Chapter 21

David at Nob obtaineth of Ahimelech hallowed bread. 7 Doeg was present. 8 David taketh Goliath’s sword. 10 David at Gath feigneth himself mad.

1. Nob. This is the first reference in the Scriptures to this site. It is mentioned only six times in the entire OT, four of these occurring in chs. 21 and 22. In none of these is any definite relationship to other well-known sites given. However, in Neh. 11:32, Nob is mentioned immediately after Anathoth, a town about 2 1/2 mi. northeast of the Temple area in Jerusalem. In Isaiah’s vision of the Assyrian host approaching Jerusalem from the north, Nob is mentioned as being between Anathoth and Jerusalem (Isa. 10:30–32). But in that vision two other towns are mentioned between Anathoth and Nob. The Assyrian is seen to shake his hand against Mt. Zion when he reaches Nob. The main road to Shechem passes from Jerusalem north over Mt. Scopus, whence the last view of the city is to be had. To the right of this road near the top of Mt. Scopus is a plateau that some think could well be the site of Nob. This position would be not quite halfway from Jerusalem to Anathoth. Others think that Nob was on the Mt. of Olives. It was to Nob that the tabernacle had been removed from Shiloh after the ark had been taken by the Philistines. As yet the ark was still in the house of Abinadab in Kirjath-jearim. David later removed the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2, 3). Because the ark was not in the tabernacle at this time, the services were probably conducted in much the same way as in Christ’s day when the most holy place of the Temple was empty.

Ahimelech. See on 2 Sam. 8:17.

The priest. Evidently the high priest, in charge of the sanctuary. The presence of the shewbread (see v. 6) shows that the tabernacle was now at Nob (see PP 656).

Was afraid. Literally, “trembled.” Anxiety and fear were on David’s face. Ahimelech knew that something was radically wrong. David’s whole attitude was so different from what it had been previously that Ahimelech was perplexed to know what move to make.

2. The king hath commanded. There is no question about the fact that David gave Ahimelech a complete misrepresentation of the facts. David was in a place of great danger. He had been so overwhelmed by the turn of recent events that it was difficult for him to view present tests in the light of manifest evidences of God’s call and protective watchcare. If he fled to Samuel, he might endanger the life of that venerable man. If he returned to his own home in Gibeah, his presence might incur the death of his wife. In the sincerity of his soul he longed to inquire of the Lord, and the only place he could think of was the tabernacle at Nob. Inasmuch as Saul had required the priest to be in attendance upon him in war, it is probable that David, as captain over a thousand (ch. 18:13), had previously stopped at Nob for help before proceeding on his various forays.

His problem now was to make inquiry without giving Ahimelech any real knowledge of the situation. That the priest did inquire for him seems evident from Doeg’s tale to Saul (ch. 22:10), and Ahimelech’s implied admission of utter ignorance of any trouble between Saul and his son-in-law (ch. 22:14, 15). David found the situation at Nob greatly complicated by Doeg’s presence. It seemed as if everything was against him. He needed help, and in the moment of temptation it appeared that the only way to get assistance and at the same time protect the priest was to speak in such a way as to keep Ahimelech from knowing his reason for coming. In this resort to deception David did wrong (see PP 656).

The fact that the Bible here does not condemn David’s duplicity must not be taken as a justification of the act. The Scriptures require strict truthfulness.

From the standpoint of the standards of the day David’s dissimulation would be regarded as reasonably defensible. It is said that among the peoples of the Near East it was—and still is to a great extent—believed that it was not a crime to tell a lie to save a life. The Gibeonites resorted to such stratagem, and yet their lives were spared (Joshua 9:3–18). But though God accepted men tainted with the customs of the day, He was trying to lead them on to a higher standard. He did not reject them or forsake them for the occasional or perhaps habitual practice of the customs of the time. It was God’s plan eventually to bring about reform in all these matters.

Although David could not plead ignorance for his act, God did not forsake him. Perhaps it would have been better for him to have gone to Samuel, who was acquainted with the whole matter. God had a thousand ways out of the difficulty. If David had told Ahimelech the truth, the priest would have been forewarned and could have escaped the murderous hand of the king (see PP 656).

I have appointed. Grammatically this sentence could be interpreted as either the words of Saul or those of David. Perhaps David had stationed his men near the eastern road running from Gibeah to Bethlehem to watch for the officers of Saul on their way to Bethlehem to apprehend him. A knowledge of the movements of these emissaries of Saul would be of great value to David.

4. Hallowed bread. The 12 cakes of shewbread were replaced every Sabbath by a new baking. According to the Levitical regulations the old bread was to be eaten only by the priests and only in the holy place (Lev. 24:5–9).

David’s Wanderings When Fleeing From Saul—1

David’s Wanderings When Fleeing From Saul—2

From women. As far as our information goes there was nothing in the Mosaic regulations forbidding the eating of the bread by those who were ceremonially clean. Some have observed that it was the custom in ancient nations even for heathen priests to keep themselves from women before performing their official duties, and it is quite likely that the Levites observed this custom also. According to Mosaic law, such intercourse rendered a person ceremonially unclean till evening (Lev. 15:16–18; see also Ex. 19:15). Probably because of the urgency of the king’s business, and because David was the son-in-law and apparently the agent of the king, Ahimelech winked at the letter of the law on the basis that David and his men were ceremonially pure.

The shewbread, literally “bread of the Presence,” typified Christ, the living Bread (John 6:28–51). All of man’s food, both spiritual and temporal, is received only through the mediation of Christ. Both the manna and the shewbread witnessed the fact that “man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live” (Deut. 8:3). From the viewpoint of physical food, five loaves meant little to David and his men. But if Ahimelech “enquired of the Lord,” as well as supplying “victuals,” as Doeg testified (1 Sam. 22:10), the visit to the priest was of added value. Perhaps, too, if David thought of the significance of the bread he had secured, it helped him to realize anew the truth that God’s presence would go with him wherever he went. David would need such assurance in the trying years ahead.

6. Hot bread. Some point to this as evidence that David visited the tabernacle on the Sabbath day, but the record merely states that the bread had been taken out when hot bread replaced it.

7. Doeg, an Edomite. Probably one of the hostages or slaves brought back from Saul’s war against Edom (ch. 14:47).

Detained. Doeg had embraced the Hebrew religion and was at the tabernacle paying his vows (PP 656). The circumstances of these vows are not known. Evidently he had committed some trespass which merited the rebuke of Ahimelech, for this action of the priest was one of the primary reasons why Doeg later turned informer against Ahimelech (PP 659).

8. Spear or sword. Seeing Doeg, David realized that he had left Gibeah so hastily that he had not had time to gather any weapons to protect himself in case of attack. As an outlaw he would be at the mercy of anyone who found him.

9. Sword of Goliath. All Goliath’s armor had become David’s own personal property. It is probable that previously he had himself presented the sword to the tabernacle as a thank offering to God. David was well aware that the tabernacle was not an armory, but probably thinking of the possibility of the sword’s still being there, he asked in an offhand manner whether the priest had any weapons he could borrow.

None like that. By the position of the sword in the tabernacle and by the way in which it was wrapped, one would know that it was kept as a memorial of a great victory providentially given to Israel. David appeared happy over the thought of securing this sword, perhaps not so much for its military value as for the constant reminder it would be of the protective guidance of the Lord. He needed such encouragement at this moment.

10. Achish. Achish is called Abimelech in the title of Ps. 34, Achish being a Philistine name, and Abimelech, Semitic. This psalm was written by David when he feigned madness before the men of Philistia. As an outlaw David could not find help in Israel. It was quite a common occurrence for the outlaws of a nation to be given shelter by the enemies of that nation. Gath was not far away, perhaps less than 30 mi. from Nob. Saul would hardly think of looking for him there. David was well acquainted with the country where he had obtained the dowry for his wife Michal. If he should confide in Achish, he was sure Saul would not be permitted to take him.

History reveals many instances in which God’s children have been persecuted by their own people and greatly helped by those who were considered enemies. Zedekiah, for instance, imprisoned Jeremiah for his prophecy (Jer. 32:3), but the Babylonian conquerors showed him mercy (Jer. 40:1–6). David’s experiences exhibited strange contrasts and paradoxes. Why did God permit him to become an exile? What training was there in God’s allowing him one day to be son-in-law to the king, and the next day to beg for bread?

11. King of the land. This conclusion was probably not because the Philistines knew of David’s anointing, but more likely because he was the one who had accepted Goliath’s challenge. This had won him the reputation among enemy and friend alike, of being the hero of the day. He had proved to be Israel’s stoutest defender.

13. Feigned himself mad. A second error for which there is no justification (see ch. 21:2). The results of this experience led David to see the necessity of placing greater dependence upon God. In his new relationship his heart was filled with thanksgiving, and in his praise to God he was inspired to compose the 34th psalm. Some place David’s composition of the 56th psalm during his first visit to the king of Gath. It is probably better to assign it to the time of David’s second visit, after Saul had so relentlessly pursued him that he almost despaired even of life itself (see ch. 27).

In times of great personal temptation and trial, when enemies are exalted and friends are debased, when no matter which way one moves he is deprived of the counsel and help he needs, it is well to review the narrative of David’s escape from Saul, his contact with Ahimelech and Doeg at Nob, and his flight to the enemies of Israel at Gath, and then to read his inspired song of thanksgiving (Ps. 34) thought to have been composed at that time.

Ellen G. White comments

1–15PP 656, 657