain lie. David has
come to the house of the LORD, but when he came he lied to protect himself.
David elaborated on his lie when he puts false words in the mouth of Saul to
establish an environment of secrecy (Do not let anyone know anything about
the business on which I send you), and when he refers to my young men
(David was all alone).
i. David’s reasons for lying seem clear enough. First, he wants to protect
himself, so he will not tell Ahimelech why he has come or where he is
going, so Ahimelech can’t inform on him to Saul. Probably, David doesn’t
feel that he knows Ahimelech well enough to really trust him. Second, he
wants to protect Ahimelech and the priests by keeping them out of the
conflict between himself and Saul.
ii. In many ways, we can understand why David lied, and even
4

sympathize with him. Many of us would have done the same or worse in
the same situation. At the same time, David would come to horribly regret
this lie (as he says in 1Sa_22:22).
iii. Why couldn’t David just tell the truth? Why couldn’t he come to
Ahimelech the priest, and say “Ahimelech, as strange as it might seem to
you, Saul is trying to kill me. I don’t understand the situation myself, but
I know God does not want me to die at the hands of Saul. So I am
running for my life, and trusting God will protect me and show me what
to do. Please pray for me, because I’m pretty depressed and scared!” This
might have been hard for David to say; but his lie became harder still.
iv. “Some go about to excuse David’s lying here: but that cannot be. The
consequences of it were very sad . . . and afterward made his soul melt for
very heaviness, whilst he bewailed it, and begged pardoning and
prevailing grace (Psa_119:28-29).” (Trapp)
v. “It is not easy to walk with God. The air that beats around the
Himalaya heights of divine fellowship is rare and hard to breathe; human
feet tire after a little; and faith, hard put to it, is inclined to give up the
effort of keeping step with the divine pace.” (Meyer)
HENRY, "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 (1Sa_21:1), and applied to
Ahimelech the priest. Samuel the prophet could not protect him, Jonathan the
prince could not. He therefore has recourse next to Ahimelech the priest. He
foresees he must now be an exile, and therefore comes to the tabernacle, 1. To take
an affecting leave of it, for he knows not when he shall see it again, and nothing will
be more afflictive to him in his banishment than his distance from the house of God,
and his restraint from public ordinances, as appears by many of his psalms. He had
given an affectionate farewell to his friend Jonathan, and cannot go till he has given
the like to the tabernacle. 2. To enquire of the Lord there, and to beg direction from
him in the way both of duty and safety, his case being difficult and dangerous. That
this was his business appears 1Sa_22:10, where it is said that Ahimelech enquired of
the Lord for him, as he had done formerly, 1Sa_21:15. It is a great comfort to us in a
day of trouble that we have a God to go to, to whom we may open our case, and
from whom we may ask and expect direction.
II. Ahimelech the priest is surprised to see him in so poor an equipage; having
heard that he had fallen into disgrace at court, he looked shy upon him, as most are
apt to do upon their friends when the world frowns upon them. He was afraid of
incurring Saul's displeasure by entertaining him, and took notice how mean a figure
he now made to what he used to make: Why art thou alone? He had some with him
(as appears Mar_2:26), but they were only his own servants; he had none of the
courtiers, no persons of quality with him, as he used to have at other times, when he
came to enquire of the Lord. He says (Psa_42:4) he was wont to go with a multitude
5

to the house of God; and, having now but two or three with him, Ahimelech might
well ask, Why art thou alone? He that was suddenly advanced from the solitude of a
shepherd's life to the crowd and hurries of the camp is now as soon reduced to the
desolate condition of an exile and is alone like a sparrow on the housetop, such
charges are there in this world and so uncertain are its smiles! Those that are
courted today may be deserted tomorrow.
JAMISON, "1Sa_21:1-7. David, at Nob, obtains of Ahimelech hallowed bread.
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech — Nob, a city of the priests (1Sa_22:19),
was in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives - a 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 sons of Ahitub (compare 1Sa_14:3, with 1Sa_22:4-11, 1Sa_22:20). His object
in fleeing to this place was partly for the supply of his necessities, and partly for
comfort and counsel, in the prospect of leaving the kingdom.
Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David — suspecting some extraordinary
occurrence by his appearing so suddenly, and in such a style, for his attendants were
left at a little distance.
K&D, "1Sa_21:1-2
David at Nob. - The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form ‫ה‬ֶ‫ב‬ֹ‫נ‬ stands for
‫ה‬ָ‫ב‬ֹ‫נ‬ here and in 1Sa_22:9, and the ‫ה‬ attached is merely ‫ה‬ local, as the name is always
written ‫ב‬ֹ‫נ‬ 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” (‫את‬ ַ‫ר‬ְ‫ק‬ִ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬ ַ‫ֱר‬‫ח‬ֶ‫י‬) 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
6

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.” ‫ע‬ ַ‫וד‬ֹ‫,י‬ 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).
PULPIT, "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.
BI1-15, "Then came David to Nob.
Almost gone
It is not easy to walk with God.
7

I. The steps of David’s 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 king’s 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 Goliath’s 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 singer’s 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,
8

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 David’s 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.)
ELLICOTT, " (1) Then came David to Nob.—Before leaving his native land, David
determined once more to see, and if practicable to take counsel with, the old high
priest of Israel, with whom, no doubt, in the past years of his close connection with
Samuel, he had had frequent and intimate communion. He hoped, too, in that
friendly and powerful religious centre to provide himself and his few companions
with arms and other necessaries for his exile; nor is it improbable that he purposed,
through the friendly high priest, to make some inquiry of the Divine oracle, the
Urim and Thuinmim, concerning his doubtful future. The unexpected presence of
Doeg, the powerful and unscrupulous servant of Saul, at the sanctuary, no doubt
hurried him away in hot haste across the frontier.
The town of Nob, situated between Anathoth and Jerusalem—about an hour’s ride
from the latter—has been with great probability identified with the “village of
Esau,” El-Isaurizeb, a place bearing all the marks of an ancient town, with its many
marble columns and ancient stones. There, in these latter days of Saul, “stood the
last precious relic of the ancient nomadic times—the tabernacle of the wanderings,
round which, since the fall of Shiloh, had dwelt the descendants of the house of Eli.
It was a little colony of priests; no less than eighty-five persons ministered there in
the white linen dress of the priesthood, and all their families and herds were
gathered round them. The priest was not so ready to befriend as the prophet (we
allude to David’s reception by Samuel at Naioth by Ramah, 1 Samuel 19). As the
solitary fugitive, famished and unarmed, stole up the mountain side, he met with but
a cold welcome from the cautious and courtly Ahimelech.”—Stanley, Lectures on
9

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 Saul—High Priest,
Reign of David—High Priest, (See 1 Samuel 22:19-20.)
He was probably identical with Ahiah (1 Samuel 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
10

the king’s son-in-law—the well-known military chieftain, David—alone and travel-
stained at the sanctuary.
COKE, "1 Samuel 21:1. Then came David to Nob— Nob was in the tribe of
Benjamin, about twelve miles from Gibeath, not far from Anathoth, Nehemiah
11:32 and Jerusalem, Isaiah 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.
WHEDON, " 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.” Isaiah 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 1 Samuel
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. 1 Samuel 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
11

unattended and alone.
CONSTABLE, "Verses 1-9
David"s flight to Nob
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. 1 Samuel 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. 1 Samuel 22:10) as he had done in the past ( 1 Samuel 22:15).
Apparently Ahimelech was trembling because David was alone (cf. 1 Samuel 16:4).
Had Saul sent him to harm the priests (cf. 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 21:2). However, he may have
been referring to Yahweh when he mentioned "the king" who had sent him (cf. 1
Samuel 20:22; 1 Samuel 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. 1 Samuel 22:10).
Ahimelech gave David the showbread that the priests ate ( Exodus 25:30; Leviticus
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 ( 1 Samuel 21:4; cf. Leviticus 15:8; Exodus 19:14-15).
David assured him that their bodies were clean ritually ( 1 Samuel 21:5). This made
it permissible for them to eat the consecrated bread. Ahimelech correctly gave David
the provisions he needed ( 1 Samuel 21:6).
Jesus said this was proper for David to have done ( Matthew 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, p33.] David was probably not at the point of
12

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 ( 1
Samuel 21:7), prepares the reader for his informing Saul about what happened at
Nob ( 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 21:3), David now
asked for protection, namely, a sword ( 1 Samuel 21:8). Goliath"s huge sword,
which had initially rested in David"s tent ( 1 Samuel 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 Song of Solomon , used the same expression to
describe the Lord ( 2 Samuel 7:22; 1 Kings 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.
PETT, " As A Refugee David Visits Ahimelech The Priest And Obtains Provisions
And Weapons (1 Samuel 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?” (1
Samuel 21:1).
13

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” (1 Samuel 21:2).
c “Now therefore what is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my
hand, or whatever there is present” (1 Samuel 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” (1 Samuel 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” (1 Samuel 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?” (1 Samuel
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 (1 Samuel 21:6).
b Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before
YHWH (1 Samuel 21:7 a).
a And his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to
Saul (1 Samuel 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.
14

1 Samuel 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 (1 Samuel
2:27-36). But that was yet to happen.
2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, "The
king charged me with a certain matter and said to
me, 'No one is to know anything about your
mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I
have told them to meet me at a certain place.
BARNES, "A fresh instance of David’s unscrupulous readiness of invention
(compare 1Sa_20:6).
CLARKE, "The king hath commanded me a business - All said here is an
untruth, and could not be dictated by the Spirit of the Lord; but there is no reason
15

to believe that David was under the influence of Divine inspiration at this time. It is
well known that from all antiquity it was held no crime to tell a lie, in order to save
life. Thus Diphilus: -
Ὑπολαμβανω το ψευδος επι σωτηριᾳ
Λεγομενον, ουδεν περιποιεισθαι δυσχερες.
“I hold it right to tell a lie, in order to procure my personal safety;
nothing should be avoided in order to save life.”
A heathen may say or sing thus; but no Christian can act thus, and save his soul,
though he by doing so may save his life.
GILL, "And David said unto Ahimelech the priest,.... In reply to his question, and to
account for such an appearance he made without an equipage:
the king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, let no man know
anything of the business thereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee;
he pretended he was upon a secret expedition, by the order of Saul, which none were
to know of, no, not his own servants, and that was the reason why he came to him
alone; which was a downright lie, and was aggravated by its being told only for the
sake of getting a little food; and especially told to an high priest, and at the
tabernacle of God, and when he was come to inquire of the Lord there; and was
attended with a dreadful consequence, the slaughter of the Lord's priests there,
which afterwards lay heavy on David's mind, 1Sa_22:22; and is the very sin he is
thought to refer to in Psa_119:28. This shows the weakness of the best of men, when
left to themselves; David who as much hated lying as any man did, fell into it
himself:
and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place; to such a place, of such
an one, not naming place nor person, that they might not be known; so the Targum
calls it a place hidden and kept; and that David had some servants, though not now
with him, who ate of the shewbread, appears from Mat_12:3; whom Jonathan might
send after him, to a place agreed on and appointed between them; so that this might
be true.
HENRY," 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, 1Sa_22:22. It was needless for him
16

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.
PULPIT, "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.
David sees a man shaking in his boots, and he knows that his only hope for
cooperation from him is to concoct a big enough lie to convince him that what he
says is true. David is one of the most frequent liars in the Bible, and he is also very
good at it, for it almost always leads him to get what he is after by his lying.
Deffinbaugh wrote, “David has a ready-made story for the priest. I do not know
whether or not the priest believes it, but he does know better than to press David on
this point. He takes David’s words at face value. David believes that if he keeps
Ahimelech ignorant, Saul will surely not harm him. David is wrong. David tells the
priest he is on special assignment for King Saul, that the king has sent him on a top-
secret mission, one he cannot even describe to Ahimelech. David tells Ahimelech he
is not alone; his men are secretly hidden a short distance away. All of this cloak and
dagger stuff adds importance to the mission, or at least David hopes it does.”
Here we see a whole new chapter in the history of David's lying. This chapter
17

reveals why it is so dangerous to even study and face up to the fact that there is a
time for the justified lie. What happens is you, like David, begin to use the lie even
when it is not necessary, and then it becomes the cause of great evil. David is no
longer talking to an evil deceiver, but to a man of God. He had no need to lie, and
the truth could have prevented great disaster. He deceived this godly man and it cost
him and others their lives. Here we see the horror of the lie. David was so use to
deception he could not stop. Fear began to dominate his life, and when fear is
greater than faith there will be evil deception. Peter could jump out of the boat and
face death when he had faith, but when fear took over he could not face a servant
girl and he lied. Beware when you are afraid for this is the time you are more likely
to fall, and fall back on the lie as a tool of persuasion.
IS LYING EVER JUSTIFIED?
This is an often asked question, and there are differences of opinion among
Christian commentators and scholars. I know people I love and admire greatly who
believe a lie is never justified, but my study of Scripture and history force me to take
the side of saying that there are times when the lie is justifiable. This text is not an
example, for it was pure folly and led to much evil, but there are other times in
David’s life where the lie and deception played a positive role. I want to look at the
reasons that people say are reasons that justify a lie.
A. Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl commends the lie of the Pope. He wrote, “The late Pope
John XXIII, when he was papal nuncio, is reputed to have issued fraudulent
baptismal certificates to Jews in order to rescue them from possible extermination.
Jewish tradition would enthusiastically condone these heroic acts, even though they
involved deceit. In Judaism, to save a life, one may lie and violate almost all of the
commandments of the Torah.” This is the lie that most agree is valid, for why would
you tell the truth to someone who is going to use that truth to kill someone else. It is
cooperating with a murderer and makes you an accomplice to murder if your truth
leads to murder. If you lie to one intent on murder and thereby prevent murder and
save an innocent life, you are a hero and a righteous person. Such were the many
who lied to Hitler’s Gestapo and spared the lives of Jews they had hidden away. We
are to hate evil and evil workers intent on doing evil, and we have no obligation to
cooperate with them in their plans to do evil. If lying to evil people prevents their
success in doing evil we are justified in doing so. Many lives have been saved by
righteous people who were willing to lie to save their lives. Brian Morgan wrote,
“During my trip to Israel earlier this year, I visited a street called the Avenue of the
Righteous, an avenue of trees planted in memory of people who helped save Jews
during the Holocaust. We saw trees dedicated to Corrie Ten Boom and to Oscar
Schindler, both of whom, through deception of the enemy, saved the lives of many
innocent Jews.”
B. Rabbi Stahl also says, “But in addition to saving a life, there is another situation
when Judaism allows us to lie- to avoid hurting the feelings or upsetting another
18

person or causing a breach in a relationship.”
C. Brian Morgan wrote, “The principle here is this: When there is a war on, being
truthful does not necessarily imply you have to disclose all your motives and
strategies to those who would wish to use you, abuse you, or kill you.” It is obvious
that war makes lying and deceit a necessary strategy, for you have to hide all the
truth you can from the enemy. That is why communication has to be put into code
so the enemy cannot know any of your plans and movements. You use fake convoys
to deceive your enemies into thinking they know where you are going. You use fake
camouflage to deceive them, and in every way possible you lie to them by every
means possible, for lying is often the key to making them make major mistakes that
give you the victory. Study American strategy in deceiving the enemy in its wars and
you will realize that lying is a basic factor in victory. Lies save lives, and that is what
makes them valuable assets in warfare. It would be an act of treason to demand that
American forces be completely honest in all dealings with the enemy. To demand
that they tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth would be the same
things as telling them to surrender.
Because we find the truth unpleasant and agonizing, we often resort to telling a
white lie. A white lie is an untruth or partial truth which has no evil intent. For
generations, Jewish parents would tell white lies to their children about sex, illness,
and death to protect them against some of the harsh realities of life.
We also tell white lies to promote harmony and good will among people. In two
weeks, our Torah portion will record a white lie that God Himself told. Throughout
her married life, Sarah had a difficult time conceiving. When she was 90 and
Abraham, her husband, was 100, God sent messengers to inform her that she was
about to become pregnant and to give birth to a son. Sarah was stunned by this
news and began to laugh. Here is what she said: "Now that I am withered, can I
have pleasure, since my husband is also old?"
When God reported Sarah's reaction to Abraham, God changed Sarah's words.
Listen to how God quoted Sarah: "Shall I indeed bear a child, seeing that I am
old?" In actuality, Sarah had said that Abraham, and not she, was old. God
deliberately misquoted Sarah and omitted Sarah's mentioning Abraham's advanced
age to preserve their domestic tranquility and happiness. Even though the ancient
Rabbis stated that the seal of God is truth, they looked favorably on God's lying to
Abraham to promote peace within the family.
In addition, in the case of a seriously ill patient, our Rabbis not only permit the
white lie. They actually mandate it. Tradition orders us not to tell a person who is
gravely ill about his or her condition. We should minimize the actual danger. We
should instead stress the positive aspects of his or her health. We should encourage
the patient to be optimistic and to fight for recovery.
In addition, when delivering a eulogy at a funeral, a Rabbi should not necessarily
present an accurate biography of the deceased. Rather the Rabbi can exaggerate
and magnify the virtues of the deceased in order to bring comfort and solace to the
mourners. However, in doing so, the Rabbi need not mention qualities that the
19

deceased did not possess.
One group among the ancient Rabbis strenuously opposed the telling of white lies.
This was the School of Shammai. This school was constantly in conflict with its
rival, the School of Hillel, about the white lie and hosts of other legal issues. These
two schools debated about the proper words to sing at a wedding while dancing
around a bride. Even if the bride is homely and unattractive, the School of Hillel
insisted that we should say that she is "beautiful and gracious."
Hillel's School argued that once the wedding ceremony is completed and the love of
the groom for the bride is at stake, people should offer every encouragement The
School of Shammai sharply disagreed. It argued that one must describe the bride as
she is. To do otherwise would mean violating the Torah, which demands that we tell
the truth.
In this exchange, reported in the Talmud, the School of Hillel's more permissive
position on the issue of the white lie at a wedding prevailed. However, I am
personally more inclined to Shammai's. I am opposed to the white lie. I will admit
that the white lie does have advantages. It doesspares feelings. It does promote
harmony. It does protect secrets. But only in the short run. In the long run, telling
white lies erodes trust. It damages credibility. It increases suspicion. Most
physicians now insist on divulging to the terminal patient his or her actual grim
prognosis rather than camouflaging or disguising the distressing facts, as was the
case years ago. In this way, those who are near death can realistically decide how
best to spend their few remaining days on earth.
In giving eulogies, I try to give as precise a picture of the deceased as possible,
without being unkind. To do otherwise would call into question my trustworthiness
and reliability.
In addition, in the case of children, the white lie does not prepare them for the real
world. They may grow up with fantasies that will prove harmful. I know of parents
who told their children that they never disagreed about anything. They managed to
argue, even heatedly, behind closed doors but never in front of their children. When
the children grew up and got married, they were thoroughly unprepared for any
unpleasantness in their own marriage relationships. They were ready to walk out,
after their first argument with their spouses.
I trust that parents no longer tell their children that a stork brought them into the
world, as was the case when some of us were young. Fortunately, most parents today
are candid and frank in describing the reproductive process to their children.
These parents are also more candid about death. They don't tell their sons and
daughters that their beloved grandfather, who recently died, just went away for a
while. They realize that once the child discovers that Grandpa will never return, the
child will become emotionally shaken and forever untrusting.
White lies are ultimately destructive. One can tell the truth without being brutal,
callous or insensitive. We should strive to tell the truth, as it is, directly, but kindly.
We can dress up the truth but we should not misrepresent the truth. To engender
trust in others and to aspire to a more Godly life, we need to maintain our
credibility.
Remember that the seal of God is truth. Amen.
20

ELLICOTT, " (2) The king hath commanded me.—This is one of the sad episodes
in a glorious life. Overwhelmed with dismay at his sudden fall, home and wife,
friends and rank, all had been taken from him, and he who had been on the very
steps of the throne, the darling of the people, strangely successful in all that he had
up to this time put his hand to, was now a proscribed exile, flying for his life. These
things must plead as his excuse for his falsehood to Ahimelech, and his flight to and
subsequent behaviour among the hereditary enemies of his race, the Philistines. But
here, as in so many places, the Holy Spirit who guided the pen of the compiler of this
true history could not lie, but fearlessly tells the repulsive truth which must ever be
deeply damaging to the favourite hero of Israel. “The Holy Spirit is become the
chronicler of men’s foolish, yea, sinful actions. He has narrated the lies of Abraham,
the incest of Lot, the simulation of the man after God’s heart.”—Lange.
I have appointed my servants.—This portion of his words to Ahimelech was, no
doubt, strictly true. It is unlikely that one in the high position of David at the court
of Saul, possessing, too, such powers over men’s hearts, would be allowed to go even
into exile without any friends or attendants. Those alluded to here probably joined
him soon after his parting with Jonathan. Our Lord, in Mark 2:25-26, speaks of the
priest giving the shewbread to David and to those that were with him, when both he
and they that were with him were an hungred.
WHEDON, " 2. The king hath commanded me a business — The statements of
David in this verse, and the addition, in 1 Samuel 21:8, that the king’s business
required such haste that he thought not to bring his weapons, are to be regarded as
utter falsehood, pure fabrications, framed for the purpose of deceiving Ahimelech,
allaying suspicion, and aiding himself in his escape. Perhaps the presence of Doeg,
the Edomite, (1 Samuel 21:7,) led to his uttering this fictitious plea. This is one of the
occasions on which the noble David sinned. We shall meet with other instances in
the subsequent history. It should be remembered, however, that according to the
morals of that age falsehood, like polygamy and other sins which the ethics of our
Gospel system utterly condemn, was not looked upon as criminal. Prevarication and
falsehood that did not amount to perjury seem not to have been regarded as
violations of the ninth commandment. Accordingly, Otto von Gerlach well observes,
in his comment on the ninth commandment, that “although it enjoins, when
properly understood, full, entire, and unequivocal truthfulness towards our
neighbour in every relation, yet the practical understanding of this meaning was
very imperfectly attained to in the Old Testament times, since we find so many
servants of God allowing themselves, in their perplexities, to have recourse to lying.”
David subsequently deplored the fact that he had occasioned the death of all the
priests of Nob, (1 Samuel 22:22,) but he showed not the least compunction over the
falsehood by which he deceived the high priest, not even in the psalm (Psalms 52)
which he composed on the occasion, and in which he accuses his enemy of lying.
My servants — David probably had a few followers with him, and had left them in
the distance while he personally went to the high priest for bread. These were the
young men referred to in 1 Samuel 21:4-5, and mentioned in Mark 2:25-26.
21

PETT, "1 Samuel 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.
3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me
five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find."
GILL, "Now therefore what is under thine hand?.... Meaning, what food had he in
his house?
give me five loaves of bread in mine hand; to take with him, for him and his servants
in such a place:
or what there is present; or to be found (g) in the tabernacle; if not five loaves, two,
or three, or four, or what food soever he had by him.
GUZIK 3-6, "(1Sa_21:3-6) David asks for and receives holy bread.
“Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my
hand, or whatever can be found.” And the priest answered David and said,
“There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men
have at least kept themselves from women.” Then David answered the priest,
and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I
came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect
common, even though it was sanctified in the vessel this day.” So the priest gave
him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been
taken from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day
when it was taken away.
22

a. Give me five loaves of bread: David was on the run from Saul, and didn’t
have time to properly prepare. When he came to the tabernacle in Nob, he
was hungry, and knew he needed food both now and later.
b. There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread: The
tabernacle of the LORD had a table which held twelve loaves of bread,
symbolizing God’s continual fellowship with Israel.
i. As one entered the tabernacle, the table of showbread stood on the right
hand side, opposite the golden lampstand. The table of showbread was
made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold; it was 3 feet long, 1 foot 6 inches
wide, and 2 feet 3 inches high. It was made almost 500 years before
David’s time, when Israel came from Egypt and was on their way into the
Promised Land (Exo_25:23-30).
ii. On this table were twelve loaves of showbread, made of fine flower.
Twelve cakes of showbread - one for each tribe of Israel - would stand on
the table, sprinkled lightly with frankincense. Once a week, the bread
would be replaced, and priests were to eat the old bread (Lev_24:5-9).
iii. What did the showbread mean? Why would God have a bakery rack
in the tabernacle? The importance and meaning of the showbread is
found in the name. Literally, showbread means “bread of faces.” It is
bread associated with, and to be eaten before, the face of God. F.B. Meyer
calls the showbread “presence-bread.” To eat the showbread was to eat
God’s bread in God’s house as a friend and a guest of the LORD,
enjoying His hospitality. In that culture, eating together formed a bond of
friendship that was permanent and sacred. Eating the showbread was a
powerful way of saying, “LORD I love You and I seek Your face. I’m in
Your presence and I want to be transformed by seeing Your face.”
iv. The showbread was always to be fresh. Ahimelech would give David
the old showbread, which had been taken from before the LORD, in
order to put hot bread in its place. God wants our fellowship with Him,
our time before His face, to be fresh. Your time with God should be
freshness dated! Don’t be satisfied with a stale, moldy relationship with
the LORD!
v. We might also see the showbread as a demonstration of our
dependence on God, just as we depend on food. It was also a powerful
way to say that just as bread is necessary for survival, so fellowship with
God is necessary for man. It acted out the words of the Lord’s prayer,
Give us day by day our daily bread (Luk_11:3).
c. If the young men have at least kept themselves from women: The
showbread was not to be treated casually. In fact, it was to be eaten by the
priests: And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy
place; for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the LORD made by fire, by
a perpetual statute (Lev_24:9). While this passage in Leviticus does not
23

specifically say that only priests can eat the showbread, it establishes the
principle that it is holy, and it must be regarded as holy, and can’t be
distributed casually. So, Ahimelech asks David for a basic level of ceremonial
cleanness before he gives him the showbread.
i. Ahimelech was only concerned that those eating the bread be
ceremonially clean according to the standards of Lev_15:1-33. Among
other things, that chapter speaks of ceremonial cleanness as it relates to
marital relations.
d. Truly, women have been kept from us: David, still acting as if he is
traveling with a group, thinks “Sure, I haven’t had marital relations in
several days, so I meet the standard for ceremonial purity in this case.” So,
he gives Ahimelech this answer.
e. So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the
showbread: In giving David the bread, Ahimelech broke with priestly
custom, but not with God’s word. He rightly understood that human need
was more important that Levitical observance.
i. Once, when Jesus’ disciples were criticized for breaking religious
custom by eating against traditions, Jesus used what Ahimelech did to
explain the matter (Mat_12:1-8). Jesus approved of what Ahimelech did,
and Jesus honored him by standing on Ahimelech’s same ground!
ii. The point with Ahimelech and Jesus is powerful: human traditions are
never more important than God’s word itself. If God had said, “Only the
priests can eat this bread,” it would have been different. But God never
said that. To put the only in there seemed logical, but it was adding to
God’s word. We must never elevate our extension or application of God’s
word to the same level as God’s word itself.
iii. “For though for a season, whilst it is to stand before the Lord, it be so
holy, that the priest himself might not eat it; yet afterwards it is eaten by
the priest, and by his whole family, as their common food; and so it may
be by us, in our circumstances.” (Poole)
K&D, "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).
PULPIT, "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
24

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.
BENSON, ". 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,
Nehemiah 11:32; Isaiah 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 1 Samuel 14:3, (who was now dead,) and his successor in the priesthood,
for they were both sons of Ahitub. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David —
“Lest he was forced to flee from Saul,” say some commentators, “and so it might be
dangerous to entertain him.” But it seems evident that Ahimelech knew nothing of
the circumstances that David was in, or of Saul’s enmity to him, and determined
purpose to destroy him. But, as David was the king’s son-in- law, he was surprised
to see him without any attendants, and suspected that there must be some
extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Why art thou alone? — It
appears from 1 Samuel 21:4-5, and from Mark 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, (1
Samuel 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.
“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
25

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.
4 But the priest answered David, "I don't have
any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is
some consecrated bread here—provided the men
have kept themselves from women."
ROBERT ROE, “This was the "bread of the Presence," the twelve loaves that were
baked every week on the Sabbath, brought into the tabernacle, into the Holy Place,
laid on the table, six loaves in each portion, each loaf representing a tribe of Israel.
Each loaf was dedicated to God. They sat there the full seven days, and were
sanctified to God. They indicated God was the total provider for all the needs of
Israel. At the end of seven days, 12 fresh loaves were brought in to replace the
twelve loaves on the table. The high priest, and the priests of the nation of Israel,
could eat those loaves, which were replaced. They were set apart for the use of the
priests but could be eaten only in the Holy Place. So all Ahimelech had was
consecrated bread, bread that had come right off the table of the Lord.”
“Under the Levitical system, any emission from the body made you ceremonially
unclean, including a seminal emission. Anything coming from you, instead of from
God, made you unclean. So, Ahimelech can see David is going to demand something
of him, and he just hopes it will not violate too much of the ceremonial law.
Apparently, however, he is willing to give David what he needs.”
In Matt. 12:3 Jesus sights this as a case where the spirit of the law was kept even
26

though it was a violation of the literal law.
ROBERT ROE, “Now, let me ask you a question, "Was it wrong for David to eat
the consecrated bread?" (Unless you know your gospels you are going to get
tricked.) Answer from the audience, "According to the New Testament, it wasn't."
That is right! David's actions, which were deceitful, were not condoned by Christ,
but He did condone the eating of the bread because that fulfilled a legitimate need.
Had David been straightforward and honest, Ahimelech could have given him the
bread without violating anything in God's Law. God says, in chapter 12 of Matthew,
that the ceremonial Law was never to interfere with real human need. God designed
the Sabbath for man's benefit, not demanding man to conform to the Sabbath [i.e.,
also in Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath."].
In Chapter 12 of Matthew starting at verse 1:
At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and His disciples
became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
It was a common practice in those days. All the grain fields had paths through
Brian Morgan, “What constitutes holiness? Is it ritual, or something deeper?
We have already seen that the job of a priest is to discern between what is holy and
what is profane, and to protect that which is holy from becoming profane. While it
is true that David violated the laws of holiness concerning the shew bread, which
only members of the priesthood were to eat (Lev 24:5-9), yet Jesus himself
commended David's actions as exemplary and spiritually perceptive. Our Lord used
this very text to answer the Pharisees, who accused the disciples of violating the
Sabbath by picking heads of grain. Jesus said: "Have you never read what David
did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions: how he
entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the
consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he
gave it also to those who were with him?" (Mark 2:25-26).
On matters of ritual, David had an astonishing freedom that Saul never had. What
gave David the insight to declare himself clean and be free to eat the holy bread of
the priests? The answer, I believe, lies in the nature of the journey. By God's
command, David had set out on a holy journey through the wilderness where he
would meet with God. No ordinary food, but only holy food would suffice for that
journey, which would so intensify his holiness that he would become a priest of a
higher order than the priesthood of Aaron. David, in the words of one commentator,
was invigorated by "sacred things, by nothing less than the Bread of the Presence.
Just as God has looked benevolently on that food, so, the implication is, he will also
'make his face shine' on this refugee" (Fokklemann). David's holy journey made
him a priest, with direct access to God.
We see parallels in the life of Jesus. Following our Lord's anointing at his baptism,
he headed straight for the wilderness. Following forty days and nights of fasting, he
refused earthly bread when tempted by the devil, who said to him: "Turn these
stones into bread." "Feed yourself," was what the devil was suggesting. But Jesus
27

refused, saying, "Man shall live by the word of God." He was waiting for God to
feed him nothing less than heavenly manna. Mark says that later, Jesus was
"ministered to by the angels." This word "ministered" is the same word used in
Acts 6 of the deacons who served tables. The angels fed Jesus heavenly manna.
Later still, during his ministry, Jesus would take his disciples into the wilderness,
bypassing all the ritual of Jerusalem, and there give them "bread from heaven."
In Jerusalem I found it hard to visit many of the holy places because of various
restrictions involving dress codes, times, etc. One day we were unsuccessful in
getting to see the Temple Mount, and I decided to take time out to rest. I found a
little archway in a schoolyard where a cooling breeze was filtering through. I sat
there a while, and then decided to squeeze into the archway and lie down to rest.
Just when I succeeded in doing so, I heard a voice saying: "It is forbidden!" It was a
holy place, and lying down was forbidden. The same thing was true of another
building across the street where I sat down to rest. I remembered the words of
Jesus, "The Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Things were different in
Galilee, however. There we sat on the hill where the feeding of the five thousand
took place. Jesus had bypassed the intermediaries of Jerusalem and gone out into
that simple place where he called down bread from heaven to feed his disciples.
There is no place for ritual in the wilderness. There the Messianic King makes all
things holy.
Brian Morgan It is interesting to me to hear people talk about not working on the
Sabbath. That is the preacher's busiest day. All preachers take Monday off. Our
work is on the Sabbath, if you count Sunday as the Sabbath. Some churches have
rules for keeping the Sabbath, and the biggest violator of those rules is the minister
of the church that has those rules. He is the one who gets up early in the morning
and bones up on what he is to preach; the one who rushes to church to get
everything organized. He is busy, busy, busy all day long, marrying, burying,
baptizing, while the church's set of rules says, "Thou shall not work on the
Sabbath." Who is doing all the work? The minister who wrote the rules.
So the Lord says here, "Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the
priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?" They work on the
Sabbath. They bake bread on the Sabbath. They replenish loaves on the Sabbath. In
fact, they circumcise on the Sabbath. According to the Law, a male child had to be
circumcised on the eighth day. So they circumcised regularly on the Sabbath in
order not to break the circumcision Law. They had to break one Law to keep the
other. Circumcision was the mark of a man with the flesh cut off, the old life cut
away. God considered this dedication of infants to Himself to be more important
than the observance of the minutia of the Law. So the Sabbath was regularly broken
by the priests.
Matthew 12, verse 6:
"But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here? But if you had
known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not
have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"
Christ said, "The bottom line on the whole ceremonial law is that God desires
compassion, not sacrifice. He desires that man's needs be met and not that the
meticulous rules of the Law be kept if they interfere with the needs of men." That
28

was the bottom line of the Levitical system which had been forgotten by the time of
the Pharisees.
So it was not wrong for David to eat the consecrated bread. He had a legitimate
need. What was wrong was he did not come in an open and honest way. He cheated.
In deceiving the high priest, he was actually cheating on God. Legitimate need;
wrong methodology. According to Christ's own word, David could have gotten the
same consecrated bread from Ahimelech; he could have eaten it with no sin attached
and been totally free before the Lord, "For the Lord desires compassion not
sacrifice." Instead, he blew it.
Again, David is lying like a rug, for he has no idea about the sex lives of his men. He
just makes up a story about he always keeps from sex before a mission, and this
being a secret one makes it all the more serious that the men be sex free. If David or
his men have had sex the previous night they were disqualified to eat the bread from
off the altar, and so he has to lie to get the bread, and the priest has no test by which
to prove whether he is lying or not. Roe says, “Yes, they are sanctified. Yes, they are
holy." He is going to get that bread by hook or by crook, mostly by crook.”
2. Brian Morgan, “According to Leviticus 24:5-9, David could not have this
consecrated bread under any circumstances. Once the holy bread was replaced by
new bread, it was to be eaten only by priests. But David responds, "The men were
clean when they began the journey, though it was an ordinary journey, how much
more now that they are on the king's mission of a holy journey will they be holy?"
David's statement, that the holy journey that he was embarked upon had made him
"exceptionally" clean, is the center line of the text. With these words, Ahimelech's
anxiety is overcome and he gives to David what is holy.”
BARNES, "Common - As opposed to holy. (See the marginal references, and
compare the use of the word in Act_10:14-15, Act_10:28.) It gives an idea of the
depressed and poor condition of the priesthood at that time, that Ahimelech should
have had no bread at hand except the showbread.
GILL, "And the priest answered David, and said, there is no common bread under
mine hand,.... In the tabernacle, though he might have such in his own house; which
was common for any man to eat of, even such as were not priests; but he had none
there, and David was in haste to be gone because of Doeg, and could not stay till
such was fetched:
but there is hallowed bread; such as was devoted to sacred use. Kimchi's father
thinks this was the bread of the thank offering, to which Ben Gersom inclines;
otherwise the Jewish writers in general understand it of the shewbread; and it is
clear it was that from 1Sa_21:6 and from what our Lord says, Mat_12:4. Now this
the priest had under his hand, being just taken off of the shewbread table, and was
the perquisite of the priests; and which, though it was not lawful for any but priests
29

to eat of, yet in this case of necessity he seemed willing to give it to David and his
men, on this condition: if the young men have kept themselves at least from women;
from their wives or others, and from any pollution by them, in any way or manner;
but as this was also only of a ceremonial kind, it might as well have been dispensed
with, had this been the case, as the other.
HENRY, "Two things David begged of Ahimelech, bread and a sword.
(1.) He wanted bread: five loaves, 1Sa_21:3. Travelling was then troublesome, when
men generally carried their provisions with them in kind, having little money and no
public houses, else David would not now have had to seek for bread. It seems David
had known the seed of the righteous begging bread occasionally, but not constantly,
Psa_37:25. Now, [1.] The priest objected that he had none but hallowed bread,
show-bread, which had stood a week on the golden table in the sanctuary, and was
taken thence for the use of the priests and their families, 1Sa_21:4. It seems the
priest kept no good house, but wanted either a heart to be hospitable or provisions
wherewithal to be so. Ahimelech thinks that the young men that attended David
might not eat of this bread unless they had for some time abstained from women,
even from their own wives; this was required at the giving of the law (Exo_19:15),
but otherwise we never find this made the matter of any ceremonial purity on the
one side or pollution on the other, and therefore the priest here seems to be over-
nice, not to say superstitious. [2.] David pleads that he and those that were with him,
in this case of necessity, might lawfully eat of the hallowed bread, for they were not
only able to answer his terms of keeping from women for three days past, but the
vessels (that is, the bodies) of the young men were holy, being possessed in
sanctification and honour at all times (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, 1Sa_21:6) sanctified that day in the vessel, and put in the
room of it upon the table. This was David's plea, and the Son of David approves it,
and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance
must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent
providential necessity which may not otherwise be done. He brings it to justify his
disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, for which the Pharisees
censured them, Mat_12:3, Mat_12:4.
JAMISON, "there is hallowed bread — There would be plenty of bread in his
house; but there was no time to wait for it. “The hallowed bread” was the old shew-
bread, which had been removed the previous day, and which was reserved for the
use of the priests alone (Lev_24:9). Before entertaining the idea that this bread
could be lawfully given to David and his men, the high priest seems to have
30

consulted the oracle (1Sa_22:10) as to the course to be followed in this emergency. A
dispensation to use the hallowed bread was specially granted by God Himself.
K&D, "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.)
ELLICOTT, " (4) There is no common bread.—The condition of the priests in these
days of Saul was evidently a pitiable one. The terrible massacre related in the next
chapter seems not to have excited the wail of indignation and woe which such a
wholesale murder of the priests of the living God should naturally have called out
from the entire people. They were evidently held in little esteem, and their murder
was regarded at the time, not as an awful act of sacrilege, but simply as an act of
political vengeance—of punishment for what the king was pleased to style treason.
Here the almost destitute condition of the ministers of the principal sanctuary of
Israel appears from the quiet answer of the high priest to David, telling him they
had positively no bread but the stale bread removed from before “the Presence” in
the holy building.
This “hallowed bread,” or shewbread, five loaves of which David petitioned for,
consisted of twelve loaves, one for each tribe, which were placed in the Tabernacle
fresh every Sabbath Day. The law of Moses was that this bread, being most holy,
could only be eaten by the priests in the holy place. It is probable that this
regulation had been relaxed, and that the bread was now often being carried away
and eaten in the homes of the ministering priests, and on urgent occasions, perhaps,
was even given to the “laity,” as in this case, the proviso only being made that the
consumers of the bread should be ceremonially pure. Our Saviour, in Matthew 12:3,
especially uses this example, drawn from the Tabernacle’s honoured customs, to
justify a violation of the letter of the law, when its strict observance would stand in
the way of the fulfilment of man’s sacred duty to his neighbour.
The natural inference from this incident would be that such a violation of the
31

Mosaic Law was not an uncommon occurrence, as Ahimelech at once gave him the
hallowed bread, only making a conditional inquiry about ceremonial purity—a
condition which came out so readily that we feel it had often been made before. The
Talmud, however, is most anxious that this inference should not be drawn, and
points out in the treatise Menachoth, “Meat-offerings” (Seder Kodashim), that this
bread was not newly taken out of the sanctuary, but had been removed on some
previous day, and that as, after a week’s exposure, it was stale and dry, the priests
ate but little of it, and the rest was left. (See Treatise Yoma, 39.) It also points out
that had such violation of the Levitical Law been common, so much importance
would not have been attached to this incident.
WHEDON, " 4. Common bread — Bread not consecrated; such as might lawfully
be eaten by ordinary persons.
Hallowed bread — That is, the showbread, which it was unlawful for any but the
priests to eat. Exodus 29:32; Leviticus 24:9.
If the young men have kept themselves… from women — If they take of the
hallowed bread, it is necessary that they should be at least ceremonially clean in the
matter here specified. Sexual intercourse made a person unfit for contact with holy
things. Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 15:16. Thus the high priest judges that in a case of
necessity, the requirements of the law regarding this bread might be set aside.
Compare Matthew 12:4, and Mark 2:26.
‘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 Exodus
25:23-30; Leviticus 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
32

continue ‘until the evening’. Compare Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 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 1 Samuel 14:3).
5. David replied, 'Indeed women have been kept
from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's
things are holy even on missions that are not holy.
How much more so today!
BARNES, "The vessels of the young men ... - i. e., their clothes Deu_22:5 or
wallets (marginal reference), or other articles which might be Levitically unclean
and need cleansing (Lev_13:58; Exo_19:10, etc.; Mar_7:4), as well as the person.
And the bread ... - The meaning is; “Though it is treating it like common bread to
give it to me and my young men, there is fresh showbread baked and put on the
table in place of what you give us;” the day being Friday. as is indicated in the verse
following.
GILL. "And David answered the priest, and said unto him,.... In reply to the case of
the young men his servants, and of himself too, who also was intended by the priest,
though out of reverence to him not mentioned:
of a truth women have been kept from us these three days since I came out;
reckoning either from the time he fled from Saul at Naioth, or from the time he left
Jonathan, during which time both he and his men could have no converse with
women, and receive no pollution by them; and this was the time which according to
the law was required for the sanctifying of persons in this way, Exo_19:15,
and the vessels of the young men are holy; their garments, as Kimchi, not being
defiled with any ceremonial uncleanness, as by the touch of any unclean person: or
what instruments soever they were provided with for their journey; or rather their
bodies; see 2Co_4:7; and with respect to the priest's saying that the bread he had
was hallowed or sacred, and so not for common use, David replies:
33

and the bread is in a manner common; inasmuch as it was taken off of the
shewbread table, and was now common to the priest and his family, though not to
others, yet in case of necessity through hunger might be allowed to strangers:
yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel; even though it had been set but
that day on the shewbread table, and so became holy to the Lord; and yet even in
such a case and circumstances as David and his men were in, it might be taken from
thence and eaten of; for, as Abendana observes, nothing stands in the way of
preservation of life, but idolatry, adultery, and murder; everything else may be done
for the sake of that but them: or as in the margin of our Bibles, "especially when
there is this day other sanctified bread"; that is, since other bread is this day put
upon the shewbread table, in the room of that which has been taken away, whereby
it is become holy to the, Lord; then that which is removed may be eaten, and be
allowed to us in our circumstances. It seems by this that this was the sabbath day;
for on that day the removal of the shewbread loaves was made, Lev_24:8; and R.
Isaiah says, that it was at the going out of the sabbath that David came there; and
which still makes it a more appropriate case, as produced by our Lord to justify his
disciples in plucking ears of corn on the sabbath day, Mat_12:1.
HENRY, " 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, 1Sa_21:6) sanctified that day in the vessel, and put in the room of it upon
the table. This was David's plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from
it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to
moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity
which may not otherwise be done. He brings it to justify his disciples in plucking the
ears of corn on the sabbath day, for which the Pharisees censured them, Mat_12:3,
Mat_12:4.
JAMISON, "these three days — as required by law (Exo_19:15). David and his
attendants seem to have been lurking in some of the adjoining caves, to elude
pursuit, and to have been, consequently, reduced to great extremities of hunger.
the bread is in a manner common — that is, now that it is no longer standing on
the Lord’s table. It is eaten by the priests, and may also, in our circumstances, be
34

eaten by us.
yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel — that is, though the hallowed
bread had been but newly placed on the vessel, the ritual ordinance would have to
yield to the great law of necessity and mercy (see on Mat_12:3; also see Mar_2:25;
Luk_6:3).
K&D, "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 ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ 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 ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ 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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ָ‫ﬠ‬ְ‫נּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫ֵי‬‫ל‬ ְ‫כּ‬ in the Septuagint, πάντα τὰ παιδάρια, is
without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word ‫ֵי‬‫ל‬ ְ‫,כּ‬
which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֹ‫ק‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ָ‫ﬠ‬ְ‫נּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫ֵי‬‫ל‬ ְ‫,כּ‬
i.e., according to Luther's rendering (der Knaben Zeug war heilig), the young men's
things (clothes, etc.) were holy. ‫ים‬ִ‫ל‬ֵ‫כּ‬ 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.” ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫,דּ‬ 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. ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ‫ף‬ ַ‫א‬ ְ‫,ו‬ 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
‫י‬ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫פּ‬ in the sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident from Isa_13:5 and
Jer_50:25.
35

1 samuel 21 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to 1 samuel 21 commentary

Similar to 1 samuel 21 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1 samuel 21 commentary