Then answered Doeg the Edomite, who was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub.
Saul has just accused his own servants of hiding things from him, and the one man who answers is not an Israelite at all. What Doeg says next is true in its bare facts, yet it destroys a whole town of priests. How can a report be accurate and still be a lie?
Saul had appealed to his fellow Benjamites' self-interest. The answer came from outside Israel.
The man who answers this appeal to self-interest is not a Benjamite. He is not even an Israelite. He belongs to the godless race of Edom, the relentless enemies of the people of God. It says much that a foreigner should be chief of king Saul's shepherds. It says more that the king's servant came from the race closely tied to the Amalekites — the very people Saul had failed to destroy completely.
The record gives his job and the death toll that followed his words. One detail no one can explain.
Chief of Saul's herdsmen, an Edomite. He told Saul that Ahimelech had helped David, and later he killed Ahimelech and his household — 85 priests. We have no information about how such a man could have been "detained before the LORD." He may have been a convert to Israel's faith, under some vow.
Doeg had seen David at Nob. The damage lay in how he told it.
Doeg misrepresents David's meeting with Ahimelech, whether on purpose or not. David's description of it in Psalm 52 leaves little doubt that his own hatred led him to lie on purpose. Anything that weakened the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. As he told it, Ahimelech was part of a plot to put David on the throne. Ahimelech had asked the Lord for guidance for David, and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg put a wrong meaning even on the parts that were true, so his whole account was false witness — and it ended in disaster for the priests.
The king who believed the report carries his own share of blame.
This gave Doeg the Edomite his chance to win Saul's favour by deceit… Saul gave an Edomite a position of trust, and that shows a serious lack of discernment on his part. He ought to have known better than to accept the man's word without question. But Saul's unreasonable prejudice against David outweighed any sensible look at simple facts.
David wrote Psalm 52 about this moment. It judges the man the story only describes.
Doeg stands out in this history for evil… He is a treacherous enemy. He has learned that there is no more powerful weapon for destroying the innocent than the tongue. He surely pictures a terrible enemy of the faithful few in Israel in the last days. For the Holy Spirit's estimate of him, and David's by the Spirit, we must turn to Psalm 52. He was a proud boaster, making much of his position and his resources, and he did not make God his strength. He loved evil and falsehood. In the tabernacle, in the presence of the Lord, he was planning destruction. He sharpened his tongue like a razor to kill the innocent — a savage wolf that did not spare the flock.
Doeg's tongue did the harm. Yet the trouble started with David's own sin at Nob.
Moses said to the children of Gad and of Reuben, "Be sure your sin will find you out"; wrongdoing cannot be hidden for long. David soon found that the evil seed he had planted in Nob would bear its evil fruit. Doeg, the chief of the royal herdsmen, watched him there with no goodwill, and carried the news of Ahimelech's kindness to his master. The king was furious. He gave the cruel order to kill everyone in Nob — men, women and children. Not one of Saul's men would obey him and raise a hand against the defenceless priests of the Lord. Only Doeg, his Edomite servant, would.
Doeg's report cost Saul the very thing he should have prized.
The king stooped — no, Satan's power blinded him — to use his herdsman Doeg, an Edomite, against the priests of the Lord!… Nothing burns in him but bitter hatred. It now breaks out, not against the man he most wanted to destroy, but against those who had shown him kindness — priests of the Lord though they were. Yet the result is that this holy link with the Lord, the means of keeping that relationship alive, is now found with David. "But one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David."
- Informer. Only one man at Saul's court answered him — an Edomite outsider who kept the king's herds.
- Distortion. His facts were mostly right. His telling turned a priest's kindness into a plot, so the whole report was false witness.
- Tongue. Psalm 52 gives the verdict the story leaves unspoken: a tongue used like a razor against the innocent, by a man who did not make God his strength.
- Blood. The words became a massacre. Saul's own servants refused; Doeg carried it out himself.
- Loss. Saul destroyed the priesthood he should have honoured. The one priest who escaped, Abiathar, fled to David.
And he inquired of Jehovah for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine.
Doeg the Edomite was at Nob when David came, and now he speaks up in Saul's court and names the priest who helped him. His report will cost a whole town of priests their lives — so what did he really see, and what did he add?
One commentator notes that Doeg did not just repeat what he saw. He added a detail that was not true:
This gives Doeg the Edomite his chance to win Saul's favor by deceit. He not only told Saul about David's visit to Ahimelech the priest. He also dressed up his account by adding the lie that Ahimelech had inquired of God for David (v.10). Saul gave an Edomite a position of trust, which shows a serious lack of discernment on Saul's part. He ought to have known better than to take his word without question. But Saul's unreasonable prejudice against David outweighed any sensible look at the simple facts.
Two of the three items in Doeg's report — food and the sword — really happened. What made it deadly was the meaning Doeg put on them:
Doeg, whether he meant to or not, gives a false picture of David's meeting with Ahimelech. From the way David describes it in Psalm 52, there can be little doubt that his own hatred led him to lie on purpose. Anything that weakened the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. By his account, Ahimelech was in the plot to put David on the throne. The priest had inquired of the Lord for him, had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg put a wrong meaning even on the parts that were true. So his whole story was false witness, and it ended in disaster for the family of priests.
Saul calls Ahimelech in, and the priest denies that first item outright:
As to inquiring of God for David, the priest completely denies it, and the account shows nothing of the kind.
Doeg never lifts a sword in this verse. Yet commentators call his tongue the real weapon here, and point to Psalm 52 as the Spirit's verdict on him:
But Doeg is a treacherous enemy. He has learned that no weapon destroys the innocent like the tongue. To learn what the Holy Spirit thinks of him, and what David thought by the Spirit, we must turn to Psalm 52. He was a proud boaster, making much of himself because of his position and his resources, and he did not make God his strength. He loved evil, and he loved lies. In the tabernacle, in front of the Lord, he was planning the work of destruction. He was sharpening his tongue like a razor to kill the guiltless — a savage wolf that does not spare the flock.
Nobody forced Doeg to speak. That is what makes him such a clear example of this kind of wickedness:
Doeg is a fitting example of how the spirit of wickedness works quietly. It works in a man who still claims to belong to God but has turned from Him, a man whose conscience no longer feels. Lying and malice were his choice, not his necessity. He sets himself against the truth because he wants to. He lies against men's lives, and dips his hand freely in their blood, quick to obey the orders of unrighteousness. He follows Saul for vineyards and olive groves, betraying the innocent for the wages of sin. God is not his strength, yet he is a mighty man (Psalm 52:1, 7). But human selfishness ends in God's judgment. God will avenge His name rightly, in His own time.
Doeg names the sword of Goliath. David had held that sword before, and how he got it back matters:
The sword of Goliath came into David's hands a second time, but in very different circumstances from the first. This flight to the tabernacle for help looked good. But it was not a true seeking of the Lord, for David stooped to trickery to get what he wanted. He deceived Ahimelech with convincing answers to his questions. His needs were met, but his deceit brought destruction on the innocent, at least indirectly, and bitter anguish to his own soul (1 Sam. 22:22).
Saul's answer to this report was to destroy the city of the priests. The result was the opposite of what he wanted:
But the effect is this: the holy link with the Lord, the means of keeping up relationship with Him, is now found with David. "But one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David." Doeg, at Saul's command, had struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword — men and women, children and infants.
- Facts — The visit, the bread, and the sword were real. The words about inquiring of the Lord were Doeg's own addition, and Ahimelech denied them.
- Frame — True details in a false setting became false witness. The lie was in the meaning Doeg gave them, not only in what he made up.
- Choice — Lying and malice were Doeg's choice, not his necessity. He served Saul for reward and did not make God his strength.
- Weapon — No weapon destroys the innocent like the tongue. Psalm 52 is God's own verdict on this speech.
- Result — Saul struck the priests and lost them. Abiathar escaped to David, and the link with God went where the king could not follow.
Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father's house, the priests that were in Nob; and they came all of them to the king.
Doeg, Saul's Edomite herdsman, has just told the king what he saw at Nob. Saul's answer is to send for the whole priestly family — not one man, but a household. Was this a hearing meant to find the truth? And how did a household of innocent priests end up in front of the king at all?
Everything Saul does here rests on what Doeg told him. Commentators note that this report was not a plain account of events.
Doeg, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresents David's interview with Ahimelech. From David's description of it in Psalm 52, there can be little doubt that his own hatred led him deliberately to lie. Anything that would weaken the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. According to his account, Ahimelech was part of the conspiracy to put David on the throne. He had inquired of the Lord for him, and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg gave even the true statements a wrong meaning. So his whole account was false witness, and it brought disaster on the priestly house.
The choice of informant is itself telling. Another writer weighs both the man Saul trusted and the reason Saul believed him:
Saul gave an Edomite a position of responsibility, and that shows a serious lack of discernment on his part. He ought to have known better than to accept his word without question. But Saul's unreasonable prejudice against David outweighed any sensible consideration of simple facts.
The summons looks like due process. It was not.
He summoned not only Ahimelech but all his relatives, the priests who were at Nob. He did not call them to find out whether Doeg's words were true. He called them to accuse them all, unjustly, of conspiring with David against Saul. This was totally false. So was his assumption that Ahimelech had helped David in order to have David raise a rebellion against Saul. Neither David nor Ahimelech had any such motives.
Commentators turn the charge back on the king himself:
All Saul's charges were untrue. The only rebellion was in his own evil heart against God. All his suspicions came from a guilty conscience. That conscience knew he had made himself unfit to govern by his own self-seeking and disobedience.
They all came and stood before the king. Ahimelech's reply shows a man with nothing to hide, and a man still ready to speak well of David in front of David's enemy.
Saul calls Ahimelech and the whole priestly family to face his accusation. In his innocence, the priest denies all thought of a conspiracy. Was not David one of the most faithful of the king's servants? Had the king not sent him on many an important mission, where he defeated great numbers of the king's enemies? Who then was so faithful as he, and why should the priest have refused to give him what it was his right to ask?
Ahimelech is innocent. He stands before Saul because David had told him a false story at Nob.
David succeeded in deceiving the priest, who fell a victim to the king's anger. If David had told the whole truth, the priest might perhaps have joined him even then, as his son Abiathar did later... The effects of one man's sin are seldom limited to himself... But here Ahimelech was not defiled. In his simplicity he accepted David's statement. The effects touched him even to death, but he was without guile. David was the indirect cause of his death, and he afterwards admitted it.
"All his father's house" is not only Saul's cruelty widening its net. Ahimelech came from the line of Eli, and God had spoken judgment over that family long before.
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come... Hophni and Phinehas are killed in the conflict with the Philistines. Sixty years later King Saul cut off the increase of Eli's house. And a hundred years after the prediction King Solomon put the last of Eli's house out of the priest's office.
For Saul, striking at the priesthood was the end point of a long slide:
He had begun by intruding into the priest's office at Gilgal, offering a sacrifice he had no right to offer. He had gone on in rebellion and disobedience. Now, by attacking God's priesthood, he sets the seal on the irreverence that ran through his whole character.
- Lie — Doeg mixed true facts with false meaning. That false witness set the whole summons in motion.
- Verdict — Saul called the priests to accuse them, not to test the report. The rebellion he charged them with was in his own heart.
- Innocence — Ahimelech had acted in good faith, so he answered without fear and still spoke up for David.
- Ripple — David's lie at Nob brought a guiltless household before the king. He later admitted it himself.
- Harvest — the word spoken against Eli's house long before was working out here. Saul's irreverence came to its full height in striking at God's priests.
And Saul said, Hear now, son of Ahitub. And he answered, Here I am, my lord.
Doeg has just told Saul what he saw at Nob. Saul now sends for the priest. The one line he speaks names him only as the son of Ahitub, and that tells us what sort of hearing this will be.
Saul calls for Ahimelech and his whole family. The verdict was fixed before anyone arrived.
He summoned not only Ahimelech, but all his relatives, the priests who were at Nob. He did not call them to ask whether Doeg's words were true. He called them to accuse them all, wrongly, of plotting with David against Saul. This was completely false. So was his assumption that Ahimelech had helped David in order to get David to start a revolt against Saul. Neither David nor Ahimelech had any such motives.
Saul's charge rests on what Doeg told him. The damage lay in the twist Doeg gave to details that were true.
Doeg, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresents David's interview with Ahimelech. David describes it in Psalm 52, and there can be little doubt that Doeg's own hatred led him to lie on purpose. Anything that would weaken the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. According to his account, Ahimelech was in the conspiracy to put David on the throne. Ahimelech had inquired of the Lord for him and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg gave even the true statements a wrong meaning. So his whole account was false witness, and it brought disaster on the family of priests.
Ahimelech answers at once, with nothing to hide. His defence is the plain record of David's service.
Saul calls Ahimelech and the whole family of priests to face his accusation. The priest is innocent, and he flatly denies any thought of a conspiracy. Was David not one of the most faithful of the king's servants? Had the king not sent him on many important missions, where he defeated crowds of the king's enemies? Who then was as faithful as he? Why should the priest refuse him what he had a right to ask? Was he not also the king's son-in-law? Did that not rule out any thought of rebellion against him?
The priest standing before Saul is the king's last link with God. Destroying him finishes Saul.
Meanwhile Saul keeps on the path to ruin. By the massacre at Nob he violently cuts off everything that still links him with God and the sanctuary. No doubt he believed Ahimelech had betrayed him. He was in no mood to consider anything properly or to weigh evidence.
The same pattern runs through Saul's whole life.
In Saul we see how powerless human nature is to overcome its evil passions, whatever outward advantages it may have. He despised prophecy. He destroyed the priesthood. He had moments of softening and regret, but he followed the downward course of a godless life to the bitterest end.
Saul names the family line rather than the office, and that line was already under sentence. Long before this day, God had spoken about the house of Eli, to which Ahimelech belonged.
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come. His descendants would die in the prime of life, and Hophni and Phinehas would die on the same day. Everyone left of his house would be thrust out of the priest's office to beg their bread. The later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas die in the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cut off Eli's descendants (1 Sam. 22:18). A hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon removed the last of Eli's house from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
Saul's guilt does not cancel David's. The lie David told at Nob is what brings Ahimelech before the king.
Ahimelech with noble frankness openly speaks the truth and bears witness to David. His sensitivity keeps him from mentioning the lie David had used to get the bread and the sword. That lie would have damaged him in Saul's eyes. But it is this lie which in the end leads to the ruin of the priest and all his house. David knows it well when he tells Abiathar that he is responsible for the death of everyone in his father's house. In this way he judges himself.
- Word — Doeg's slanted report starts the whole scene. True details twisted into a false meaning are still false witness.
- Will — Saul's summons is not a search for facts. The verdict was already fixed, and the whole family of priests was dragged in.
- Witness — Ahimelech answers at once and denies any plot. His case is David's long record of faithful service to the king.
- Wreckage — By striking the priesthood, Saul cuts his last link with the sanctuary. He had despised the prophet; now he destroys the priest.
- Weight — Two older debts meet here. God had long ago spoken against Eli's house, and David's own lie at Nob helped ruin the priest, as David later admitted.
And Saul said to him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me as a lier-in-wait, as at this day?
Saul has summoned Ahimelech, the priest of Nob, to answer for a meal and a sword. The king frames the kindness as treason, and the question is whether anything in the charge was true.
Saul does not open an inquiry; he announces a verdict. He lists three things — bread, a sword, and asking God for guidance — and calls them steps in a rebellion against him. He does not even use David's name. He says "the son of Jesse."
He summoned not only Ahimelech but all his relatives, the priests at Nob. He did not call them to find out whether Doeg's words were true. He called them so that he could accuse them all, wrongly, of plotting with David against Saul. This was completely false. So was his assumption that Ahimelech had helped David in order to have David lead a revolt against Saul (v.13). Neither David nor Ahimelech had any such motive.
Saul had already made this charge to his servants. The truth was the other way round.
Saul had said to his servants, "There is not one of you who is sorry for me or reveals to me that my son has stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as it is this day" (1 Sam. 22:8). But this was a lie: David was not lying in wait for Saul, but rather hiding from Saul who wanted to kill him.
The rebellion Saul kept looking for in others was already inside him.
All Saul's charges were untrue. The only rebellion was in his own evil heart against God. All his suspicions came from a guilty conscience, which knew that by his own self-seeking and disobedience he had made himself unfit to govern. He knew that God had rejected him, and that knowledge drove him on to rebellion and murder, instead of leading him to acknowledge the mighty hand of God.
Saul may well have believed his own charge. He had stopped testing what he wanted to believe.
No doubt he believed Ahimelech had betrayed him, for he was in no mood to think carefully or to weigh evidence. He is filled with hatred of David, and with the uneasy sense that he is fighting something he cannot stop. Caution and restraint are gone. He credits others — even the men of his own tribe whom he has gathered around him — with nothing but the self-interest that is the only motive he understands.
Saul's charge came from Doeg's report. A report can be true in its parts and still be a lie as a whole.
As Doeg told it, Ahimelech was part of the plot to make David king. Ahimelech had inquired of the Lord for David, and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg gave even the true statements a wrong meaning, so his whole account was false witness, and it ended in disaster for the priest's house.
Ahimelech answers with the plain truth. He speaks up for David, and says nothing about the lie David had told him.
Ahimelech speaks the truth with open honesty, and testifies to David, that matchless man, who is "faithful … who is the king's son-in-law, and has access to your private council, and is honored in your house." This is no insult, but it is a severe lesson for Saul. Ahimelech's fine feeling keeps him from mentioning the lie David had used to get the bread and the sword: a lie that would have damaged David in Saul's eyes. Yet it is this lie that in the end ruins the priest and his whole house.
The charge ended with the priests of Nob dead. One escaped — Abiathar — and ran to David.
When he told David all that had happened, David felt responsible for causing the death of the priests… David's comforting words to Abiathar remind us of the Lord's care for those who take a place of rejection with Him: "Stay with me, do not be afraid, for he who seeks my life seeks your life: for you are safe with me" (v.23).
- Charge. Saul accused without checking one fact. He treated bread, a sword and a prayer as treason, and the whole charge was false.
- Cause. The rebellion he hunted for was in his own heart. His suspicions grew from a guilty conscience that knew God had set him aside.
- Informer. Doeg mixed true details with a false meaning. The report became false witness, and the priests paid for it.
- Witness. Ahimelech answered with plain honesty. He spoke up for David and hid the lie that would ruin his own house.
- Refuge. Saul's suspicion destroyed a family of priests. David kept the one survivor safe at his own side, the rejected king.
And Ahimelech answered the king and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, who is the king's son-in-law, and has access to thy secret council, and is honourable in thy house?
Saul has just accused the whole priestly household of plotting with David against him. Ahimelech is the only man who speaks up for David, and it costs him his life.
Ahimelech does not argue about the bread or the sword. He points to David's record instead.
Saul calls Ahimelech and his whole priestly family to answer his accusation. In his innocence, the priest completely denies all thought of a conspiracy. Was not David one of the most faithful of the king's servants? Had the king not sent him on many important missions, where he defeated great numbers of the king's enemies? Who then was so faithful as he? Why should the priest have refused him what he had every right to ask for? Was he not also the king's son-in-law? Did that not rule out any thought of rebellion against him?
Another writer weighs both what Ahimelech did and what he knew:
Ahimelech's answer was straightforward and honorable. He reminded the king that David had a reputation as a faithful servant of Saul, who willingly took orders from him. That was reason enough for Ahimelech to give him bread and a sword. He also denied knowing anything about trouble between Saul and David. On the face of it, Ahimelech was completely innocent.
Ahimelech answers without insult — and one writer notes what he chose not to say.
Ahimelech speaks the truth with noble openness. He bears witness to David, that man without equal, who is "faithful … who is the king's son-in-law, and has access to your secret council, and is honoured in your house." This is certainly no insult. It is a severe lesson for Saul. Ahimelech's own sensitivity keeps him from mentioning the lie David had used to get the bread and the sword: a lie that would have damaged David in Saul's eyes.
Translations differ on the middle phrase. The ESV has "captain over your bodyguard." Older versions read "has access to your secret council."
Ahimelech calls David both faithful and honoured in the king's house. One writer ties the two words together, and turns them on us:
It seems to me that in David faithfulness was a mark that showed he was honourable. David was faithful to Saul. Saul could not point a finger at him for any wrongdoing in his life, or any failure in his duty. He had always done everything that was asked of him. It was Saul's hatred and envy that had chased him from the court. So David's friend spoke up for him and said, 'He is a faithful man'. Yes, that is what it means to be honourable: to be faithful to God, faithful to the saints in relation to the truth, and faithful to what you know.
David had come to the priest with an invented story, and Ahimelech had believed it. One writer hears two things at once in the priest's reply:
As it was, Ahimelech boldly stood by David's integrity. Yet was there not a gentle rebuke to David for his lack of truth in the words, "Your servant knew nothing of all this, less or more?" The effects of one man's sin are seldom limited to himself… But here Ahimelech was not defiled. In his simplicity he accepted what David told him. The effects touched him even to death, but he himself was free of deceit.
Saul's accusation rested on a report from Doeg, who had watched the meeting.
Doeg, whether on purpose or not, misrepresents David's meeting with Ahimelech. From the way David describes it in Psalm 52, there can be little doubt that his own hatred led him to lie deliberately. Anything that weakened the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. According to his account, Ahimelech was part of the conspiracy to put David on the throne. He had inquired of the Lord for him, and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg put a wrong meaning even on the statements that were correct. So his whole story was false witness, and it brought disaster on the priestly family.
A clear, true, courteous answer changes nothing in a mind already made up:
However, the truth had no effect on Saul's cold blooded arrogance. He sentenced Ahimelech and all the priests to an immediate death, only because of his unreasoning fear and hatred of David.
- Faithful — David served without a stain: sent on the king's errands, victorious over his enemies, honoured in his house. Faithfulness to what you know is what makes a person honourable.
- Falsely accused — Doeg reported real facts, then gave them a false meaning. His lie destroyed a whole priestly family.
- Fearless — Ahimelech told an angry king the plain truth. He could have saved himself by exposing David's lie, and he would not.
- Free of deceit — David deceived him, but he was not defiled. One man's sin rarely stops with the man who commits it.
- Fruitless before hardness — the truth, told well, still moved Saul to murder. A good answer cannot soften a hard heart.
Was it to-day that I began to inquire of God for him? be it far from me let not the king charge anything to his servant, [nor] to all the house of my father; for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.
Saul has dragged the priests of Nob before him and charged them with plotting against the crown. Ahimelech answers with plain facts, and asks the king to lay no blame on his father's house.
Saul's accusation assumed a plot. The priest replies by pointing to David's known record in the king's service.
Ahimelech's answer (vv. 14–15) was straightforward and honourable. He reminded the king of David's reputation. David was known as a faithful servant of Saul, ready to take his orders. This was reason enough that Ahimelech should give him bread and a sword. However, he denied that he had even begun to enquire of God for David, for this was not true. Nor did he know anything of any friction existing between Saul and David. On the very face of things Ahimelech was thoroughly innocent.
Saul's charge had two parts: a plot against the king, and seeking God's guidance for David. Ahimelech answers both.
Saul calls Ahimelech and his whole family of priests to face his accusation. In his innocence, the priest flatly denies all thought of a conspiracy. Who was so faithful as David, and why should the priest have refused to give him what it was his right to ask?... As to his inquiring of God for him, the priest utterly denies this, and the narrative shows nothing of it.
Translations differ here. Some read the line as a flat denial: "Was it today that I began to inquire of God for him? Far be it from me." The ESV instead asks whether today was the first time, which suggests Ahimelech had done this for David before.
Ahimelech could say he knew nothing because David had not told him the truth. The priest took him at his word.
Ahimelech bravely defended David's integrity. Yet was there not a gentle rebuke to David for his lack of truth in the words, "your servant has known nothing of all this, much or little"? The effects of one man's sin are seldom confined to himself... But here Ahimelech was not defiled. In his simplicity he accepted David's statement. The effects touched him even to death, but he was guileless.
Ahimelech had one card he did not play. He could have told Saul that David had deceived him — and the omission cost him everything.
Ahimelech's delicate feelings keep him from mentioning the lie that David had used to get the bread and the sword. That lie would have damaged David in Saul's eyes. But 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."
The defence was complete, and it changed nothing. Saul had already made up his mind. What followed showed the difference between the king and his own soldiers.
However, the truth had no effect on Saul's cold-blooded arrogance. He sentenced Ahimelech and all the priests to immediate death. His only reason was his unreasoning fear and hatred of David. He then ordered his soldiers to kill the priests, but they were sensible enough to disobey his foolish command, especially since these men were priests of the Lord (v. 17). The soldiers at least realised they would have to answer to the Lord for such an atrocious action.
Saul's rage fell on men who had only given David food and a sword. One writer looks past the king to the power behind him.
Wicked and cruel as Saul was, there is more than human revenge here. He was the guilty tool of Satan's malice against all who in any way befriended God's chosen king.
Ahimelech had begged the king to lay no blame on his father's house. When the news reached David, he laid the blame on no one but himself.
David had sinned at Nob. But he surely confessed his guilt to God. He confessed it to the grief-stricken Abiathar too, saying to him, "I have occasioned the death of all the persons in your father's house." The confession came from an honest and good heart. He took the whole blame on himself and made no excuses. But he could not restore life to the dead Levitical families.
- Innocent in word. Ahimelech's defence was straightforward and honourable. On the face of it, he was innocent.
- Innocent in knowledge. David's story kept the quarrel from him. He took David at his word, and he was guileless.
- Innocent in silence. He could have saved himself by naming David's lie. His feelings held him back, and that lie ruined his whole house.
- Innocent and condemned. Truth did not move Saul. His own soldiers refused the order, knowing they would answer to the Lord. Behind the king's revenge lay Satan's malice against all who helped God's chosen king.
- Innocent blood owned. One man's sin rarely stops with himself. David took the whole blame without excuse, but he could not give back the lives.
And the king said, Thou shalt certainly die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father's house.
Saul has accused Ahimelech, a priest from the town of Nob, of plotting with David, and Ahimelech has given a plain defence. The king ignores every word of it and condemns his whole family, raising two questions: why did the truth not matter, and who is to blame for the deaths that followed?
Ahimelech's answer was true, but the truth was not what the king was weighing. Even the men holding the swords could see it.
The truth had no effect on Saul's cold-blooded arrogance. He sentenced Ahimelech and all the priests to an immediate death, only because of his unreasoning fear and hatred of David. The soldiers were ordered to kill the priests, but they were sensible enough to disobey Saul's foolish command, all the more because these men were priests of the Lord (v. 17). The soldiers at least realised they would have to answer to the Lord for such a dreadful act: they were there to fight enemies, not their own people Israel.
Saul acted on a report from Doeg, an Edomite in his service. Some of what Doeg said was true. The story he built from it was not.
Doeg, whether on purpose or not, misrepresents David's meeting with Ahimelech. From the way David describes it in Psalm 52, there can be little doubt that his own hatred led him to lie on purpose. Anything that weakened the kingdom of Israel would please an Edomite. According to his account, Ahimelech was in the plot to put David on the throne. He had enquired of the Lord for him and had given him food and the sword of Goliath. But Doeg gave even the true statements a wrong meaning. So his whole story was false witness, and it ended in disaster for the house of the priests.
When David came to Nob hungry and unarmed, he had not told Ahimelech the truth about why he was travelling alone. So the priest's defence rested on a lie he did not know he had been told. David later took the blame.
Ahimelech is too decent to mention the lie David had used to get the bread and the sword given to him. That lie would have compromised him in Saul's eyes. But it is this lie which in the end 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.
This sentence was not a one-off outburst. It was one step down a long slope, and the step after it was the lowest.
The progress of evil in Saul deserves attention. After disobedience, after jealousy and hatred against David, he despises the prophet in the very circumstances that ought to have reminded him of his authority. Then he despises the priesthood. At the last he is forsaken altogether, and seeks help in the power of Satan.
Ahimelech belonged to the family of Eli, and God had announced judgment on that house long before. Saul's rage was carrying out a sentence already spoken.
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come. The increase of his house would die in the prime of life; Hophni and Phinehas would meet their death on one day. Everyone left of his house would lose the priest's office and beg their bread. The later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas die in the fight with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cuts off the increase of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). A hundred years after the prediction King Solomon removes the last of Eli's house from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
Saul's sentence wiped out a city of priests. But it did not leave him with the priesthood — it moved the priesthood to the man he was hunting.
But this has one effect: the holy link with Jehovah, the means of keeping up relationship with Him, is now found with David. "And one of the sons of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David." Doeg, at Saul's command, had struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword — men and women, children and infants. The man who spared the Amalekites destroyed the priests of the Lord without mercy.
- A lie starts it. David's lie at Nob trapped an innocent priest. David later owned it: he was accountable for every life in that house.
- A tongue spreads it. Doeg mixed true facts with a false meaning. That false witness destroyed a whole household.
- A hardened will executes it. Saul had already decided. Fear and hatred of David passed the sentence, not the evidence.
- God's word stands over it. God had foretold the fall of Eli's house long before. Nob was the second stage of it, a century of patience ending as announced.
- Grace outlasts it. Saul destroyed the priesthood and cut himself off from God. The one survivor fled to David, so the link with God was now found with the hunted king.
And the king said to the couriers that stood about him, Turn and put the priests of Jehovah to death; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when he fled, and did not inform me. But the servants of the king were not willing to put forth their hand to fall on the priests of Jehovah.
Doeg has told Saul that Ahimelech the priest helped David. Saul now calls in the whole priestly family, sentences them on the spot, and orders his own guards to kill them — but they refuse.
Saul had reached his verdict before the priests even arrived.
He summoned not only Ahimelech but all his relatives, the priests who were at Nob. He did not call them to find out whether Doeg's words were true. He called them to accuse them all, unjustly, of conspiring with David against Saul. This was completely false. So was his assumption that what Ahimelech had done for David was done to get David to raise a rebellion against Saul. Neither David nor Ahimelech had any such motives.
The sentence still needed hands to carry it out. Saul's own guards would not move.
The truth had no effect on Saul's cold-blooded arrogance. He sentenced Ahimelech and all the priests to immediate death, only because of his unreasoning fear and hatred of David. Saul ordered the soldiers to kill the priests, but they were sensible enough to disobey his foolish command, above all because these men were priests of the Lord (v.17). The soldiers at least realized they would have to answer to the Lord for such an atrocious action. Their work was to fight ENEMIES, not their own people Israel.
Their refusal marks a boundary. A ruler's authority is real, but it stops where God's word begins.
But suppose these authorities — emperors, kings, or magistrates — travel outside their own province, as Nebuchadnezzar did. Suppose they try to put their own will in place of the word of God, and to force that will on the consciences of their subjects. They are then putting themselves in the place of God. At that point the believer must disobey, out of real faithfulness to God and at whatever cost, as those three captives did. The limit of his obedience to kings is obedience to God in obeying them.
The order still found a willing hand. The man who obeyed was not an Israelite.
This does not bother the conscience of Doeg the Edomite, however. When Saul orders him to kill the priests, he is glad to take up this cowardly slaughter. None of them had a weapon to hold him off, and he would probably kill Israelite priests as readily as anyone else. Yet who can doubt that Saul's own conscience would accuse him painfully afterward for the awful guilt of murdering 85 priests of the Lord?
This was not a sudden fall. Saul had been mishandling holy things for years.
To an Israelite, this open sacrilege must have been a terrible revelation of the true character of the king. He had begun by intruding into the priest's office at Gilgal, offering a sacrifice he had no right to offer. He had gone on in rebellion and disobedience. Now he attacks God's priesthood, and so puts the seal on the irreverence that ran through his whole character.
The priests who died belonged to the house of Eli. A judgment on that family had been spoken long before, and commentators trace its fulfilment in three stages.
The Philistines kill Hophni and Phinehas in battle (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cuts off Eli's descendants (1 Sam. 22:18). And one hundred years after the prediction King Solomon removes the last of Eli's house from the priest's office (1 Kings 2:27).
Not every priest died that day. The survivor ran toward the hunted man, not the palace. What the throne destroyed, the outcast sheltered.
One priest, Abiathar, escapes and flees to David with the priestly robe. He finds his protection with the Lord's anointed. In David's own words, he is joined to him in his danger and in the protection David's presence gives: "He who seeks my life seeks your life. With me you shall be in safety." So we have a travelling court in miniature — the king attended by the priest and the prophet and a little company of loyal supporters. What does it matter that there is no royal palace?
- Suspicion — Saul called the priests in to convict them, not to check Doeg's report. The conspiracy he named never existed.
- Conscience — his own guards refused. They knew they would answer to the Lord for killing the Lord's priests.
- Limit — a subject obeys a ruler only as far as that obedience is obedience to God. Past that line, refusal is faithfulness.
- Willingness — a foreigner did what Israelites refused to do. Saul's own conscience would accuse him for it later.
- Safety — the one priest who escaped found shelter with the rejected king. The priest, the prophet and the king were all outside the palace.
And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall on the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and fell on the priests, and put to death that day eighty-five persons who wore the linen ephod.
Saul has just condemned Ahimelech and all the priests at Nob for plotting with David, and his own soldiers refuse to kill them. So the king turns to Doeg, a foreigner in his service, who kills eighty-five men wearing the linen ephod, the priest's garment.
Saul's own men understood the order, and they would not obey it. Their disobedience was not cowardice but conscience.
Saul ordered the soldiers to kill the priests, but they were sensible enough to disobey his foolish command. They refused above all because these men were priests of the Lord (v.17). The soldiers at least realised they would have to answer to the Lord for such an action. Their task was to fight ENEMIES, not their own people Israel.
Doeg felt none of this restraint, and stepping forward marked him out as Saul's true man.
And so the priests are slain. The servants of Saul shrink from such unholy work, but Doeg is equal to the occasion, and makes good his title to association with king Saul by his slaughter of the innocent priests.
Before the sword came the report he carried to Saul. Commentators point to Psalm 52 as the Spirit's own verdict on him.
Doeg stands out in this history for all the wrong reasons... He is a treacherous foe. He has learned that there is no more powerful weapon for destroying the innocent than the tongue... To learn the Holy Spirit's estimate of him, and David's by the Spirit, we must turn to Psalm 52. He was a proud boaster, making much of himself because of his position and resources, and he did not make God his strength. He was a lover of evil and of falsehood.
This was not a sudden fall. It was the last step on a long road.
To an Israelite, this open sacrilege must have been a terrible revelation of the king's true character. He had begun by taking over the priest's role at Gilgal, offering a sacrifice he had no right to offer. From there he went on in rebellion and disobedience. Now he puts the seal on the deep irreverence of his whole character by attacking God's priesthood.
Saul had not always been so thorough.
Saul and the people "devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword," and everything "despised and worthless." But "the best of the sheep and of the oxen... and all that was good, they would not utterly destroy." Alas for Saul! When his murderous heart turned against Ahimelech for his supposed sympathy with David, he was far more thorough in his work.
Ahimelech belonged to the line of Eli, against whom God had already pronounced judgment. This day was one instalment of it.
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come... The Philistines killed Hophni and Phinehas in battle (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cut off the descendants of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). And one hundred years after the prediction King Solomon removed the last of Eli's house from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
David had lied to Ahimelech at Nob to get bread and a sword.
Ahimelech is too considerate to mention the lie David used to get the bread and the sword. That lie would have made David look guilty in Saul's eyes. But in the end this lie leads to the ruin of the priest and all his house. David is well aware of it when he tells Abiathar, "I have occasioned the death of all the persons of your father's house" (v. 22). So he judges himself. Yet on God's side, David is 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."
Saul destroyed the priests; the effect was that the way of approach to God left his court for the cave.
Doeg, at Saul's command, had struck Nob, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword — men and women, children and infants... But the effect of it is that this holy link with the LORD, this means of keeping up relationship with Him, is now found with David.
David's answer to the news was not despair.
David had learned that "Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul." And so he announces judgment without mercy on the Edomite, Israel's sworn enemy. But that does not destroy the confidence of the man of God. Quite the opposite. Against the dark background of this wickedness the believer's blessed portion shines out: "But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God. I trust in the steadfast love of God forever and ever."
- Refusal. Saul's soldiers would not strike priests of the LORD. They knew they must answer to Him. A king's order does not cancel accountability to God.
- Readiness. Doeg's willingness showed who he was — a boaster who did not make God his strength. His tongue destroyed the innocent before his sword did.
- Ruin. Saul spared the best of the spoil, but at Nob he spared no one. Attacking the priesthood sealed the character of his whole reign.
- Reckoning. The slaughter carried out an earlier sentence on Eli's house. David also owned his part: his lie at Nob helped bring it about.
- Refuge. One priest escaped to the rejected king and heard, "With me you shall be in safekeeping." With David, not at court, the way to God was now found.
And Nob, the city of the priests, he smote with the edge of the sword, both men and women, infants and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
Nob was the town of the priests, home of the tabernacle, and Doeg destroyed it in a day — every household, every child, every animal. Two questions follow: how did a king of Israel come to this, and what became of the priesthood afterwards?
Commentators stress how far the killing reached beyond the priests themselves.
Doeg's thirst for blood did not stop until he had gone through Nob, the city of the priests, killing both men and women, little children and domesticated animals. What honourable person in Israel would not be appalled at this indiscriminate wicked rampage of cold-blooded murder? The fact that the king ordered it only increased the horror.
God had once ordered Saul to destroy Amalek, an enemy nation, and everything it owned. Saul kept back the best of the livestock. The obedience he withheld from God, he gave to his own temper.
Saul and the people "devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword," and "all that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction." But the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, they would not utterly destroy. How sad for Saul! His murderous heart went out against Ahimelech for his supposed sympathy with David. There he was far more thorough in his work.
This was not a sudden lapse. One writer traces it back to Saul's first offence years earlier.
To an Israelite, this open sacrilege must have been a terrible revelation of the king's true character. He began by intruding into the priest's office at Gilgal, offering a sacrifice which he had no right to offer. He then went on in rebellion and disobedience. Now, by attacking God's priesthood, he puts the seal on the essential irreverence of his whole character.
Doeg carried out the order when Saul's own servants refused. Commentators turn to Psalm 52 for God's verdict on him.
Doeg is a treacherous foe: one who has learned that there is no more powerful weapon for the destruction of the innocent than the tongue... To learn the Holy Spirit's estimate of him, and David's by the Spirit, we must turn to Psalm 52. He was a proud boaster, magnifying himself because of his position and resources. And "he did not make God his refuge." He was a lover of evil and of falsehood. In the tabernacle and before the Lord he was planning the work of destruction. He prepared his tongue like a sharp razor to kill the guiltless — a fierce wolf, not sparing the flock.
David himself had lied at Nob to get bread and a sword. He did not excuse himself for what followed.
Out of delicacy, Ahimelech never mentions the lie that David had used to get the bread and the sword. That lie would have compromised him in Saul's eyes. But 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 have occasioned the death of all the persons of your father's house." So he judges himself.
The priests at Nob came from the family of Eli. God had passed sentence on that family long before Saul was king.
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come. The increase of his house would die in the prime of life... The later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas died in the fight with the Philistines. Sixty years later King Saul cut off the increase of Eli's house. A hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon removed the last of Eli's house from being priest.
One priest escaped, and he ran straight to David.
One priest, Abiathar, escapes, and flees to David with the priestly robe. He finds his protection with the Lord's anointed... So we have in miniature — may we say? — a travelling court. The priest, the prophet and a little company of loyal supporters go with the king. What does it matter that there is no royal palace? ... God's presence is with him. For faith, that presence is infinitely greater than the most magnificent palaces and the largest armies.
- Word — a tongue, not an army, emptied a town. Psalm 52 calls that tongue "a sharp razor."
- Will — Saul spared what God told him to destroy, then destroyed the priests God had given him.
- Wound — David's lie at Nob came back as blood on his hands, and he took the blame himself.
- Warning — the judgment spoken over Eli's house came true, decades late but not one word short.
- Welcome — the one priest who escaped ran to the rejected king. The priesthood went with the outcast, not the palace.
And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.
Saul has just had the priests of Nob killed for helping David. One of them escapes, runs to David, and carries the priesthood with him — out of the reigning king's reach and into the hands of the rejected one.
Abiathar's arrival brought David both a report and a burden.
One son of Ahimelech escaped, however, and went to David, the only possible refuge at the time. He gave David the report of all that had happened. David felt responsible for causing the death of the priests, because, as he said, he knew Doeg would inform on him when he saw him at Nob (v.22). One wonders what David could have done to protect the priests. But no doubt he did not expect so great a slaughter. David's comforting words to Abiathar remind us of the Lord's care. He cares for those who take a place of rejection with Him.
Ahimelech came from the house of Eli, a priestly line already under sentence. God had said this line would be cut off long before Saul gave his order.
Remember that Ahimelech was of the house of Eli. God's judgment had doomed that house to be wiped out, because of the wickedness at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:30-33; 1 Sam. 3:12-14). In keeping with this judgment, all of Eli's descendants died at Nob — with one exception. God had not forgotten the mercy Ahimelech showed to His anointed. So He did not yet make a full end of the line of Ithamar, or wipe Eli's family off the earth. He spared Abiathar to represent the younger branch of Aaron's house all through David's reign.
The judgment fell in stages, over a hundred years.
The Philistines killed Hophni and Phinehas in battle (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cut off the offspring of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). And a hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon removed the last of Eli's house from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
Saul aimed at David and struck the priests instead. The result was the opposite of what he wanted. The link with God left his court and followed the outcast.
The king stooped — no, Satan's power blinded him — to use his herdsman Doeg, an Edomite, against the priests of the Lord! ... Where was self-judgment for the sin which had forfeited the kingdom? Where was the sense of the honour God had put on him, and of his own misuse of it? Only a bitter, deadly hatred burns inside him. It breaks out now — not against the man he most wanted to destroy, but against those who had shown him kindness, priests of the Lord though they were. But it has one effect: this holy link with the Lord, the means of keeping up relationship with Him, is now found with David.
With Abiathar's arrival, David's company held everything the kingdom should have had.
Here he is in his place. All was there — royalty, prophecy, and priesthood. Saul, after having despised prophecy, turns against the priesthood. Yet David is not discouraged; he will protect Abiathar.
Abiathar did not arrive empty-handed. He brought the ephod — the way a priest asked God for guidance.
The revelation of God's mind, absent from Saul's court and from his people, found refuge with David's company. The king's murderous act against Nob drives Abiathar the priest to David (v. 20). Later he comes to him with the ephod in his hand (1 Sam. 23:6). The way to come near God, to ask His mind at any time, to enter into fellowship with Him — that is the happy privilege of these homeless wanderers, whom the world shames and despises.
One writer names what Abiathar was really protecting.
He realised that the one thing that mattered most was keeping connection with the Lord... We can be sure that persecution will make us want the Lord's mind on everything all the more.
One writer turns the escape into a direct appeal to the reader.
The first thing is salvation. In danger of his life, Abiathar fled to David. There he found salvation from the sword of Saul. And sinner, you must flee to Christ... "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
- Escape. One son of Ahimelech got away, and the only refuge open to him was the man Saul was hunting.
- Mercy. He lived because God remembered the kindness Ahimelech had shown His anointed. That was mercy inside a judgment already announced on Eli's house.
- Transfer. Saul's attack on the priests drove the link with God out of his court and into David's hands.
- Resource. Abiathar came carrying the ephod, so the homeless company could still ask God and get His answer.
- Refuge. What Abiathar found with David, the sinner finds in Christ: safety with the rejected king.