1 Σαμουήλ 21:6 Σχόλιο

David has now quite taken leave both of Saul's court and of his camp, has bidden farewell to his alter idem - his other self, the beloved Jonathan; and henceforward to the end of this book he is looked upon and treated as an outlaw and proclaimed a traitor. We still find him shifting from place to place for his own safety, and Saul pursuing him. His troubles are very particularly related in this and the following chapters, not only to be a key to the Psalms, but that he might be, as other prophets, an example to the saints in all ages, "of suffering affliction, and of patience," and especially that he might be a type of Christ, who, being anointed to the kingdom, humbled himself, and was therefore highly exalted. But the example of the suffering Jesus was a copy without a blot, that of David was not so; witness the records of this chapter, where we find David in his flight, I. Imposing upon Abimelech the priest, to get from him both victuals and arms (Sa1 21:1-9). II. Imposing upon Achish, king of Gath, by feigning himself mad (Sa1 21:10-15). Justly are troubles called temptations, for many are by them drawn into sin.

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST SAMUEL 21 This chapter relates that David went to Nob, and pretending he was on secret business for the king, got shewbread, and the sword of Goliath, from Ahimelech the priest, Sa1 21:1; and that passing from thence to Gath, where he was known, through fear feigned himself mad, and so escaped from thence, Sa1 21:10.

So the priest gave him hallowed bread,.... Being satisfied with the account he gave of himself, and his young men, and of the lawfulness of it in case of necessity, acts of mercy being to be preferred to ritual services. Whether he gave him five loaves, as he desired, is not said; but the reason of his giving him such sort of bread is observed: for there was no bread there; in the tabernacle, whatever might be in the house of the priest: but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord; from off of the shewbread table; and it seems to have been just taken off, it being sabbath day, and not as yet carried to the house of the priest, and divided among the other priests as usual; and which was then removed, to put hot bread, in the day that it was taken away; that is, new bread, twelve fresh cakes; for when the twelve, that had stood a week on the shewbread table were removed, twelve more were immediately put in their room, and it seems by this they were put hot there; but here arises a difficulty, how they could be put hot there, when it was not lawful to bake on a sabbath day. About this the Jews are divided; some say they were baked on the sabbath day, but the greater part say that baking did not drive away the sabbath, or it was lawful on the sabbath day; but others say that they were baked on the evening of the sabbath, and kept in the oven until the time of their being set upon the table (h); and, as Abarbinel observes, the mouth of the oven might be stopped up till that time to keep in the heat; but others say (i) this heat was miraculous, or that a miracle was wrought for the sake of it; which is not probable. (h) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 95. 2. (i) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 2l. 1. Menachot, fol. 96. 2.

When the disciples had been hungry on the sabbath and had plucked some ears [of grain] and rubbed them in their hands, they violated the holy day by so preparing their food. Yet Christ excuses them and even became their accomplice in breaking the sabbath. … For from the Creator’s Scripture and from the purpose of Christ there is derived a vivid precedent from David’s example when he went into the temple on the sabbath and provided food by boldly breaking up the show bread. Even he remembered that this privilege (the dispensation from fasting) was allowed on the sabbath from the very beginning, from when the sabbath itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, he permitted it on only one occasion—the day before the sabbath—so that the previous day’s provision of food might free them from fasting on the following sabbath. Therefore the Lord had good reason for pursuing the same principle in the “annulling” of the sabbath (since that is the word which people will use). He had good reason, too, for expressing the Creator’s will, when he bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath. In short, might he have—right then and there—put an end not only to the sabbath but to the Creator himself if he had commanded his disciples to fast on the sabbath, as this would have been contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will. But is he alien from the Creator because he did not directly defend his disciples but excuses them? Or because he interposes human need, as if deprecating censure? Or because he maintains the honor of the sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work? Or because he puts David and his companions on a level with his own disciples in their fault and their validation? Or because he is pleased to endorse the Creator’s indulgence? Or because he is himself good according to his example—is he therefore alien from the Creator?

Our Lord put forward the clear example of David, who was not accused either over this, as he was over something else. It was not permissible, he said, for David to eat [the holy bread] since he was not a priest. However, he was a priest, because he was a temple of the Spirit. Because they did not understand this, he openly proved them wrong with regard to their own [position]: “The priests were defiling the sabbath in the temple, and they were not guilty of sin.” Another element is depicted for us there. Before David was persecuted, he partook of the bread with authority.

Even if they accuse, yet Christ excuses, and he makes the souls that he wishes, that follow him, similar to David, who ate the loaves of proposition outside of the law—for even then he foresaw in his mind the prophetic mysteries of a new grace.

In many other testimonies of the divine Scriptures, Christ appears both as king and as priest. With good reason, therefore, he is declared to be David’s son more frequently than he is said to be Abraham’s son. Matthew and Luke have both affirmed this: the one viewing him [David] as the person from whom, through Solomon, his [Jesus’] lineage can be traced down, and the other taking him [David] for the person to whom, through Nathan, his [Jesus’] genealogy can be carried up. So he [David] did represent the role of a priest, although he was patently a king, when he ate the show bread. For it was not lawful for any one to eat that, except the priests alone.

The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread. Because he heard that they were clean who were to receive it, he consented to give them the sanctified bread; which he would in no way dare to do if he had not recognized them as clean in all respects. But if such careful attention to purity was required of him who was to taste the typical bread sanctified by the hands of Moses, how much more necessary is it for those who, having accepted the bread sanctified into the sacrament of Christ's body in his holy and venerable hands, received in memory of his death, are to partake of it as a help to eternal life, to take care of their purity? Indeed, it is necessary for one always to remember the saying of the Apostle: "For whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11). The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread.

For there was no bread there but that, etc. The apostles gave to those who believed, and were baptized from among the Gentiles, the word of the law and the prophets, sanctified by the grace of the Gospel. For there was no literal knowledge among the apostles and the disciples of the apostles, except only the prophetic books, which had been openly proposed to the ancient people for reading, and had recently been fulfilled by the Incarnation of the Lord, so that they were no longer held to be said, in order that the books of the New Testament might be written, to refresh the souls of priests, that is, those united to the eternal priest's members, warmed by the fire of the Holy Spirit. And it should be noted that David asked for bread, not five or twelve (for that was the number of the showbread), but it is said that he received sanctified bread singularly; just as he is remembered to have put five stones into his pouch, but struck down Goliath with one. There are five books containing the elements of legal doctrine. But, as the apostle says, the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22; Mark 12). It can also rightly be understood that the sanctified bread is singularly named, either because of the unity of faith and love, but should be understood plurally due to either the various works of virtues or the multiple abundance of divine Scriptures by which we are instructed in virtues; just as what is written singularly in the Psalms: He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them (Psalm 77), there is no doubt that it must be understood in the plural, especially since the Lord in the Gospels, preferring mercy over sacrifice, affirms that the bread given to him must be understood in the plural (Matthew 9). Have you not read, he says, what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests (Luke 6)? Where, according to the interpretation in which we said that the Lord our Savior was figuratively shown in this reading as both priest and king, it must be understood as prefigured, that the priestly food, upon the coming of the Lord, was no longer to be given to Levi or the people of the children of Israel only, but to all the Gentiles who are to be called to faith. For it has been said to all who hunger for righteousness, who wish to belong to the company of the true David: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession (1 Peter 2). And because we have spoken about the mystery to the best of our ability, Josephus's statements (Antiquities 3, 13) also help to elucidate the plain sense of the letter more clearly regarding the showbread, which we thought should be briefly looked into and inserted into our treatise for the benefit of the readers. For, since the religion and status of Jerusalem and the temple were still standing in his times, he could very easily know and reveal to the readers what was carried out by the priests through hereditary succession, as he himself was a priest. He says, therefore, "they used to make them out of fine flour without leaven, twenty-four in number." And he adds: "They are baked two by two, split before the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath morning, they are placed on the sacred table, facing each other, with two golden dishes full of incense placed on top of them, which remain until the next Sabbath, when other loaves are brought in their place. Those loaves are then offered to the priests, and after the incense is burnt in the sacred fire, in which all holocausts are made, other incense is added to the other loaves."

David comes to Ahimelech at Nob, receives provisions from him, and the sword of Goliath; and is noticed by Doeg, one of the servants of Saul, Sa1 21:1-9. He leaves Nob, and goes to Achish, king of Gath, Sa1 21:10. But on being recognised as the vanquisher of Goliath by the servants of Achish, he feigns himself deranged, and Achish sends him away, Sa1 21:11-15.

So the priest gave him hallowed bread - To this history our Lord alludes, Mar 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.

DAVID, AT NOB, OBTAINS OF AHIMELECH HALLOWED BREAD. (Sa1 21:1-7) Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech--Nob, a city of the priests (Sa1 22:19), was in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives--a little north of the top, and on the northeast of the city. It is computed to have been about five miles distant from Gibeah. Ahimelech, the same as Ahiah, or perhaps his brother, both being sons of Ahitub (compare Sa1 14:3, with Sa1 22:4-11, Sa1 22:20). His object in fleeing to this place was partly for the supply of his necessities, and partly for comfort and counsel, in the prospect of leaving the kingdom. Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David--suspecting some extraordinary occurrence by his appearing so suddenly, and in such a style, for his attendants were left at a little distance.

there was no bread there--in the tabernacle. The removal of the old and the substitution of the new bread was done on the Sabbath (Lev 24:8), the loaves being kept warm in an oven heated the previous day.

David's Flight to Nob, and Thence to Gath - Sa1 21:1-15 After the information which David had received from Jonathan, nothing remained for him in order to save his life but immediate flight. He could not return to the prophets at Ramah, where he had been miraculously preserved from the first outbreak of Saul's wrath, because they could not ensure him permanent protection against the death with which he was threatened. He therefore fled first of all to Nob, to Ahimelech the high priest, to inquire the will of God through him concerning his future course (Sa1 22:10, Sa1 22:15), and induced him to give him bread and the sword of Goliath, also, under the pretext of having to perform a secret commission from the king with the greatest speed; for which Saul afterwards took fearful vengeance upon the priests at Nob when he was made acquainted with the affair through the treachery of Doeg (Sa1 21:1-9). David then fled to Gath to the Philistian king Achish; but here he was quickly recognised as the conqueror of Goliath, and obliged to feign insanity in order to save his life, and then to flee still farther (Sa1 21:10-15). The state of his mind at this time he poured out before God in the words of Psa 56:1-13; Psa 52:1-9, and 34.