King James Version
1 Samuel 21
15 verses with commentary
David at Nob
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
View commentary
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
David's flight to Nob marks a pivotal moment in his wilderness years. The Hebrew verb 'charad' (was afraid) indicates Ahimelech's trembling at David's unexpected arrival without his usual retinue. Nob had become the priestly center after Shiloh's destruction, housing the tabernacle and sacred objects. The priest's fearful inquiry reveals the political tension surrounding David's relationship with Saul. Ahimelech's question exposes the anomaly of a royal official traveling alone—a detail that would prove fatal when Doeg later reported this encounter. This passage demonstrates how even ordinary interactions during times of persecution carry weighty consequences, foreshadowing the tragedy that would befall the innocent priests.
David's flight to Nob marks a pivotal moment in his wilderness years. The Hebrew verb 'charad' (was afraid) indicates Ahimelech's trembling at David's unexpected arrival without his usual retinue. Nob had become the priestly center after Shiloh's destruction, housing the tabernacle and sacred objects. The priest's fearful inquiry reveals the political tension surrounding David's relationship with Saul. Ahimelech's question exposes the anomaly of a royal official traveling alone—a detail that would prove fatal when Doeg later reported this encounter. This passage demonstrates how even ordinary interactions during times of persecution carry weighty consequences, foreshadowing the tragedy that would befall the innocent priests.
And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, 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 appointed my servants to such and such a place.
View commentary
And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, 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 appointed my servants to such and such a place.
David's deception raises difficult ethical questions that Scripture does not sanitize. The Hebrew phrase 'davar satar' (secret matter) creates a plausible cover story. While David's lie protected himself, it ultimately contributed to the massacre of the priests. Jesus later referenced this incident in Mark 2:25-26, notably without condemning David for eating the showbread, yet neither endorsing the deception. The text presents David's humanity—a man after God's own heart who nonetheless sinned under pressure. This serves as a sobering reminder that desperation can lead even the godly to compromise, and that such compromises often have unforeseen consequences.
David's deception raises difficult ethical questions that Scripture does not sanitize. The Hebrew phrase 'davar satar' (secret matter) creates a plausible cover story. While David's lie protected himself, it ultimately contributed to the massacre of the priests. Jesus later referenced this incident in Mark 2:25-26, notably without condemning David for eating the showbread, yet neither endorsing the deception. The text presents David's humanity—a man after God's own heart who nonetheless sinned under pressure. This serves as a sobering reminder that desperation can lead even the godly to compromise, and that such compromises often have unforeseen consequences.
Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. present: Heb. found
View commentary
Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
David's request for 'five loaves' reveals his desperate circumstances—he fled with nothing. The Hebrew 'mah yesh' (what is there) indicates he would accept whatever was available. Five loaves would sustain a small group for several days. This humble petition from the anointed future king illustrates the principle that God's chosen servants often experience seasons of lack before elevation. The phrase 'under thine hand' employs Hebrew idiom for available resources, showing David's deference to priestly authority even while fleeing for his life. Christ would later multiply five loaves to feed thousands, transforming scarcity into abundance through divine power.
David's request for 'five loaves' reveals his desperate circumstances—he fled with nothing. The Hebrew 'mah yesh' (what is there) indicates he would accept whatever was available. Five loaves would sustain a small group for several days. This humble petition from the anointed future king illustrates the principle that God's chosen servants often experience seasons of lack before elevation. The phrase 'under thine hand' employs Hebrew idiom for available resources, showing David's deference to priestly authority even while fleeing for his life. Christ would later multiply five loaves to feed thousands, transforming scarcity into abundance through divine power.
And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
View commentary
And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
Ahimelech's response introduces a profound tension between ritual law and human necessity. The Hebrew 'lechem chol' (common bread) versus 'lechem qodesh' (holy bread) distinguishes ordinary food from the showbread reserved for priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). The condition regarding ceremonial purity reflects Leviticus 15's regulations about sexual activity and cleanness. This incident became the basis for Jesus's teaching about the Sabbath in Mark 2:25-26, demonstrating that ceremonial law serves human welfare rather than being an end in itself. Ahimelech's pastoral flexibility reveals a priest who understood the spirit behind the letter of the law.
Ahimelech's response introduces a profound tension between ritual law and human necessity. The Hebrew 'lechem chol' (common bread) versus 'lechem qodesh' (holy bread) distinguishes ordinary food from the showbread reserved for priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). The condition regarding ceremonial purity reflects Leviticus 15's regulations about sexual activity and cleanness. This incident became the basis for Jesus's teaching about the Sabbath in Mark 2:25-26, demonstrating that ceremonial law serves human welfare rather than being an end in itself. Ahimelech's pastoral flexibility reveals a priest who understood the spirit behind the letter of the law.
And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. yea: or, especially when this day there is other sanctified in the vessel
View commentary
And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
David's response employs sophisticated theological reasoning. The Hebrew 'kelim' (vessels) metaphorically refers to their bodies, echoing 1 Thessalonians 4:4 where Paul uses similar language. David argues that necessity has effectively 'de-sanctified' the bread—a remarkable hermeneutical move later validated by Christ. The phrase 'in a manner common' (derek chol) suggests the holy has become permissibly ordinary given the circumstances. David's three-day separation indicates his flight began with some urgency but not total haste. This passage illustrates the biblical principle that human need takes precedence over ceremonial restrictions, a truth Jesus would explicitly affirm.
David's response employs sophisticated theological reasoning. The Hebrew 'kelim' (vessels) metaphorically refers to their bodies, echoing 1 Thessalonians 4:4 where Paul uses similar language. David argues that necessity has effectively 'de-sanctified' the bread—a remarkable hermeneutical move later validated by Christ. The phrase 'in a manner common' (derek chol) suggests the holy has become permissibly ordinary given the circumstances. David's three-day separation indicates his flight began with some urgency but not total haste. This passage illustrates the biblical principle that human need takes precedence over ceremonial restrictions, a truth Jesus would explicitly affirm.
So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread , that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.
View commentary
So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.
The priest's decision to provide the showbread represents a remarkable pastoral judgment. The Hebrew construction emphasizes that this was the only bread available—literally 'there was no bread except.' The detail about replacing old bread with fresh 'hot bread' indicates this occurred on the Sabbath when the exchange happened (Leviticus 24:8). Thus David received bread that had just completed its week of sacred service. Jesus cited this incident to demonstrate that God's law was made for humanity's benefit, not to impose burdens. Ahimelech's act of mercy would cost him everything, yet Scripture presents his decision as commendable—a priest who understood that compassion fulfills the law's deepest intent.
The priest's decision to provide the showbread represents a remarkable pastoral judgment. The Hebrew construction emphasizes that this was the only bread available—literally 'there was no bread except.' The detail about replacing old bread with fresh 'hot bread' indicates this occurred on the Sabbath when the exchange happened (Leviticus 24:8). Thus David received bread that had just completed its week of sacred service. Jesus cited this incident to demonstrate that God's law was made for humanity's benefit, not to impose burdens. Ahimelech's act of mercy would cost him everything, yet Scripture presents his decision as commendable—a priest who understood that compassion fulfills the law's deepest intent.
Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.
View commentary
Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.
This ominous verse introduces Doeg with foreboding detail. The Hebrew 'ne'etsar' (detained) suggests he was there for ritual purposes—perhaps fulfilling a vow or undergoing purification. The irony is devastating: a man at the sanctuary for religious observance would become the instrument of its destruction. His identity as an Edomite connects him to Israel's ancient enemy, the descendants of Esau. As 'chiefest of the herdmen' (literally 'mighty one among the shepherds'), he held significant authority. Psalm 52 records David's later reflection on Doeg's treachery. This brief verse demonstrates how witnesses to innocent actions can become deadly accusers when circumstances change.
This ominous verse introduces Doeg with foreboding detail. The Hebrew 'ne'etsar' (detained) suggests he was there for ritual purposes—perhaps fulfilling a vow or undergoing purification. The irony is devastating: a man at the sanctuary for religious observance would become the instrument of its destruction. His identity as an Edomite connects him to Israel's ancient enemy, the descendants of Esau. As 'chiefest of the herdmen' (literally 'mighty one among the shepherds'), he held significant authority. Psalm 52 records David's later reflection on Doeg's treachery. This brief verse demonstrates how witnesses to innocent actions can become deadly accusers when circumstances change.
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 me, because the king's business required haste.
View commentary
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 me, because the king's business required haste.
David's request for weapons continues his deceptive narrative but reveals genuine need. The Hebrew 'chanith' (spear) and 'chereb' (sword) were primary military weapons. His explanation about haste compounds the earlier lie, yet his vulnerability is real—he faces Saul's forces unarmed. The irony deepens: David, Israel's champion who slew Goliath, now begs for any weapon at a sanctuary. This reduction of the mighty warrior to a desperate fugitive illustrates how quickly circumstances can reverse. The passage reminds us that even those greatly used by God experience seasons of profound weakness and dependency.
David's request for weapons continues his deceptive narrative but reveals genuine need. The Hebrew 'chanith' (spear) and 'chereb' (sword) were primary military weapons. His explanation about haste compounds the earlier lie, yet his vulnerability is real—he faces Saul's forces unarmed. The irony deepens: David, Israel's champion who slew Goliath, now begs for any weapon at a sanctuary. This reduction of the mighty warrior to a desperate fugitive illustrates how quickly circumstances can reverse. The passage reminds us that even those greatly used by God experience seasons of profound weakness and dependency.
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: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.
View commentary
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: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.
The appearance of Goliath's sword creates powerful narrative symmetry. David's exclamation 'there is none like that' (Hebrew 'ein kamohu') echoes his earlier declaration about Goliath's spear (17:7). The sword had been dedicated as a trophy and stored behind the ephod—the priestly garment used for divine consultation. Now the weapon that once threatened Israel returns to its conqueror's hand. This providential provision reminded David of God's past faithfulness: the same God who gave victory over Goliath would preserve him from Saul. The passage illustrates how memorials of past deliverance strengthen faith for present trials.
The appearance of Goliath's sword creates powerful narrative symmetry. David's exclamation 'there is none like that' (Hebrew 'ein kamohu') echoes his earlier declaration about Goliath's spear (17:7). The sword had been dedicated as a trophy and stored behind the ephod—the priestly garment used for divine consultation. Now the weapon that once threatened Israel returns to its conqueror's hand. This providential provision reminded David of God's past faithfulness: the same God who gave victory over Goliath would preserve him from Saul. The passage illustrates how memorials of past deliverance strengthen faith for present trials.
David Flees to Gath
And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath.
View commentary
And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath.
David's flight to Gath represents desperate, fear-driven decision-making. The Hebrew 'mipne' (from the face of) emphasizes he fled from Saul's threatening presence. Gath was Goliath's hometown—arguably the most dangerous place for David to seek refuge. Yet in his panic, David may have reasoned that enemy territory was safer than Saul's domain. This decision reveals how fear can drive even wise leaders to foolish choices. The future king who would trust God through many trials here succumbed to panic, illustrating the ongoing struggle between faith and fear that marks every believer's journey.
David's flight to Gath represents desperate, fear-driven decision-making. The Hebrew 'mipne' (from the face of) emphasizes he fled from Saul's threatening presence. Gath was Goliath's hometown—arguably the most dangerous place for David to seek refuge. Yet in his panic, David may have reasoned that enemy territory was safer than Saul's domain. This decision reveals how fear can drive even wise leaders to foolish choices. The future king who would trust God through many trials here succumbed to panic, illustrating the ongoing struggle between faith and fear that marks every believer's journey.
And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?
View commentary
And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?
The Philistine servants' recognition exposes David's perilous position. Their reference to the victory song (first recorded in 18:7) shows how David's fame had spread even to Israel's enemies. The phrase 'king of the land' (Hebrew 'melek ha'aretz') reveals the Philistines perceived David's true significance before Israel formally acknowledged it. Their knowledge of Hebrew songs and dances indicates significant cultural exchange between the peoples despite ongoing warfare. David's reputation, which should have brought honor, now threatened his life—demonstrating how the same qualities that elevate us can also endanger us in hostile contexts.
The Philistine servants' recognition exposes David's perilous position. Their reference to the victory song (first recorded in 18:7) shows how David's fame had spread even to Israel's enemies. The phrase 'king of the land' (Hebrew 'melek ha'aretz') reveals the Philistines perceived David's true significance before Israel formally acknowledged it. Their knowledge of Hebrew songs and dances indicates significant cultural exchange between the peoples despite ongoing warfare. David's reputation, which should have brought honor, now threatened his life—demonstrating how the same qualities that elevate us can also endanger us in hostile contexts.
And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath.
View commentary
And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath.
The Hebrew phrase 'vayasem et-haddevarim' (laid up these words) indicates David carefully considered the implications of what he heard. His fear intensified—'vayira me'od' (was exceedingly afraid). This internal response contrasts sharply with the David who faced Goliath without trembling. The difference reveals that circumstances, exhaustion, and isolation can erode even courageous faith. David's fear was rational—he had entered enemy territory carrying their champion's weapon. Yet his response would demonstrate that faith can coexist with fear, and that God's servants sometimes find deliverance through unconventional means. Psalm 56 records his prayer during this terrifying time.
The Hebrew phrase 'vayasem et-haddevarim' (laid up these words) indicates David carefully considered the implications of what he heard. His fear intensified—'vayira me'od' (was exceedingly afraid). This internal response contrasts sharply with the David who faced Goliath without trembling. The difference reveals that circumstances, exhaustion, and isolation can erode even courageous faith. David's fear was rational—he had entered enemy territory carrying their champion's weapon. Yet his response would demonstrate that faith can coexist with fear, and that God's servants sometimes find deliverance through unconventional means. Psalm 56 records his prayer during this terrifying time.
And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. scrabbled: or, made marks
View commentary
And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.
David's feigned madness represents desperate improvisation. The Hebrew 'vayishanneh et-ta'amo' literally means 'he disguised his judgment/discernment'—ironic since this very act displayed remarkable discernment. The behaviors described—scratching (Hebrew 'vayitav') on doors and drooling—mimicked symptoms ancient peoples associated with divine possession or madness. Such individuals were typically considered untouchable, protected by taboo. David's willingness to humiliate himself for survival shows both his desperation and his practical wisdom. This episode reveals that God's servants may employ unconventional means for self-preservation, though Scripture neither explicitly endorses nor condemns David's stratagem.
David's feigned madness represents desperate improvisation. The Hebrew 'vayishanneh et-ta'amo' literally means 'he disguised his judgment/discernment'—ironic since this very act displayed remarkable discernment. The behaviors described—scratching (Hebrew 'vayitav') on doors and drooling—mimicked symptoms ancient peoples associated with divine possession or madness. Such individuals were typically considered untouchable, protected by taboo. David's willingness to humiliate himself for survival shows both his desperation and his practical wisdom. This episode reveals that God's servants may employ unconventional means for self-preservation, though Scripture neither explicitly endorses nor condemns David's stratagem.
Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me? is mad: or, playeth the mad man
View commentary
Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me?
Achish's response indicates David's ruse succeeded. The Hebrew 'hinneh' (behold/lo) introduces his observation with dramatic emphasis. His irritated question to the servants deflects responsibility for David's presence onto them. The king's annoyance reveals he considered dealing with a madman beneath his dignity. Ancient kings surrounded themselves with skilled advisors and warriors, not deranged individuals. God used the cultural assumptions about madness to deliver David from certain death. This demonstrates divine providence working through human customs and beliefs to accomplish His purposes—even when His servant's methods are questionable.
Achish's response indicates David's ruse succeeded. The Hebrew 'hinneh' (behold/lo) introduces his observation with dramatic emphasis. His irritated question to the servants deflects responsibility for David's presence onto them. The king's annoyance reveals he considered dealing with a madman beneath his dignity. Ancient kings surrounded themselves with skilled advisors and warriors, not deranged individuals. God used the cultural assumptions about madness to deliver David from certain death. This demonstrates divine providence working through human customs and beliefs to accomplish His purposes—even when His servant's methods are questionable.
Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?
View commentary
Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?
Achish's rhetorical questions complete David's deliverance through dismissal. The Hebrew 'chaser meshugga'im' (lacking madmen) sarcastically implies he already has enough troubled individuals around him. His refusal to allow David into his 'house' (royal court) effectively banished the fugitive from Philistine territory. The double reference to 'this fellow' (Hebrew 'zeh') expresses contempt—yet this contempt saved David's life. Psalm 34's superscription connects it to this event, where David praises God: 'I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.' What appeared as degrading self-abasement became the vehicle of divine deliverance.
Achish's rhetorical questions complete David's deliverance through dismissal. The Hebrew 'chaser meshugga'im' (lacking madmen) sarcastically implies he already has enough troubled individuals around him. His refusal to allow David into his 'house' (royal court) effectively banished the fugitive from Philistine territory. The double reference to 'this fellow' (Hebrew 'zeh') expresses contempt—yet this contempt saved David's life. Psalm 34's superscription connects it to this event, where David praises God: 'I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.' What appeared as degrading self-abasement became the vehicle of divine deliverance.