And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech trembled at meeting David, and said to him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
David reaches Nob as a hunted man, and the priest who comes out to meet him is shaking. Ahimelech asks why David is travelling alone. Commentators read the chapter on two levels: a low point in David's own walk, and a picture of a rejected king.
David is no longer a soldier at court but a fugitive. The place he reaches holds the tabernacle.
This chapter begins the record of David's wanderings as an exile. He wrote many Psalms during this time of the rejection of the Lord's anointed... He reached Nob after he parted from Jonathan. At Nob stood the tabernacle of the Lord, and Ahimelech (my brother is King), son of Ahitub (22:9) and great-grandson of Eli, was serving as priest. Nob lay north of Jerusalem, not far from the city (Isaiah 10:32).
Cut off from the king, David heads for the sanctuary. The priest's welcome is guarded.
David is now an outcast and a fugitive, cut off from any hope from Saul's government. By instinct he flees first to the priest, who keeps the sanctuary of the Lord. From him David would seek food for himself and his few followers. The priest seems to know how disordered things are in king Saul's court, so he hesitates to help David. But David's lie puts him at ease.
Ahimelech sees a man with no escort, which does not match Jesus' later account of the same event. Commentators explain the gap this way:
David came down to Nob, and this alarmed Ahimelech the priest, who asks why he had no man with him. The account here makes it look as if no-one was with him. Yet others must have been nearby, because the Lord Jesus, commenting on this occasion, plainly speaks of "those who were with him (David)" (Mt. 12:3). As he told Ahimelech, he had apparently posted his servants somewhere in the area. Still, his words were not true that the king had sent him on a secret mission.
David answers the priest's fear with a story about a secret royal errand. Writers note how the invention grows once it starts.
David, fleeing from Saul, comes to Ahimelech, who is afraid when he sees David alone. He had likely heard of Saul's hatred and of David's distress... Sadly, his untruthfulness now takes a clearer form... Having begun with deception, he sinks deeper into its trap. He invents details to prop up his first claim. Was he remembering this and other times like it when he later sang of the blessing of the Man in Whose spirit there was no deceit? Even this shows the perfection of the One of Whom it is said, in the fullest sense, "neither was deceit found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Ridout, while not excusing it, cautions against harshness toward David:
There is no need to try to justify, and little reason to fully condemn, the course of a man who was only human, hunted by a powerful and relentless enemy... If we complain about the weakness of his faith, which led him to fall back on human tricks of deception, let us search and test our own hearts. We may find far more untruthfulness in them than in this beloved man after God's own heart.
David's rejection is not only his own trouble. One writer sees God Himself refused in the refusal of His chosen king.
The chosen king is now rejected. He goes to the priest, who gives him the holy bread. This is the sovereign grace of God, who rises above the ordinances tied to blessing when that blessing is refused — when He Himself is refused in His chosen one and in the power of His testimony. When that happens, His sovereign grace sets faith above ordinances.
The visit had a cost. One writer traces the ruin of Ahimelech's house back to this lie.
Out of delicacy, Ahimelech does not mention the lie David used to get the bread and the sword... Yet it is this lie that finally ruins the priest and all his house. David knows this well when he tells Abiathar: "I am accountable for all the lives of your father's house" (v. 22). So he judges himself. Yet on God's side he is also a picture of the One who keeps the believer safe: "Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my life seeks your life. With me you shall be in safekeeping."
- Rejection — this chapter opens David's years as an exile. God's anointed king is hunted while Saul rules.
- Refuge — cut off from the court, he turns by instinct to the sanctuary at Nob, home of the tabernacle.
- Fear — Ahimelech comes out trembling and asks why David is alone. Men were with him, but he had posted them nearby.
- Falsehood — David invents a royal errand, and each added detail pulls him deeper in.
- Grace — yet at the sanctuary he meets grace. With God's king refused, God sets faith above the ordinance, and Jesus later spoke of this very scene.
And David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has commanded me a business, and has said to me, Let no man know anything of the business whereon I send thee, and what I have commanded thee; and I have directed the young men to such and such a place.
David arrives at Nob as a hunted man. The priest asks why he is travelling alone. David answers with an invented errand from the king. Why does the man anointed to be king shield himself with a lie? And what does that lie cost?
David does not speak out of strength. One writer sets the scene.
David came weary and dispirited to the little village of Nob. The future just then looked very forbidding to him. He had forgotten the anointing oil which the prophet Samuel had poured on his head in his native town of Bethlehem not far away. This was a sure pledge that he would wear the crown of Israel, but that day fear filled his soul.
Notice how the answer grows. First a secret errand from the king. Then, to hold the story together, servants waiting at an agreed place.
"Why are you alone, and no one with you?" Sadly, untruthfulness comes out in a more definite form... Having begun with deception he gets deeper into its coils. Circumstances are invented, so to speak, to prop up his first statement. The king had appointed servants to hurry along the business entrusted to David! Was he remembering this and cases like it when he later sang of the blessing on the man whose spirit has no deceit? Even this shows the perfection of Him of whom Scripture says above all others, "neither was deceit found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Coming to God's house was right. What he said once there was not. Keep the two apart.
Only a sacrifice of truth opened this place of refuge to the fugitive. David lied to Ahimelech, because he believed that the name of Saul carried more weight with him than the name of God. In going to Ahimelech, David acted in faith. The divine anointing gave him that freedom. It made God's ordinances and God's house the natural refuge of the man of His own choice in the hour of his deep distress. But in front of the Lord's priest, policy shaped his conduct — not faith at all. This is how the faith of God's saints has often failed. They judge rightly that no one can safely rely on man. So they have shaped their conduct to fit the circumstances of the time. But this is to forget God — to lose sight of Him as the shield and light of our present way.
David speaks of servants he has arranged to meet. But the priest has just asked why he is alone. One writer weighs the two statements.
It would seem from the history here that he had no one identified with him. Yet there must have been others in the area who were with him. The Lord Jesus, commenting on this occasion, clearly speaks of "those who were with him (David)" (Matt. 12:3). As he told Ahimelech, he evidently appointed his servants to a place in the area. Still, his words were not true that the king had sent him on some secret mission. He did not want Ahimelech to know that Saul was determined to kill him. That knowledge might make the priest afraid to show David any open kindness.
The lie did not stay with David. It reached the priest who believed him.
Perhaps, if David had told the whole truth, the priest might have joined him even then, as his son Abiathar did later... The effects of one man's sin are seldom confined to himself... Ahimelech was not defiled. In his simplicity he accepted David's statement. The effects touched him even to death, but he was without deceit. David was the indirect cause of his death, and he later admitted it. When he saw Doeg, he suspected what the deadly result would be.
Later David faced what his lie had done.
It is this lie which finally leads to the ruin of the priest and all his house. David is well aware of this when he tells Abiathar: "I am accountable for all the lives of your father's house" (v. 22). So he judges himself. But at the same time, from God's side, he is a picture of the One who keeps the believer safe. He tells Abiathar: "Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my life seeks your life. With me you shall be in safekeeping."
- Fear — David arrived at Nob weary and downcast. He had lost sight of the anointing that promised him the throne.
- Falsehood — Fear produced a lie. The lie then needed a second invention to hold it up. Deception draws a man deeper in.
- Forgetting God — He came to God's house in faith, but he spoke there by calculation. He judged that Saul's name weighed more with the priest than God's did.
- Fallout — The effects of one man's sin rarely stop with him. The priest who believed David paid with his life, and David later owned the guilt.
- Faithfulness — In Christ no deceit was found. The safety David offered Abiathar is a picture of the safekeeping Christ gives every believer.
And now what is under thy hand? give me five loaves in my hand, or what may be found.
David comes to Nob hungry and on the run, and asks the priest for whatever bread there is. Jesus later pointed back to this moment. Why did a priest hand over bread that belonged to priests alone?
David is not shopping. He is a hunted man asking whoever has bread to hand it over, and the place he chooses to ask is the place where God was worshipped.
David's needs were now very pressing. Persecuted, defenceless, hungry, and weary, he turned to the minister of the sanctuary for supplies. Who was more suited to meet his need and to give him comfort in this moment of extreme difficulty and danger?
There were no ordinary loaves at Nob. The only bread there was the bread set out before God. The priests changed twelve loaves every Sabbath, and David arrived on the day of the change.
He arrived on the Sabbath day. That was the day the priests changed the twelve loaves of showbread ("the bread of the face," or "of the presence"). God had instructed that these loaves be set on the golden table in the holy place every Sabbath. So the ritual was still going on, even though there was no ark in the holy of holies. That showed how far the nation had drifted from the centre and core of its worship. David asked the priest for some of the old loaves for himself and his companions. This was a bold thing to ask. This holy bread was unleavened, with pure frankincense on it, and it was one of the most holy fire offerings to the LORD. Only the priests ate it, and only in the holy place.
The change of loaves that day decided which bread David received.
Fresh bread had just been put in the vessels of the sanctuary to replace what had been there before, so David was not asking for the actual showbread, but for what had been removed from the table. Only the priests had a lawful right to this bread, but because of the circumstances Ahimelech rightly gave it to David. The Lord Jesus speaks approvingly of this in Matthew 12:3-4.
The law made no exception. But the man of God's own heart was cast out and in want.
How could anything David needed still count as holy in God's eyes, when God's own people had rejected David, the LORD's anointed? The priests' bread became, for his needs, nothing more than common bread. Ceremonial restrictions of the law are all well enough where things run truly according to the law. But what about Him who is the central object of all its ordinances? What if He is cast out for God's sake, and He and His people are in want? Would God uphold those forms against the man of His own heart? Impossible!
Several things had gone wrong at once.
First, the priesthood had failed badly in Israel. Second, the service of the tabernacle was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Third, the ark was not there. And fourth, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. This last point alone was reason for Ahimelech to give the bread to David. Genuine need takes priority over mere formal exactness.
The same principle reaches beyond David.
When evil despises God's beloved and faithful witnesses on earth, the outward ordinances of the Lord lose their application for the time being. The holiness of ritual gives way before the rejection of the Lord and His people. Yes, the showbread was only for the priests. But for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be strange homage to God and to the king. And now the Son of David, the Lord of David, was there, and more rejected, more despised, than David himself."
David got the bread only after telling Ahimelech a story that was not true. Commentators weigh this differently.
Ahimelech became afraid and suspicious, but David invented a falsehood to calm the high priest's suspicions. The Word of God shows its truthfulness by reporting David's failure honestly. He was not fully trusting his God. So he tried to protect himself, and that led to the deception.
David was only a man, hunted by a powerful and relentless enemy. There is no need to try to justify what he did, and little reason to condemn it outright. Do we complain about the weakness of his faith, which led him to use human tricks of deception? Then let us search and test our own hearts. We may find far more untruthfulness in them than in this beloved man after God's own heart.
- Rejection — the true king was hunted, the ark was missing, and the priesthood had failed. The nation had drifted far from its worship.
- Need — David asks only for what is on hand. Genuine need takes priority over formal exactness.
- Grace — God would not uphold the forms of the law against the man of His own heart, so the holy loaves became food for the hungry.
- Christ — the Lord Jesus approved what David did, and the Son of David was Himself more rejected than David ever was.
- Warning — David got the bread, but he gained it by a lie. Scripture reports the failure honestly, and it sends us to search our own hearts.
And the priest answered David and said, There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
David arrives at Nob hungry and on the run, and asks Ahimelech the priest for bread. The priest's reply shows the problem. The only food he has is bread set apart for priests, and he will give it only if David's men are clean.
after_note: DELETE
This bread was not leftovers from a kitchen. It belonged to the tabernacle's weekly service.
He arrived on the Sabbath day when the priests had changed the twelve loaves of showbread ("the bread of the face," or "of the presence"). God had told the priests to set these loaves on the golden table in the holy place every Sabbath (Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9)... David asked the priest for some of the stale loaves for himself and his companions. This was a bold request. This holy bread was made without yeast and covered with pure frankincense. It was one of the most holy fire offerings to Jehovah, and only the priests ate it, in the holy place (Lev. 24:7-9).
Which loaves did David actually receive?
The priests had just put fresh bread in the vessels of the sanctuary to replace the bread that was there before. So David was not asking for the showbread itself, but for the loaves taken off the table. By law only the priests could eat it, but in these circumstances Ahimelech was right to give it to David. The Lord Jesus speaks approvingly of this in Matthew 12:3-4.
By law the bread belonged to the priests alone. Commentators point to several conditions in Israel that made this moment different.
First, the priesthood had seriously failed in Israel. Second, the tabernacle service was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Third, the ark was not there. Fourth, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. This last point alone was reason enough for Ahimelech to give the bread to David. Real need comes before mere formal exactness.
The deepest reason is the last one. When God's chosen king is thrown out, the rituals of the people who threw him out lose their standing.
He goes to the priest, who gives him the holy bread. This is according to the sovereign grace of God. God rises above the ordinances tied to blessing when people reject that blessing — when they reject Him in His chosen one and in the power of His testimony. When that happens, His sovereign grace sets faith above ordinances. Since people had rejected God Himself and His testimony, the showbread counted as common. God was in fact arranging everything anew.
Another writer puts the same truth as a question the story forces on us.
How could anything needed by David be viewed any longer as holy in the eyes of God where David was rejected, the anointed of Jehovah?
Rules did not stop mattering. But God would not let men use His own institutions against His anointed.
Men could not reject the Lord's anointed and his companions, leave them in desperate need, and then try to use God's institutions to keep those needs unmet. No divine ordinance was to stand in the way of God caring for His anointed and those with him.
The priest bends the rule about who may eat. He will not bend the rule about purity — whether the men are clean by the law's standard.
He did want to make sure that the men were ceremonially clean, and he took David's word for this.
One writer draws the same balance out of the priest's own meal, and warns of two opposite errors.
It is only in the power of personal holiness, and in the immediate presence of God, that we can really share in our priestly portion... The way we get that place shows absolute grace. The place we get demands personal holiness. To speak of effort in reaching the place is the fallacy of legalism. To think of unholiness in the place is the blasphemy of lawlessness. I reach the position only through grace. I occupy the position only in holiness.
One writer traces what the loaves have become for believers now.
The showbread was priests' food. Believers are priests to God, and we live on holy bread... For Israel, the Jew, the holiness of the showbread was gone; it had become as common as any other bread. But for the church it has become the symbol of a blessed truth... This bread is "common" to us, the common privilege of all believers. But we cannot enjoy this high communion with the Father and the Son without separation from the world... Are the young men pure? asks the priest. They are, said David. It was not enough to follow David in profession; is there practical holiness? To such people the bread is common.
- The bread — twelve loaves without yeast, set before God each Sabbath, food for priests alone.
- The rejection — with God's anointed king cast out and hungry, the loaves were no longer holy. Grace rose above the rule; it did not break it.
- The need — God would not let men use His own institutions to starve His anointed and those with him.
- The condition — Ahimelech changed who could eat, never whether they were clean. We reach the place by grace and hold it in holiness.
- The reach — priests' food alone is now the common privilege of all believers. Enjoying it still calls for separation from the world.
And David answered the priest and said to him, Yes indeed, women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the [bread] is in a manner common, and the more so, because to-day [new] is hallowed in the vessels.
David is on the run from Saul, and the priest at Nob will hand over the holy bread only if his men are clean. This verse is David's answer, and older translations add a clause about the bread itself: "the bread is in a manner common."
The request only makes sense against the state of Israel's worship at the time. One account sets the scene:
David, chosen of God and anointed by Samuel to be king over Israel, was fleeing from Saul, who wanted to kill him. It was a day when the arrangements the Lord had made for His worship and praise in Israel were sadly out of course. The ark was at Kirjath-jearim, while the tabernacle was at Nob, where the priests were too. There David came, a fugitive from the king's anger and starving with hunger. He arrived on the Sabbath day. That was the day the priests changed the twelve loaves of showbread ("the bread of the face," or "of the presence") on the golden table in the holy place, as God had told them to do every Sabbath. The ritual was therefore going on, though there was no ark inside the most holy place.
David was not asking for loaves still lying before God:
David also makes the point that the bread was "in a manner common, and the more so, because today (new) is hallowed in the vessels." Priests had just put fresh bread in the vessels of the sanctuary to replace what was there before. So David was not asking for the actual showbread, but for what had been taken off the table. Only the priests had a lawful right to this, but the circumstances made it right for Ahimelech to give it to David.
The qualifier is deliberate. David does not scrap the sanctuary system; he says it yields:
What virtue could remain for them in the old institutions? Everything now depended on David alone. So we can understand his words, a puzzle as they still are to most interpreters: "it" — the showbread — "is in a manner common; yes, even when it is sanctified that day in the vessel." David says "in a manner common," because God had not finished with these institutions after all. They were soon to be revived, and they would last for the appointed time. They were "common" as subject to his needs.
Ahimelech asked one thing: that the men be clean. David gives his word here, inside a speech that was not honest:
His words were not true that the king had sent him on some secret mission. He did not want Ahimelech to know that Saul was set on killing him. That might make the priest afraid to show David any open kindness. His words deceived Ahimelech, however, and the priest gave David the used bread of the sanctuary. He did want to make sure the men were ceremonially clean, and he took David's word for this.
The deepest reading turns on who David was: the anointed king, cast out. Christ Himself drew it out of the story:
Jesus is the light, and only in His light can we see light. So from the precious word of God He draws out this astonishing fact for us, and it truly is a fact. The rejection of the beloved of God among God's own people profanes what was most hallowed. David was the anointed of the Lord, and that place had rejected him. How could anything he needed still count as holy in the eyes of God?
The Pharisees attacked His hungry disciples for plucking grain. Jesus pointed back to this scene:
David was rejected and a fugitive. In that state, the holy things tied to the ceremonies God had given Israel stopped being holy. The sin was David's rejection, and this made the consecrated showbread common. The rejection of God's anointed had profaned everything. This is the thought our Lord expressed to the Pharisees. They had rejected Him. How absurd for these hypocrites to talk about Sabbath-keeping while they were rejecting the Lord of the Sabbath!
The bread and the purity of David's men both reach forward to believers:
The showbread was priests' food. Believers are priests to God, and we live on hallowed bread… For Israel the holiness of the showbread was gone; it had become as common as any other bread. For the church it has become the symbol of a blessed truth. To eat together is the sign of communion. We are made priests to God, and we have fellowship with one another as we eat of the bread from heaven. There is more than fellowship with one another: the bread is holy, and in it we have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. This bread is "common" to us, the common privilege of all believers. But we cannot enjoy this high communion with the Father and the Son without separation from the world. Are the young men pure? the priest asks. They are, said David. It was not enough to follow David in profession; is there practical holiness? To those who have it the bread is "common."
- Rejection — God's anointed king was cast out. That one fact rules the scene: it made the holiest bread in Israel count as common.
- Common — Common "in a manner," not abolished. The old institutions kept their place, but they gave way to the rejected king's need.
- Clean — Ahimelech asked for ceremonial cleanness. This verse is David's answer, and the priest took it on trust — from a man who had already misled him.
- Grace — David received the loaves already taken off the table. This was priests' food, yet the circumstances made it right to hand it over.
- Christ — Jesus turned this moment against the Pharisees, who guarded the Sabbath while rejecting the Lord of the Sabbath. Believers now feed as priests on hallowed bread, and that calls for separation from the world.
And the priest gave him holy [bread]; for there was no bread there but the shew-loaves that were taken from before Jehovah, to put on hot bread in the day when they were taken away.
David comes to Nob hungry and hunted, and the priest hands him holy bread — loaves the law kept for priests alone. Why was this not sin, and why did Jesus later point back to it when men attacked His disciples?
Nothing in Israel was normal at that moment. One writer lists what had gone wrong before weighing whether David sinned:
Strictly speaking, it was unlawful for David and his men to eat this bread, for it was the property of priests only. But there are matters that make a difference. First, the priesthood had seriously failed in Israel. Secondly, the service of the tabernacle was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Thirdly, the ark was not present. And fourthly, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. This last matter alone was reason for Ahimelech's giving the bread to David. The question of genuine need takes precedence over mere formal exactness.
The same writer explains which loaves actually changed hands:
Fresh bread had just gone into the vessels of the sanctuary to replace what was there before. So David was not asking for the showbread itself, but for what had come off the table. By law only the priests had a right to this. Yet in these circumstances Ahimelech was right to give it to David.
The reason lies with God Himself, not with a gap in the law:
The elect king is now rejected. He goes to the priest, who gives him the hallowed bread. This is the sovereign grace of God. He rises above the ordinances that go with blessing, when that blessing is rejected — when He Himself is rejected in His chosen one, and in the power of His testimony. When this is the case, He sets faith above ordinances in His sovereign grace. Since God Himself and His testimony are rejected, the showbread was considered common. God in fact was ordering all anew.
David was not the only one fed; the men with him were covered too:
No divine ordinance was to stand in the way of God's anointed, and those with him, being cared for by God.
Jesus pointed back to this scene when men condemned His disciples. The argument turns the charge around:
David, the beloved of God, was cast out too, and his followers were hungry. Once he ate with them the bread set apart for priests alone. Was this a sin? It was Saul's and the people's sin that there was no bread for David. It was their sin that the true anointed was an outcast. And the bread that was holy at a holy time was profaned in the hour of their wickedness. If it had no sanctity in the presence of a rejected David, how much less in the presence of a rejected Christ? A greater than the priests and a greater than David was there. So the Lord turned the charge of sin back on those who would have condemned the disciples.
The same chapter also records David lying to the priest. One writer sets his failure beside Christ:
Ahimelech became afraid and suspicious. To calm him, David made up a lie. This honest report of David's failure shows how truthful the Word of God is. He was not fully trusting his God. So he tried to protect himself, and that led him into the lie. How different are the actions of Him who according to the flesh was the son of David! "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
The loaves lost their fenced-off holiness for Israel, but the picture was not wasted:
The showbread was priests' food. Believers are priests to God, and we live on hallowed bread… For Israel the holiness of the showbread was gone, and it had become as common as any other bread. For the church it has become the symbol of a blessed truth. To eat together is the sign of communion. God has made us priests, and we have fellowship with one another as we eat the bread from heaven. There is more than fellowship with one another: it is holy, hallowed bread, and in it we have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. This bread is "common" to us — the common privilege of all believers. But we cannot enjoy this high fellowship with the Father and the Son unless we keep separate from the world.
- Rejection — The nation cast out God's anointed king. That one fact, not carelessness, changed everything at Nob.
- Release — Once the king was cast out, the bread became "common." Sovereign grace rose above the ordinance; it did not break it.
- Reach — The men with David ate the same bread. No ordinance of God was going to block His care for the king and his company.
- Repetition — Jesus used this scene against His critics. If the bread lost its holiness before a rejected David, how much more before a rejected Christ?
- Reminder — David lied to Ahimelech in the same hour. The record tells his failure plainly and still sets him beside the One who never sinned.
(Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before Jehovah; and his name was Doeg, the Edomite, chief of the shepherds that [belonged] to Saul.)
David has come to Nob on the run, and the priest Ahimelech has given him bread and Goliath's sword. Then one line names a witness — a servant of Saul, detained at the sanctuary that same day.
The verse names him, names his people, and names his job. Each fact matters later.
The text never says why he was held there, and commentators differ on it. One writer turns the delay into a question for David.
But an ominous note comes in here, about Doeg an Edomite, the chief of Saul's shepherds. He had been "detained before the LORD" in that place. Does the Lord not allow things like this to happen, to remind us that we have not first sought His guidance before acting? For there is no sign that David asked for His leading. David knew Doeg was there (ch. 22:22), and expected he would tell Saul. Could he not then have been more cautious in asking for bread while Doeg was aware of it?
One writer presses the meaning of the name itself.
Now we have noticed the enemy here, the Edomite. If names have meaning, his name seems at first sight a strange one in this setting. It is Doeg, "the fearful". But are not our fears the greatest enemies our David and His followers can have? He is Himself rejected, so to follow Him means to share His rejection. He was there "detained before the LORD", and not by his own choice, we may be sure. His presence would soon have disastrous effects.
What David did at Nob did not stay hidden, and a whole town paid for it.
Moses said to the tribes of Gad and Reuben, "Be sure your sin will find you out." Wrongdoing cannot stay hidden for long. David was to discover that the evil seed he had planted in Nob would produce its evil fruit, and very quickly. Doeg, the chief of the royal herdsmen, saw him there with an unfriendly eye. He carried the news of Ahimelech's kindness to his master. The king was furious. He gave the cruel order to massacre all the people of Nob — men, women, and children. Not one of Saul's attendants would obey him and raise a hand against the defenceless priests of the Lord. Only Doeg would, his Edomite servant.
Doeg's report to Saul was accurate in its parts and false as a whole.
Doeg, whether on purpose or not, gives a false account of David's meeting with Ahimelech. David describes what happened in Psalm 52. From that, there can be little doubt that Doeg's own hatred led him to lie deliberately. Anything that weakened the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. By his account, Ahimelech was in the plot to make David king. Ahimelech had asked the Lord's guidance for him, and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg put a wrong slant even on the statements that were correct. So his whole story was false witness, and it brought disaster on the priestly family.
He laid the plan on holy ground, in God's own house.
But Doeg is a treacherous foe. He has learned that there is no more powerful weapon for destroying the innocent than the tongue… He was a lover of evil and of falsehood. In the tabernacle and before the Lord he was planning the work of destruction. He sharpened his tongue like a razor to kill the guiltless, a savage wolf that did not spare the flock.
Doeg was not forced into any of it.
Doeg is a fitting example of the spirit of wickedness at work, quiet and subtle. It works under the hardened conscience of a man who has turned from the faith he professes. Lying and malice were his choice, not his necessity. He is willingly against the truth. He lies against men's lives, and freely dips his hand in their blood… God is not his strength, yet he is a mighty man. But the end of human selfishness is divine retribution. God will righteously avenge His name in His own time.
- Presence. One line puts an Edomite in Saul's pay at the sanctuary that day. The small detail decides everything that follows.
- Prayerlessness. David had not asked the Lord's guidance before coming to Nob; the enemy's eye on him was the reminder.
- Prudence lost. David saw Doeg, expected he would tell Saul, and still asked for bread in front of him.
- Poison. Doeg's weapon was his tongue: true details told with a false slant, planned on holy ground.
- Payment. Doeg was strong in his position, but God was not his strength — and God avenges His own name in His own time.
And David said to Ahimelech, And is there not here under thy hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, for the king's business was urgent.
David comes to the sanctuary at Nob with no weapon and asks the priest for a spear or a sword. He blames the hurry of the king's errand — but David invented that errand, and this is the man who once killed a giant with no sword at all.
David's excuse rests on a story he had already told Ahimelech. One writer traces how the first lie forces a second.
Sadly, untruthfulness comes out in a more definite form. "The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, 'Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.' I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place." Having begun with deception he gets deeper into its tangles. Circumstances are invented, so to speak, to supplement his first assertion. The king had appointed young men to hurry along the business entrusted to David! … Even this shows the perfection of the One of whom it is said above all, "Neither was deceit found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Coming to the priest was the right instinct. What went wrong was how David behaved once he was there.
David lied to Ahimelech, because he believed that the name of Saul carried more weight with him than the name of God. In going to Ahimelech, David acted in faith. The freedom of the divine anointing made God's ordinances and God's house the natural refuge of the man of His own choice in his hour of deep distress. But in front of the Lord's priest, policy governed his conduct, not faith at all… Evasion and lying are what spiritual timidity naturally turns to.
David asks for a weapon because he has none. But a sword had never been his strength.
He tells Ahimelech that because of the urgency of the king's business he had no weapons, and yet that he needed one. Goliath's sword was there wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. No doubt it was kept as a reminder that God had broken the power of the enemy. Did David really need the world's weapons for his protection? But he took it.
Another writer sets this day beside the day David first took that sword.
The sword of Goliath came into David's hands a second time, but under very different circumstances from the first. When he took it from Goliath, his absolute confidence in the Lord and his devotion to the interests of His people marked him out above all… Yes, this flight to the tabernacle for help looked fair, but it was not a true seeking of the Lord, for David stooped to trickery to get what he wanted.
The sword the priest brought out was no ordinary weapon. One writer sees a picture in where it lay.
Ahimelech has no weapon other than Goliath's sword. This instrument of David's victory was kept behind the ephod, wrapped in a cloth. It was cared for and set in a place of honour under the very eyes of God. In the same way, the testimony of Christ's victory is His death, by which He conquered the prince of death. That testimony has been carried as a memorial into the most holy place, where Jesus has entered by His own blood.
The same writer turns this on the believer, who like David has nothing of his own to fight with.
Let us not forget that, if David is a type of Christ, he is often also at the same time a type of believers. Like David, we go weaponless to meet the enemy, but one weapon alone is enough for us: the death of Christ and our death with Him. We find this in the sanctuary. There is none like it, and Satan can do nothing against this weapon which has conquered him.
David was not the only one in the sanctuary that day. A man named Doeg was watching.
Doeg also knew that David had asked and received the sword of Goliath. David evidently did not stop to consider that it was unfair of him to endanger Ahimelech without Ahimelech's knowledge of the facts. But if we act without depending on the Lord for His guidance, we are likely to find ourselves exposed to further failure.
- Haste — The rush David pleads is fiction. One invented claim needs another to prop it up.
- Fear — The root was not cunning but timidity. David thought Saul's name would weigh more with the priest than God's, so policy replaced faith.
- Weapon — He asks for a sword because he has none. Yet he had beaten the giant before he ever held that sword.
- Memorial — The only sword there was the trophy of his own God-given victory. It lay wrapped and honoured before God, a reminder that God had already broken the enemy's power.
- Cost — Doeg watched the whole exchange. David put Ahimelech in danger without telling him the truth. Acting without God's guidance opens the door to more failure.
And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of terebinths, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if thou wilt take that, take it; for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that give it me.
David is on the run from Saul. He reaches Nob with no food and no weapon, and the only blade in the place is the sword he himself took from Goliath.
The sword was not spare equipment. It lay wrapped in the holy place, behind the ephod — the priest's garment — as a keepsake of a victory God had won:
David asks for a weapon. Ahimelech has no arms other than Goliath's sword. This instrument of David's victory lay behind the ephod, wrapped in a cloth, cared for and set in a place of honour under the very eyes of God. In the same way, the testimony of Christ's victory is death itself, by which He conquered the prince of death. That testimony has been carried as a memorial into the most holy place, where Jesus has entered by His own blood.
This sword had belonged to the enemy, and it became the tool of his own defeat. One writer asks what really won that day:
It was the emblem of a great day for Israel, a great defeat for the Philistine; but it was the sword that death supplied for victory. Was it the power or skill of David that was in the truest sense the means of victory? Was it not his faith that overcame, as it alone overcomes the world now? To conquer this way, the Spirit must wield the weapon taken out of death, in the power of life in Christ. It is useless otherwise, as Goliath proved.
The same pattern runs on to the cross. What had frightened God's people became the means of their rescue:
David had used the giant's own weapon to kill him and to cut off his head. Death was the weapon Satan had used to terrify the people of God. That is the very weapon the Lord Jesus used to win His great victory over Satan, and to deliver His saints (Heb. 2:14-15).
David answers that no other weapon compares with it. One writer applies that answer to every believer:
Let us not forget that, if David is a type of Christ, he is often also at the same time a type of believers. Like David, we go weaponless to meet the enemy, but one weapon alone is enough for us: the death of Christ and our death with Him. We find this in the sanctuary. There is none like it and Satan can do nothing against this weapon which has vanquished him.
David left Nob with both bread and a sword. One writer sees a picture in that pairing:
He ate the showbread, which only the priests were allowed to eat, and he received the sword of Goliath from behind the ephod. He was fed, he was armed, and he would have been guided too... The showbread and the sword of Goliath may also carry a picture. They point to a ministry the soul badly needs: the true bread to nourish it, and the sword of death — no longer our dread, but now for us, used without mercy against everything inside us and around us that hinders obedience to the will of God (Rom. 6:11, Col. 3:5).
Commentators differ on whether David was right to take the sword. One writer treats it as his by conquest:
David also gets from Ahimelech that which surely he had a right to — the sword of Goliath overthrown in battle.
Another writer sees David acting without leaning on the Lord:
If we act without depending on the Lord for His guidance, we are likely to find ourselves exposed to further failure. He tells Ahimelech that because the king's business was urgent he had no weapons, and yet that he needed one. Did David really need the world's weapons to protect himself? But he took it.
What David did with the sword next is telling. He went straight to the Philistine city that Goliath had come from:
The sword of Goliath — the power of death. David carried it with him, but certainly did not show it to Achish.
- Memorial — the sword lay wrapped behind the ephod. It stood before God as a record that He, not David, had broken the enemy's power.
- Reversal — it was the giant's own blade; death, the enemy's weapon, became the means of his defeat, as at the cross.
- Supply — David left Nob fed and armed. Bread nourishes the soul; the sword cuts at everything that hinders obedience.
- Sufficiency — "There is none like that." It is the believer's one weapon, found in the sanctuary, and Satan has no answer to it.
- Caution — commentators differ over David's motive. One asks whether David needed the world's weapon at all, and another notes that he kept it hidden from Achish.