TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on 1 Samuel 21 verses 1–9
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.
No wonder that these dispensations were uprightly made use of in the Old Testament and that holy men sometimes lied in praiseworthy or at least in pardonable fashion, since we see that far greater things were permitted them because it was a time of beginnings. For what is there to wonder at that when the blessed David was fleeing Saul and Ahimelech the priest asked him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?” he replied and said, “The king gave me a commission and said, Let no one know the reason why you were sent, for I have also appointed my servants to such and such a place”? And again: “Do you have a spear or a sword at hand? For I did not bring my sword and my weapons with me because the king’s business was urgent”? Or what happened when he was brought to Achish, the king of Gath, and made believe that he was insane and raging, and “changed his countenance before them, and fell down between their hands, and dashed himself against the door of the gate, and his spittle ran down his beard”? For, after all, they lawfully enjoyed flocks of wives and concubines, and no sin was imputed to them on this account. Besides that, they also frequently spilled their enemies’ blood with their own hands, and this was held not only to be irreprehensible but even praiseworthy.We see that, in the light of the gospel, these things have been utterly forbidden, such that none of them can be committed without very serious sin and sacrilege. Likewise we believe that no lie, in however pious a form, can be made use of by anyone in a pardonable way, to say nothing of praiseworthily, according to the words of the Lord: “Let your speech be yes, yes, no, no. Whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” The apostle also agrees with this: “Do not lie to one another.”
And David said to Achimelech the priest: "The king has commanded me a certain matter," etc. The Lord said to the apostles, the heirs of the everlasting kingdom and priesthood: "The people of persecutors and unbelievers commanded me, as much as possible, not to call them to faith by teaching. And he said, as it were, in my ears: Let no one know the reason for the envy and plots for which, having left me, you were sent to bring salvation to the nations, and what kind of deceitful commands overflowing with wicked hatred I strove to remove you from my borders." Similar to what the Psalmist said: "They have plotted to hide snares: they said, 'Who will see them?' (Psalm 63)?" When he saw, who even searched the kidneys and hearts of the plotters, God (Jer. 17). For he said, "I have separated the peoples of the nations who would believe and obey me in various parts of the world; to whom, I beseech you, if you have anything at hand of perfect work, use it as an example for conversion, or the food of the sacred law, which shines forth in the five books written by Moses, or whatever you can find from yourselves, diligently offer it for their salvation." Some boast either of the impunity of their lie or of the denigration of Scripture, claiming that David did not hesitate to seek his and his followers' salvation by lying. They should be answered that David himself elsewhere and many of the saints often offended God by sinning, indeed no living being is justified before Him, as the great apostle said, who deserved to recline in the bosom of his Creator and Lord due to his exceptional love: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1). However, the words of Holy Scripture were not given to us so that we might learn to sin by the examples of good people; but their sins were included in the sacred Scriptures so that we might be taught not to presume upon our own righteousness from their faults, but to trust in obtaining pardon for our own sins by their penance. Nevertheless, I believe it can be easily defended in this passage that the blessed David did not lie, but, given the necessity, concealed the truth in more cautious words. For he did not say the king was his friend, nor denied fleeing the king’s plots; but he said, "The king has commanded me a certain matter, and said: Let no one know the matter about which you are being sent by me." To this statement, such a sense can be applied without the stain of falsehood: "Therefore, I come alone and deserted by the company of others, because the king gave me such a command to flee quickly, which none of the enemies should know lest they betray my presence here." But if anyone desires to know about the necessity of lies or the constancy of a just man possibly requiring such a necessity, let him read the book of Saint Augustine on the eight kinds of lies, wonderfully and healthily moderated; and also the conferences of the Fathers, where Joseph, a distinguished figure amongst the Fathers, disputed excellently about not defining anything, also fully addressing this minor question. I have proposed only that this is enough to say briefly for the present. While truth should always be preferred to a lie without any doubt, sometimes, due to the circumstances, a lie might be usefully resorted to for a time, and the truth healthily hidden. Finally, did not Rahab the harlot, justified by works, receive the messengers and send them out another way? But she could not fulfill the merit of justification without temporarily assuming the aid of a lie. And Doeg the Edomite, whose present reading includes spying, and the following reading shows betrayal, deserved to be destroyed in the type of Judas Iscariot, to be plucked up, rooted out, and eradicated from the land of the living due to his evident knowledge of the truth.
Continue studying 1 Samuel 21:2 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
1 Samuel 21:2 captures a critical juncture in David's life, depicting his desperate and calculated deception of Ahimelech the high priest at Nob. Fleeing King Saul's relentless pursuit, David, alone and without sustenance, fabricates an elaborate narrative of a secret, urgent royal mission from the king. He emphasizes the absolute need for discretion and claims to have dispatched his non-existent servants to a pre-arranged location, thereby justifying his solitary arrival and immediate need for provisions. This pivotal lie, born out of extreme duress and a profound will to survive, tragically sets in motion a devastating chain of events that will ultimately lead to the massacre of the innocent priestly community of Nob.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The passage employs several potent literary devices that deepen its impact and meaning. Irony is profoundly evident, as David, the divinely anointed successor to Saul, must ironically invoke Saul's name and authority to survive his relentless persecution by that very king. The "secret business" David describes is indeed secret, but its true nature is diametrically opposed to what he claims, starkly highlighting the extreme precariousness and moral ambiguity of his situation. There is also strong Foreshadowing embedded within this deception. While seemingly a minor act of self-preservation, David's lie unwittingly sets in motion a tragic sequence of events that will culminate in the brutal massacre of the priests of Nob by Saul's command, a devastating consequence David later deeply regrets. This foreshadows the heavy, often unintended, and far-reaching costs of actions taken under duress. Furthermore, the narrative skillfully builds Dramatic Tension through David's desperate plea and calculated deception, as the reader is acutely aware of the true danger David faces and the impending peril for Ahimelech, creating a palpable sense of unease and anticipation.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This incident at Nob presents a complex theological and ethical challenge, revealing the inherent tension between human expediency and unwavering divine faithfulness. David, despite being described as a "man after God's own heart," resorts to calculated deception out of profound fear and a desperate need for survival. While the biblical narrative does not explicitly condemn David's lie, it unflinchingly portrays its devastating consequences, underscoring that even the most righteous individuals can falter under extreme pressure, and that actions, even those born of perceived necessity, can have unforeseen and tragic outcomes. The account serves as a poignant reminder that reliance on human cunning or self-preservation, rather than unwavering trust in God's sovereign provision and protection, can lead to moral compromise and profound suffering. Yet, even amidst David's imperfection and moral failing, God's overarching plan for him remains inviolable, demonstrating divine sovereignty that works through and sometimes despite human failings, always moving toward His ultimate purpose.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
David's desperate act of deception at Nob offers a stark and profoundly relatable portrayal of human vulnerability and the moral ambiguities that can arise when individuals are pushed to their absolute limits under extreme duress. While we are certainly not called to emulate David's lie, the passage compels us to reflect deeply on the immense pressure he faced and the extraordinary lengths to which individuals might go for survival. It challenges us to honestly consider our own potential responses when fear, perceived necessity, or overwhelming circumstances tempt us to compromise our integrity or deviate from truthfulness. The tragic outcome for the innocent priests of Nob serves as a sobering and powerful reminder that our actions, even those intended to protect ourselves or others, can have far-reaching, unintended, and devastating consequences, profoundly impacting those around us. This narrative encourages us to cultivate a deeper, more profound trust in God's unfailing provision and sovereign protection, even when circumstances appear dire or insurmountable, rather than relying on our own cunning or resorting to dishonest means. It calls us to diligently seek wisdom and unwavering integrity in all our decisions, striving to honor God in every choice, knowing that true security, lasting peace, and ultimate deliverance comes from Him alone.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did David lie to Ahimelech?
Answer: David lied to Ahimelech out of extreme duress and a desperate need for survival. He was a fugitive fleeing for his life from King Saul, who was actively seeking to kill him. David was alone, unarmed, and without provisions. He fabricated the story of a secret, urgent royal mission from King Saul to secure essential food (specifically, the consecrated showbread) and a weapon (Goliath's sword) from the priest. His deception also served to protect Ahimelech, as harboring a known enemy of the king would have been an act of treason, punishable by death. David's lie was a strategic and calculated maneuver to obtain immediate aid without revealing his true, perilous circumstances.
What was the "business" David referred to?
Answer: The "business" David referred to was a complete and utter fabrication. He claimed it was a secret, urgent mission directly from King Saul, emphasizing that "Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee." This elaborate ruse was meticulously designed to explain his solitary presence, justify his urgent needs, and prevent Ahimelech from asking probing questions or consulting with others. It was a clever and desperate tactic to lend legitimacy and gravity to his request for aid, implying a high-stakes royal affair that demanded immediate and unquestioning assistance from the high priest.
What were the consequences of David's deception?
Answer: The consequences of David's deception were tragic and far-reaching, leading to an horrific outcome. Doeg the Edomite, Saul's chief herdsman, was present at Nob and witnessed the exchange between David and Ahimelech. He later reported David's visit to King Saul, which ignited Saul's furious wrath. This led to Saul's brutal command to massacre the entire priestly community of Nob. As a result, eighty-five priests were slaughtered, and the city itself was put to the sword, as chillingly recorded in 1 Samuel 22:18-19. David himself later expressed profound remorse and acknowledged his culpability for this immense tragedy, stating in 1 Samuel 22:22 that he was responsible for the deaths of Ahimelech's household.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
While David's actions at Nob reveal the profound depths of human frailty and the moral compromises made under duress, the narrative ultimately points to a greater King who perfectly fulfills God's will without ever resorting to deception or moral compromise. David, though divinely anointed and a type of Christ, was a flawed human king, experiencing intense persecution and a period of desperate flight before ultimately ascending to his throne. In stark contrast, Jesus, the true Son of David, faced immeasurably greater opposition, temptation, and suffering, yet remained perfectly righteous, truthful, and obedient to His Father's will, never needing to fabricate a mission or conceal His divine identity. He is the ultimate "bread of life" (John 6:35), providing spiritual nourishment that truly sustains and gives eternal life, unlike the temporary showbread David received. The innocent priests of Nob, who tragically suffered and died as a direct consequence of David's desperate lie, powerfully foreshadow the ultimate innocent sacrifice of Christ, who, though perfectly sinless, willingly bore the full weight of humanity's sin and its devastating consequences on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). David's period of flight, vulnerability, and eventual exaltation as king mirrors Christ's own path of suffering, humiliation, death, and glorious resurrection, which culminated in His triumphant ascension and eternal reign at the right hand of God (Philippians 2:6-11). This incident, therefore, profoundly highlights humanity's desperate need for a perfect deliverer, one who does not falter or compromise under pressure but perfectly fulfills God's redemptive plan, offering true peace, righteousness, and eternal salvation through His unwavering faithfulness.