- Home
- Bible
- 1 Samuel
- Chapter 21
- Verse 21
1 Samuel 21:1
Verse
Context
David Takes the Consecrated Bread
1Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And when Ahimelech met David, he trembled and asked him, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
Sermons
Peter MaidenSummary
Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- John Gill
- Matthew Henry
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
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.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
Sa1 21:1-2 David at Nob. - The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form נבה stands for נבה here and in Sa1 22:9, and the ה attached is merely ה local, as the name is always written נב in other places: vid., Sa1 22:11, Sa1 22:19; Sa1 21:1; Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32) was at that time a priests' city (Sa1 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 (Sa1 14:3), was "the priest," i.e., the high priest (see at Sa1 14:3). When David came to him, the priest "went trembling to meet him" (לקראת יחרד) 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 Sa1 21:2, because he wished to converse with the high priest alone. Ahimelech's anxious inquiry led David to resort to the fabrication described in Sa1 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." יודע, 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 (Sa1 22:9-19), and David was afterwards obliged to confess that he had occasioned it all (Sa1 22:22). Sa1 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). Sa1 21:4 The priest answered that he had no common bread, but only holy bread, viz., according to Sa1 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.) Sa1 21:5 David quieted him concerning this scruple, and said, "Nay, but women have been kept from us since yesterday and the day before." The use of אם כּי 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 אם כּי 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 Sa2 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 הנּערים כּלי in the Septuagint, πάντα τὰ παιδάρια, is without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word כּלי, which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that קדשׁ הנּערים כּלי, i.e., according to Luther's rendering (der Knaben Zeug war heilig), the young men's things (clothes, etc.) were holy. כּלים 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." דּרך, 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. כּי ואף, 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 פּלי in the sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident from Isa 13:5 and Jer 50:25. Sa1 21:6-7 The priest then gave him (what was) holy, namely the shew-loaves "that were taken from before Jehovah," i.e., from the holy table, upon which they had lain before Jehovah for seven days (vid., Lev 24:6-9). - In Sa1 21:7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of great importance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. There at the sanctuary there was a man of Saul's servants, נעצר, i.e., "kept back (shut off) before Jehovah:" i.e., at the sanctuary of the tabernacle, either for the sake of purification or as a proselyte, who wished to be received into the religious communion of Israel, or because of supposed leprosy, according to Lev 13:4. His name was Doeg the Edomite, הרעים אבּיר, "the strong one (i.e., the overseer) of the herdsmen of Saul." (Note: The Septuagint translators have rendered these words νέμων τὰς ἡμιόνους, "feeding the mules of Saul;" and accordingly in Sa1 22:9 also they have changed Saul's servants into mules, in accordance with which Thenius makes Doeg the upper herdsman of Saul. But it is very evident that the text of the lxx is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the expression before us, and does not presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the other ancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in Sa1 22:9, including even the Vulgate (potentissimus pastorum); and the clause contained in some of the MSS of the Vulgate (his pascebat mulas Saul) is nothing more than a gloss that has crept in from the Itala; and this is still more obvious in Sa1 22:9, where נצּב והוּא is applicable enough to עבדי, but is altogether unsuitable in connection with פרדי, since נצּב is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, than we should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules being used as riding animals by royal princes (Sa2 13:29; Sa2 18:9); and they are mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses, camels, and oxen, in Ch1 12:40, where they are said to have been employed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to the festival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David's time the sons of princes rode upon asses (vid., Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14).) Sa1 21:8 David also asked Ahimelech whether he had not a sword or a javelin at hand; "for I have neither brought my sword nor my (other) weapons with me, because the affair of the king was pressing," i.e., very urgent, נחוּץ, ἁπ. λεγ., literally, compressed. Sa1 21:9 The priest replied, that there was only the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the terebinth valley (Sa1 17:2), wrapped up in a cloth hanging behind the ephod (the high priest's shoulder-dress), - a sign of the great worth attached to this dedicatory offering. He could take that. David accepted it, as a weapon of greater value to him than any other, because he had not only taken this sword as booty from the Philistine, but had cut off the head of Goliath with it (see Sa1 17:51). When and how this sword had come into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on Sa1 17:54). The form בּזּה for בּזה is only met with here. On the Piska, see at Jos 4:1.
John Gill Bible Commentary
Then came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest,.... The high priest, as Abarbinel rightly calls him; he was the brother of Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, who being dead he succeeded him; though some say (a) he was the same; see Sa1 14:3; who was now at Nob, the tabernacle being there, whither probably it was removed by Saul, and where and at Gibeon, according to the Jews (b), it continued fifty seven years; as in the times of Joshua it was in Shiloh, in the tribe of Ephraim, of which tribe he was; and in the times of David it was placed in the tribe of Judah, to which he belonged; so in the times of Saul it was in Nob, a city of his tribe, twelve miles from Gibeah, according to Bunting (c); for that it was in the tribe of Benjamin appears by its being mentioned along with Anathoth, Neh 11:32; and according to Jarchi and Kimchi (d) it was near Jerusalem, and so near that it might be seen from thence; some say they are the same (e); Jerom (f) speaks of it as near Diospolis or Lydda. David, before he departed further off, was willing to see the tabernacle once more, and there worship his God, and inquire of him by the high priest, as he did, Sa1 22:10; to direct him what way he should take, and that he would prosper and succeed him in it, grant him his presence, and keep him in safety: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David; hearing that he was come or coming, he went out to meet him, but when he saw him alone he trembled; especially if he had heard of his having fallen under the displeasure of Saul, and that he now fled from him, therefore he might fear that he should fall into disgrace and danger should he entertain him: and he said unto him, why art thou alone, and no man with thee? he might well wonder at it, and put such a question, seeing he was so great a man, both in the court and camp, and the king's son in law; he might therefore reasonably suspect something more than ordinary was the case, and which occasioned his fears. (a) Hieron. Trad. Heb. in lib. Reg. fol. 76. H. (b) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zebachim, c. 14. sect. 7. (c) Travels, &c. p. 136. (d) Comment. in lsa. x. 32. (e) Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 8. 1. (f) Epitaphium Paulae, fol. 59. A.
Matthew Henry Bible Commentary
Here, I. David, in distress, flies in the tabernacle of God, now pitched at Nob, supposed to be a city in the tribe of Benjamin. Since Shiloh was forsaken, the tabernacle was often removed, though the ark still remained at Kirjath-jearim. Hither David came in his flight from Saul's fury (Sa1 21:1), and applied to Ahimelech the priest. Samuel the prophet could not protect him, Jonathan the prince could not. He therefore has recourse next to Ahimelech the priest. He foresees he must now be an exile, and therefore comes to the tabernacle, 1. To take an affecting leave of it, for he knows not when he shall see it again, and nothing will be more afflictive to him in his banishment than his distance from the house of God, and his restraint from public ordinances, as appears by many of his psalms. He had given an affectionate farewell to his friend Jonathan, and cannot go till he has given the like to the tabernacle. 2. To enquire of the Lord there, and to beg direction from him in the way both of duty and safety, his case being difficult and dangerous. That this was his business appears Sa1 22:10, where it is said that Ahimelech enquired of the Lord for him, as he had done formerly, Sa1 21:15. It is a great comfort to us in a day of trouble that we have a God to go to, to whom we may open our case, and from whom we may ask and expect direction. II. Ahimelech the priest is surprised to see him in so poor an equipage; having heard that he had fallen into disgrace at court, he looked shy upon him, as most are apt to do upon their friends when the world frowns upon them. He was afraid of incurring Saul's displeasure by entertaining him, and took notice how mean a figure he now made to what he used to make: Why art thou alone? He had some with him (as appears Mar 2:26), but they were only his own servants; he had none of the courtiers, no persons of quality with him, as he used to have at other times, when he came to enquire of the Lord. He says (Psa 42:4) he was wont to go with a multitude to the house of God; and, having now but two or three with him, Ahimelech might well ask, Why art thou alone? He that was suddenly advanced from the solitude of a shepherd's life to the crowd and hurries of the camp is now as soon reduced to the desolate condition of an exile and is alone like a sparrow on the housetop, such charges are there in this world and so uncertain are its smiles! Those that are courted today may be deserted tomorrow. III. David, under pretence of being sent by Saul upon public services, solicits Ahimelech to supply his present wants, Sa1 21:2, Sa1 21:3. 1. Here David did not behave like himself. He told Ahimelech a gross untruth, that Saul had ordered him business to despatch, that his attendants were dismissed to such a place, and that he was charged to observe secresy and therefore durst not communicate it, no, not to the priest himself. This was all false. What shall we say to this? The scripture does not conceal it, and we dare not justify it. It was ill done, and proved of bad consequence; for it occasioned the death of the priests of the Lord, as David reflected upon it afterwards with regret, Sa1 22:22. It was needless for him thus to dissemble with the priest, for we may suppose that, if he had told him the truth, he would have sheltered and relieved him as readily as Samuel did, and would have known the better how to advise him and enquire of God for him. People should be free with their faithful ministers. David was a man of great faith and courage, and yet now both failed him, and he fell thus foully through fear and cowardice, and both owing to the weakness of his faith. Had he trusted God aright, he would not have used such a sorry sinful shift as this for his own preservation. It is written, not for our imitation, no, not in the greatest straits, but for our admonition. Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall; and let us all pray daily, Lord, lead us not into temptation. Let us all take occasion from this to lament, (1.) The weakness and infirmity of good men; the best are not perfect on this side heaven. There may be true grace where yet there are many failings. (2.) The wickedness of bad times, which forces good men into such straits as prove temptations too strong for them. Oppression makes a wise man do foolishly. 2. Two things David begged of Ahimelech, bread and a sword. (1.) He wanted bread: five loaves, Sa1 21:3. Travelling was then troublesome, when men generally carried their provisions with them in kind, having little money and no public houses, else David would not now have had to seek for bread. It seems David had known the seed of the righteous begging bread occasionally, but not constantly, Psa 37:25. Now, [1.] The priest objected that he had none but hallowed bread, show-bread, which had stood a week on the golden table in the sanctuary, and was taken thence for the use of the priests and their families, Sa1 21:4. It seems the priest kept no good house, but wanted either a heart to be hospitable or provisions wherewithal to be so. Ahimelech thinks that the young men that attended David might not eat of this bread unless they had for some time abstained from women, even from their own wives; this was required at the giving of the law (Exo 19:15), but otherwise we never find this made the matter of any ceremonial purity on the one side or pollution on the other, and therefore the priest here seems to be over-nice, not to say superstitious. [2.] David pleads that he and those that were with him, in this case of necessity, might lawfully eat of the hallowed bread, for they were not only able to answer his terms of keeping from women for three days past, but the vessels (that is, the bodies) of the young men were holy, being possessed in sanctification and honour at all times (Th1 4:4, Th1 4:5), and therefore God would take particular care of them, that they wanted not necessary supports, and would have his priest to do so. Being thus holy, holy things were not forbidden them. Poor and pious Israelites were in effect priests to God, and, rather than be starved, might feed on the bread which was appropriated to the priests. Believers are spiritual priests, and the offerings of the Lord shall be their inheritance; they eat the bread of their God. He pleads that the bread is in a manner common, now that what was primarily the religious use of it is over; especially (as our margin reads it) where there is other bread (hot, Sa1 21:6) sanctified that day in the vessel, and put in the room of it upon the table. This was David's plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done. He brings it to justify his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, for which the Pharisees censured them, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4. [3.] Ahimelech hereupon supplies him: He gave him hallowed bread (Sa1 21:6), and some think it was about this that he enquired of the Lord, Sa1 22:10. As a faithful servant he would not dispose of his master's provisions without his master's leave. This bread, we may suppose, was the more agreeable to David for its being hallowed, so precious were all sacred things to him. The show-bread was but twelve loaves in all, yet out of these he gave David five (Sa1 21:3), though they had no more in the house; but he trusted Providence. (2.) He wanted a sword. Persons of quality, though officers of the army, did not then wear their swords so constantly as now they do, else surely David would not have been without one. It was a wonder that Jonathan did not furnish him with his, as he had before done, Sa1 18:4. However, it happened that he had now no weapons with him, the reason of which he pretends to be because he came away in haste, Sa1 21:8. Those that are furnished with the sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith cannot be disarmed of them, nor need they, at any time, to be at a loss. But the priests, it seems, had no swords: the weapons of their warfare were not carnal. There was not a sword to be found about the tabernacle but the sword of Goliath, which was laid up behind the ephod, as a monument of the glorious victory David obtained over him. Probably David had an eye to that when he asked the priest to help him with a sword; for, that being mentioned, O! says he, there is none like that, give it to me, Sa1 21:9. He could not use Saul's armour, for he had not proved it; but this sword of Goliath he had made trial of and done execution with. By this it appears that he was now well grown in strength and stature, that he could wear and wield such a sword as that. God had taught his hands to war, so that he could do wonders, Psa 18:34. Two things we may observe concerning this sword: - [1.] That God had graciously given it to him, as a pledge of his singular favour; so that whenever he drew it, nay, whenever he looked upon it, it would be a great support to his faith, by bringing to mind that great instance of the particular care and countenance of the divine providence respecting him. [2.] That he had gratefully given it back to God, dedicating it to him and to his honour as a token of his thankfulness; and now in his distress it stood him greatly in stead. Note, What we devote to God's praise, and serve him with, is most likely to redound, one way or other, to our own comfort and benefit. What we gave we have. Thus was David well furnished with arms and victuals; but it fell out very unhappily that there was one of Saul's servants then attending before the Lord, Doeg by name, that proved a base traitor both to David and Ahimelech. He was by birth an Edomite (Sa1 21:7), and though proselyted to the Jewish religion, to get the preferment he now had under Saul, yet he retained the ancient and hereditary enmity of Edom to Israel. He was master of the herds, which perhaps was then a place of as much honour as master of the horse is now. Some occasion or other he had at this time to wait on the priest, either to be purified from some pollution or to pay some vow; but, whatever his business was, it is said, he was detained before the Lord. He must attend and could not help it, but he was sick of the service, snuffed at it, and said, What a weariness is it! Mal 1:13. He would rather have been any where else than before the Lord, and therefore, instead of minding the business he came about, was plotting to do David a mischief and to be revenged on Ahimelech for detaining him. God's sanctuary could never secure such wolves in sheep's clothing. See Gal 2:4.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
21:1 Nob was just north of Jerusalem, in the southern part of the territory of Benjamin. • Ahimelech the priest was a descendant of the condemned family of Eli (14:3; 22:9). • The elders of Bethlehem had also trembled when Samuel unexpectedly came to their city to anoint David as Saul’s replacement (16:4). On both occasions, a prominent individual who had strained relations with Saul showed up unannounced. Both Ahimelech and the Bethlehem elders were concerned about being suspected of supporting an enemy of the king, which could result in death. In this case, what was feared came about (see 22:9-19).
1 Samuel 21:1
David Takes the Consecrated Bread
1Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And when Ahimelech met David, he trembled and asked him, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
- Scripture
- Sermons
- Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- John Gill
- Matthew Henry
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
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.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
Sa1 21:1-2 David at Nob. - The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form נבה stands for נבה here and in Sa1 22:9, and the ה attached is merely ה local, as the name is always written נב in other places: vid., Sa1 22:11, Sa1 22:19; Sa1 21:1; Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32) was at that time a priests' city (Sa1 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 (Sa1 14:3), was "the priest," i.e., the high priest (see at Sa1 14:3). When David came to him, the priest "went trembling to meet him" (לקראת יחרד) 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 Sa1 21:2, because he wished to converse with the high priest alone. Ahimelech's anxious inquiry led David to resort to the fabrication described in Sa1 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." יודע, 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 (Sa1 22:9-19), and David was afterwards obliged to confess that he had occasioned it all (Sa1 22:22). Sa1 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). Sa1 21:4 The priest answered that he had no common bread, but only holy bread, viz., according to Sa1 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.) Sa1 21:5 David quieted him concerning this scruple, and said, "Nay, but women have been kept from us since yesterday and the day before." The use of אם כּי 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 אם כּי 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 Sa2 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 הנּערים כּלי in the Septuagint, πάντα τὰ παιδάρια, is without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word כּלי, which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that קדשׁ הנּערים כּלי, i.e., according to Luther's rendering (der Knaben Zeug war heilig), the young men's things (clothes, etc.) were holy. כּלים 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." דּרך, 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. כּי ואף, 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 פּלי in the sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident from Isa 13:5 and Jer 50:25. Sa1 21:6-7 The priest then gave him (what was) holy, namely the shew-loaves "that were taken from before Jehovah," i.e., from the holy table, upon which they had lain before Jehovah for seven days (vid., Lev 24:6-9). - In Sa1 21:7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of great importance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. There at the sanctuary there was a man of Saul's servants, נעצר, i.e., "kept back (shut off) before Jehovah:" i.e., at the sanctuary of the tabernacle, either for the sake of purification or as a proselyte, who wished to be received into the religious communion of Israel, or because of supposed leprosy, according to Lev 13:4. His name was Doeg the Edomite, הרעים אבּיר, "the strong one (i.e., the overseer) of the herdsmen of Saul." (Note: The Septuagint translators have rendered these words νέμων τὰς ἡμιόνους, "feeding the mules of Saul;" and accordingly in Sa1 22:9 also they have changed Saul's servants into mules, in accordance with which Thenius makes Doeg the upper herdsman of Saul. But it is very evident that the text of the lxx is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the expression before us, and does not presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the other ancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in Sa1 22:9, including even the Vulgate (potentissimus pastorum); and the clause contained in some of the MSS of the Vulgate (his pascebat mulas Saul) is nothing more than a gloss that has crept in from the Itala; and this is still more obvious in Sa1 22:9, where נצּב והוּא is applicable enough to עבדי, but is altogether unsuitable in connection with פרדי, since נצּב is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, than we should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules being used as riding animals by royal princes (Sa2 13:29; Sa2 18:9); and they are mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses, camels, and oxen, in Ch1 12:40, where they are said to have been employed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to the festival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David's time the sons of princes rode upon asses (vid., Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14).) Sa1 21:8 David also asked Ahimelech whether he had not a sword or a javelin at hand; "for I have neither brought my sword nor my (other) weapons with me, because the affair of the king was pressing," i.e., very urgent, נחוּץ, ἁπ. λεγ., literally, compressed. Sa1 21:9 The priest replied, that there was only the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the terebinth valley (Sa1 17:2), wrapped up in a cloth hanging behind the ephod (the high priest's shoulder-dress), - a sign of the great worth attached to this dedicatory offering. He could take that. David accepted it, as a weapon of greater value to him than any other, because he had not only taken this sword as booty from the Philistine, but had cut off the head of Goliath with it (see Sa1 17:51). When and how this sword had come into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on Sa1 17:54). The form בּזּה for בּזה is only met with here. On the Piska, see at Jos 4:1.
John Gill Bible Commentary
Then came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest,.... The high priest, as Abarbinel rightly calls him; he was the brother of Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, who being dead he succeeded him; though some say (a) he was the same; see Sa1 14:3; who was now at Nob, the tabernacle being there, whither probably it was removed by Saul, and where and at Gibeon, according to the Jews (b), it continued fifty seven years; as in the times of Joshua it was in Shiloh, in the tribe of Ephraim, of which tribe he was; and in the times of David it was placed in the tribe of Judah, to which he belonged; so in the times of Saul it was in Nob, a city of his tribe, twelve miles from Gibeah, according to Bunting (c); for that it was in the tribe of Benjamin appears by its being mentioned along with Anathoth, Neh 11:32; and according to Jarchi and Kimchi (d) it was near Jerusalem, and so near that it might be seen from thence; some say they are the same (e); Jerom (f) speaks of it as near Diospolis or Lydda. David, before he departed further off, was willing to see the tabernacle once more, and there worship his God, and inquire of him by the high priest, as he did, Sa1 22:10; to direct him what way he should take, and that he would prosper and succeed him in it, grant him his presence, and keep him in safety: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David; hearing that he was come or coming, he went out to meet him, but when he saw him alone he trembled; especially if he had heard of his having fallen under the displeasure of Saul, and that he now fled from him, therefore he might fear that he should fall into disgrace and danger should he entertain him: and he said unto him, why art thou alone, and no man with thee? he might well wonder at it, and put such a question, seeing he was so great a man, both in the court and camp, and the king's son in law; he might therefore reasonably suspect something more than ordinary was the case, and which occasioned his fears. (a) Hieron. Trad. Heb. in lib. Reg. fol. 76. H. (b) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zebachim, c. 14. sect. 7. (c) Travels, &c. p. 136. (d) Comment. in lsa. x. 32. (e) Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 8. 1. (f) Epitaphium Paulae, fol. 59. A.
Matthew Henry Bible Commentary
Here, I. David, in distress, flies in the tabernacle of God, now pitched at Nob, supposed to be a city in the tribe of Benjamin. Since Shiloh was forsaken, the tabernacle was often removed, though the ark still remained at Kirjath-jearim. Hither David came in his flight from Saul's fury (Sa1 21:1), and applied to Ahimelech the priest. Samuel the prophet could not protect him, Jonathan the prince could not. He therefore has recourse next to Ahimelech the priest. He foresees he must now be an exile, and therefore comes to the tabernacle, 1. To take an affecting leave of it, for he knows not when he shall see it again, and nothing will be more afflictive to him in his banishment than his distance from the house of God, and his restraint from public ordinances, as appears by many of his psalms. He had given an affectionate farewell to his friend Jonathan, and cannot go till he has given the like to the tabernacle. 2. To enquire of the Lord there, and to beg direction from him in the way both of duty and safety, his case being difficult and dangerous. That this was his business appears Sa1 22:10, where it is said that Ahimelech enquired of the Lord for him, as he had done formerly, Sa1 21:15. It is a great comfort to us in a day of trouble that we have a God to go to, to whom we may open our case, and from whom we may ask and expect direction. II. Ahimelech the priest is surprised to see him in so poor an equipage; having heard that he had fallen into disgrace at court, he looked shy upon him, as most are apt to do upon their friends when the world frowns upon them. He was afraid of incurring Saul's displeasure by entertaining him, and took notice how mean a figure he now made to what he used to make: Why art thou alone? He had some with him (as appears Mar 2:26), but they were only his own servants; he had none of the courtiers, no persons of quality with him, as he used to have at other times, when he came to enquire of the Lord. He says (Psa 42:4) he was wont to go with a multitude to the house of God; and, having now but two or three with him, Ahimelech might well ask, Why art thou alone? He that was suddenly advanced from the solitude of a shepherd's life to the crowd and hurries of the camp is now as soon reduced to the desolate condition of an exile and is alone like a sparrow on the housetop, such charges are there in this world and so uncertain are its smiles! Those that are courted today may be deserted tomorrow. III. David, under pretence of being sent by Saul upon public services, solicits Ahimelech to supply his present wants, Sa1 21:2, Sa1 21:3. 1. Here David did not behave like himself. He told Ahimelech a gross untruth, that Saul had ordered him business to despatch, that his attendants were dismissed to such a place, and that he was charged to observe secresy and therefore durst not communicate it, no, not to the priest himself. This was all false. What shall we say to this? The scripture does not conceal it, and we dare not justify it. It was ill done, and proved of bad consequence; for it occasioned the death of the priests of the Lord, as David reflected upon it afterwards with regret, Sa1 22:22. It was needless for him thus to dissemble with the priest, for we may suppose that, if he had told him the truth, he would have sheltered and relieved him as readily as Samuel did, and would have known the better how to advise him and enquire of God for him. People should be free with their faithful ministers. David was a man of great faith and courage, and yet now both failed him, and he fell thus foully through fear and cowardice, and both owing to the weakness of his faith. Had he trusted God aright, he would not have used such a sorry sinful shift as this for his own preservation. It is written, not for our imitation, no, not in the greatest straits, but for our admonition. Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall; and let us all pray daily, Lord, lead us not into temptation. Let us all take occasion from this to lament, (1.) The weakness and infirmity of good men; the best are not perfect on this side heaven. There may be true grace where yet there are many failings. (2.) The wickedness of bad times, which forces good men into such straits as prove temptations too strong for them. Oppression makes a wise man do foolishly. 2. Two things David begged of Ahimelech, bread and a sword. (1.) He wanted bread: five loaves, Sa1 21:3. Travelling was then troublesome, when men generally carried their provisions with them in kind, having little money and no public houses, else David would not now have had to seek for bread. It seems David had known the seed of the righteous begging bread occasionally, but not constantly, Psa 37:25. Now, [1.] The priest objected that he had none but hallowed bread, show-bread, which had stood a week on the golden table in the sanctuary, and was taken thence for the use of the priests and their families, Sa1 21:4. It seems the priest kept no good house, but wanted either a heart to be hospitable or provisions wherewithal to be so. Ahimelech thinks that the young men that attended David might not eat of this bread unless they had for some time abstained from women, even from their own wives; this was required at the giving of the law (Exo 19:15), but otherwise we never find this made the matter of any ceremonial purity on the one side or pollution on the other, and therefore the priest here seems to be over-nice, not to say superstitious. [2.] David pleads that he and those that were with him, in this case of necessity, might lawfully eat of the hallowed bread, for they were not only able to answer his terms of keeping from women for three days past, but the vessels (that is, the bodies) of the young men were holy, being possessed in sanctification and honour at all times (Th1 4:4, Th1 4:5), and therefore God would take particular care of them, that they wanted not necessary supports, and would have his priest to do so. Being thus holy, holy things were not forbidden them. Poor and pious Israelites were in effect priests to God, and, rather than be starved, might feed on the bread which was appropriated to the priests. Believers are spiritual priests, and the offerings of the Lord shall be their inheritance; they eat the bread of their God. He pleads that the bread is in a manner common, now that what was primarily the religious use of it is over; especially (as our margin reads it) where there is other bread (hot, Sa1 21:6) sanctified that day in the vessel, and put in the room of it upon the table. This was David's plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done. He brings it to justify his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, for which the Pharisees censured them, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4. [3.] Ahimelech hereupon supplies him: He gave him hallowed bread (Sa1 21:6), and some think it was about this that he enquired of the Lord, Sa1 22:10. As a faithful servant he would not dispose of his master's provisions without his master's leave. This bread, we may suppose, was the more agreeable to David for its being hallowed, so precious were all sacred things to him. The show-bread was but twelve loaves in all, yet out of these he gave David five (Sa1 21:3), though they had no more in the house; but he trusted Providence. (2.) He wanted a sword. Persons of quality, though officers of the army, did not then wear their swords so constantly as now they do, else surely David would not have been without one. It was a wonder that Jonathan did not furnish him with his, as he had before done, Sa1 18:4. However, it happened that he had now no weapons with him, the reason of which he pretends to be because he came away in haste, Sa1 21:8. Those that are furnished with the sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith cannot be disarmed of them, nor need they, at any time, to be at a loss. But the priests, it seems, had no swords: the weapons of their warfare were not carnal. There was not a sword to be found about the tabernacle but the sword of Goliath, which was laid up behind the ephod, as a monument of the glorious victory David obtained over him. Probably David had an eye to that when he asked the priest to help him with a sword; for, that being mentioned, O! says he, there is none like that, give it to me, Sa1 21:9. He could not use Saul's armour, for he had not proved it; but this sword of Goliath he had made trial of and done execution with. By this it appears that he was now well grown in strength and stature, that he could wear and wield such a sword as that. God had taught his hands to war, so that he could do wonders, Psa 18:34. Two things we may observe concerning this sword: - [1.] That God had graciously given it to him, as a pledge of his singular favour; so that whenever he drew it, nay, whenever he looked upon it, it would be a great support to his faith, by bringing to mind that great instance of the particular care and countenance of the divine providence respecting him. [2.] That he had gratefully given it back to God, dedicating it to him and to his honour as a token of his thankfulness; and now in his distress it stood him greatly in stead. Note, What we devote to God's praise, and serve him with, is most likely to redound, one way or other, to our own comfort and benefit. What we gave we have. Thus was David well furnished with arms and victuals; but it fell out very unhappily that there was one of Saul's servants then attending before the Lord, Doeg by name, that proved a base traitor both to David and Ahimelech. He was by birth an Edomite (Sa1 21:7), and though proselyted to the Jewish religion, to get the preferment he now had under Saul, yet he retained the ancient and hereditary enmity of Edom to Israel. He was master of the herds, which perhaps was then a place of as much honour as master of the horse is now. Some occasion or other he had at this time to wait on the priest, either to be purified from some pollution or to pay some vow; but, whatever his business was, it is said, he was detained before the Lord. He must attend and could not help it, but he was sick of the service, snuffed at it, and said, What a weariness is it! Mal 1:13. He would rather have been any where else than before the Lord, and therefore, instead of minding the business he came about, was plotting to do David a mischief and to be revenged on Ahimelech for detaining him. God's sanctuary could never secure such wolves in sheep's clothing. See Gal 2:4.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
21:1 Nob was just north of Jerusalem, in the southern part of the territory of Benjamin. • Ahimelech the priest was a descendant of the condemned family of Eli (14:3; 22:9). • The elders of Bethlehem had also trembled when Samuel unexpectedly came to their city to anoint David as Saul’s replacement (16:4). On both occasions, a prominent individual who had strained relations with Saul showed up unannounced. Both Ahimelech and the Bethlehem elders were concerned about being suspected of supporting an enemy of the king, which could result in death. In this case, what was feared came about (see 22:9-19).