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.
When the disciples had been hungry on the sabbath and had plucked some ears [of grain] and rubbed them in their hands, they violated the holy day by so preparing their food. Yet Christ excuses them and even became their accomplice in breaking the sabbath. … For from the Creator’s Scripture and from the purpose of Christ there is derived a vivid precedent from David’s example when he went into the temple on the sabbath and provided food by boldly breaking up the show bread. Even he remembered that this privilege (the dispensation from fasting) was allowed on the sabbath from the very beginning, from when the sabbath itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, he permitted it on only one occasion—the day before the sabbath—so that the previous day’s provision of food might free them from fasting on the following sabbath. Therefore the Lord had good reason for pursuing the same principle in the “annulling” of the sabbath (since that is the word which people will use). He had good reason, too, for expressing the Creator’s will, when he bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath. In short, might he have—right then and there—put an end not only to the sabbath but to the Creator himself if he had commanded his disciples to fast on the sabbath, as this would have been contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will. But is he alien from the Creator because he did not directly defend his disciples but excuses them? Or because he interposes human need, as if deprecating censure? Or because he maintains the honor of the sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work? Or because he puts David and his companions on a level with his own disciples in their fault and their validation? Or because he is pleased to endorse the Creator’s indulgence? Or because he is himself good according to his example—is he therefore alien from the Creator?
Our Lord put forward the clear example of David, who was not accused either over this, as he was over something else. It was not permissible, he said, for David to eat [the holy bread] since he was not a priest. However, he was a priest, because he was a temple of the Spirit. Because they did not understand this, he openly proved them wrong with regard to their own [position]: “The priests were defiling the sabbath in the temple, and they were not guilty of sin.” Another element is depicted for us there. Before David was persecuted, he partook of the bread with authority.
Even if they accuse, yet Christ excuses, and he makes the souls that he wishes, that follow him, similar to David, who ate the loaves of proposition outside of the law—for even then he foresaw in his mind the prophetic mysteries of a new grace.
And David answered the priest, and said to him: Indeed, if it concerns women, etc. He answered those sending forth the apostles to teach the nations: What God has purified, do not call common (Acts X). For the Church restrained itself with my present help from idolatry and other crimes, from the time when it emerged through confession from the hiding place of ancient blindness, until it came to the light of knowing the holy Trinity, which is God; and the hearts of the humble were holy through the renunciation of Satan. Moreover, this manner of life, which is lived among the nations, is polluted, not yet purified, sanctified, and justified by those being catechized through the fountain of regeneration and the grace of the Spirit; but the very light of present reconciliation will sanctify it in those who receive baptism with a devout heart. It should truly be noted, according to the letter, how cautiously and wisely David either questioned the priest, or responded to the priest about his own and his followers' purity. For he not only inquired if the boys could receive the holy bread if they were clean from women, but also examined if they were clean from all pollution, which typically happens to mortals, especially concerning the contamination of womanly coupling, as if investigating matters greater than others. For indeed, this is the greatest of those things which, though they do not make people guilty by fault, yet deter them from the touch of the saints through the impurity of any kind, for example, the touch of a dead body, or of a reptile. But David, not without discernment, examining himself and his followers, asserts that they abstained from the embrace of a wife, carefully explaining the duration of the same abstinence. He testifies that all the utensils of the boys are holy, that is, their weapons, clothes, and even the small vessels they carried for likely provisions were clean from the contamination of any filth. And because he knew that what was consecrated to divine ministries was not to be transferred to common use without great discernment, so that he would hide nothing of his state from the priest who was a steward of these things, he says only that the road by which they had come was polluted, evidently with some funerary object lying on it, or by being unclean itself. But he also says that today it will be sanctified in the vessels; that is, I do not believe that we could be defiled by the fact that we traveled a path containing something unclean, since we carefully preserved all our utensils and bodies from the touch of the same contamination.
The vessels: i. e., the bodies, have been holy, that is, have been kept from impurity.-- Ibid.
Is defiled: Is liable to expose us to dangers of uncleanness.-- Ibid.
Be sanctified: That is, we shall take care, notwithstanding these dangerous circumstances, to keep our vessels holy, that is, to keep our bodies from every thing that may defile us.
Continue studying 1 Samuel 21:5 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 21:5 records David's intricate response to Ahimelech the priest, as he seeks the consecrated showbread for himself and his (fictional) accompanying young men while fleeing King Saul. David strategically assures the priest of their ceremonial purity, specifically their abstinence from women for three days, asserting that their "vessels"—a euphemism for their bodies—are holy. He then presents a nuanced argument that even holy bread, when consumed by those in a state of ceremonial purity and urgent necessity, can be considered permissible, or "common," for their sustenance, especially given the immediate circumstances of their sanctification. This verse encapsulates a profound tension between strict ritual law and the pressing realities of human survival.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The verse employs several impactful literary devices. Euphemism is evident in David's use of "vessels" to refer to the men's bodies, subtly addressing the sensitive topic of sexual purity without explicit or crude language. There is a profound Irony in David's predicament: he, a man fleeing for his life and resorting to deception, paradoxically appeals to strict ceremonial holiness to obtain sustenance. This highlights the desperate measures taken by God's anointed in a fallen world. Furthermore, the entire episode, particularly David's ingenious argument, serves as powerful Foreshadowing for later theological developments. Jesus Christ Himself will later reference this very event (Matthew 12:3-4) to teach about the spirit of the law overriding the letter, and the priority of mercy and human need over rigid ritualism, thereby foreshadowing the new covenant's emphasis on grace over legalism.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
1 Samuel 21:5 presents a profound theological tension between the strict requirements of Mosaic Law and the compassionate allowance for urgent human necessity. David's argument, though born out of desperation and involving deception, implicitly appeals to a higher divine principle: that God's ultimate desire is for mercy and the preservation of life, not rigid adherence to ritual when survival is at stake. This incident highlights that while God values holiness, order, and obedience, His design for the law was always to promote life, well-being, and relationship, not to become an oppressive burden. It foreshadows a crucial shift in theological understanding where the spirit of the law, particularly love, compassion, and the sanctity of life, would be elevated above the mere letter, especially in extraordinary circumstances.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
David's desperate plea for the showbread, and the priest's compassionate concession, offers a powerful and enduring lesson about the interplay of divine law, mercy, and profound human need. While God's commands are eternally valid and His holiness is unchangeable, this passage serves as a poignant reminder that divine principles are not meant to be rigid legalisms that ignore compassion or threaten life itself. Instead, they are designed to guide us into righteous living and loving service, always with mercy as a guiding light. For believers today, this incident challenges us to discern the profound spirit behind God's commands, to prioritize love and compassion in our interactions, and to understand that genuine holiness is not merely outward ritualistic adherence but an inward state of heart that earnestly seeks to honor God and serve others, even when it requires unconventional or difficult choices. It compels us to honestly consider whether our strict adherence to rules or traditions sometimes blinds us to the greater needs of those around us, and to remember that God's heart is always for the holistic well-being of His people.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Was David justified in lying to Ahimelech?
Answer: David's actions in 1 Samuel 21:1-9 are morally complex and have been widely debated. While his lie to Ahimelech was undeniably born out of extreme desperation and a profound fear for his life, Scripture does not explicitly commend or condemn his deception. The narrative simply records it as a factual account of his survival strategy. The Bible often presents its characters with their full range of flaws and strengths, allowing the reader to observe the consequences of their choices without explicit moral commentary from the narrator. While David's lie enabled him to escape and survive Saul's relentless pursuit, it also indirectly led to the tragic and brutal massacre of the priests of Nob by Doeg the Edomite (1 Samuel 22:18-19). This incident highlights the difficult moral dilemmas faced by individuals under duress and the far-reaching, often unintended, and devastating consequences of even seemingly small deceptions.
What does "the vessels of the young men are holy" mean in practical terms?
Answer: In practical terms, David's statement that "the vessels of the young men are holy" means that he and his (fictional) companions had maintained a state of ceremonial purity, specifically by abstaining from sexual relations for at least three days. According to Old Testament law, sexual intercourse rendered a person ritually unclean until evening and required a washing (Leviticus 15:18). Before engaging in sacred activities, approaching holy objects, or entering the Tabernacle, a period of abstinence and purification was frequently required, as vividly demonstrated before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:15). David's statement was a crucial assurance to Ahimelech that they met this fundamental requirement for partaking in the holy showbread, thereby attempting to legitimize their extraordinary request.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The incident of David eating the showbread, particularly his nuanced theological argument in 1 Samuel 21:5, finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment in Jesus' own teachings and His very identity. When challenged by the Pharisees for His disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, Jesus famously appeals to this very event, declaring, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28). Jesus, as the greater David, demonstrates that He is the ultimate High Priest and the true King, whose divine authority transcends the letter of the law when it conflicts with urgent human need and divine mercy. He perfectly embodies the principle that God desires "mercy, not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13). The holy bread of the Old Covenant, once a shadow, points directly to Christ Himself as the true "Bread of Life" (John 6:35), who offers Himself to all who are in spiritual need, regardless of their past ritualistic standing, provided they come to Him in faith and spiritual purity. The old covenant's emphasis on external purity for sacred food is gloriously superseded by the new covenant's emphasis on internal purity and faith in Christ, whose body was broken for us, making us truly holy and able to partake of the spiritual sustenance He eternally provides (1 Corinthians 10:16).