1 Samuel · Chapter 21

V. 1. Nob-A city of priests, where the tabernacle now was. Hither David resorted, for a supply of his necessities, which he supposed he might receive here, without danger of being betrayed into Saul’s hands: and principally, that in this great distress, he might receive comfort and counsel from the Lord. Ahimelech-The chief priest, brother to that Ahiah, 1 Samuel 14:3, and he being now dead, his successor in the priesthood, for they were both sons of Ahitub. Was afraid-Suspecting some extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Alone-For though David had some servants as is manifest from ver. 4,5, whom Jonathan probably had sent to a place appointed, yet they were left at another place: as David himself affirmeth, ver. 2. And David was now alone, as also he was when he fled to Achish. He who had been suddenly advanced to the highest honour, is as soon reduced to the desolate conditions of an exile. Such changes are there in this world, and so uncertain are its smiles.

Verse 1. Then came David to Nob] There were two places of this name, one on this side, the second on the other side of Jordan; but it is generally supposed that Nob, near Gibeah of Benjamin, is the place here intended; it was about twelve miles from Jerusalem.

Why art thou alone] Ahimelech probably knew nothing of the difference between Saul and David; and as he knew him to be the king’s son-in-law, he wondered to see him come without any attendants.

Verse 1. Then came David to Nob — A city of the priests in the tribe of Benjamin, about twelve miles from Gibeah, not far from Anathoth and Jerusalem, Nehemiah 11:32; Isaiah 10:32. The tabernacle, it appears, had been removed hither, and hither David now resorts, in hopes of finding shelter for a season, and a supply of his necessities, which he supposed he might obtain here without danger of being betrayed into the hands of Saul; and principally that in this great distress he might receive direction and comfort from the Lord. To Ahimelech the priest — Probably the chief priest. David, in his first flight from Saul, had recourse to the prophet of God, and now his next is to his priest. Ahimelech was brother to that Ahiah, mentioned 1 Samuel 14:3, (who was now dead,) and his successor in the priesthood, for they were both sons of Ahitub. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David — “Lest he was forced to flee from Saul,” say some commentators, “and so it might be dangerous to entertain him.” But it seems evident that Ahimelech knew nothing of the circumstances that David was in, or of Saul’s enmity to him, and determined purpose to destroy him. But, as David was the king’s son-in-law, he was surprised to see him without any attendants, and suspected that there must be some extraordinary cause of his coming in such a manner. Why art thou alone? — It appears from verses 4, 5, and from Mark 2:25, that David had some persons with him, probably servants, whom Jonathan had sent to meet him some where, and accompany him; yet David had left these at another place, as he himself affirms, (verse 2,) and he was now alone, as he was when he fled to Achish. He who had been suddenly advanced to the highest honour, is as soon reduced to the desolate condition of an exile. Such are the changes which are frequently happening in this world, and so uncertain are its smiles.

Verse 1. Nob; fifteen miles west of Jerusalem, and on the road to Gath, where the wandering ark now rested. It was a little city of priests. After they were all murdered, by Saul, the ark was removed to Gibeon. 1 Chronicles 21:29. Thence to the house of Obed-Edom; from thence to Zion, and lastly to the temple. Our great and splendid cathedrals are of small avail; the ark still wanders, and dwells in tents.

DAVID’S FLIGHT TO NOB, 1-9.

Finding that his beloved Jonathan cannot defend him from the wrath of Saul, David next flies to the high priest, to inquire of the Lord concerning his way. The presence there of Doeg, the Edomite, was an obstacle in his way.

1. Nob — This city was situated a little to the north of Jerusalem, and apparently upon an eminence in sight of it, so that the Assyrian army, having advanced thus far, could “shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion.” Isaiah 10:32. Many travellers have sought in vain to identify its sight. Dr. J.L. Porter made the discovery of Nob a special subject of research, and as the result of his investigation gives us the following: “Less than a mile south of Tuleil el-Ful, the site of Gibeah, is a conical rocky tell [hill] separated from the former by a valley. On the summit and sides of this tell are traces of a small but very ancient town — cisterns cut in the rock; large, hewn stones: portions of the rocky sides levelled and hewn away; and on the southeast the remains of a small tower. From the summit there is a wide view. Mount Zion is distinctly seen, though Moriah is hid by an intervening ridge. The position, south of Gibeah and not far from Anathoth; the elevation, commanding a view of Zion, against which Isaiah represents the Assyrian as shaking his hand; the ancient remains — all convinced the writer that this is the site of the long-lost Nob.” Ahimelech the priest — Supposed to be the same as the Ahiah mentioned 1 Samuel 14:3. This high priest was assisted by eighty-five priests who wore linen ephods, and hence Nob was called the city of the priests. 1 Samuel 22:18, 19. The mention of these, and also of the show-bread, shows that the tabernacle was at this time at Nob. Ahimelech was afraid — At seeing a person of David’s rank coming to him unattended and alone.

V. 2. The king, &c.-This seems to be a plain lie extorted from him, by fear. But it was pernicious to all the priests there. Whence David afterwards declares his repentance for this sin of lying, Psalm 119:29. To such a place-To a certain place which it not convenient now to mention; because the whole business requires concealment.

Verse 2. The king hath commanded me a business] All said here is an untruth, and could not be dictated by the Spirit of the Lord; but there is no reason to believe that David was under the influence of Divine inspiration at this time. It is well known that from all antiquity it was held no crime to tell a lie, in order to save life. Thus Diphilus:—

JUpolambanw to yeudov epi swthria

Legomenon, ouden peripoieisqai duscerev.

“I hold it right to tell a lie, in order to procure my personal safety; nothing should be avoided in order to save life.”

A heathen may say or sing thus; but no Christian can act thus, and save his soul, though he by doing so may save his life.

Verse 2. The king hath commanded, &c. — This is a plain lie, extorted from him by fear, and one that was very pernicious to all the priests there. Whence David afterward declares his repentance for it, (1 Samuel 22:22,) and prays against the sin of lying, Psalm 119:29. To such and such a place — To certain places which, he insinuates, it was not proper to mention, because the whole business required concealment.

2. The king hath commanded me a business — The statements of David in this verse, and the addition, in verse 8, that the king’s business required such haste that he thought not to bring his weapons, are to be regarded as utter falsehood, pure fabrications, framed for the purpose of deceiving Ahimelech, allaying suspicion, and aiding himself in his escape. Perhaps the presence of Doeg, the Edomite, (verse 7,) led to his uttering this fictitious plea. This is one of the occasions on which the noble David sinned. We shall meet with other instances in the subsequent history. It should be remembered, however, that according to the morals of that age falsehood, like polygamy and other sins which the ethics of our Gospel system utterly condemn, was not looked upon as criminal. Prevarication and falsehood that did not amount to perjury seem not to have been regarded as violations of the ninth commandment. Accordingly, Otto von Gerlach well observes, in his comment on the ninth commandment, that “although it enjoins, when properly understood, full, entire, and unequivocal truthfulness towards our neighbour in every relation, yet the practical understanding of this meaning was very imperfectly attained to in the Old Testament times, since we find so many servants of God allowing themselves, in their perplexities, to have recourse to lying.” David subsequently deplored the fact that he had occasioned the death of all the priests of Nob, (1 Samuel 22:22,) but he showed not the least compunction over the falsehood by which he deceived the high priest, not even in the psalm (Psalm 52) which he composed on the occasion, and in which he accuses his enemy of lying. My servants — David probably had a few followers with him, and had left them in the distance while he personally went to the high priest for bread. These were the young men referred to in verses 4 and 5, and mentioned in Mark 2:25, 26.

Verses 3, 4. What is under thy hand? — He desires to know what he was able to do for him to supply his wants. And particularly he requests some bread for himself and servants. Or what there is present — That is, any other victuals. There is hallowed bread — Here in the tabernacle. Doubtless, Ahimelech had other provisions in his house; but David was in great haste, and in fear of Doeg, whom he saw and knew, and therefore would not stay till any thing could be fetched from thence. There seemed to be a double impediment to Ahimelech’s giving David and his servants this bread: 1st, Its sacredness in itself, which he intimates, and in answer to which David pleads his great necessity; an answer with which Ahimelech appears to have been satisfied. “Cases of necessity, as the Jews themselves allow, often superseded the observance of the ritual laws; and this compliance of Ahimelech is urged with great force by our Saviour, in vindication of a similar infringement, Mark 2:25.” — Dodd. 2d, It was requisite that all who ate of the holy bread, should have observed the same purity which was required of the priests, particularly in the instance of abstinence from all women; and Ahimelech suspected that David or his servants might possibly want this qualification, and therefore inquires concerning it. But out of respect to David he does not name him, but asks only concerning the young men. David’s answer, however, shows that he was intended to be included in the inquiry.

3. What is under thine hand — What provision? what food hast thou ready made, or on hand?

V. 4. There is, &c.-Here in the tabernacle: though doubtless he had other provisions is his house; but David was in great haste, and in fear of Doeg whom he saw, and knew and therefore would not stay ‘till any thing could be fetched thence. There was a double impediment to the giving this bread to them;

1. Its sacredness in itself; which the priest implies, and David answers

Verses 3, 4. What is under thy hand? — He desires to know what he was able to do for him to supply his wants. And particularly he requests some bread for himself and servants. Or what there is present — That is, any other victuals. There is hallowed bread — Here in the tabernacle. Doubtless, Ahimelech had other provisions in his house; but David was in great haste, and in fear of Doeg, whom he saw and knew, and therefore would not stay till any thing could be fetched from thence. There seemed to be a double impediment to Ahimelech’s giving David and his servants this bread: 1st, Its sacredness in itself, which he intimates, and in answer to which David pleads his great necessity; an answer with which Ahimelech appears to have been satisfied. “Cases of necessity, as the Jews themselves allow, often superseded the observance of the ritual laws; and this compliance of Ahimelech is urged with great force by our Saviour, in vindication of a similar infringement, Mark 2:25.” — Dodd. 2d, It was requisite that all who ate of the holy bread, should have observed the same purity which was required of the priests, particularly in the instance of abstinence from all women; and Ahimelech suspected that David or his servants might possibly want this qualification, and therefore inquires concerning it. But out of respect to David he does not name him, but asks only concerning the young men. David’s answer, however, shows that he was intended to be included in the inquiry.

4. Common bread — Bread not consecrated; such as might lawfully be eaten by ordinary persons. Hallowed bread — That is, the showbread, which it was unlawful for any but the priests to eat. Exodus 29:32; Leviticus 24:9. If the young men have kept themselves… from women — If they take of the hallowed bread, it is necessary that they should be at least ceremonially clean in the matter here specified. Sexual intercourse made a person unfit for contact with holy things. Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 15:16. Thus the high priest judges that in a case of necessity, the requirements of the law regarding this bread might be set aside. Compare Matthew 12:4, and Mark 2:26.

ver. 5, and the priest was satisfied therein by David’s great necessities.

2. The abstinence from all women, which he supposed should be in those that use it; concerning which he now enquires. And though he mentions this only concerning David’s young men, and out of reverence forbears to name him; yet he is also included in the number, as David’s answer shews.

V. 5. Three days-As long as the law required, Exodus 19:15. And so long David, and his men hid, it seems, hid themselves for fear of Saul, whereby they were kept both from women: and from food convenient for them. Vessels-That is, Either, 1. Their garments, or other utensils for their journey. Or 2. their bodies.

The bread-Heb. and this bread; is in a manner common: that is, considering the time, and our necessity, this maybe used in a manner, like common bread. For though for a season while it is to stand before the Lord, it be so holy, that the priest himself might not eat it; yet afterwards it is eaten by the priest, and his whole family, and so it may be by us, in our circumstances. Tho’ it were-But newly put into the vessel, it must give place to the great law of necessity, and charity; because God will have mercy preferred before sacrifice.

Verse 5. About these three days — As long as the law required, Exodus 19:15. And so long, it seems, David and his men had hid themselves for fear of Saul, whereby they were kept both from their wives and from food convenient for them. The vessels of the young men are holy — That is, 1st, Either their garments, or other utensils for their journey; or, 2d, Their bodies. The bread (Hebrew, awhw, vehu, and this) is in a manner common — That is, the bread which had been taken away from before the Lord, to make room for new bread to be placed there. For though, for a season, while it stood before the Lord, it was so holy that the priest himself might not eat it; yet afterward it was eaten by the priest and his whole family, and David pleads that it might be eaten by him and his young men in their necessitous circumstances. Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel — This translation renders the passage obscure. The Hebrew may be translated, as by Le Clerc and in some other versions, Furthermore, or, forasmuch as it (namely, bread) is sanctified this day in the vessel; that is, there was new bread sanctified to be set before the Lord; and therefore this, which had been taken away from before him, was, in some degree, become common. For the law ordained, (Leviticus 24:8, 9,) that the show, or hallowed bread, should be removed every sabbath day from the table before the Lord, and fresh set on.

Ver. 5. From women; that is, from their wives, as Moses commanded during the purification. Exodus 19:15. This opinion of the priest concerning holy bread, was not contrary to the spirit of the law in cases of need, and is justified by our Lord. Mark 2:25.

5. Since I came out — Upon this secret business of the king. The conjunction and, which immediately follows these words, shows that they belong to the preceding sentence. David falsely tells Ahimelech that about three days had already passed since he started upon the king’s business. The vessels of the young men are holy — By their vessels their bodies are intended — their persons. This word is thus used in 1 Thessalonians 4:4, and 2 Corinthians 4:7; and in this same verse it is again used in this same sense, for the question was one of bodily purity. Some understand the word to refer to the implements or clothes of the young men; but Thenius well asks: What mattered it about the purity of their implements if their persons were not pure? David’s object certainly was to conciliate the priest so as to obtain through him the hallowed bread; and so he endeavoured to persuade him that himself and the servants mentioned (verse 2) were ceremonially clean, and that therefore there could be no reason to refuse them the show-bread on the ground of their personal defilement. And the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel — If this were the meaning of the Hebrew it would represent David as contradicting both the high priest and the law itself. The marginal reading relieves the case but little. What the Jehovah had sanctified David would not most certainly, in the presence of the priest, call common or unclean. The Hebrew text here says nothing about bread, but, literally rendered, reads thus: And this way is common, and how much more is it to-day sanctified in the vessel? By this way we understand, with Keil and Ewald, the business on which David pretends the king has sent him. It was common, that is, ordinary, or secular, as distinguished from religious business, and therefore did not require such ceremonial purity as did a holy service. By the vessel the bodies or persons of the young men are meant, the phrase being equivalent to in body. In this sense the word vessel has already been used in this same verse. To day has reference to the three days previously mentioned, during which the young men had been kept from women, and the thought is, How much more are they pure in body to-day than three days ago! All that stands in the way of the conclusiveness of this interpretation is the verb vdqy in the singular number — it is sanctified. But in view of the obscurity that attaches to every other exposition, we feel constrained to emend the text by adding the plural ending to this verb, wvdqy, they are sanctified. Then the whole verse may be thus paraphrased: Truly women have been kept from us yesterday and the day before, when I came out, and so the bodies of the young men are in this respect pure; and though our business is not of a religious character, yet how much more are they pure in body today!

Verse 6. So the priest gave him hallowed bread] To this history our Lord alludes, Mark 2:25, in order to show that in cases of absolute necessity a breach of the ritual law was no sin. It was lawful for the priests only to eat the shew-bread; but David and his companions were starving, no other bread could be had at the time, and therefore he and his companions ate of it without sin.

6. That was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away — This was done every sabbath day, (Leviticus 24:8, 9,) and it is therefore probable that this incident of David’s life occurred on the sabbath. On this supposition our Lord’s appeal to this incident, as a vindication of his plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath, has double force. See Matthew 12:1-4. Kitto remarks: “As it was not lawful to travel on the sabbath day, it seems to us that, seeing it was not safe for him to remain at Gibeah, and that the little time which remained before the commencement of the sabbath would preclude further travelling, he had concluded to go to Nob as a place of safety, till the termination of the holy day should enable him to resume his journey.”

V. 7. Detained-Not by force but by his choice; he fixed his abode there for that day; either because it was the sabbath-day; on which he might not proceed in his journey, or for the discharge of some vow. Before the Lord-That is, at the tabernacle. An Edomite-By birth, but he was proselyted to the Jewish religion.

Verse 7. Detained before the Lord] Probably fulfilling some vow to the Lord, and therefore for a time resident at the tabernacle. And his name was Doeg] From 1 Samuel 22:9 we learn that this man betrayed David’s secret to Saul, which caused him to destroy the city, and slay eighty-five priests. We learn from its title that the fifty-second Psalm was made on this occasion; but titles are not to be implicitly trusted.

Verse 7. Detained before the Lord — That is, at the tabernacle. It is not to be imagined that he was detained here by force, but by his own choice he stayed there that day, either because it was the sabbath day, on which he might not proceed on his journey, or for the performance of some vow, or other religious duty, to which he had obliged himself. His name was Doeg, an Edomite — His native country was Edom; but he was proselyted to the Jewish religion.

Ver. 7. Doeg; detained here for mischief, by some evil genius.

7. Detained before the Lord — But what detained him? Various answers have been given, as that he was fulfiling some vow at the tabernacle, or offering some special sacrifice. But if the supposition of the above note be correct, that David’s interview with the priest occurred on the sabbath day, then we may naturally understand that Doeg was detained there by the sabbath, since it would be unlawful to be abroad at his work on that holy day. The chiefest of the herdmen — Overseer and chief manager of this department of the king’s affairs. Doeg is introduced here in anticipation of what is related in 1 Samuel 22:9-22, and also, perhaps, to account for David’s words and action. David had often inquired of the Lord through Ahimelech, (1 Samuel 22:15,) and had probably come to Nob to do so now, but, finding Doeg there, he seems to have been confused and embarrassed, so framed a fictitious pretext as to his coming alone, and then took his departure as soon as possible. His strange action may have led Doeg to suspect conspiracy between him and Ahimelech against the government of Saul. Compare 1 Samuel 22:9-13.

Verses 8, 9. The king’s business required haste — He pretended to Ahimelech, that the reason why he had not brought his sword or any weapon with him was, because he had not time to go to his house; the king pressing him to go immediately about his business. Wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod — That is, behind that holy place allotted for the keeping of the sacred, or priestly garments; all which are here comprehended under the ephod; which, as the chief, is put for all the rest. Here it was laid up as a sacred monument of God’s power and goodness. There is none like it — Because it not only served him for his use, for he was a strong and tall man, and one that could wield that sword; but it was also a pledge of God’s favour to him. Whenever he looked upon it, it would be a support to his faith, by reminding him of what God had already done.

DAVID’S FLIGHT TO NOB, 1-9.

Finding that his beloved Jonathan cannot defend him from the wrath of Saul, David next flies to the high priest, to inquire of the Lord concerning his way. The presence there of Doeg, the Edomite, was an obstacle in his way.

1. Nob — This city was situated a little to the north of Jerusalem, and apparently upon an eminence in sight of it, so that the Assyrian army, having advanced thus far, could “shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion.” Isaiah 10:32. Many travellers have sought in vain to identify its sight. Dr. J.L. Porter made the discovery of Nob a special subject of research, and as the result of his investigation gives us the following: “Less than a mile south of Tuleil el-Ful, the site of Gibeah, is a conical rocky tell [hill] separated from the former by a valley. On the summit and sides of this tell are traces of a small but very ancient town — cisterns cut in the rock; large, hewn stones: portions of the rocky sides levelled and hewn away; and on the southeast the remains of a small tower. From the summit there is a wide view. Mount Zion is distinctly seen, though Moriah is hid by an intervening ridge. The position, south of Gibeah and not far from Anathoth; the elevation, commanding a view of Zion, against which Isaiah represents the Assyrian as shaking his hand; the ancient remains — all convinced the writer that this is the site of the long-lost Nob.” Ahimelech the priest — Supposed to be the same as the Ahiah mentioned 1 Samuel 14:3. This high priest was assisted by eighty-five priests who wore linen ephods, and hence Nob was called the city of the priests. 1 Samuel 22:18, 19. The mention of these, and also of the show-bread, shows that the tabernacle was at this time at Nob. Ahimelech was afraid — At seeing a person of David’s rank coming to him unattended and alone.

V. 9. Ephod-That is, behind that holy place allotted for the keeping of the sacred, or priestly garments; all which are here comprehended under the ephod; which, as the chief is put for all the rest. Here it was laid up as a sacred monument of God’s power and goodness. None like it-Because it not only served him for his use, for he was a strong and tall man, and one that could wield that sword, but was also a pledge of God’s favour to him. Whenever be looked upon it, it would be a support to his faith, by reminding him of what God had already done.

Verse 9. The sword of Goliath] It has already been conjectured (see 1 Samuel 17:1-58) that the sword of Goliath was laid up as a trophy in the tabernacle.

Verses 8, 9. The king’s business required haste — He pretended to Ahimelech, that the reason why he had not brought his sword or any weapon with him was, because he had not time to go to his house; the king pressing him to go immediately about his business. Wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod — That is, behind that holy place allotted for the keeping of the sacred, or priestly garments; all which are here comprehended under the ephod; which, as the chief, is put for all the rest. Here it was laid up as a sacred monument of God’s power and goodness. There is none like it — Because it not only served him for his use, for he was a strong and tall man, and one that could wield that sword; but it was also a pledge of God’s favour to him. Whenever he looked upon it, it would be a support to his faith, by reminding him of what God had already done.

9. Wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod — It is probable that, after he had exhibited Goliath’s sword at his own home, (1 Samuel 17:54,) David had it deposited in the sanctuary as a dedicatory offering. Here it had now been hanging many years, carefully kept behind the high priest’s shoulder-dress. David now thought that he might justly claim it as his own. Ahimelech’s allowing him to take it was construed by Doeg as further evidence of collusion between them.

V. 10. To Achish-A strange action; but it must be considered, that Saul’s rage was so great, his power also, and diligence in hunting after him that he despaired of escaping any other way: and a desperate disease, produceth a desperate remedy. The king elect is here an exile: anointed to the crown, and yet forced to run his country. So do God’s providences sometimes run counter to his promises, for the trial of our faith, and the glorifying his name in accomplishing his counsels, notwithstanding the difficulties that lie in the way.

Verse 10. Went to Achish the king of Gath.] This was the worst place to which he could have gone: it was the very city of Goliath, whom he had slain, and whose sword he now wore; and he soon found, from the conversation of the servants of Achish, that his life was in the most imminent danger in this place.

Verse 10. David arose and fed to Achish — A miserable condition, to be forced to flee to those for protection who were naturally his bitter enemies. For this was the city of Goliath whom he had slain, and whose sword he had now about him. But it must be considered that Saul’s rage was so great, and his power and diligence also in hunting after him, that he despaired of escaping any other way; and a desperate disease requireth a desperate remedy. Perhaps indeed he thought he should not be known: or, being now in disgrace with Saul, he thought the Philistines might take him for Saul’s enemy, and so receive him gladly. The king elect is here an exile: anointed to the crown, and yet forced to run his country! So do God’s providences sometimes run counter to his promises, for the trial of our faith, and the glorifying of his name in accomplishing his counsels, notwithstanding the difficulties which lie in the way.

DAVID AT GATH, 10-15.

10. Fled that day — Even before that day had closed so great became his fear of being suspected and detained that he secretly fled from Nob. For fear — Rather, from the face of Saul. Mark his successive flights. First from the court of Saul to his own house, (1 Samuel 19:10;) thence to Samuel at Ramah, (18;) thence to Jonathan in the field of Gibeah, (1 Samuel 20:1;) thence to the high priest at Nob. 1 Samuel 21:1. He might well feel, at this point, that there was now no asylum for him in Israel. Went to Achish the king of Gath — On the site of Gath, see note on 1 Samuel 5:8. Achish was, perhaps, a title of royalty, applied, like Abimelech, to all the Philistine kings. It indeed seems strange that David should have fled so soon for refuge into the land of Israel’s bitterest enemy, and, with Goliath’s sword in his hand, should nevertheless have sought an asylum in Gath, lately the home of Goliath. But we must remember that several years had passed since David’s victory over the giant, and verse 12 gives us to understand that David did not expect to be recognised. This account, however, of David at Gath is very brief, and the difficulty in question may be owing to our ignorance of all the circumstances of the case. Perhaps David’s coming to Gath was not intentional on his own part, but, having fled into the territory of Achish, he was seized by the servants of that king, and forcibly carried into the royal presence. This supposition is in entire accord with the particulars of this narrative, and has the sanction of the title of Psalm 56, which David composed on this occasion.

V. 11. King of the land-Of Canaan. They call him king, either more generally for the governor, the most eminent captain and commander, or, as the king elect, the person designed to be king: for, by this time, the fame of Saul’s rejection, and David’s destination to the kingdom, was got abroad among the Israelites, and from them, probably to the Philistines. Did they not sing, &c.-And therefore consider what to do; and now our great enemy is in thy hand, be sure thou never let him go alive.

Verse 11. King of the land — Of Canaan. They call him king, either more generally for the governor, the most eminent captain and commander, or, as the king elect, the person designed to be king: for, by this time, the fame of Saul’s rejection, and David’s destination to the kingdom, was got abroad among the Israelites, and from them, probably, to the Philistines. Did they not sing, &c. — And therefore consider what to do; and now our great enemy is in thy hand, be sure thou never let him go alive.

11. The servants of Achish — Who brought David into the royal presence. Where and in what manner these servants met with David we are not told; but the supposition, based on the title of Psalm lvi, is exceedingly plausible: that they had taken him captive while he was wandering in the land of Philistia. King of the land — “Thus they call David, not because his anointing and Divine election were known to them, but on account of his victorious deeds, which had thrown Saul entirely into the shade.” — Keil.

V. 12. Was afraid-Lest either their revenge or policy should prompt them to kill him. Perhaps he was the more apprehensive, because he wore Goliath’s sword, which was probably well known at Gath. He now learned by experience what he afterward taught us, Psalm 118:9. It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put any confidence in princes.

Verse 12. David laid up these words in his heart — It is probable he had been at first well received, but this discourse deeply affected him, and made him think himself not safe there. For, when he found that his fame was spread among them, as having slain such numbers of the Philistines, he concluded that they would be instigated to take revenge on him now they had him in their power. And was sore afraid — Lest either their revenge or policy should prompt them to kill him. Perhaps he was the more apprehensive, because he wore Goliath’s sword, which was, probably, well known at Gath.

12. David laid up these words in his heart — Until he heard the servants say these things he hoped to escape recognition; but now, when he finds that they suspect him to be the great hero who slew Goliath, he is oppressed with a host of fears.

Verse 13. And he changed his behaviour] Some imagine David was so terrified at the danger to which he was now exposed, that he was thrown into a kind of frenzy, accompanied with epileptic fits. This opinion is countenanced by the Septuagint, who render the passage thus: Idou idete andra epilhton; “Behold, ye see an epileptic man. Why have ye introduced him to me?” Mh elattoumai epilhptwn egw; “Have I any need of epileptics, that ye have brought him to have his fits before me, (epilhpteuesqai prov me?”) It is worthy of remark, that the spittle falling upon the beard, i.e., slavering or frothing at the mouth, is a genuine concomitant of an epileptic fit.

If this translation be allowed, it will set the conduct of David in a clearer point of view than the present translation does. But others think the whole was a feigned conduct, and that he acted the part of a lunatic or madman in order to get out of the hands of Achish and his courtiers. Many vindicate this conduct of David; but if mocking be catching, according to the proverb, he who feigns himself to be mad may, through the just judgment of God, become so. I dare not be the apologist of insincerity or lying. Those who wish to look farther into this subject may consult Dr. Chandler, Mr. Saurin, and Ortlob, in the first volume of Dissertations, at the end of the Dutch edition of the Critici Sacri.

Verse 13. He feigned himself mad — That he might escape out of their hands. And herein he showed great sagacity and penetration. How great danger he was in, appears plainly from the 34th and 56th Psalms, which he composed upon this occasion. And he had indeed need to consider it, as he does in the first of those Psalms, as a wonderful deliverance wrought for him by God himself. He now learned by experience what he afterward taught us, Psalm 118:9, That it is better to trust in the Lord than to put any confidence in princes.

Ver. 13. He changed his behaviour. Hebrew, “he changed his taste.” Septuagint, “he changed his countenance.” That is, he changed his reason with gestures and motions, and scratched or marked the posts of their gates. Others say, he fell against the posts of the gates, and hurt himself. David’s great fears on hearing the king report his achievements, might really throw him into some sort of delirium. And the 34th and the 57th Psalms which he composed on this occasion, thanking God that he had preserved him from guile, strongly indicate that his behaviour before Achish was the effect of God’s afflicting hand.

13. Changed his behaviour — Rather, changed his reason; pretended to lose his mind.

Ver. 14. Lo, you see the man is mad. The LXX, andra epilhpton, an epileptic man. Saurin has reprinted the essay of a learned man who justifies this reading.

14. The man is mad — “A sort of respect for persons thus afflicted, as if they were under some kind of supernatural influence, has always existed, and does now exist, in the East; so that David knew his personal safety, and even his freedom, were guaranteed by the belief in his madness.” — Kitto.

V. 15. Mad men-It is highly probable, Achish was aware, that this madness was counterfeit. But being desirous to preserve David, he speaks as if he thought it real.

Verse 15. Shall this fellow come into my house?] I will not take into my service a man who is liable to so grievous a disease. Chandler, who vindicates David’s feigning himself, mad, concludes thus: “To deceive the deceiver is in many instances meritorious, in none criminal. And what so likely to deceive as the very reverse of that character which they had so misconstrued? He was undone as a wise man, he had a chance to escape as a madman; he tried, and the experiment succeeded.” I confess I can neither feel the force nor the morality of this. Deceit and hypocrisy can never be pleasing in the sight of God.

I SAMUEL

Verse 15. Have I need of madmen? — It is highly probable that Achish was aware this madness was counterfeit. But, being desirous to preserve David, he spoke as if he thought it real.

DAVID AT GATH, 10-15.

10. Fled that day — Even before that day had closed so great became his fear of being suspected and detained that he secretly fled from Nob. For fear — Rather, from the face of Saul. Mark his successive flights. First from the court of Saul to his own house, (1 Samuel 19:10;) thence to Samuel at Ramah, (18;) thence to Jonathan in the field of Gibeah, (1 Samuel 20:1;) thence to the high priest at Nob. 1 Samuel 21:1. He might well feel, at this point, that there was now no asylum for him in Israel. Went to Achish the king of Gath — On the site of Gath, see note on 1 Samuel 5:8. Achish was, perhaps, a title of royalty, applied, like Abimelech, to all the Philistine kings. It indeed seems strange that David should have fled so soon for refuge into the land of Israel’s bitterest enemy, and, with Goliath’s sword in his hand, should nevertheless have sought an asylum in Gath, lately the home of Goliath. But we must remember that several years had passed since David’s victory over the giant, and verse 12 gives us to understand that David did not expect to be recognised. This account, however, of David at Gath is very brief, and the difficulty in question may be owing to our ignorance of all the circumstances of the case. Perhaps David’s coming to Gath was not intentional on his own part, but, having fled into the territory of Achish, he was seized by the servants of that king, and forcibly carried into the royal presence. This supposition is in entire accord with the particulars of this narrative, and has the sanction of the title of Psalm 56, which David composed on this occasion.