Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Samuel 21:1 - 21:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Sa 21:1-2
David at Nob. - The town of Nob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form נֹבֶה stands for נֹבָה here and in 1Sa 22:9, and the ה attached is merely ה local, as the name is always written נֹב in other places: vid., 1Sa 22:11, 1Sa 22:19; 1Sa 21:1; Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32) was at that time a priests' city (1Sa 22:19), in which, according to the following account, the tabernacle was then standing, and the legal worship carried on. According to Isa 10:30, Isa 10:32, it was between Anathoth (Anata) and Jerusalem, and in all probability it has been preserved in the village of el-Isawiyeh, i.e., probably the village of Esau or Edom, which is midway between Anata and Jerusalem, an hour from the latter, and the same distance to the south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tell el Phul), and which bears all the marks of an ancient place, partly in its dwellings, the stones of which date from a great antiquity, and partly in many marble columns which are found there (vid., Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem ii. p. 720). Hence v. Raumer (Pal. p. 215, ed. 4) follows Kiepert in the map which he has appended to Robinson's Biblical Researches, and set down this place as the ancient Nob, for which Robinson indeed searched in vain (see Pal. ii. p. 150). Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, most probably the same person as Ahiah (1Sa 14:3), was “the priest,” i.e., the high priest (see at 1Sa 14:3). When David came to him, the priest “went trembling to meet him” (לִקְרַאת יֶחֱרַד) with the inquiry, “Why art thou alone, and no one is with thee?” The unexpected appearance of David, the son-in-law of the king, without any attendants, alarmed Ahimelech, who probably imagined that he had come with a commission from the king which might involve him in danger. David had left the few servants who accompanied him in his flight somewhere in the neighbourhood, as we may gather from 1Sa 21:2, because he wished to converse with the high priest alone. Ahimelech's anxious inquiry led David to resort to the fabrication described in 1Sa 21:2 : “The king hath commanded me a business, and said to me, No one is to know anything of this matter, in which (lit. in relation to the matter with regard to which) I send thee, and which I have entrusted to thee (i.e., no one is to know either the occasion or the nature of the commission): and the servants I have directed to such and such a place.” יֹודַע, Poel, to cause to know, point, show. Ahimelech had received no information as yet concerning the most recent occurrences between Saul and David; and David would not confess to him that he was fleeing from Saul, because he was evidently afraid that the high priest would not give him any assistance, lest he should draw down the wrath of the king. This falsehood brought he greatest calamities upon Ahimelech and the priests at Nob (1Sa 22:9-19), and David was afterwards obliged to confess that he had occasioned it all (1Sa 22:22).
1Sa 21:3
“And now what is under thy hand? give into my hand (i.e., hand me) five loaves, or whatever (else) is to be found.” David asked for five loaves, because he had spoken of several attendants, and probably wanted to make provision for two or three days (Thenius).
1Sa 21:4
The priest answered that he had no common bread, but only holy bread, viz., according to 1Sa 21:6, shew-bread that had been removed, which none but priests were allowed to eat, and that in a sacred place; but that he was willing to give him some of these loaves, as David had said that he was travelling upon an important mission from the king, provided only that “the young men had kept themselves at least from women,” i.e., had not been defiled by sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18). If they were clean at any rate in this respect, he would in such a case of necessity depart from the Levitical law concerning the eating of the shew-bread, for the sake of observing the higher commandment of love to a neighbour (Lev 19:18; cf. Mat 12:5-6; Mar 2:25-26).
(Note: When Mark (Mar 2:26) assigns this action to the days of Abiathar the high priest, the statement rests upon an error of memory, in which Ahimelech is confounded with Abiathar.)
1Sa 21:5
David quieted him concerning this scruple, and said, “Nay, but women have been kept from us since yesterday and the day before.” The use of אִם כִּי may be explained from the fact, that in David's reply he paid more attention to the sense than to the form of the priest's scruple, and expressed himself as concisely as possible. The words, “if the young men have only kept themselves from women,” simply meant, if only they are not unclean; and David replied, That is certainly not the case, but women have been kept from us; so that אִם כִּי has the meaning but in this passage also, as it frequently has after a previous negative, which is implied in the thought here as in 2Sa 13:33. “When I came out, the young men's things were holy (Levitically clean); and if it is an unholy way, it becomes even holy through the instrument.” David does not say that the young men were clean when he came out (for the rendering given to הַנְּעָרִים כְּלֵי in the Septuagint, πάντα τὰ παιδάρια, is without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word כְּלֵי, which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that קֹדֶשׁ הַנְּעָרִים כְּלֵי, i.e., according to Luther's rendering (der Knaben Zeug war heilig), the young men's things (clothes, etc.) were holy. כֵּלִים does not mean merely vessels, arms, or tools, but also the dress (Deu 22:5), or rather the clothes as well as such things as were most necessary to meet the wants of life. By the coitus, or strictly speaking, by the emissio seminis in connection with the coitus, not only were the persons themselves defiled, but also every article of clothing or leather upon which any of the semen fell (Lev 15:18); so that it was necessary for the purpose of purification that the things which a man had on should all be washed. David explains, with evident allusion to this provision, that the young men's things were holy, i.e., perfectly clean, for the purpose of assuring the priest that there was not the smallest Levitical uncleanness attaching to them. The clause which follows is to be taken as conditional, and as supposing a possible case: “and if it is an unholy way.” דֶּרֶךְ, the way that David was going with his young men, i.e., his purpose of enterprise, by which, however, we are not to understand his request of holy bread from Ahimelech, but the performance of the king's commission of which he had spoken. כִּי וְאַף, lit. besides (there is) also that, = moreover there is also the fact, that it becomes holy through the instrument; i.e., as O. v. Gerlach has correctly explained it, “on the supposition of the important royal mission, upon which David pretended to be sent, through me as an ambassador of the anointed of the Lord,” in which, at any rate, David's meaning really was, “the way was sanctified before God, when he, as His chosen servant, the preserver of the true kingdom of God in Israel, went to him in his extremity.” That פְּלִי in the sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident from Isa 13:5 and Jer 50:25.
1Sa 21:6-7
The priest then gave him (what was) holy, namely the shew-loaves “that were taken from before Jehovah,” i.e., from the holy table, upon which they had lain before Jehovah for seven days (vid., Lev 24:6-9). - In 1Sa 21:7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of great importance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. There at the sanctuary there was a man of Saul's servants, נֶעְצָר, i.e., “kept back (shut off) before Jehovah:” i.e., at the sanctuary of the tabernacle, either for the sake of purification or as a proselyte, who wished to be received into the religious communion of Israel, or because of supposed leprosy, according to Lev 13:4. His name was Doeg the Edomite, הָרֹעִים אַבְּיר, “the strong one (i.e., the overseer) of the herdsmen of Saul.”
(Note: The Septuagint translators have rendered these words νέμων τὰς ἡμιόνους, “feeding the mules of Saul;” and accordingly in 1Sa 22:9 also they have changed Saul's servants into mules, in accordance with which Thenius makes Doeg the upper herdsman of Saul. But it is very evident that the text of the lxx is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the expression before us, and does not presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the other ancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in 1Sa 22:9, including even the Vulgate (potentissimus pastorum); and the clause contained in some of the MSS of the Vulgate (his pascebat mulas Saul) is nothing more than a gloss that has crept in from the Itala; and this is still more obvious in 1Sa 22:9, where נִצָּב וְהוּא is applicable enough to עַבְדֵי, but is altogether unsuitable in connection with פִרְדֵי, since נִצָּב is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, than we should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules being used as riding animals by royal princes (2Sa 13:29; 2Sa 18:9); and they are mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses, camels, and oxen, in 1Ch 12:40, where they are said to have been employed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to the festival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David's time the sons of princes rode upon asses (vid., Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14).)
1Sa 21:8
David also asked Ahimelech whether he had not a sword or a javelin at hand; “for I have neither brought my sword nor my (other) weapons with me, because the affair of the king was pressing,” i.e., very urgent, נָחוּץ, ἁπ. λεγ., literally, compressed.
1Sa 21:9
The priest replied, that there was only the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the terebinth valley (1Sa 17:2), wrapped up in a cloth hanging behind the ephod (the high priest's shoulder-dress), - a sign of the great worth attached to this dedicatory offering. He could take that. David accepted it, as a weapon of greater value to him than any other, because he had not only taken this sword as booty from the Philistine, but had cut off the head of Goliath with it (see 1Sa 17:51). When and how this sword had come into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on 1Sa 17:54). The form בַּזֶּה for בָּזֶה is only met with here. On the Piska, see at Jos 4:1.