Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church, Manhattan, KS, 11 July 2021
Reviewing up to this point in 1 Samuel, we have seen tensions rise between Saul the reigning king of Israel, and David, the “better man” anointed by the prophet Samuel to be the next king.
In chapters 16-18, David was welcomed into Saul’s palace as an accomplished musician, an esteemed Army captain, and as a son-in-law.
But it didn’t rest easy with King Saul, and this culminated in multiple attempts on David’s life in chapter 19, then a definitive cutting of ties with Saul’s court in chapter 20 with Prince Jonathan’s full approval and support.
Now for the rest of the book, David will be a fugitive with no place that he can live legally and no place that he can work legally. He will spend the rest of this book living on-the-run with the Israeli Army and the Police trying to capture and kill him.
READ PASSAGE (NAW): So David went to Nob, to Achimelek the priest, but Achimelek was skittish about welcoming {him}, and he said to him, “Why is it that you are by yourself, and there is not a man with you?” And David said to the priest, “The king commanded a thing of me, and said to me, ‘No one should know anything about this thing for which I am sending you and which I have commanded you.’ Furthermore, I have {made an appointment} with my servants at such-and-such a place. So now {if} there are five bread-loaves under your management, give them into my hand – or whatever can be found.” And the priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread under my management, but there is holy bread. If your servants have kept themselves at least from a woman, {then let them eat of it}.” Then David replied to the priest and said to him, “Indeed {we have restrained ourselves} from a woman {since} three days ago when I went out, and the persons of my servants have continued to be holy although it is an ordinary journey - now all the more so today in the person there will be holiness!” So the priest gave what was holy to him, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the face of Yahweh to set out hot bread on the day it was to be taken. Now on that day, there was a man there from the servants of Saul who was restrained before the face of Yahweh, and his name was Doeg the Edomite, chief of the shepherds which [worked] for Saul. Anyway, David said to Achimelek, “Now, isn’t there a spear or a sword under your management here? For I did not take in my hand either my sword or my weapons, since the word of the king was urgent.” And the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine which you struck down in the valley of Elah, see, it is covered in the cloak behind the ephod. If it is for you to take for yourself, take it, for there is no other in here except it.” And David said, “There is none like it; Give it to me!” Then David got up and fled on that day from the presence of Saul, so he went to Acish, king of Gath.
Take note of where David goes first in chapter 21 as an official political fugitive: to God’s special house1!
Neither Naioth in Ramah nor Nob were cities of refuge; David did not choose to go that route, perhaps because people would have thought he was truly guilty of something.
But, for the second time, when David was scared and looking for companionship and protection, David fled to a man of God – a priest.
Matthew Henry also suggested that David “comes to the tabernacle… To take an affecting leave of it, for he knows not when he shall see it again, and nothing will be more afflictive to him in his banishment than his distance from the house of God, and his restraint from public ordinances, as appears by many of his psalms.”
Achimelek the priest immediately senses that something is wrong when he sees David all by himself without his escort of a thousand soldiers.
We are not told whether Achimelek was trembling with concern for David to see him so alone, or whether he was trembling with concern for himself, knowing that this was a political power keg he was entering into.
Achimelek2 means “my brother - king” – and we know from chapter 14 that his brother Ahijah was a chaplain for King Saul, so there were family connections to Saul, and Achimelek had to have known that the political situation was extremely volatile.
David does not answer Achimelek’s question; he just makes up a lie about being on a secret mission for Saul. “The king told me to keep it a secret; I can’t tell you why I’m here.”
None of the commentators I read even attempted to defend David’s integrity over this.
It’s easy to understand why he lied in the midst of his fear: he was genuinely running for his life, but that still doesn’t excuse him; he blew it, and there were consequences.
Perhaps, due to this lie, David’s life as a fugitive became harder than it otherwise would have been.
Perhaps if David had not lied, Doeg would not have suspected a conspiracy from David. As it was, Doeg knew David had lied by saying he was on a special mission from the king, and he knew that David had taken other men with him, and that would smack of conspiracy. If David had said that he was running for his life from Saul, who was unjustly pursuing him, maybe Doeg would not have suspected David of conspiracy; I don’t know.
If David had told the truth, perhaps the priests at Nob wouldn’t have been killed. David admits later in chapter 22, v.22, that it was his fault that those priests were murdered, and that must have been a terrible burden of guilt to carry.
Jesus promises to punish liars in the lake of fire forever (Rev. 21:8), but also in the short run, lies bring confusion, fear of being found out, and the necessity to lie more to cover up. So tell the truth, no matter how hard it may be.
David follows up with an attempt to set Achimelek at ease about his lack of companions by saying that he had men with him, but they were off on errands and would be convening later with him at a certain place.
I’m inclined to think that David was not lying about there being men with him because when Jesus recounts this event in the Gospels, Jesus’ wording takes for granted that there were indeed men with David.
David is not chatty or polite, he quickly asks for anything that Achimelek has on hand to eat. Five loaves of bread would hardly feed the thousand troops he was over. It would be just enough for him to survive on for a few days.
It is strange, particularly in the context of a Middle Eastern country where hospitality is one of the highest values there is, that no priest pipes up and says, “Hey, why don’t you come over to my house, and we’ll see that you get a square meal.” I think Matthew Henry was right in his commentary that this points toward something problematic in Achimelek’s character, that he “kept no good house, but wanted[lacked]... a heart to be hospitable...”
In verse 4, the priest reminds David that this is not a grocery store; this is the tabernacle, and the only bread they kept on hand was something special for the holy place.
Leviticus 24 explains that the high priest “...must arrange the lamps upon the lamp-stand of purity continuously before the face of Yahweh. You must also get fine flour and bake it into twelve bread-loaves – two bags per one bread-loaf, and you must place them in arrangements of twos (six being the arrangement) upon the table of purity before the face of Yahweh. Then you must put clarified frankincense on top of each arrangement, and instead of the bread it will be [used] for a memorial burnt-offering for Yahweh. From Day of Rest to Day of Rest he shall arrange it [the bread] to be a lasting covenant before the face of Yahweh continuously from the children of Israel. It [the covenant] will also be for Aaron and for his children so that they shall eat it [the bread] in a holy place because it is a holy thing [among] holy things belonging to him from among the burnt-offerings of Yahweh. This is a lasting statute.” (vs.4-9, NAW)
So this “shewbread/holy bread/bread of the presence” was to be switched out every Sabbath with a batch of fresh, hot loaves, and the week-old loaves were to be eaten only by Aaron and his descendants, and only in a holy place3.
So how could Achimelek give any of this holy bread to David, who was not a priest? My favorite commentator, Andrew Willett, explained this well: “Some things are not sacred in their nature, but according to the institution, as the ceremonies of the law, which now are prophaned and abrogated by Christ: so the elements used in the Sacraments, are sanctified by the word for that spiritual use: but that holy action being finished, they return to their nature [in other words, we flush the extra water down the drain after a baptism, and we throw away or eat the leftover bread and juice after the communion service because they have fulfilled their holy purpose and they go back to their common purpose]: such was the shew bread here given unto David, it was holy by the ceremonie, but... common in regard of David's necessitie… [T]he ceremonial law is wholly to give place to the moral, when as both can not be kept together: as the health, life, and safetie of man, wherein our love and charitie is seen, is to be preferred before a ceremonie… [T]he Priest and David both [w]ould have sinned, if he... ha[d] suffered David to perish, and David... ha[d] chosen rather to die than to eat of the hallowed bread…” ~Willett
In the New Testament we also have a commentary on Achimelek’s decision to give holy bread to David: Matthew 12:1-8 “During that time on the Sabbaths, Jesus proceeded through the grainfields. Now, His disciples were hungry, so they began to pick and eat kernels. And upon seeing [this], the Pharisees said to Him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath!’ But He said to them, ‘Did you not read what David did because He was hungry – he and those with him, how he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves set out, which it was not lawful for him to eat – nor for those with him, but only for the priests? And did y'all not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath yet continue to be innocent? Well, I'm telling you that here is something greater than the temple! And, if y'all had known what it means, “It is mercy that I am wishing for and not sacrifice,” you would not have ruled against the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’” (NAW)
The parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark (2:28) records an additional comment from Jesus, “For the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Mathew Henry commented: “[I]t is not enough for us to know the scriptures, but we must labor to know the meaning of them… Ignorance is the cause of our rash and uncharitable censures of our brethren.”
You see, the Pharisees did not understand the meaning of Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy over sacrifice.” If they had understood its meaning, they would have understood that the Sabbath (as with all the 10 Commandments) was not intended by God to be an occasion of condemning and controlling fellow men with rules, but rather was intended by God to give freedom and blessing to His people.
“It is the practice of compassion that should distinguish the people of God rather than the punctilious observance of outward regulations, no matter how sacred.” ~Leon Morris
The word “sacrifice” stands for all the outward worship ceremonies of the law. And “mercy” is fleshed out here as feeding the hungry.
Jesus comes to the rescue of his falsely-accused disciples and exposes the Pharisee’s misinterpretation of the first table of God’s law as a neglect of the second table of the law.
Are you going to bow in submission to Jesus as your ultimate authority, or are you going to try to add your rules to condemn and control other people?
I think that an application of this point came in our COVID quarantining.
Under normal conditions we are called to meet together, but when health and life are threatened by disease, the ceremonial aspect of an in-person assembly had to give way to the moral duty of protecting the lives of our neighbors.
There is the ceremonial ideal of meeting in person, which you could use Hebrews as a prooftext for not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, and some people have made that their only criterion for decision-making, but there are many other Biblical criteria, such as submitting to the elders, submitting to magistrates, being considerate of weaker brothers – especially the sick, considering the interests of others above your own, Levitical quarantining for contagious diseases, and church membership covenants to support the worship of the church. If we bring the whole counsel of scripture to bear on the question, we may find that the weight of God’s counsel allows for exceptions to the simple principle of always meeting in person.
The issue that Achimelek had to grapple with is something we’ve had to grapple with too. It’s easy to get our priorities confused, but Achimelek made the right call by not saying, “Sorry David, God said that only a priest could eat this bread,” rather Achimelek gave David the priest’s bread when that was all God had provided and David had a real need for it.
I like how Matthew Henry framed it: “[T]hat may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done.”
Looking for loopholes in the law, of course, can be taken to an unhealthy extreme.
I’m reminded of our confessional statement from Romans 6: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”
So decisions about exceptional things certainly must be tempered by wisdom and submitted to God for guidance.
Achimelek added a stipulation to his grant. He said that David and his men could have the leftover shewbread as long as they were not ceremonially unclean, particularly in the matter of sexual purity.
For what it’s worth, despite what most English translations say, Achimelek used the word “woman” in the singular, which usually means one’s wife; he’s not accusing them of sleeping around.
David’s answer that “of course” his men have not become ceremonially unclean with a woman because they’ve been on the road for three days, makes me think David is including the previous weekend when he hid out in the field during the New Moon festival. Nob is only two miles, as the crow flies4, from Gibeah of Saul, and would have only taken a couple of hours to hike to, not three days.
The Apostle Paul also exhorted Christians to keep our “vessel” or “body5” pure in his letter to the church at Thessalonica: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7, NKJV)
The particulars of keeping distance between you and your wife on Friday night don’t apply to Christians like it did to the Israelites, but the general rule of not committing adultery in any of its forms remains applicable to us as Christians.
V.7 brings a jarring interruption to the story of David, commenting that Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul’s shepherds, was there at the tabernacle, “detained before the LORD.” This raises some questions:
What was an Edomite doing in the tabernacle?
Jewish commentators have said that he can’t have been a Gentile, so he must have been a Jew who had merely lived in Edom.
But, the last time that the word “Edomite” occurred in the Bible, it was in God’s command in Deuteronomy 23:3 & 7, "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation... [but] You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother...” (NKJV)
Certainly there was rivalry between the descendants of Jacob and Esau, but God wanted the nations – especially the Edomites – to be drawn into worshipping Him. He said as much to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob back in the book of Genesis, “through you all the families/nations of the earth will be blessed.”6
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament suggested that Doeg might have became Saul’s servant after the victory over Edom mentioned in 1 Sam. 14:47.
As for Doeg’s job of overseeing all of Saul’s shepherds, that could have been an important position in a nation where shepherding formed the core of the economy.
Now, what does it mean that Doeg was “detained before the LORD”?
It’s the same Hebrew verb as the one in v.6 where David says his men have been “kept/restrained” from being with a woman.
God’s presence is depicted as a place of “restraint” where you can’t do just anything you please; you are limited by God’s authority.
Perhaps Doeg was keeping a vow or undergoing some sort of purification ceremony, but I wonder if his detention was something like Saul’s embarrasing situation over at Naioth of Ramah where he was trying to grab David and kill him, but God overcame him, and all he could do was lie on the floor at Samuel’s feet and sing worship songs. Whatever Doeg’s detention was, it meant that God was in control of him. And if God was in control, then it was God’s control that resulted in Doeg being there when David stopped by. If Doeg had not been detained before the LORD, he would not have seen David, and Doeg would not have gotten the priests in trouble with Saul. Do you see that God set this situation up so that Doeg would get Achimelek in trouble with Saul for helping David? God is likewise skillfully shaping the actions and outcomes even of corrupt politicians today.
God was just as much at work in the lives of minor characters like Doeg and Achimelek (and you and me) as He was in the lives of the main characters in the Bible like David and Saul. No one is overlooked by God. This could have been part of God’s merciful calling to repentance one more time for Doeg. At the same time, this was all part of God’s plan, for God had to fulfill his promise to Eli about the elimination of his priestly line (Achimelek being Eli’s great-grandson), and who better to bring such a troubling day of reckoning than the already-compromised sleazeball Saul.
At any rate, Doeg, in the next chapter (22:10) claims that he saw Achimelek “inquire of the LORD” for David.
That isn’t mentioned explicitly here in chapter 21, but perhaps it is obliquely referred to by the mention of the ephod which may have included the Urim and Thummim by which the high priest asked God for advice.
Maybe it was through that process that God told Achimelek that it was o.k. to give David the shewbread as long as he was ceremonially clean.
Maybe it was through that process that God told David to get out of Saul’s jurisdiction and leave the country.
Maybe that was why Achimelek trembled.
There’s a lot we don’t know.
But v.8 returns to the storyline with David, whom we are told in the next chapter, recognized Doeg as one of Saul’s servants, so David knew to be careful, and he casts about for some weapons to defend himself.
Goliath’s sword was among the valuables hidden in the treasury.
Now, it was an act of worship in those days to put your enemy’s armor in your god’s temple. The Philistines did that with Saul’s armor in the temple of Dagon at the end of the book, but in David’s case, he had put Goliath’s sword into the tabernacle to make the statement that Yahweh, not David, was the one to whom credit was due for delivering the nation of Israel from Goliath.
It was also a way to display more publicly this reminder of God’s saving power. If David had kept Goliath’s sword at his house, only a limited number of guests would have gotten to see it, but every man in Israel was supposed to show up at the tabernacle at least three times a year, so putting it in the temple was a way to show everybody this reminder of God’s saving power. Do you have any tangible reminders of God’s saving work that you could display more publicly?
But now it was time for David to reappropriate Goliath’s sword for self-defense, so David grabs it and hightails it out of the country.
It was entirely appropriate for him to arm himself when he knew there were enemies out to kill him and when he knew it was God’s calling on his life to finish the job that Joshua had started of removing the Canaanites from the Promised Land.
Those of you who carry weapons to defend your life and the lives of others (assuming you’re being wise and safe with them) are following in David’s footsteps and doing a good and right thing.
That sword would also be a reminder to David that when he trusted God and stood for God’s glory, God would keep him safe, just as he did in the case of Goliath.
But I want you to notice something. God protected David in this chapter even when David was so afraid and overwhelmed that he was doing stupid things that put his own life and the lives of others at risk.
David lied to the priest.
David was rude to the priest.
David pushed the boundaries of God’s ceremonial standards.
And even though David knew that a follower of Saul was there watching, he had the priest arm him with a sword!
Then David did nothing to protect the priests from the inevitable backlash from Saul.
Furthermore, David idiotically sought assylum in Goliath’s hometown while he was toting Goliath’s own sword!
He was doing one stupid thing after another and yet – and yet,
God still loved him and made sure he had something to eat.
God still answered David’s inquiry for guidance.
God still kept David safe from enemy after enemy.
Do you think God is going to give up on you? NO! You may be frustrated at how many stupid things you have done and you may think you are hopeless, but you keep on desiring to be close to God, and you keep on serving God with His people, and you keep on asking Him to forgive you and save you, and He will! He will, just as He did with David!
LXX |
Brenton |
DRB |
KJV |
NAW |
MT |
2
Καὶ ἔρχεται
Δαυιδ εἰς
Νομβα πρὸς Α |
1
And David comes to Nomba to A |
1
And David came to Nobe, to Achimelech, the priest and Achimelech
was astonished
at David's |
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraidE at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? |
1 So David went to Nob, to Achimelek the priest, but Achimelek was skittish about welcoming {him}, and he said to him, “Why is it that you are by yourself, and there is not a man with you?” |
2 וַיָּבֹא דָוִד נֹבֶהF אֶל-אֲחִימֶלֶךְ הַכֹּהֵן וַיֶּחֱרַד אֲחִימֶלֶךְ לִקְרַאת דָּוִד וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה לְבַדֶּךָ וְאִישׁ אֵין אִתָּךְG: |
3
καὶ εἶπεν Δαυιδ
τῷ XH
ἱερεῖ
Ὁ βασιλεὺς
ἐντέταλταί
μοι ῥῆμα
[σήμερον]
καὶ εἶπέν μοι
Μηδεὶς γνώτω
X
τὸ
ῥῆμα,
[περὶ]
οὗ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω
σε καὶ [ὑπὲρ]
οὗ ἐντέταλμαί
σοι· καὶ τοῖς
παιδαρίοις
|
2
And David said to X
the
priest, The king |
2
And David said to Achimelech, the priest: The king hath commanded
me a business,
and said X
X:
Let no man know X
the
thing
[for]
which |
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commandedK me a businessL, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointedM my servants to such and suchN a place. |
2 And David said to {} the priest, “The king commanded a thing of me, and said to me, ‘No one should know anything about this thing for which I am sending you and which I have commanded you.’ Furthermore, I have {made an appointment} with my servants at such-and-such a place. |
3 וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ הַכֹּהֵן הַמֶּלֶךְ צִוַּנִי דָבָר וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי אִישׁ אַל-יֵדַע מְאוּמָה אֶת-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר- אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחֲךָ וַאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאֶת- הַנְּעָרִים יוֹדַעְתִּיO אֶל-מְקוֹם פְּלֹנִי אַלְמוֹנִיP: |
4
καὶ νῦν |
3
And now |
3
Now therefore |
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is presentR. |
3 So now {if} there are 5 bread-loaves under your management, give them into my hand – or whatever can be found.” |
4 וְעַתָּה מַה-יֵּשׁ תַּחַת-יָדְךָ חֲמִשָּׁה- לֶחֶם תְּנָה בְיָדִי אוֹ הַנִּמְצָא: |
5
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη
ὁ ἱερεὺς τῷ
Δαυιδ καὶ εἶπεν
Οὐκ εἰσὶν ἄρτοι
βέβηλοι
X
ὑπὸ
τὴν χεῖρά μου,
ὅτι |
4
And the priest answered David, and said, There are no common
loaves under my hand, for [I
have none]
but holy
loaves: if the young men have been kept at
least
from wom |
4
And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common
bread at X
hand,
but
only
holy bread X,
if the young men |
4
And the priest answered David, and said, There
is
no commonT
bread under mine hand, but
there is hallowedU
bread; if the young men have kept themselves at
least
from wom |
4 And the priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread under my management, but there is holy bread. If your servants have kept themselves at least from a woman, {then let them eat of it}.” |
5 וַיַּעַן הַכֹּהֵן אֶת- דָּוִד וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין-לֶחֶם חֹל אֶלV-תַּחַת יָדִי כִּי-אִם-לֶחֶם קֹדֶשׁ יֵשׁ אִם-נִשְׁמְרוּ הַנְּעָרִים אַךְ מֵאִשָּׁהW: פ |
6
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη
Δαυιδ τῷ ἱερεῖ
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ
Ἀλλὰ
[ἀπὸ]
γυναικὸς
ἀπεσχ |
5
And David answered the priest, and said to him, Yea,
|
5
And David answered the priest, and said to him: Truly,
as to what concerneth
wom |
5
And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of
a truthZ
wom |
5 Then David replied to the priest and said to him, “Indeed {we have restrained ourselves} from a woman {since} 3 days ago when I went out, and the persons of my servants have continued to be holy although it is an ordinary journey - now all the more so today in the person there will be holiness!” |
6 וַיַּעַן דָּוִד אֶת-הַכֹּהֵן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כִּי אִם-אִשָּׁה עֲצֻרָהAD-לָנוּ כִּתְמוֹלAE שִׁלְשֹׁם בְּצֵאתִי וַיִּהְיוּ כְלֵי- הַנְּעָרִים קֹדֶשׁ וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֹל וְאַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי: |
7
καὶ ἔδωκεν
αὐτῷ [ΑβιμελεχAF]
ὁ ἱερεὺς [τοὺς
ἄρτους]
τῆς
|
6
So[Abimelech]
the priest gave him the |
6 The priest therefore gave him hallowed [bread]: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up X X X X. |
6
So the priest gave him hallowedAH
bread:
for there was no bread there but
the shewbreadAI,
that was |
6 So the priest gave what was holy to him, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the face of Yahweh to set out hot bread on the day it was to be taken. |
7 וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן קֹדֶשׁ כִּי לֹא-הָיָה שָׁם לֶחֶם כִּי-אִם-לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִיםAK מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חֹם בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ: |
8
καὶ ἐκεῖ ἦν
ἓν τῶν παιδαρίων
τοῦ Σαουλ ἐν
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ
συνεχόμενοςAL
[νεεσσαρανAM]
ἐνώπιον κυρίου,
καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ
Δωηκ ὁ |
7
And there was there on that day one of Saul's servants detained
before the Lord, and his name was Doec the |
7
Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there X
that
day, |
7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there X that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul. |
7 Now on that day, there was a man there from the servants of Saul who was restrained before the face of Yahweh, and his name was Doeg the Edomite, chief of the shepherds which [worked] for Saul. |
8 וְשָׁם אִישׁ מֵעַבְדֵי שָׁאוּל בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נֶעְצָר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וּשְׁמוֹ דֹּאֵג הָאֲדֹמִי אַבִּיר הָרֹעִים אֲשֶׁר לְשָׁאוּל: |
9
καὶ εἶπεν Δαυιδ
πρὸς Α |
8
And David said to A |
8
And David said to Achimelech: Hast thou X
here
at hand a spear, or a sword? for I brought not X
my
[own]
sword, nor my [own]
weapons with X
me,
for the king's business
|
8
And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine
hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my
weapons with X
me,
because the king's business
|
8 Anyway, David said to Achimelek, “Now, isn’t there a spear or a sword under your management here? For I did not take in my hand either my sword or my weapons, since the word of the king was urgent.” |
9 וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ וְאִין יֶשׁ-פֹּה תַחַת-יָדְךָ חֲנִית אוֹ-חָרֶב כִּי גַם-חַרְבִּי וְגַם-כֵּלַי לֹא-לָקַחְתִּי בְיָדִי כִּי-הָיָה דְבַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ נָחוּץAR: ס |
10
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ
ἱερεύς [Ἰδοὺ]
ἡ ῥομφαία Γολιαθ
τοῦ ἀλλοφύλου,
ὃν ἐπάταξας ἐν
τῇ κοιλάδι
ΗλαAS,
|
9
And the priest said, [Behold]
the sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou smotest in the
valley of Ela; |
9 And the priest said: [Lo], here is the sword of Goliath, the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Terebinth, X X wrapped up in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take this, take it X, for here there is no other but this X X. And David said: There is none like that, give it me. |
9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: X X for there is no other save that X here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me. |
9 And the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine which you struck down in the valley of Elah, see, it is covered in the cloak behind the ephod. If it is for you to take for yourself, take it, for there is no other in here except it.” And David said, “There is none like it; Give it to me!” |
10 וַיֹּאמֶר הַכֹּהֵן חֶרֶב גָּלְיָת הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי אֲשֶׁר-הִכִּיתָ בְּעֵמֶק הָאֵלָה הִנֵּהAU-הִיא לוּטָהAV בַשִּׂמְלָה אַחֲרֵי הָאֵפוֹדAW אִם-אֹתָהּ תִּקַּח-לְךָ קָח כִּי אֵין אַחֶרֶת זוּלָתָהּ בָּזֶה וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֵין כָּמוֹהָ תְּנֶנָּה לִּי: |
11 [καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν αὐτῷ]· καὶ ἀνέστη Δαυιδ καὶ ἔφυγεν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐκ προσώπου Σαουλ. Καὶ ἦλθεν [Δαυιδ] πρὸς Αγχους βασιλέα Γεθ. |
10 [And he gave it him;] and David arose, and fled in that day from the presence of Saul: and [David] came to Anchus king of Geth. |
10 And David arose and fled that day from the face of Saul: and came to Achis, the king of Geth: |
10
And David arose, and fled that day |
10 Then David got up and fled on that day from the presence of Saul, so he went to Acish, king of Gath. |
11 וַיָּקָם דָּוִד וַיִּבְרַחAY בַּיּוֹם- הַהוּא מִפְּנֵי שָׁאוּל וַיָּבֹא אֶל-אָכִישׁ מֶלֶךְ גַּת: |
1Commentators agree that the tabernacle was at Nob, but they don’t agree on whether the ark was there. Most of the commentators I read seemed to think that the ark was not present at Nob but rather was at Kiriath Jearim, where 1 Samuel 7 says it “stayed for a long time” – but, D. Tsumura (NICOT) noted Jewish traditions (B. Zeb. 118-19) that it was at Nob and argued that without the ark there would be no point in shewbread, so maybe it was there after all.
2The name that appears in Mark 2:26 is Abiathar (“Father of abundance”), but the Gospel account doesn’t actually say that was this priest’s name, only that the place David entered was “the house of God upon/before (epi) Abiathar the high priest.” Abiathar was the son of Achimelek, so he was presumably around too. “During/when/in” (the way most English versions translate the Greek word epi here, is not mentioned in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon as a meaning for epi, but “before” is mentioned in the lexicon, and that makes more sense. On the other hand, Willett and Gill observed that the names seem to be interchangeable in scripture, with both names being applied to both the father and son.
3Kimchi and Ben Gershom tried to get around this by saying that it was thanks-offering leftovers which laymen could eat, not shewbread, but Jesus’ commentary in the Gospels makes it clear that it was not something laymen were permitted to eat.
4That calculation comes from the BibleWorks Map software. It would, of course be more than 2 miles on the ground in that hill country. Gill quoted Bunting at 12 miles, which seems a bit much, but that is still less than one day’s journey for soldiers. Jamieson’s commentary computed it at 5 miles.
5Willett, following Junius recommended interpreting “vessels” as the containers they had for carrying the bread. Along those lines, Goldman recommended Driver’s translation “gear,” but I’m not convinced, and neither was M. Henry or D. Tsumura.
6See my paper at http://www.natewilsonfamily.net/natespdf/all_the_earth.pdf cf. Zec. 14:16ff
AMy
original chart includes the NASB and NIV, but their copyright
restrictions have forced me to remove them from the
publicly-available edition of this chart. I have included the ESV in
footnotes when it employs a word not already used by the KJV, NASB,
or NIV. (NAW is my translation.) When a translation adds words not
in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use
of italics (or greyed-out text), I put the added words in [square
brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different
from all the other translations, I underline it. When a
version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs
too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far
from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout.
And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I
insert an X. (I also place an X at the end of a word if the original
word is plural but the English translation is singular.) I
occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between
the various editions and versions when there are more than two
different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea
Scroll containing any part of 1 Samuel 21 is 4Q52 Samuela,
which contains fragments of vs. 1-10, and which has been dated
around 250 B.C. Where the DSS and MT agree, the MT is colored
purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX with omissions or text not in
the MT, I have highlighted with
yellow the LXX and its translation into English, and where I
have accepted that into my NAW translation, I have marked it with
{pointed brackets}.
BLater Greek translators like Aquila and Symmachus corrected to the MT with Acimelek. Although this name occurs many times in 1 Samuel, every time it occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls of 1 Samuel, it is in an obliterated section, so we don’t know how his name was spelled in the DSS. From a philological perspective, Abimelek (“my father was king”) doesn’t make sense as a title for a Levite priest, but Achimelek (“my brother was king”) is only slightly less-problematic.
Ccf. synonym from Aquila exeplagh (“struck out [of his senses]”)
DAlthough the text is illegible in the DSS, the spacing between legible portions of this verse does not support the extra word “David” which is in the MT, thus supporting the LXX. The NIV “his” is presumably based on this.
ENAS, NIV, ESV = “trembling” KJV translated this word as “trembl-” every other time in 1 Samuel that this verb occurs (13:7; 14:15; 16:4; 28:5).
FKeil & Delitzsch suggested that the final letter could be a “ה local” – i.e. “in the direction of Nob,” which doesn’t necessarily change the story at all.
GDSS imu. No significant difference in meaning from the MT, but perhaps more emphasis on accompaniment rather than mere association. I don’t think we can tell from the LXX which word its translators was looking at. Of the 36 times in 1 Samuel that the LXX uses meta as a translation for the Hebrew MT word ‘im or et, ‘im is favored 83%. For further perspective, about half of the 40 times that et is in the MT of 1 Samuel, the LXX translates it meta. (‘Im is translated meta in 2:8, 2:26, 4:4, 9:24, 10:7, 13:2a, 13:2b, 14:7, 14:21b, 14:21c, 15:6 & 26, 16:12, 17:32, 17:37, 17:42, 18:28, 20:5, 20:8b, 20:13a, 20:13b, 22:8, 22:17, 26:6, 27:3, 27:5, 28:19a, 28:19b, 29:2, and 30:22. et is translated meta in 2:19, 9:3, 13:22a, 13:22b, 29:10, and 30:23. meta is also used to translate achray, min, ‘al, b-, etc.)
HThe DSS also drops A_himelek’s name out. (Curiously, however, the LXX adds his name later in v.7 where it is not in any other source document.)
ISymmachus translated sunetaxamhn (“made arrangements”).
JThe LXX transliterates rather than translates the Hebrew words here. Later Greek versions translated: Aq. proV ton topon ton deina toude tinoV (“to this certain place thus-and-so”), S. eiV ton deina topon (“into the such-and-such place”), Q. (eiV ton topon) tonde tina elmwni (“into the place even the certain Elmoni”).
KNASB = “commissioned,” NIV, ESV = “charged”
LMT & LXX lit. “word,” NASB, NIV, ESV = “matter”
MNASB = “directed,” NIV = “told to meet,” ESV = “made appointment”
NNASB, NIV = “a certain”
OIt appears that the MT copyists accidentally switched the order of the letters ayin and the daleth in this word. The DSS reads ytduy “made an appointment” rather than the MT “caused to know,” and the Septuagint, Vaticanus, and even Symmachus support the DSS. Goldman (in the Soncino Books of the Bible) recommended Eitan’s translation “dismissed,” as did Tsumura (in the NICOT).
PThis phrase occurs only two other times in the Hebrew OT: Ruth 4:1 (Where it is translated “such a one” by the KJV and “friend” by all the other English versions, and κρύφιε/secretly by the LXX.); and 2 Ki. 6:8 (where all the English versions render it “such and such” and the LXX rendered τόνδε τινὰ ελμωνι “this certain elmoni”)
QLater Greek versions (A.S.Q.) = laikoi “laypersons”
RNASB & NIV = “found,” which is closer to the literal meaning of the Hebrew than the KJV.
SAlthough Ralph’s compilation of the LXX does not render the Hebrew word ak, it is rendered as plhn in the Vaticanus and carried into Brenton’s English version as “at least.”
TNASB, NIV = “ordinary”
UNASB, NIV = “consecrated,” ESV = “holy”
VThis preposition is not in the DSS, Septuagint, Old Latin, Vulgate, or Syriac. It doesn’t make a difference in meaning, though. The DSS has space for way more wording than the MT has, but this part of the verse is obliterated in the DSS, and there are no extra words in the LXX or Vulgate, so maybe it is just blank space indicating the end of a periscope, signified in the MT by a פ.
W DSS adds the same tag found in the LXX: wnmm <tlkaw (“then they may eat from it”).
XAq. & Q. = sunesceqh - practically the same as the LXX, being from the same Greek root (“have”) and passive, but more consistent with the MT which makes the singular “woman” the subject of “denied” rather than the LXX 1st pl. “us.”
YThe Hebrew word for “all” (Greek = panta) is כל, whereas the Hebrew word for “vessels/equipment” is כלי. The MT, DSS, and Vulgate all read the latter, so this appears to be a mistake in translation by the LXX, but not one that changes the story. (It was corrected later by Aquila & Theodotion’s Greek versions to skeuh/vessels.)
ZKJV (and other English versions) translated this phrase “but” in the previous verse, but here, NASB = “Surely,” NIV = “Indeed,” ESV = “truly,” K&D advocated for “nay, but” as in, “no, we’re not a holy bunch, but at least we haven’t seen a woman in three days.”
AALit. “as/from yesterday three,” NASB = “as previously,” NIV = “as usual,” ESV = “as always”
ABThe
Hebrew and Greek grammar indicate that “way/journey” is
what is “ordinary/unclean” not the “bread.”
cf. NASB/ESV = “it was/is an ordinary journey,” and NIV
= “even [on] mission[s] that are not holy”
Willett
argued against the Genevan Bible of his day (“though the way
were prophane”), and his argument may have influenced the KJV
“it is in a manner common” (published 4 years after his
commentary on 1 Sam.). I didn’t find his arguments convincing,
though.
ACNASB/NIV = “how much more then/so today…?”
ADThis is a feminine singular participle, but the Greek and Latin versions read as a 1st plural preterite. The practical upshot is the same whether they withheld themselves from their wives or whether their wives were withheld from them: they have not been sexually active and therefore are not ceremonially unclean on that account.
AESeveral other Hebrew manuscripts and commentaries suggest that this word start with a mem (“from”) instead of a coph (“as/about”), and the LXX, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate side with them.
AFThe DSS is obliterated here, but there is not enough room between legible portions for this extra word “A_imelech.”
AGThe word in the MT (and Vulgate) is “holy/sacred,” so later Greek versions corrected the LXX to that (agia), but it’s the same bread, just a different label for it imported by the LXX from Exodus 40:23. It is interesting that Jesus later quoted this phrase from the Septuagint rather than from the MT in Matt. 12:4; Mk. 2:26; and Lk. 6:4.
AHNASB, NIV = “consecrated,” ESV = “holy”
AI NASB, NIV, ESV = “bread of the Presence”
AJ The Hebrew word for “take” comes later in the verse; the Hebrew word used here is used synonymously, but has more of the connotation of removal than of receiving, thus the NASB, NIV, and ESV = “removed.”
AKDSS reads singular rswmh, agreeing with the singular lechem/bread, and Masoretic margin notes also recommend the singular, but both “bread” and “removed” are plural in Greek. Tsumura attempted to resolve the grammar problem by suggesting that the MT hammusarim is “a s[ingular] noun with an enclitic mem,” which I don’t find convincing because the next word starts with another mem. At any rate, both singular and plural work, because the word “bread” in Hebrew, as in English, can refer to a singular particular loaf or generally to food of any quantity. In this case there were 12 loaves used for the bread of the presence (Lev. 24), but they could still be referred to in the singular as “bread.”
ALAq. sunesceqh (“were kept together”), S. egkekleismenoV (“having been called out”).
AM The LXX added a transliteration of the Hebrew word in addition to its translation of this word.
AN Later Greek versions corrected to the MT IdoumaioV.
AO S. corrects the LXX to the MT with arcwn “ruler.” Perhaps the LXX mistook the MT word אַבִּיר (“chief”) for אֲתֹנֹת (“donkey”)?
AP The verb in the MT is the verb of being, and an understood verb of being is in the LXX. NASB & NIV translated more literally “was.”
AQcf. NASB, NIV = “urgent”
ARHapex Legomenon “urgent”
ASLike Jerome did in the Vulgate, Aquila translated thV terebinqou “terebinth tree” rather than transliterating this word.
ATLater Greek translators added back in the phrase “behind the ephod” (Q. opisw thV epwmidoV S. efoud. A. ependumatoV.) which is also in the DSS but missing in the LXX.
AUThe LXX and Vulgate read as though this word were at the beginning of the sentence and as though there is nothing (V) or a copula (LXX) here. The DSS is too obliterated to tell for sure, and the extra space due to the paragraph ending in the previous verse makes any guesses based on word spacing tenuous.
AVThis verb only appears in two other places in the Hebrew Bible: 1 Ki. 19:13 (covering one’s face) and Isa. 25:7 (shrouding the nations).
AWDSS reads dpa rja - basically the same as the MT except no definite article “the.” Willett (following the Targum) tried to make the case that the priest was saying to consult God through the ephod first before taking the sword, but the context indicates that the priest is merely describing the location.
AX The Greek and Hebrew read “from the presence/face of Saul” - and so do other English versions, although many omit the “presence/face.”
AY This is the 4th and final repetition of this verb in the narrative of David fleeing (1 Sam. 19:12, 18; 20:1; 21:11).