Bible Commentaries

David's Flight to Nob, and Thence to Gath - 1 Samuel 21:1-15

After the information which David had received from Jonathan, nothingremained for him in order to save his life but immediate flight. He couldnot return to the prophets at Ramah, where he had been miraculouslypreserved from the first outbreak of Saul's wrath, because they could notensure him permanent protection against the death with which he wasthreatened. He therefore fled first of all to Nob, to Ahimelech the highpriest, to inquire the will of God through him concerning his future course(1 Samuel 22:10, 1 Samuel 22:15), and induced him to give him bread and the sword ofGoliath, also, under the pretext of having to perform a secret commissionfrom the king with the greatest speed; for which Saul afterwards tookfearful vengeance upon the priests at Nob when he was made acquaintedwith the affair through the treachery of Doeg (1 Samuel 21:1-9). David then fled toGath to the Philistian king Achish; but here he was quickly recognised asthe conqueror of Goliath, and obliged to feign insanity in order to save hislife, and then to flee still farther (1 Samuel 21:10-15). The state of his mind at thistime he poured out before God in the words of Psalm 56:1-13; Psalm 52:1-9, and 34.

1 Samuel 21:1-2

David at Nob. - The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed theform נבה stands for נבה here and in 1 Samuel 22:9, and the ה attached is merely ה local, as the name is always written נב inother places: vid., 1 Samuel 22:11, 1 Samuel 22:19; 1 Samuel 21:1; Isaiah 10:32; Nehemiah 11:32)was at that time a priests' city (1 Samuel 22:19), in which, according to thefollowing account, the tabernacle was then standing, and the legal worshipcarried on. According to Isaiah 10:30, Isaiah 10:32, it was between Anathoth (Anata)and Jerusalem, and in all probability it has been preserved in the village ofel-Isawiyeh, i.e., probably the village of Esau or Edom, which is midwaybetween Anata and Jerusalem, an hour from the latter, and the samedistance to the south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tell el Phul), and which bearsall the marks of an ancient place, partly in its dwellings, the stones ofwhich date from a great antiquity, and partly in many marble columnswhich 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 hehas appended to Robinson's Biblical Researches, and set down this placeas 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 asAhiah (1 Samuel 14:3), was “the priest,” i.e., the high priest (see at 1 Samuel 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 oneis with thee?” The unexpected appearance of David, the son-in-law of theking, without any attendants, alarmed Ahimelech, who probably imaginedthat he had come with a commission from the king which might involvehim in danger. David had left the few servants who accompanied him in hisflight somewhere in the neighbourhood, as we may gather from 1 Samuel 21:2,because he wished to converse with the high priest alone. Ahimelech's anxious inquiry led David to resort to the fabricationdescribed in 1 Samuel 21:2: “The king hath commanded me a business, and said tome, No one is to know anything of this matter, in which (lit. in relation tothe matter with regard to which) I send thee, and which I have entrusted tothee (i.e., no one is to know either the occasion or the nature of thecommission): and the servants I have directed to such and such a place.”יודע, Poel, to cause to know, point, show. Ahimelech had received noinformation as yet concerning the most recent occurrences between Sauland David; and David would not confess to him that he was fleeing fromSaul, because he was evidently afraid that the high priest would not givehim any assistance, lest he should draw down the wrath of the king. Thisfalsehood brought he greatest calamities upon Ahimelech and the priests atNob (1 Samuel 22:9-19), and David was afterwards obliged to confess that hehad occasioned it all (1 Samuel 22:22).

1 Samuel 21:3

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

1 Samuel 21:4

The priest answered that he had no common bread, but only holybread, viz., according to 1 Samuel 21:6, shew-bread that had been removed, whichnone but priests were allowed to eat, and that in a sacred place; but that hewas willing to give him some of these loaves, as David had said that hewas travelling upon an important mission from the king, provided onlythat “the young men had kept themselves at least from women,” i.e., hadnot been defiled by sexual intercourse (Leviticus 15:18). If they were clean atany rate in this respect, he would in such a case of necessity depart fromthe Levitical law concerning the eating of the shew-bread, for the sake ofobserving the higher commandment of love to a neighbour (Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 12:5-6; Mark 2:25-26).

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

1 Samuel 21:5

David quieted him concerning this scruple, and said, “Nay, butwomen have been kept from us since yesterday and the day before.” Theuse of אם כּי may be explained from the fact, that inDavid's reply he paid more attention to the sense than to the form of thepriest's scruple, and expressed himself as concisely as possible. Thewords, “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 thatאם כּי has the meaning but in this passage also, as itfrequently has after a previous negative, which is implied in the thoughthere as in 2 Samuel 13:33. “When I came out, the young men's things wereholy (Levitically clean); and if it is an unholy way, it becomes even holythrough the instrument.” David does not say that the young men wereclean when he came out (for the rendering given to הנּערים כּלי in the Septuagint, πάντα τὰ παιδάρια , iswithout any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain theword כּלי, which was unintelligible to the translator), but simplyaffirms that קדשׁ הנּערים כּלי, i.e., accordingto Luther's rendering (der Knaben Zeug war heilig), the youngmen's things(clothes, etc.) were holy. כּלים does not mean merely vessels,arms, or tools, but also the dress (Deuteronomy 22:5), or rather the clothes as wellas such things as were most necessary to meet the wants of life. By the coitus, or strictly speaking, by the emissio seminis in connectionwith the coitus, not only were the persons themselves defiled, but alsoevery article of clothing or leather upon which any of the semen fell (Leviticus 15:18); so that it was necessary for the purpose of purification that thethings which a man had on should all be washed. David explains, withevident 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 wasnot the smallest Levitical uncleanness attaching to them. The clause whichfollows 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 goingwith his young men, i.e., his purpose of enterprise, by which, however,we are not to understand his request of holy bread from Ahimelech, butthe performance of the king's commission of which he had spoken. כּי ואף, lit. besides (there is) also that, = moreover there isalso the fact, that it becomes holy through the instrument; i.e., as O. v. Gerlach has correctly explained it, “on the supposition of the importantroyal mission, upon which David pretended to be sent, through me as anambassador of the anointed of the Lord,” in which, at any rate, David'smeaning really was, “the way was sanctified before God, when he, as Hischosen servant, the preserver of the true kingdom of God in Israel, went tohim in his extremity.” That פּלי in the sense of instrument is alsoapplied to men, is evident from Isaiah 13:5 and Jeremiah 50:25.

1 Samuel 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., Leviticus 24:6-9). - In 1 Samuel 21:7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of greatimportance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. There at thesanctuary there was a man of Saul's servants, נעצר, i.e., “keptback (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 bereceived into the religious communion of Israel, or because of supposedleprosy, according to Leviticus 13:4. His name was Doeg the Edomite,הרעים אבּיר, “the strong one (i.e., the overseer) of theherdsmen of Saul.”

(Note: The Septuagint translators have rendered these words νέμων τὰς ἡμιόνους , “feeding the mules of Saul;” and accordingly in 1 Samuel 22:9 also they have changed Saul's servants into mules, inaccordance with which Thenius makes Doeg the upper herdsman ofSaul. But it is very evident that the text of the lxx is nothing morethan a subjective interpretation of the expression before us, and doesnot presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the otherancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in 1 Samuel 22:9, including even the Vulgate (potentissimus pastorum); andthe 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 theItala; and this is still more obvious in 1 Samuel 22:9, where נצּב והוּא is applicable enough to עבדי, but isaltogether unsuitable in connection with פרדי, since נצּב is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, thanwe should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules beingused as riding animals by royal princes (2 Samuel 13:29; 2 Samuel 18:9); and theyare mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses,camels, and oxen, in 1 Chronicles 12:40, where they are said to have beenemployed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to thefestival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David's timethe sons of princes rode upon asses (vid., Judges 10:4; Judges 12:14).)

1 Samuel 21:8

David also asked Ahimelech whether he had not a sword or ajavelin 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., veryurgent, נחוּץ, ἁπ. λεγ. , literally, compressed.

1 Samuel 21:9

The priest replied, that there was only the sword of Goliath,whom David slew in the terebinth valley (1 Samuel 17:2), wrapped up in acloth hanging behind the ephod (the high priest's shoulder-dress), - a sign ofthe 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, buthad cut off the head of Goliath with it (see 1 Samuel 17:51). When and howthis sword had come into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on1 Samuel 17:54). The form בּזּה for בּזה is only met withhere. On the Piska, see at Joshua 4:1.

David with Achish at Gath. - David fled from Nob to Achish of Gath. ThisPhilistian king is called Abimelech in the heading of Ps 34, according to thestanding title of the Philistian princes at Gath. The fact that David fled atonce out of the land, and that to the Philistines at Gath, may be accountedfor from the great agitation into which he had been thrown by theinformation he had received from Jonathan concerning Saul's implacablehatred. As some years had passed since the defeat of Goliath, and theconqueror of Goliath was probably not personally known to many of thePhilistines, he might hope that he should not be recognised in Gath, andthat he might receive a welcome there with his few attendants, as a fugitivewho had been driven away by Saul, the leading foe of the Philistines.

(Note: This removes the objection raised by modern critics to thehistorical credibility of the narrative before us, namely, that Davidwould certainly not have taken refuge at once with the Philistines, butwould only have gone to them in the utmost extremity (Thenius). Itis impossible to see how the words “he fled that day for fear of Saul”(1 Samuel 21:11) are to prove that this section originally stood in a differentconnection, and are only arbitrarily inserted here (Thenius). Unlesswe tear away the words in the most arbitrary manner from theforegoing word ויּברח, they not only appear quite suitable,but even necessary, since David's journey to Abimelech was not aflight, or at all events it is not described as a flight in the text; andDavid's flight from Saul really began with his departure from Nob. Stillless can the legendary origin of this account be inferred from the factthat some years afterwards David really did take refuge with Achish inthe Philistian country (1 Samuel 27:1-12 and 1 Samuel 29:1-11), or the conjecture sustainedthat this is only a distorted legend of that occurrence. For if the latersojourn of David with Achish be a historical fact, that popular legendcould not possibly have assumed a form so utterly different as theaccount before us, to say nothing of the fact that this occurrence hasa firm historical support in Psalm 34:1.)

But in this he was mistaken. He was recognised at once by the courtiers ofAchish. They said to their prince, “Is not this David the king of the land?Have they not sung in circles, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David histen thousands?” (cf. 1 Samuel 18:6-7). “King of the land” they call David, notbecause his anointing and divine election were known to them, but onaccount of his victorious deeds, which had thrown Saul entirely into theshade. Whether they intended by these words to celebrate David as a hero,or to point him out to their prince as a dangerous man, cannot be gatheredfrom the words themselves, nor can the question be decided with certaintyat all (cf. 1 Samuel 29:5).

But David took these words to heart, and was in great fear of Achish, lesthe should treat him as an enemy, and kill him. In order to escape thisdanger, “he disguised his understanding (i.e., pretended to be out of hismind) in their eyes (i.e., before the courtiers of Achish), behaved insanelyunder their hands (when they tried to hold him as a madman), scribbledupon the door-wings, and let his spittle run down into his beard.” Thesuffix to וישׁנּו is apparently superfluous, as the object, את־טעמו, follows immediately afterwards. But it may be accounted forfrom the circumstantiality of the conversation of every-day life, as in 2 Samuel 14:6, and (though these cases are not perfectly parallel) Exodus 2:6; Proverbs 5:22; Ezekiel 10:3 (cf. Gesenius' Gramm. §121, 6, Anm. 3). ויתו,from תּוה, to make signs, i.e., to scribble. The lxx and Vulgaterender it ἐτυμπανίζειν , impingebat, he drummed, smote with his fistsupon the wings of the door, which would make it appear as if they hadread ויּתף (from תּפף), which seems more suitable to thecondition of a madman whose saliva ran out of his mouth.

By this dissimulation David escaped the danger which threatened him; forAchish thought him mad, and would have nothing to do with him. “Wherefore do ye bring him to me? Have I need of madmen, that ye havebrought this man hither to rave against me? Shall this man come into myhouse?” Thus Achish refused to receive him into his house. But whetherhe had David taken over the border, or at any rate out of the town; orwhether David went away of his own accord; or whether he was takenaway by his servants, and then hurried as quickly as possible out of theland of the Philistines, is not expressly mentioned, as being of noimportance in relation to the principal object of the narrative. All that isstated is, that he departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam.