1Samuel 21

1Samuel 21:1–15	David Goes to Nob and then to Gath

Outline of Chapter 21:

vv. 1–9 David Gets Supplies from Ahimelech, a Priest at Nob

vv. 10–15 David Goes to Gath and Goes Before King Achish

Charts and Maps:

v. 1 A Summary of the Events Which Have Occurred between 1Sam. 7 and 1Sam. 21

v. 1 The Lineage to and From Ahimelech

v. 1 Possible Reasons Why Ahimelech is Trembling When He Meets David

v. 2 Why Will David Spend So Much Time as a Refugee?

v. 4 An Explanation of Jesus’ Answer to the Pharisees Regarding David and the Consecrated Bread

v. 4 Why Didn’t Jesus Simply Come Out and Say What He Meant?

v. 7 Where is the Ark and Why is it not in the Tabernacle of God?

v. 15 Why Did Achish Allow David to Leave?

v. 15 Arguments in Favor of David Traveling Alone at this Time

v. 15 Arguments in Favor of David Traveling With Others at this Time

Doctrines Alluded To
The Destruction of Shiloh		Movement of the Ark and the Tent of God	Edom

During this period in David’s life, he will write at least two psalms: Psalms 34 and 56
Psalms Alluded To
Psalm 34	Psalm 56

I ntroduction: 1Sam. 21 is a relatively short chapter (particularly compared to the previous chapter), but it relates to us two very different incidents in the life of David. He comes to the priests in Nob and lies about the reason for his presence there. David asks for Goliath’s sword, which is given to him. He will be recognized by one of Saul’s shepherds, who will report him to Saul.

It is important that you recognize that David’s going to the city of priests was not a matter of spiritual wisdom on his part. He did not go in order to ascertain God’s will or to get some encouragement. He will lie to the head priest there, which means that gaining either encouragement or direction is out of the question. Furthermore, David’s reasons for going to Nob seem to be secular one: he needs food and a weapon. He knows that he can find both in Nob.

In part 2 of this chapter (which is a very easy chapter to outline), David then changes direction (he had gone southeast from Gibeah to Nob and now he will go south-west) and goes to the city of Gath to the governor of Gath, Achish (actually, he is brought before Achish). David will feign madness and Achish will dismiss him, having already enough madmen in his own cabinet.

There are two striking features to this narrative: (1) the vocabulary is markedly different; I find myself going into the Hebrew lexicon for more and more words that have not been used ever in the book of Samuel. This of course, could be passed off as, new situations and therefore, a new vocabulary. In any case, the result is going to be an increased amount of information concerning the vocabulary and usage of certain words. (2) However, you will recall that in previous chapters, there was really more intimate information about Jonathan and the things which occurred in his life than in David’s, even though since 1Sam. 16, this book has been about David. Except for chapter 16, scenes with Jonathan and without David tend to be more detailed than scenes with David without Jonathan. At this point, it is all about David, and we get more details of his interactions than we had before. My point is, we may be dealing with a difference source. I would guess that Jonathan recorded much of what we have previous studied and that it is possible that David is recording this information. Given David’s burst of psalms at this point (at least three), gives us even greater reason to think that David might record this history (at least in retrospect).

With this chapter, David leaves the capital of Gibeah, and forges a life as a fugitive. He will move from city to city, from mountain to mountain, from cave to cave. However, interestingly enough, David will always remain relatively close to Jerusalem. Edersheim suggests a twofold reason: (1) he can keep closer tabs on Saul by tapping informants for information in Jerusalem (this point is not really substantiated in Scripture); and (2) he would be reasonably close to his family. On the second point, David moved at least his mother and father to Moab in order to insure their safety (1Sam. 22:3). It is not clear where his brothers went, or whether they remained in Jerusalem. I suspect that as a shepherd, David had taken his sheep out all around Jerusalem and that he stayed in this generally vicinity because he knew it well.

A minor point: Then end of 1Sam. 20:42 is v. 1 in the Hebrew. All of the verses which follow are therefore out of synch by one verse. In the Hebrew, there are 16 verses in this chapter.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart Index

David Gets Supplies from Ahimelech, a Priest at Nob

Slavishly literal:

Moderately literal:

And so comes David to Nob unto Ahimelech the priest and so trembles Ahimelech to meet David and so he says to him, “Why [are] you to your separation and no man [is] with you?”

1Samuel

21:1 (2)

Then David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech was trembling to meet David and he asked him [lit., said to him], “Why [are] you alone and [why is there] no one with you?”

Then David traveled to Nob, and approached Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech was trembling when he met David, and he asked, “Why are you alone? Why is there no one else with you?”

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so comes David to Nob unto Ahimelech the priest and so trembles Ahimelech And so comes David to Nob unto Ahimelech the priest and so trembles Ahimelech to meet David and so he says to him, “Why [are] you to your separation and no man [is] with you?” to meet David and so he says to him, “Why [are] you to your separation and no man [is] with you?”

Septuagint And David comes to Nomba to Abimelech the priest; and Abimelech was amazed at meeting him, and said to him, “Why [are] you alone and nobody [is] with you?”

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV David went to see Ahimelech, a priest who lived in the town of Nob. Ahimelech was trembling with fear as he came out to meet David. “Why are you alone?” Ahimelech asked. “Why isn't anyone else with you?”

TEV David went to the priest Ahimelech in Nob. Ahimelech came out trembling to meet him and asked, “Why did you come here all by yourself?”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob. Ahimelech was trembling as he went to meet David. “Why are you alone?” he asked David. “Why is no one with you?”

JPS (Tanakh) David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob. Ahimelech came out in alarm to meet David, and he said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” [This is, of course, v. 2 in the JPS].

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David, and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?”

Young's Updated LT And David comes in to Nob, unto Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech trembles at meeting David, and says to him, “Why are you yourself alone, and no man with you?”

What is the gist of this verse? David goes to a priest at Nob and the priest is apparently very nervous to meet David. He asks David why he is alone.

I Samuel 21:1a (v. 2a in the Hebrew)
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa or va (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
bôw (א) [pronounced boh]	to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #935 BDB #97
Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]	beloved and is transliterated David	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #1732 BDB #187
Nob (בֹנ) [pronounced noh^bv]	to proclaim; prophet; and is transliterated Nob	Proper noun; location with a directional hê	Strong’s #5011 BDB #611
We find the directional hê both here and in 1Sam. 22:9. It is possible that this is a the proper name of this city and that we find the abbreviation elsewhere. However, the simplest and most logical explanation is that the directional hê functions like our preposition to, and in both cases, translating this as to Nob is logical and apropos. Nob actually only occurs in two other places in this book—1Sam. 22:11, 19—and in neither place is it found with the directional hê and in neither place would it be reasonable to render it to Nob.
el (ל∵א) [pronounced el]	in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against	directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)	Strong's #413 BDB #39
ăchîymelek^e (∵ל∵מי.ח ֲא) [pronounced uh-khee-MEH-lek]	brother of Melek or brother of a king and is transliterated Ahimelech	Masculine proper noun	Strong’s #288 BDB #27
kôhên (ן ֵהֹ) [pronounced koh-HANE]	priest	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong's #3548 BDB #463

Translation: Then David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. This is the first mention of a priest or of anything to do with the Tabernacle since 1Sam. 14. There are several misconceptions which could have been gotten from 1Sam. 14. In v. 3, we see Ahijah wearing the ephod in Saul’s camp. Apparently, he functioned as their itinerant priest. Although the city of Shiloh is mentioned, this is in reference to Eli, who was the priest of Jehovah at Shiloh. The camp priest’s credentials were that he was the grandson of Eli (and, as you will recall, his grandfather was a corrupt priest). My point is, there is not necessarily an active priesthood functioning in Shiloh in this context of 1Sam. 14. In 1Sam. 14:18, in the Hebrew, Saul calls for the Ark of God, but it is actually the ephod that he calls for. When a king needed divine guidance, he called for the ephod, not the Ark (even though the wearer of the ephod may have been a charlatan). And even had Saul called for the Ark, it was never brought to him, as the camp of Philistines suddenly became quite noisy and confused. So, even though a priest is mentioned, along with his ephod (and possibly the Ark); this is simply a camp priest who traveled with Saul, and primarily for good luck, one might reasonably suppose.

There are Philistine priests mentioned in 1Sam. 5 and 6; but our last true reference to God’s plan for spiritual growth for the nation is at the beginning of 1Sam. 7, where the Ark of God has been returned by the Philistines and it is kept by Eleazar ben Abinadab (this is after the Israelites treat the Ark with disrespect). You may recall that in 1Sam. 7, we dealt with a long list of questions, e.g., Why do we not have a Biblical record of the destruction of the Tent of God? Why did Samuel not set up the Ark as a part of Tent service? Was Samuel properly the High Priest successor to Eli? In 1Sam. 6, we studied the destruction of Shiloh and the movement of the Ark.

What has occurred in the interim, between 1Sam. 7 and 21 is as follows:

A Summary of the Events Which Have Occurred between 1Sam. 7 and 1Sam. 21

a. Given the events which transpire during this time period, we may reasonably guess that the time period is somewhere between 20 and 40 years. Samuel is alive in 1Sam. 7 and his ministry is summarized (1Sam. 15–17). He will die in 1Sam. 25. It is from this information that we can reasonably determine the time frame.

i. In 1Sam. 7, the Ark is returned to Israel, but it is temporarily stored with Eleazar ben Abinadab, and it apparently remains there until David fetches it in 2Sam. 6.

ii. Israel demands and is given a king (King Saul). 1Sam. 8

(1) During this time period, the Tabernacle of God is moved and apparently set up again in Nob. This is obvious by 1Sam. 21. What likely occurred in the meantime was the city of Shiloh was destroyed, a fact alluded to but not recorded in Scripture.

(a) We have reason to believe that the spiritual provisions which God had made were temporarily shelved for several decades. That is, the Ark was not at the Tabernacle; the Tabernacle was moved and probably not set up for awhile; and rather than celebrate religious feasts as they were designed to be celebrated, such feasts had become family or palace affairs. Let’s say that God had decreed that Christmas is to be celebrated in Church. Today, most Americans celebrate it, but it is with their families, at home, and with presents. That would be similar to what occurred during this time frame.

(b) It is apparently obvious to Saul and to Jonathan that God’s true choice for king is David. For this reason, Saul seeks David’s life and Jonathan seeks to protect David’s life.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

We find out here that there is a functioning priesthood, they live in Nob, and the context will indicate to us that there are some traditions which are still being followed.

Nob is a city which is northeast of Jerusalem and south of Gibeah. You may recall from 1Sam. 17:54, David took the head of Goliath to Jerusalem and kept his weapons in his tent. Apparently, these were David’s original intentions. However, at some point in time, Goliath’s weapons ended up here in Nob (v. 9), which is fairly close to Jerusalem. Given that David’s family lived in Bethlehem and that David probably traveled there on occasion, he probably kept the weapons there and they were later taken to the Tabernacle (either by David or a member of his family). Again, this is one of the many unrecorded incidents of Scripture which must be inferred. Since the Bread of Presence is mentioned, that means that some of the functions of the priesthood are being carried out.

Nob is actually mentioned very few times in Scripture. This is the first time that the city is named. We may surmise that Nob became the new location for the Tabernacle of God, given that Shiloh had been destroyed (see 1Sam. 4:2–3 Jer. 7:12 and The Destruction of Shiloh, which is covered in detail in 1Sam. 7:2). One might say that this is a meek establishment of the holy city, as there are only 86 priests here (1Sam. 22:18–19) and no Ark (compare 1Sam. 7:1–2 with 2Sam. 6:4); however, they did have the ephod (1Sam. 21:9 23:6) and they baked Showbread (1Sam. 21:4, 6). It was as though they were tentatively setting up a holy city. Later on, we are going to learn reasons why this was probably an apostate priesthood when we examine Where is the Ark and Why is it not in the Tabernacle of God?, a study located in this chapter (v. 7).

In 1Sam. 22:9, Doeg the Edomite will report that David was seen at Nob. Saul sends for the priests who are at Nob (1Sam. 22:11) and summarily executes them and almost everyone who lives in this city (which is also known as the City of the Priests in 1Sam. 22:19).

Nob was eventually resettled as a part of Benjamin in Neh. 11:31–35 and its residents may have included some priests. Our final reference to Nob is in Isa. 10:32; the context is the predicted assault of the Assyrian forces and from Nob, Sennacherib would temporarily halt (probably to organize his forces before assaulting Jerusalem) and from Nob, he would shake his fist at Jerusalem.

Nob is to be identified today with Ras Umm et-Tal or with Mount Scopus on the northern part of the Olivet ridge. This general location is in agreement with all of the Scriptures referring to Nob; plus, in 2Sam. 15, David will ascend Olivet, where God was worshiped (2Sam. 15:30–32). S. R. Driver suggests a place on the Râs el-Meshârif, which is a mile north of Jerusalem, from which a person coming from the north road catches his first glimpse of Jerusalem.

We have already studied the Movement of the Ark and the Tent of God in 1Sam. 10. Samuel, in 1Sam. 10, prophesies to Saul how he will meet three men on the way to the hill of God which appears to be in Bethel (1Sam. 10:3–5). Gilgal, however, is given as the place where Saul should go to meet Samuel for the sacrifices. So, we really do not know exactly where the tent is set up during this time, if anywhere. It was in Shiloh; however, sometime during the time of Samuel and Saul, Shiloh was probably destroyed, although the Tabernacle of God had been saved. Whether it was reassembled elsewhere is never told to us (until Solomon fetches it). Throughout much of Saul’s early reign, many religious activities take place in Gilgal (1Sam. 10:8 11:14–15 13:4–15 15:21). For that reason, it is possible that there was some sort of a priesthood functioning in Gilgal for several years. In any case, by this time, many of the priests were living in Nob and that the Tent of God is set up is implied, as they do replenish the Table of Showbread regularly (as we will see in this chapter) and the ephod is kept here as well (1Sam. 21:9). Interestingly enough, none of the cities mentioned here are specifically Levite cities (see Joshua 21).

Next, we need to deal with Ahimelech—just who is he and what sort of information can we glean from Scripture concerning him? First, we need to examine his ancestry:

The Lineage to and From Ahimelech

Eli

┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐

Hophni Phinehas

┌────────────────┴─────────────────┐

Ahitub Ichabod

┌────────────────┴─────────────────┐

Ahimelech 1 [ = Ahijah?]

│

Abiathar

│

Ahimelech 2

All of these relationships are pretty clear and well-established. However, we do not know if Ahitub is a son of Phinehas or a half-brother to Ichabod (we would assume that he is an actual son of Phinehas, as the priesthood goes through him).

We are also unclear as to the relationship between Ahimelech and Ahijah. Ahimelech means brother of a king; Ahijah means brother of Jah [Jehovah]. Ahimelech is called the son of Ahitub in 1Sam. 22:9, 20 and Ahijah is called the son of Ahitub in 1Sam. 14:3. This suggests 3 possibilities : (1) they are the same person; (2) they are brothers; or (3) Ahijah is the father of Ahimelech (being called the son of does not necessarily mean direct descent).

Many commentators lean toward them being one and the same because Ahijah is said to wear the ephod in 1Sam. 14:3, implying that he is the High Priest (or, the acting High Priest). Here, Ahimelech speaks to David and apparently has the authority to make such decisions as dispensing the Holy Bread to a common man. This would also imply the greatest authority of this priest city is vested in him. Give the relatively short time frame, the least likely scenario would be for Ahijah to be the father of Ahimelech.

Abiathar is called the son of Ahimelech in 1Sam. 22:20 23:6 30:7. He apparently named his son Ahimelech as well (2Sam. 8:17 1Chron. 18:16), probably because his father was killed by King Saul, an event that we will cover in the future. Although Abiathar is mentioned extensively throughout the books of Samuel, we don’t find him in 1Chron. 6, which is the priestly line (he is mentioned several times in the book of 1Chronicles, however).

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

This is the first mention of Ahimelech and, as you will read, there is no information given to us concerning his ancestry. As mentioned above, we are unclear as to the relationship between Ahimelech and Ahijah. Ahijah is first mentioned back in 1Sam. 14:3, where his lineage is given (and reproduced above). At that time, Ahijah is a priest who travels with Saul and his military. Ahijah is one of Saul’s advisors because Ahijah has the ephod (which is used to determine God’s will). This is all we really know about Ahijah. Ahijah and Ahimelech are never mentioned together and neither man is found in 1Chron. 6, which is the Levite line. However, they are both clearly priests and important figures during this time period. One could argue that, since Ahijah traveled with Saul and Ahimelech is found in Nob with the priests, that these are clearly different men. However, bear in mind that 1Sam. 14 occurred several years previous (perhaps as many as 10 years ago); and, if Ahijah is no longer traveling with Saul’s military (which apparently functions almost apart from Saul’s direct supervision during these times), then he must have some sort of function; hence, he gathers the priests at Nob. That Saul did not retain him (again, a speculative point) is simply further evidence that Saul became more and more estranged from God. Furthermore, the ephod is no longer with Saul but with the priests (see 1Sam. 23:6 30:7). So, no matter how you slice it, there are reasonable arguments for Ahijah and Ahimelech being brothers, being father and son, or being the same man. For these reason, we will treat these men separately, bearing the thought in the back of our minds that they could be one and the same.

The term High Priest is never applied to Ahimelech, although it is reasonable to assume that he is the man in charge in Nob; however, no one in the book of Samuel is ever called a High Priest. Ahimelech is clearly the man in charge and therefore the man that David speaks to. He authorizes David to take the sacred bread, which is not the sort of decision an underling would make. Ahimelech is also mentioned in the inscription of Psalm 52, one of the psalms that we will study in the near future. Given the destruction of Shiloh, it is reasonable to assume that the priests are at an uncertain stage in their existence. They do not have the approbation of Saul; Samuel is busy with his school of prophets in Naioth; and we have no mention of God speaking to any of these priests (which is a very rare event anyway). Saul no longer consults them for direction, as his estrangement from God has become more and more dramatic, as his hatred for David increases (we know this because the ephod is with Saul’s army in 1Sam. 14:3, but is with a priest from Nob in 23:6). And, instead of feasts held at the holy city (which is wherever the Tabernacle is), Saul is holding feasts at the palace (1Sam. 20:24–29). Given all of this information, it would be reasonable to suppose that Ahimelech ran the show at Nob (what show there was to run), but that things were not back to normal, and that he was at best the unofficial High Priest.

It is very possible that the Tabernacle of God had just been recently revived and that those priests who remained functioned there. There is no mention in this chapter of the High Priest; and it is possible that no one had been selected as the High Priest yet. Samuel was still alive and that appeared to be his general function (although Samuel is never referred to as High Priest). It is important to note, however that no one in the book of Samuel is called a High Priest; this designation occurs only a moderate number of times and in specific books (Numbers, Kings, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Haggai and Zechariah). Samuel does not appear to be a part of the Tabernacle ministry, as he has a seminary near his own home in Naioth (1Sam. 19:18) and that ministry seems to be tied to the prophets at this point in time rather than to the priests.

So, here we have David at the city of Nob. We might expect him to consult with Ahimelech about the will of God. We might expect some conversation to take place about David’s plight. However, even though David is first drawn to the city of the prophets and then to the city of priests, his interests are completely self-serving, and he does not express any real interest in the will of God. He knows that there is food there and he apparently knows that the priests have at least Goliath’s sword there.

I Samuel 21:1b (v. 2b in the Hebrew)
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
chârad (ד ַר ָח) [pronounced chaw-rahd]	to tremble, to be terrified, to be frightened	3^rd person singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #2729 BDB #353
ăchîymelek^e (∵ל∵מי.ח ֲא) [pronounced uh-khee-MEH-lek]	brother of Melek or brother of a king and is transliterated Ahimelech	Masculine proper noun	Strong’s #288 BDB #27
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
qârâ (א ָר ָק) [pronounced kaw-RAW]	to encounter, to befall, to meet; to assemble [for the purpose of encountering God or exegeting His Word]; to come, to assemble	Qal infinitive construct	Strong’s #7122 & #7125 BDB #896
This is a homonym; the other qârâ means to call, to proclaim, to read, to assemble.
Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]	beloved and is transliterated David	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

Translation: Ahimelech was trembling to meet David... Ahimelech is clearly nervous about meeting up with David, and we are never really told why. Whether he knew that Saul was after David is not told to us (what is recorded does not seem to indicate that Ahimelech had any idea about the estrangement between these two men). It is important to bear in mind that Jonathan was not aware of his father’s intense hatred for David until a day or so previous to this. However, being priests, they may have been aware of Saul’s men coming for David at Naioth (something that they might know about, but that Jonathan would not). On the other hand, given the lie that David will tell Ahimelech, this would also suggest that he was not aware of David and Saul’s estrangement (obviously, Ahimelech could have chosen to believe David’s lie). It is possible that a person of David’s political stature showing up made Ahimelech nervous. It is possible that Ahimelech was afraid when he met David simply due to a premonition of impending doom, although he could not have clearly stated himself why he was trembling. Having a premonition of fear will prove to be justified in the next chapter. Keil and Delitzsch suggest 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. All we know for certain is that Ahimelech is somewhat taken aback—even frightened—to meet David. David will lie to him and get both food and weapons from Ahimelech in this chapter. The result will be that Ahimelech will be seen by Saul to be in cahoots with David; by extension, Saul sees the entire city of priests being in cahoots with David. Therefore, in a rage, he will kill all of the priests in 1Sam. 22:9–19.

It is Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar, who will escape Saul’s attack, and who will become the High Priest during David’s reign. As you will see, he will name his own son Ahimelech, in honor of his father.

I Samuel 21:1c (V. 2c in the Hebrew)
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]	to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #559 BDB #55
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition with a 3^rd person masculine singular suffix	No Strong’s # BDB #510
maddu׳a ( ַעֻ ַמ) [pronounced mah-DOO-ahģ]	why, wherefore, on what account, and it is probably a contraction of a word which means what being known	adverb	Strong’s #4069 BDB #396
attâh (הָ-א) [pronounced aht-TAW]	you (often, the verb to be is implied)	2^nd person masculine singular, personal pronoun	Strong’s #859 BDB #61
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
bad (דַ) [pronounced bah	separation, by itself, alone	masculine singular noun with a 2^nd person masculine singular suffix	Strong’s #905 BDB #94
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]	a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone	masculine singular noun	Strong's #376 BDB #35
êyn (ןי̤א) [pronounced ān]	nothing, not, [is] not; not present, not ready; expresses non-existence, absence or non-possession; there is no	particle of negation; substantive of negation	Strong’s #369 BDB #34
êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]	with, at, near, by, among, directly from	preposition (which is identical to the sign of the direct object); with a 2^nd person masculine singular suffix, pausal form	Strong's #854 BDB #85

Translation: ...and he asked him [lit., said to him], “Why [are] you alone and [why is there] no one with you?” This strikes the priest as odd, that David is traveling alone. If you happened to see the vice president of the United States by himself, shopping the auto supply section of Wal Mart, that would strike you as pretty odd.

This may help to explain Ahimelech’s apparent fear. A head of state has shown up suddenly, unannounced and unaccompanied at his doorstep. He would have no way of knowing what was happening. I have personally been in two meetings where something was said that made me realize that this was a life-altering situation and it chilled me to the bone, although I was unable to rationally consider all of the ramifications of such a situation at that time. This could be Ahimelech.

So, let’s summarize...
Possible Reasons Why Ahimelech is Trembling When He Meets David
Possible Reason	Likelihood
Ahimelech knows that David is on the run from Saul.	It appears as though David has been on the run from Saul for only a very short time. Even Jonathan was unaware of Saul’s anger until the previous day. Given Ahimelech’s question (“Why are you alone?”) and given the fact that he believes David’s lie, suggests that he was not aware of any problems between Saul and David. On the other hand, Ahimelech may have heard through the grapevine that Saul and his soldiers came for David at Naioth, which was the city of prophets. Therefore, these reasons are highly unlikely.
Ahimelech knows that David and Saul are estranged.
David, a highly ranked official, has shown up suddenly without weapons and without an entourage at Ahimelech’s doorstep.	This is very likely, as this is exactly what took place. Ahimelech may wonder if war has broken out or some other national catastrophe has occurred. One reason that this is the mostly likely explanation is that the latter portion of this verse tells us that Ahimelech immediately asks David, “Why are you alone?” Ahimelech might have imagined that David been in a battle and had escaped alone and without a weapon; and such a scenario would mean that the enemies were close by.
Ahimelech has an almost irrational fear of impending doom.	We do occasionally have these irrational fears which may or may not turn out to be justified.
Ahimelech has apparently set up the Tabernacle and is restoring some of the functions of the priestly service; however, there has been no tacit support from Saul.	This is very reasonable, as Saul is on the outs with God, which is something that the priests are probably aware (although they are apparently unaware of other political intrigues). To have a high-ranking official from Saul’s army to suddenly show up and without warning (the priests are not aware of the rift between Saul and Dvaid), this priest may be concerned that Saul will take out his anger against God on this priests and Tabernacle.
These final three reasons are all things which Ahimelech is probably feeling at this time, and thus accounts for his trembling.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

It is important to note David’s inclination. The first time that he is on the run, he goes to Samuel, who was, for many years, the undisputed spiritual leader of Israel. On the run again, David goes to Ahimelech, who appears to be acting High Priest (again, a term which does not ever occur in the book of Samuel). First to the city of the prophets and then to the city of the priests. You may ask, why doesn’t David go to God in prayer? Strictly speaking, prayer is not a device used for guidance. David did not speak to God face to face (or in some way that God would manifest Himself to David) as that was an extremely rare situation enjoyed by very few saints. So David’s choices are reasonable; however, he thinks only of himself and his own personal safety. David does not yet consider what bearing his actions will have on others, meaning that he is not yet ready to become king of Israel yet.

And so says David to Ahimelech the priest, “The king commissioned me a word and so he says unto me, ‘A man does not know anything the word which I am sending you and which I have commissioned you.’ And the young men I have made known in a place, such a such.

1Samuel

21:2

So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me [with] a matter and he told me, ‘No one is to know anything [about] the mission [lit., word, matter] that I am sending you on and which I have commission you [to do].’ I have made known a specific place [to] the young men [where we will meet].

So David answered Ahimelech the priest, saying, “The king are entrusted me with a specific mission; furthermore, he told me, ‘No one is to know anything about this mission that I have sent you on to complete.’ Therefore, I have set up a specific place where I will meet up with the young men.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so says David to Ahimelech the priest, “The king commissioned me a word and so he says unto me, ‘A man does not know anything the word which I am sending you and which I have commissioned you.’ And the young men I have made known in a place, such a such.

Septuagint And David said to the priest, “The king gave me a command today and he said to me, ‘Let no one know the matter on which I send you, and concerning which I have charged you; and I have charged my servants in the place that is called The Faithfulness of God, phellani maemoni [a corruption of ינמלא ינלפ].’

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV “I'm on a mission for King Saul,” David answered. “He ordered me not to tell anyone what the mission is all about, so I had my soldiers stay somewhere else.

NLT “The king has sent me on a private matter,” David said. “He told me not to tell anyone why I am here. I have told my men where to meet me later.

TEV “I am here on the king’s business,” David answered. “He told me not to let anyone know what he sent me to do. As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ “The king ordered me to do something,” David answered the priest Ahimelech, “and he told me, 'No one must know anything about this mission I'm sending you on and about the orders I've given you. I've stationed my young men at a certain place.’ ”

JPS (Tanakh) David answered the priest Ahimelech, “The king has ordered me on a mission, and he said to me, ‘No one must know anything about the mission on which I am sending you and for which I have given you orders.’ So I have directed [my] young men to such and such a place.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter, and has said to me, ‘Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.’

NRSV David said to the priest Ahimelech, “The king has charge me with a matter, and said to me, ‘No one must know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment [as per Dead Sea Scrolls and Vulgate; Compare Greek; meaning of MT uncertain] with the young men for such and such a place.

Young's Updated LT And David says to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commanded me a matter, and he says unto me, ‘Let no man know anything of the matter about which I am sending you, and which I have commanded you; and the young men I have caused to know at such and such a place.’

What is the gist of this verse? David lies to the priest, telling him that King Saul has sent him on a secret mission. His young men will meet up with him elsewhere.

Going into this verse makes me think that I need to give you some introductory points, which will answer the question...

Why Will David Spend So Much Time as a Refugee?

1. David is not ready to be king over all of Israel yet.

2. God is not ready to remove Saul completely from his throne either.

3. Most people when they think of a position of authority, what they think about is power, and secondly about recognition and possibly the material benefits associated with such a position.

4. When you have a position of leadership, a position of power, a position of authority, the last thing that should be on your mind is how cool it is to have power to wield over others.

5. The key to authority is responsibility. The key to have a lot of authority is immense responsibility. You are responsible for those over whom you have authority.

6. David needs to learn that, and this will be his first lesson.

7. One of the most difficult things for a man with a heart to bear is the suffering of others which he has caused. A husband has authority over his family. If this husband has a heart, then he is always cognizant that the decisions which he makes affects his entire family.

8. A husband who understands that is fit to be a husband.

9. A husband who cheats on his wife, and thus risks the well-being of his wife and children, is not fit to have this sort of authority.

10. David has to realize that everything that he does, good and bad, will impact the nation Israel over which he will rule. He must see what he is able to cause and he must see the disastrous results of bad decisions on his part.

11. In this chapter, his bad decisions will affect the priests over Israel. Had he been king, a similar bad decision would have had disastrous results which would have affected all of Israel.

12. Therefore, God is testing David and David is growing spiritually while David is a refugee.

13. Some of David’s greatest psalms will come from this time period; psalms which have had an impact throughout half of man’s history. This is very similar to the 4 epistles that Paul wrote while in prison. Not the best sort of circumstances, but some of the most fantastic spiritual information came out of these periods of testing.

14. We, as believers far removed from this time period, will learn a great deal about God and His plan and His timing from David during these years while David is on the run and while Saul is a lame duck king.

15. One lesson which David is able to bear is patience and waiting upon God. Had you been told by Samuel that God had chosen you as Israel’s next king, you would have marched into Gibeah and told Saul to hand over the crown. David does not do that. He is given chance after chance to speed up God’s plan; to put feet on God’s plan; and David never usurps the timing of God.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

1Samuel 21:2a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]	to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #559 BDB #55
Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]	beloved and is transliterated David	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #1732 BDB #187
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
ăchîymelek^e (∵ל∵מי.ח ֲא) [pronounced uh-khee-MEH-lek]	brother of Melek or brother of a king and is transliterated Ahimelech	Masculine proper noun	Strong’s #288 BDB #27
kôhên (ן ֵהֹ) [pronounced koh-HANE]	priest	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong's #3548 BDB #463
melek^e ( ∵ל ∵מ) [pronounced MEH-lek]	king, ruler, prince	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong’s #4428 BDB #572
tsâvâh (ה ָו ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-VAW]	to commission, to mandate, to lay charge upon, to give charge to, charge, command, order	3^rd person masculine singular, Piel perfect, 1^st person singular suffix	Strong's #6680 BDB #845
dâ^bvâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw^b-VAWR]	word, saying, doctrine, thing, matter, command	masculine singular noun	Strong's #1697 BDB #182

Translation: So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me [with] a matter... David has two approaches that he can take with Ahimelech the priest. He can either lie or he can tell Ahimelech the truth. David chooses to lie. He first says that he is there on business from King Saul. He tells Ahimelech that Saul has an assignment which he has sent David on. As we will find out, this lie will endanger all of the priests of Nob. They will all die, save one, because of David’s lie (and bear in mind, David did not think this through; he did not even think that there might be a problem that would result from lying to Ahimelech). David will, by the way, acknowledge this mistake, saying to Abiathar, the young priest who escaped, “I have brought about [the death] of every person in your father’s household.” (1Sam. 22:22b).

1Samuel 21:2b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]	to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #559 BDB #55
el (ל∵א) [pronounced el]	in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against	directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied); with a 1^st person singular suffix	Strong's #413 BDB #39
îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]	a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone	masculine singular noun	Strong's #376 BDB #35
al (ל-א) [pronounced al]	not; nothing; none	adverb of negation; conjunction of prohibiting, dehorting, deprecating, desire that something not be done	Strong’s #408 BDB #39.
yâda׳ (ע ַדָי) [pronounced yaw-DAHĢ]	to see; to know, to perceive, to acquire knowledge, to become acquainted, to know by experience, to have a knowledge of something	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #3045 BDB #393
m^eûwmâh (הָמא מ) [pronounced m^e-oo-MAW]	anything, and it is usually found in negative sentences; therefore, with the negative, it is often rendered nothing	indefinite singular pronoun/adverb	Strong’s #3972 BDB #548
êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]	generally untranslated	indicates that the following substantive is a direct object	Strong's #853 BDB #84
dâ^bvâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw^b-VAWR]	word, saying, doctrine, thing, matter, command	masculine singular noun with a definite article	Strong's #1697 BDB #182
ăsher (ר ∵ש ֲא) [pronounced ash-ER]	that, which, when, who	relative pronoun	Strong's #834 BDB #81
ânôkîy (י.כֹנָא) [pronounced awn-oh-KEE]	I, me	1^st person singular personal pronoun (sometimes a verb is implied)	Strong’s #595 BDB #59
shâlach (ח ַל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]	to send, to send for, to send forth, to send away, to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth	Qal active participle with a 2^nd person masculine singular suffix	Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
ăsher (ר ∵ש ֲא) [pronounced ash-ER]	that, which, when, who	relative pronoun	Strong's #834 BDB #81
tsâvâh (ה ָו ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-VAW]	to commission, to mandate, to lay charge upon, to give charge to, charge, command, order	1^st person singular, Piel perfect, 2^nd person masculine singular suffix	Strong's #6680 BDB #845

Translation: ...and he told me,‘No one is to know anything [about] the mission [lit., word, matter] that I am sending you on and which I have commission you [to do].’ Not only does David tell Ahimelech that he is on a mission from Saul, but that it is a secret mission. This means that David will not have to formulate a more detailed lie as to what this mission might be. It sounds as though David is repeating himself here. He’s already said that Saul has charged (or commissioned) him with a particular matter, and he says here that Saul has sent him away and commission (a repetition of the verb) him. David is probably making this up on the spot, and, in his nervousness, he repeats himself.

1Samuel 21:2c
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]	generally untranslated	indicates that the following substantive is a direct object	Strong's #853 BDB #84
na׳ar (ר-ע-נ) [pronounced NAH-ģahr]	boy, youth, young man, personal attendant	masculine plural noun with a definite article	Strong’s #5288 & #5289 BDB #654
yâda׳ (ע ַדָי) [pronounced yaw-DAHĢ]	to make one know, to cause to know, to show; to direct	1^st person singular, Poel perfect (with a voluntative hê)	Strong’s #3045 BDB #393
Gesenius suggests that this ought to read י .ע -דה rather than י .ע -די (however, I do not know what the first word means, and Gesenius does not bother to tell us). A NRSV footnote tells us that this should read made an appointment with as per the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Latin Vulgate.
el (ל∵א) [pronounced el]	in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against	directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)	Strong's #413 BDB #39
mâqôwm (םקָמ) [pronounced maw-KOHM]	place, situated; for a soldier, it may mean where he is stationed; for people in general, it would be their place of abode (which could be their house or their town)	masculine singular construct	Strong’s #4725 BDB #879
pêlônîy (י.נֹל ) [pronounced p^eloh-NEE]	such a one, a certain one	pronoun	Strong’s #6423 BDB #811
al^emônîy (י.נֹמל-א) [pronounced ahl-moh-NEE]	some one, a certain one	adjective	Strong’s #492 BDB #48
These two words are almost always found together and they have this rhythmic alliteration going on. Together, they mean a certain [person or place]; a specific [person or place]; such and such. The person or place is specific and known to the speaker but not to those whom he is speaking to.

Translation: I have made known a specific place [to] the young men [where we will meet]. Ahimelech posed two questions to David: (1) why are you here and (2) why are you alone? David first lies to Ahimelech about being on a secret mission from Saul; and here, he tells Ahimelech that he has set a place to meet up with his young men. By the way, there is some disagreement as to whether there are any young men with David at this time. This will be discussed later on in this chapter.

And now, what [is] there under your hand? Five of loaves give in my hand or the acquired.”

1Samuel

21:3

Therefore, what [is] on hand [lit., under your hand]? Give the five loaves [of bread] to me [lit., in my hand] and [whatever else] is found.”

Therefore, what do you have right there? Give those five loaves of bread to me and whatever else you might have.”

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And now, what [is] there under your hand? Five of loaves give in my hand or the acquired.”

Septuagint And now, if there are under your hand five loaves, give [them] into my hand what is ready.”

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV Do you have any food you can give me? Could you spare five loaves of bread?”

NLT Now, what is there to eat? Give me five loaves of bread or anything else you have.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ └David added┘, “Now, what do you have └to eat┘? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever you can find.”

JPS (Tanakh) Now then, what have you got on hand? Any loaves of bread? Let me have them—or whatever is available.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB “Now therefore, what do you have on hand [lit., what is under your hand]? Give me [lit., in my hand] five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.”

Young's Updated LT ...and now, what is there under your hand? five loaves give into my hand, or that which is found.”

What is the gist of this verse? David is hungry, so he is going to ask for food.

1Samuel 21:3a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
׳attâh (ה ָ ַע) [pronounced ģaht-TAWH]	now, at this time, already	adverb of time	Strong’s #6258 BDB #773
When followed by an imperative or an interrogative, w^e + the adverb ׳attâh mean and so, thus, things being so, therefore. Sometimes, the concept of time is lost when this combination is used to incite another.
mâh (ה ָמ) [pronounced maw]	what, how, why	interrogative; exclamatory particle	Strong’s #4100 BDB #552
yêsh (שֵי) [pronounced yaysh]	being, substance, existence; used as a substitute for to be (without reference to number or tense); to be present, to be ready, to exist; the verb to be may be implied	substantive	Strong’s #3426 BDB #441
tachath (ת ַח ַ) [pronounced TAH-khahth]	underneath, below, under, beneath, in the place [in which one stands] [when found in accusative position]	preposition	Strong’s #8478 BDB #1065
yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd]	generally translated hand	feminine singular noun with the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix	Strong's #3027 BDB #388
I don’t know at this time if on hand is a reasonable interpretation for this prepositional phrase. This would indicate that David could not necessarily see the bread.

Translation: Therefore, what [is] on hand [lit., under your hand]? It appears as though there is food right there in front of them; near the Table of Showbread there are apparently five loaves of bread. This is more of a rhetorical question, rather than one where David is eliciting information.

An interesting question might be posed at this point (one which I have not seen posed by any other commentator): why didn’t David simply go to a field and harvest the remnant which was left for the poor? I honestly don’t know the answer to this. My guess is that David was not really thinking clearly; he had gone to Samuel, the prophet; now he was going to Ahimelech the priest. At first, I guessed that David was looking for some sort of guidance; however, it simply turns out that he is extremely hungry. David was aware of the Showbread (as well as the other sorts of provisions), and, being famished, requested that. David does not ask for advice or guidance; nor does he reveal his true situation. Perhaps what he is hoping for is the first move to be made by an insightful priest—a priest who says, “I know your true situation, David, and here is what you need to do.” Another explanation is that David was simply not thinking. He realized that there was bread available (more or less) at the Tabernacle, and therefore chose to go there. Additional narrative will reveal to us that David really has no spiritual agenda in coming here to Nob.

1Samuel 21:3b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
chămishshâh (הָ ̣מֲח) [pronounced khuh-mish-SHAW]	five	numeral, feminine construct	Strong’s #2568 BDB #331
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536
nâthan (ן ַתָנ) [pronounced naw-THAHN]	to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set	2^nd person masculine singular, Qal imperative with the voluntative hê	Strong's #5414 BDB #678
b^e (׃) [pronounced b^eh]	in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within	a preposition of proximity	Strong’s #none BDB #88
yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd]	generally translated hand	feminine singular noun with the 1^st person singular suffix	Strong's #3027 BDB #388
ô (א) [pronounced oh]	or, or rather, otherwise, also, and	conjunction	Strong's #176 BDB #14
mâtsâ (א ָצ ָמ) [pronounced maw-TSAW]	those acquired, those found, those present	Niphal participle with the definite article	Strong’s #4672 BDB #592

Translation: Give the five loaves [of bread] to me [lit., in my hand] and [whatever else] is found.” Apparently, even though there are generally 12 loaves of bread, there were only 5 remaining which David could see and he asks for those. This would indicate that the priests had begun to eat the bread already; seen of them had already come in to get their loaves). He also asks for whatever food is available. The idea is, he is asking this for his young men, who will be on this secret mission with him.

David’s purpose in coming to Nob was completely secular—he was hungry, they had food; and that is what he is asking for. Certainly, David is in a difficult situation—however, this would be the perfect opportunity for him to come clean with this priest and ask for guidance. He does not. Throughout this entire visit, David will simply lie to this priest in order to get what he wants; David does not think about the consequences and he gives no consideration whatsoever to the well-being of the priests in Nob, who might be seen as being in collusion with David.

And so answers the priest David and so he says, “Nothing of bread commonness unto under my hand for if bread holiness there [is] (if abstained [themselves] the young men only from a woman.”

1Samuel

21:4

The priest answered David, saying, “There [is] no common bread on hand [lit., under my hand] but there [is] holy bread—only if the young men have abstained from women.”

The priest answered David, saying, “We have no common bread on hand; however, there is holy bread—which the young men may eat only if they have abstained from sexual relations.”

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so answers the priest David and so he says, “Nothing of bread commonness unto under my hand for if bread holiness there [is] (if abstained [themselves] the young men only from a woman.”

Septuagint 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 women, then they will eat [these loaves].”

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV “The only bread I have is the sacred bread,” the priest told David. “You can have it if your soldiers didn't sleep with women last night.”

NLT “We don’t have any regular bread,” the priest replied. “But there is the holy bread, which I guess you can have if your young men have not slept with any women recently.”

TEV The priest said, “I don’t have any ordinary bread, only sacred bread; you can have it if your men haven’t had sexual relations recently.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ “I don't have any ordinary bread,” the chief priest answered David. “But there is holy bread for the young men if they haven't had sexual intercourse └today┘.”

JPS (Tanakh) The priest answered David, “I have no ordinary bread on hand; there is only consecrated bread—provided the young men have kept away from women.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible And the priest answered David, There is no common bread on hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

NASB And the priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.”

Young's Updated LT And the priest answers David, and says, “There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if the youths have been kept only from women.”

What is the gist of this verse? The priest tells David that there is no common bread—that is, bread for common consumption. They have holy bread and that is available if the young men have not had sexual relations.

This verse is often misunderstood and/or poorly explained. The Tabernacle was not the place where one would go when hungry; and there are no lawful provisions associated with the non-Clergy eating sacred bread. This would be analogous today of someone entering into a church during Eucharist and eating a couple handfuls of those tiny wafers, and then polishing them off with a dozen small cups of grape juice.

1Samuel 21:4a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
׳ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-NAWH]	to answer, to respond; to speak loudly, to speak up [in a public forum]; to testify; to sing, to chant, to sing responsively	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong's #6030 BDB #772
kôhên (ן ֵהֹ) [pronounced koh-HANE]	priest	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong's #3548 BDB #463
êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]	generally untranslated	indicates that the following substantive is a direct object	Strong's #853 BDB #84
Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]	beloved and is transliterated David	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #1732 BDB #187
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]	to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #559 BDB #55
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix	No Strong’s # BDB #510
êyn (ןי̤א) [pronounced ān]	nothing, not, [is] not; not present, not ready; expresses non-existence, absence or non-possession; there is no	particle of negation; substantive of negation	Strong’s #369 BDB #34
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536
chôl (לֹח) [pronounced kohl]	profaneness, commonness, unholy [thing]; common, profane	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #2455 BDB #320
Although this is a masculine noun, there are several passages where this acts more like an adjective (see 1Sam. 21:4 Ezek. 42:20 48:15).
el (ל∵א) [pronounced el]	in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against	directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)	Strong's #413 BDB #39
tachath (ת ַח ַ) [pronounced TAH-khahth]	underneath, below, under, beneath, in the place [in which one stands] [when found in accusative position]	preposition	Strong’s #8478 BDB #1065
Together, these two prepositions simply mean under.
yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd]	generally translated hand	feminine singular noun with the 1^st person singular suffix	Strong's #3027 BDB #388
kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]	for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time	conjunction; preposition	Strong's #3588 BDB #471
îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem]	if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though	primarily an hypothetical particle	Strong's #518 BDB #49
Together, kîy îm (ם ̣א י ̣) [pronounced kee-eem] act as a limitation on the preceding thought, and therefore should be rendered but, except, unless and possibly only. However, these particles are not used in a limiting way if they follow an oath, a question or a negative. Then they can be rendered that if, for if, for though, that since, for if, but if, indeed if, even if.
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536
qôdesh (ש∵דֹק) [pronounced koh-DESH]	holiness, sacredness, apartness, that which is holy, holy things	masculine singular noun	Strong's #6944 BDB #871
This noun also seems to function as an adjective at times (Lev. 16:4, 32 1Sam. 21:4 1Chron. 16:10).
yêsh (שֵי) [pronounced yaysh]	being, substance, existence; used as a substitute for to be (without reference to number or tense); to be present, to be ready, to exist; the verb to be may be implied	substantive	Strong’s #3426 BDB #441

Translation: The priest answered David, saying, “There [is] no common bread on hand [lit., under my hand] but there [is] holy bread... The priests do not cook bread in general for a bread line. The holy bread that they produce is generally enough for them to eat. Therefore, all that they had on hand was holy (or, consecrated) bread. The consecrated bread was baked in groups of 12 loaves (for each tribe of Israel) and it represented God’s provision for all 12 tribes. The bread was to be consumed by Aaron and his sons (the Aaronic priesthood) (Lev. 24:5–9). Although this passage does not specifically forbid the eating of this bread by others, it reads that the sons of Aaron ...will eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him from the Lord’s offerings by fire, [his] portion forever (Lev. 24:9b). This simply does not seem to indicate that this bread available to others, even under emergency situations. There are several commentators who talk about feeding the poor and the priests making their bread available to the poor; however, we simply do not find justification for this in the Law; and, apart from this passage, there seems to be no justification for this in practice either. Now, provision was made for the poor. A small portion of any man’s field was not to be harvested, so that the poor could come and eat from what had not been picked (Lev. 19:9 23:22 Deut. 24:19). Ahimelech should have directed David to the nearest harvest field. The Tabernacle of God was not set up to be a food kitchen.

Since I have taken this point of view, I need to explain Jesus and his disciples when they picked heads of grain to eat and they were accused by the Pharisees of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus replied, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.” (Matt. 12:3b–4).

An Explanation of Jesus’ Answer to the Pharisees Regarding David and the Consecrated Bread

1. First of all, the circumstance:

a. It is the Sabbath day, Jesus’ disciples are hungry, so they go to a grain field and pick grain to eat. (Matt. 12:1). As discussed, this was in accordance with Mosaic Law (Lev. 19:9 23:22 Deut. 24:19).

b. The Pharisees see this and approach Jesus, tell Him, “Look, what Your disciples are doing is not lawful on a Sabbath.” Matt. 12:2

c. Jesus first tells the Pharisees that David entered the house of God and he and his companions ate consecrated bread. He tells the Pharisees, “[This] was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone.” Matt. 12:4 Mark 2:26 adds that this took place during the time of Abiathar the High Priest (he will be the surviving priest, not the priest who gives David the bread).*

d. Jesus adds, “Have you not read [that]...David...gave it [the bread] to his companions?” (Luke 6:4b).

e. Jesus also makes the point, “Have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath, the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?” Matt. 12:5

f. Jesus concludes, telling the Pharisees, “But I tell you something greater than the Temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” Matt. 12:6–8 Hosea 6:6

g. Jesus also told them, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27

h. First of all, there is no indication that David is traveling with any companions. He arrives before the priest alone (1Sam. 21:2) and lies about being on a mission from Saul and we can reasonably assume that he lies about meeting up with his young men later. Although it would not have been unusual for David to have traveled with a personal servant or two, there is nothing whatever said indicating that was the case, from the time that he was lowered down the city wall to escape Saul, to where we find him here, in the Tent of God, asking the priest for food. David’s companions are only mentioned once by David, in what clearly appears to be part of a lie (1Sam. 21:4b); and by Jesus before the Pharisees. This leaves us with a problem—how do we explain this?

2. Most exegetes take the position that David was not breaking God’s laws, but holding to a higher law—if people are hungry, then you need to feed them, regardless of the Law.† The implication would be that David did have companions with him, that they were hidden elsewhere, and that he took bread to them. This point of view also suggests that the Tabernacle could reasonably function as a soup kitchen.

3. Another position would be that David took responsibility for individual men as he traveled; that is, they joined up with him, and he was their leader. These men could have joined up with him shortly after this incident in the Tent of God with the bread.

4. Obviously, David could have traveled with a personal servant or two, and asked for them to remain out of sight on the outskirts of Nob. This would be the simplest explanation, and account for what Jesus said about David and his companions eating bread from the Tabernacle.

5. Jesus made several points to the Pharisees, some of which go unstated:

a. “You don’t know what the hell you are talking about” would be the first and main unstated point. The Pharisees did not know the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 22:29 Mark 12:24); they knew only man’s distortion of the Law (Matt. 15:2, 3, 6 Mark 7:8, 9, 13). Allow me to quote at least two of these verses: “You have no trouble rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your own traditions...Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God's word.” (Mark 7:9, 13b).

b. Therefore, they would have no clue when Jesus purposely distorted the Law Himself. They don’t know enough about the Law to realize (1) that Jesus’ disciples are not breaking the Sabbath and (2) this is obvious that they know little about the Law, as they do not know enough about this incident during the time of David to comment.

c. This situation with David, the consecrated bread and the priest is a bit more complex than its presentation here by Jesus. Jesus is not telling the Pharisees that, “When you are really, really hungry, you can break the Sabbath, just like when David went to the Tent of God with his companions and got bread to eat. They were really, really hungry.” Although this is the view taken by many exegetes, it is goofy and without Scriptural support. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any indication that the poor could go to the Tabernacle or to the Temple and eat the holy bread. This incident with David is the only time that this is done, and the results will be disastrous.

d. The man-made laws of the Sabbath had become extremely complex and excessive. According to these man-made laws, the disciples of Jesus were breaking the Sabbath. However, Jesus takes a fairly complex situation, oversimplifies it, and uses it to justify what His disciples have done.

e. Jesus’ disciples have not done anything wrong. They have not violated the Sabbath. They have only violated distortions of the Sabbath; therefore, Jesus justifies what they did by slightly distorting a passage of Scripture.

f. Had the Pharisees known the Scripture, they could have said, “No, You aren’t reading this exactly right; you have distorted this passage.” Had the Pharisees known Scripture, they could have said, “It is not even clear that David had companions with him at this time.” However, they have no argument because, even though they know enough of the manmade laws and distortions to condemn the disciples of Jesus, they did not know enough about God’s Word to recognize when Jesus is yanking their chain. Jesus has presented them with Scripture which is not really applicable to His situation; however, they do not know Scripture well enough to recognize this.

g. When Jesus dealt with those who were on negative volition, He rarely gave them a clear, straight answer. Most of the time, he answered them with parables; however, He also spoke over their heads, He was sarcastic, and He made it a point, from time to time, to indicate that they did not know Scripture. You see, most of what Scripture taught was diametrically opposed to what the Pharisees taught.

h. Even though Moses gave Israel the Law, the Pharisees did not obey the Law—they continually made attempts to kill or capture our Lord (John 7:19).

i. Jesus takes a similar approach to Scripture in John 10:34, where he tells the Jews, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, You are gods’?” (Psalm 82:6). Jesus just plainly told the Jews that “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30), and they were taking up stones to stone Him for this blasphemy.

i. Let me give you the short explanation: Jesus is not saying that the Jews are gods or would become God or anything like that. His making Himself equal to God was not justified by citing this passage which could be misinterpreted to say that all men are gods.

ii. His actual point here was this: if these Jews knew Scripture well enough to understand the meaning of the passage that He just quoted to them; then they would understand Scripture well enough to recognize that He is the Messiah.

6. Jesus also said, “Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath, the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?” (Matt. 12:5). Like His statement concerning David, this statement, if taken at face value, is wrought with problems.

a. The Law is generally understood to be the first 5 books, and there was no Temple in the first 5 books. The temple was built by Solomon, and all that was added after Solomon’s day were history, poetry and prophetic books.

b. There is no specific statement from anywhere in Scripture that says, “The priests in the Temple (or Tabernacle) break the Sabbath and are innocent.” Still, Jesus asks the Pharisees, “Have you not read this?”

c. Again, if the Pharisees knew Scripture, they would have known that this passage is not to be found in the Old Testament, anywhere. However, if they knew Scripture that well, they would also have known that the requirements of the Law would cause the priests to sin, as per the traditions of the Pharisees.

7. Now, of course, the other option is, David did have some traveling buddies (or servants), who are not mentioned until 1Sam. 22:1–3, and they joined up with him sometime prior to his going to Nob. David therefore would have had to keep these men out of the sight of the Nob priests (they would not appear as though they had come from the palace of Saul). Apart from the New Testament, they are never mentioned in connection with Nob or David until chapter 22. Jesus would obviously know this, even though it is not clearly found in Scripture, because He is God. I should add that Jesus is very careful to say that David (not David and his companions) entered into the House of God; however, it is David and his companions who eat the sanctified bread. Even this explanation does not help us with Matt. 12:5 or John 10:34.

8. Another option is, some men joined up with David soon after Nob, and David gave him some of the bread. Again, this is not something specifically recorded in Scripture, although, of course, Jesus would know this.

9. However, even if we assume that David is traveling with some companions who are never alluded to, except in David’s story to the priest, we are still left with the problem that this passage does not justify the actions of Jesus’ disciples in the field. It is not the applicable passage.

10. By mentioning this incident, Jesus is requiring these Pharisees to think and, even more important, to do some Scriptural research. One or more of the Pharisees standing before Him is probably conflicted. Jesus’ intention is for them to question what they think they know and what they are taking for granted.

11. What Jesus actually had to say, from a doctrinal standpoint, occurs at the end of these three passages where this incident is mentioned. These points are as follows:

a. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27). The idea is that the benefits of the Sabbath were designed for man. The Sabbath taught that God completed His work on the 6^th day and rested (not because He was tired but because He had finished). The Sabbath days insured that (1) doctrine would be taught via the animal sacrifices and (2) that man would have time to rest, as man, when his work was completed, was tired and needed rest.

b. “Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:28 Luke 6:5). This statement pretty much overrides everything else. Jesus is the Son of Man and He is Lord of the Sabbath. Even if Lord is understood in its least formal usage, as an owner of; still this is a strong statement of His deity. Jesus is telling them, “I am the One Who says what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath; not you with your lame distortions of My Law.” That the Pharisees could approach Jesus, the Author of the Law, and allege that His disciples were breaking the Law, apparently with His blessing, was an affront to Him and His deity.

12. The accusing Pharisees were well-versed in the manmade laws concerning the Sabbath; they were conversely quite unfamiliar with the Scriptural teachings of the Sabbath. By referring back to this incident with David, Jesus was telling them that they really did not know Scripture.

13. A question which commentators do not deal with is, are these disciples actually breaking the Law?

a. In this particular incident, Jesus is obviously condoning what His disciples are doing. His disciples were hungry; they were traveling through a grain field; they were picking and eating the grain; and Jesus nowhere stops them, saying, “We cannot do this on the Sabbath.” Therefore, Jesus has allowed them to eat from this field.

b. Jesus also defends them before the Pharisees, which is even more important, and indicates further that He condones their actions.

c. The Law forbids working on the Sabbath; however, it does not forbid eating. It is one thing to require a servant to prepare a meal for a family on the Sabbath, or for a man to go out and harvest food for his family on the Sabbath—these are both violations of the Sabbath (see Ex. 20:10 35:3, for instance). It is another thing to eat on the Sabbath, even if it involves picking fruit from a tree or grain from a stalk—this is not forbidden anywhere in the Law.

d. What the Jews had done was to dramatically distort the restrictions of the Sabbath day. They had developed longs lists of things which could not be done on the Sabbath, which included 39 types of work which were forbidden. Rather than allow Scripture to speak for itself, the religious Jews delineated just what was and was not acceptable on the Sabbath, adding considerable text to what God had already given them.

e. Therefore, the disciples of our Lord were violating Jewish traditions, but they were not violating God’s Sabbath.

* It is quite unfortunate that Keil and Delitzsch report this as an error on Mark’s part in their otherwise outstanding commentary. Johann (C.F.) Keil & Franz Delitzsch; Commentary on the Old Testament; 1Sam. 21:4; courtesy of e-Sword. It is very odd that several authors deemed it important to comment on Mark’s account at this point, and the problem of his mention of Abiathar (which is not a problem and which mentioned is not a contradiction of anything) and yet these same authors seem to be oblivious to the greater issues of what Jesus said and meant.

† Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament; ©1995 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.; pp. 779–780. In fact, it is because of Edersheim’s 3 or 4 sentence quote that inspired these 3 or 4 pages of notes. See also J. Vernon McGee; I & I1Samuel; Thru the Bible Books; ⓅEl Camino Press, 1976, La Verne, CA; pp. 112–113; and Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament; ©1966 Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.; Vol. 2, p. 511. I purposely referenced three of the generally more accurate commentators to make a point.

Interestingly enough, I have several books which deal with apparent contradictions and problems with Scripture and not one of them deals with this particular point of David’s companions.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

Regardless of which position you take, a reasonable question would be, why didn’t Jesus simply state outright, unequivocally what the Scripture said? Why did He speak in parables? Why did He on rare occasion seemingly misapply or misquote Scripture?

Why Didn’t Jesus Simply Come Out and Say What He Meant?

1. First of all, we must recognize that our Lord, on at least three recorded occasions, did not apply Scripture as we would have expected Him to.

a. Jesus asks the Pharisees, what about when David got bread from the Tabernacle to feed his companions, when it does not appear as though He had any companions (the various alternative options were discussed in the previous points). Matt. 12:3–4.

b. Then Jesus makes a false quotation: “Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath, the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?” (Matt. 12:5). There is no such quotation in the Bible. However, according to the traditions of the Pharisees, the current priests of the Temple were sinning essentially in the same way that His disciples were supposedly sinning (see, for instance, Num. 28:9–10). However, there is no Biblical statement which reads: The priests in the Temple break the Sabbath and are innocent.

c. When a clear statement by Jesus indicated that He was deity and those who heard wanted to stone Him, he quoted Psalm 82:6, which reads “You are gods [or, You are God].” Jesus was not implying that the Jews that he was speaking to were divine as He was, or that they would become divine beings (ala Mormonism). He simply quoted a Scripture, practically misapplying it in context, to get them to thinking and to get them to study God’s Word.

2. When Jesus spoke too plainly, the Jews would attempt to kill Him (e.g., John 10:25–39).

3. I have had many times when someone would quote Scripture to me, out of context; but their quoting it made me go back into the Word and examine the passage carefully.

4. Jesus typically spoke in parables, where a clear parallel reality is laid down next to a principle, and that the truth and understanding of the principle is made clear by the parallel illustration. One of the earliest parables in Scripture is with Nathan the prophet and David. Nathan suggests to David a scenario where a rich man steals the ewe lamb—the only possession—of a poor man, and David is livid with rage against the rich man; and then Nathan tells David, “You are that rich man!” (2Sam. 12:1–7). Nathan gave David a clear parallel situation and David emphatically took a position with regards to this situation. Then Nathan made the parallel clear and David had judged himself wrong. Jesus did the same thing: he stated a principle to which all could agree, and then applied that principle to a point of doctrine; generally a point of doctrine that the listener would not have agreed to previously.

5. Jesus said things which would cause men to think and to search the Scriptures. Someone may not have gotten what they should have gotten in a conversation with our Lord; however, if this sent them to the Bible in search of truth, that was good enough, as He is the Truth.

6. What Jesus said was recorded by His disciples. They rarely understood clear statements of doctrine (except for John), so their memories of such things would not necessarily be clear. However, they often remembered situations and stories. This is human nature. I have taken a great many math classes; I have been taught many principles which I did not understand; and if I had to write down those principles from memory, even a most basic statement of what these principles were, I would be at a loss. I flat out don’t remember them. However, I do recall some stories and actions of my math professors, and these I could write down. Those things which I understood and learned; I can recall those things.

7. Scripture is recorded by man as moved by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is not dictated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we would expect the recording of Scripture to be, from man’s standpoint, a natural recall process. Jesus presented truth in such a way that His disciples could also recall it, even if they did not grasp, at the time, what was being said.

8. Obviously, in any dispute between Jesus and the religious hierarchy of His day, Jesus would always be right and the Pharisees or Sadducees would always be wrong. That goes without saying. However, there is more to a dispute than who’s right and who’s wrong. There was often more to these disputes apart from Jesus simply stating, “I’m right, and here’s why; you’re wrong, and here’s why.” Although this is the pattern of most theological arguments today, this was not the pattern of the theological disputes between Jesus and the religious hierarchy. Jesus intentionally made arguments, parables, and statements that men could remember, could ponder and could possibly later change their minds because of what He said.

9. Men who listened to Jesus could walk away with what He said, although they did not always grasp, at the time, what it was that He said to them. However, given time and positive volition, what He said would make sense.

10. I recall having a conversation with my first department head, who seemed a little spacey, mostly because he was old and very intelligent. There were comments that he made that made little sense to me; and I often dismissed these statements as the off-handed ramblings of an old man. However, eventually, these statements (some of them) gelled and resinated with me, and I had to admit on later relfection that what he said made perfect sense. But it took time for what he said to sink in. What Jesus had to say sometimes took time to sink in; therefore, He had to present the information in such a way so that it would sink in and make sense eventually. One might easily recall the parable of the prodigal son; however, it may be months later when the actual meaning of this story is apprehended. When one is able to recall the story, then it is easier for them to eventually understand what the story was teaching.

11. So, when Jesus would use a Scripture out of context, or present it in a way that is misleading (which was only done on rare occasion), the idea would be that the listener would hear what Jesus said, wonder about it, and then question it later, looking up the references. The idea is, such a one would, in this way, come across the gospel of Christ. When a Jew studied the Scriptures rather than the Laws of the Rabbis (the Mishna and the Talmud), he would be more likely to discover our Lord.

12. The more schooled His audience was in the Scriptures, the easier it was to present truth to them.

13. The more schooled His listeners were in the precepts of man and the distortions of Scripture, the more difficult it was for Jesus to present divine viewpoint.

14. It was always the desire of Jesus for men everywhere to change their minds and believe in Him. This was just as true of the religious crowd as it was of the general population of Judea and the surrounding areas.

15. Therefore, what Jesus said was rarely in the form of, “I’m right, and you’re wrong, and this is why.” What He said was intended to have a greater and more long-lasting impact, both on the hearer and later on the reader, than an oversimplified, argumentative approach.

16. The three unusual statements made by our Lord have, for instance, caused me to spend several days pondering what He said, and several hours typing out the results of this pondering. I have spent many hours pouring through the Scriptures and considering several different approaches and several different arguments. This amount of thought was put into three fairly short sentences said by our Lord. My point is, what He said caused me, 2000 years, to search the Scriptures and to ponder several points of view, and to spend hours of contemplation of the meaning and purpose of His words. In other words, what He said, worked. I was required to diligently search God’s Word to understand what our Lord was saying.

Return to Chapter Outline

Return to the Chart and Map Index

1Samuel 21:4b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem]	if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though	primarily an hypothetical particle	Strong's #518 BDB #49
shâmar (ר ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAR]	to be kept, to be preserved; to be careful; to abstain oneself [from anything]; to beware [of anything]; to care [for something]; to take heed	3^rd person plural, Niphal perfect	Strong's #8104 BDB #1036
na׳ar (ר-ע-נ) [pronounced NAH-ģahr]	boy, youth, young man, personal attendant	masculine plural noun with a definite article	Strong’s #5288 & #5289 BDB #654
ak^e ( ַא) [pronounced ahk^e]	surely, certainly, no doubt, only, only this once	adverb of restriction, contrast, time, limitation, and exception. Also used as an affirmative particle	Strong’s #389 BDB #36
min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]	from, away from, out from, out of from, off, on account of, since, above, than, so that not, above, beyond, more than, greater than	preposition of separation	Strong's #4480 BDB #577
îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]	woman, wife	feminine singular noun	Strong's #802 BDB #61

Translation: ...—only if the young men have abstained from women.” Their only condition is that the young men of which David spoke had not had relations with women; thus, they would not be unclean. The bread is also mentioned in Ex. 25:30 39:38 40:23 Lev. 24:5–9, and there is no protocol for making this bread available to those who are not priests. There are no regulations set down for the priests either with regards to eating this bread or distributing it to others. In other words, the priest to whom David is speaking is going free-form at this point. He has determined in his own mind that in order to eat the bread, a non-priest must be clean; and he then figures that abstinence from sex would make them clean. Although there are Old Testament passages where abstinence is mentioned (e.g., Ex. 19:15), there are no passages which are directly applicable. David’s request was sudden and unexpected, and the priest did not know how to respond exactly.

And so answers David the priest and so he says to him, “For if a woman was restrained to us yesterday, three days ago, in my coming out and so are vessels of the young men holy and he [is] a road profane and in fact that the day is holy in the vessel.”

1Samuel

21:5

David then answered the priest, and he said to him, “For though [or, even though, indeed if] women were kept back with regards to us previously when I went out [lit., in my going out], then the weapons [or, vessels] of the young men are consecrated even [if] it—the journey—[is] a common [one] [lit., even it (is) a common journey]. Much more is it holy by means of the weapon [or, vessel] today.”

David then answered the priest, saying, “Women have been kept from us previously when we went out and the weapons of the young men remained consecrated even on common treks. Much more is the journey holy today by the nature of the assignment.”

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so answers David the priest and so he says to him, “For if a woman was restrained to us yesterday, three days ago, in my coming out and so are vessels of the young men holy and he [is] a road profane and in fact that the day is holy in the vessel.”

Septuagint And David answered the priest and said to him, “Yea, we have been kept from women for three days; when I came out for the journey, all the young men were purified; but this expedition is unclean, wherefore it will be sanctified this day because of my weapons.”

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV “Of course we didn't sleep with women,” David answered. “I never let my men do that when we're on a mission. They have to be acceptable to worship God even when we're on a regular mission, and today we're on a special mission.”

NLT “Don’t worry,” David replied. “I never allow my men to be with women when they are on a campaign. And since they stay clean even on ordinary trips, how much more on this one!”

TEV “Of course they haven’t,” answered David. “My men always keep themselves ritually pure even when we go out on an ordinary mission; how much more this time when we are on a special mission!”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ David answered the priest, “Of course women have been kept away from us as usual when we go └on a mission┘. The young men's bodies are kept holy even on ordinary campaigns. How much more then will their bodies be holy today?”

JPS (Tanakh) In reply to the priest, David said, “I assure you that women have been kept from us, as always. Whenever I went on a mission, even if the journey was a common one, the vessels of the young men were consecrated; all the more then may consecrated food be put into their vessels today.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ACV And David answered the priest, and said to him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days. When I came out the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey. How much more then today shall their vessels be holy?

The Amplified Bible And David told the priest, Truly women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the food bags and utensils of the young men are clean, and although the bread will be used in a secular way, it will be set apart in the clean bags.

Updated Emphasized Bible And David answered the priest and said to him—

│Truthfully│ ║women║ have been withheld from us of late through my coming out, and the wallets of the young men have become hallowed, —while [the bread] ║itself║ is in a manner common, and the more so since │today│ [there are other loaves] to be hallowed in the vessel.

NASB And David answered the priest and said to him, “Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?”

NKJV Then David answered the priest, and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.”

NRSV David answered the priest, “Indeed women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

Owen's Translation And David answered the priest (and said to him), “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always. When I go are the vessels of the young men holy even when it is a common journey. How much more today will be holy their vessels?”

Young's Updated LT And David answers the priest, and says to him, “Surely, if women have been restrained from us as heretofore in my going out, then the vessels of the young men are holy, and it is a common way: and also, surely to-day it is sanctified in the vessel.”

What is the gist of this verse? David tells the priest that his men are clean. The additional information is somewhat problematic; however, what David is saying is that his men are kept from women and their weapons are consecrated even on common missions. Since they are supposedly on a special mission from Saul, their weapons are even more consecrated.

You will obviously note that I quoted a number of different translations, and you were surprised as to what a different take they each seemed to have. For that reason, we are going to break this verse up into smaller bites, so that we can better determine its meaning.

1Samuel 21:5a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
׳ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-NAWH]	to answer, to respond; to speak loudly, to speak up [in a public forum]; to testify; to sing, to chant, to sing responsively	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong's #6030 BDB #772
Dâvid (ד̣וָ); also Dâvîyd (די.וָ) [pronounced daw-VEED]	beloved and is transliterated David	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #1732 BDB #187
êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth]	generally untranslated	indicates that the following substantive is a direct object	Strong's #853 BDB #84
kôhên (ן ֵהֹ) [pronounced koh-HANE]	priest	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong's #3548 BDB #463
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
âmar (ר ַמ ָא) [pronounced aw-MARH]	to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong’s #559 BDB #55
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix	No Strong’s # BDB #510
kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]	for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time	conjunction; preposition	Strong's #3588 BDB #471
îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem]	if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though	primarily an hypothetical particle	Strong's #518 BDB #49
Together, kîy îm (ם ̣א י ̣) [pronounced kee-eem] act as a limitation on the preceding thought, and therefore should be rendered but, except, unless and possibly only. However, these particles are not used in a limiting way if they follow an oath, a question or a negative. Then they can be rendered that if, for if, for though, that since, for if, but if, indeed if, even if.
îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH]	woman, wife	feminine singular noun	Strong's #802 BDB #61
׳âtsar (ר ַצ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-TSAHR]	to confine, to detain, to restrain, to refrain to shut, to surround, to enclose, to hold back, to restrain by rule	feminine singular, Qal passive participle	Strong’s #6113 BDB #783
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition with the 1^st person masculine plural suffix	No Strong’s # BDB #510
kaph or k^e ( ׃) [pronounced k^e]	like, as, according to; about, approximately	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #453
t^emôwl (למ ׃) [pronounced t^eMOHL]	yesterday; and is used figuratively for recently, formerly	adverb	Strong’s #8543 (and #865) BDB #1069
shil^eshôwm (םש ׃ל ̣ש) [pronounced shil-SHOHM]	three days ago, the day before yesterday	adverb	Strong’s #8032 BDB #1026
Together, this preposition and two adverbs mean as before, previously, formerly.
b^e (׃) [pronounced b^eh]	in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within	a preposition of proximity	Strong’s #none BDB #88
yâtsâ (א ָצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TZAWH]	to go out, to come out, to come forth	Qal infinitive construct with the 1^st person singular suffix	Strong's #3318 BDB #422
It is proper and correct to translate the bêyth preposition when, when combined with a Qal infinitive construct.

Translation: David then answered the priest, and he said to him, “For though [or, even though] women were kept back with regards to us previously when I went out [of, in my going out],... David begins by telling the priest that women had been kept from him and his men on previous missions. Now, there are no men (probably—see the discussion in the previous verse); however, David had been on previous missions. There is no previous indication that there were any commands with respect to women and David’s army. This could be true and it may be false (that is, it is possible that on a typical mission, David’s men were kept from women). David’s interest here is the bread and he is going to say whatever he needs to say in order to eat.

That an army was to maintain some sort of sexual purity is more inferred by Scripture than strictly stated. For instance, Moses is about to receive the Ten Commandments, and he tells the men to consecrate themselves, which includes not having sex with their wives for three days (“Don’t go near a woman”—Ex. 19:14–15). In Deut. 23:9–11, a man who had a nocturnal emission was separated from the other soldiers and had to go through a cleansing ritual. Thirdly, a man who had just married was exempt from military service for one year while he enjoyed sex with his new wife (Deut. 24:5). And finally, when David brought Uriah the Hittite to Jerusalem (ostensibly for a status report), Uriah chose not to go back to his home and sleep with his wife, as his fellow soldiers were at war (2Sam. 11:8–11).

1Samuel 21:5b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]	to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass	3^rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect	Strong's #1961 BDB #224
k^elîy (י.ל) [pronounced k^elee]	manufactured good, artifact, article, utensil, vessel, weapon, armor, furniture, receptacle; baggage, valuables	masculine plural construct	Strong’s #3627 BDB #479
na׳ar (ר-ע-נ) [pronounced NAH-ģahr]	boy, youth, young man, personal attendant	masculine plural noun with a definite article	Strong’s #5288 & #5289 BDB #654
qôdesh (ש∵דֹק) [pronounced koh-DESH]	holiness, sacredness, apartness, that which is holy, holy things	adjective/noun	Strong's #6944 BDB #871
or
qâdôwsh (שד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DOWSH]	sacred, holy, set apart, sacrosanct	adjective	Strong's #6918 BDB #872
Even though it appears as though the spelling of these two words is different, once the vowel points are removed, they are the same word (a vowel point is often used instead of the —the wâw cholem—in the Hebrew). This explains why Strong identifies this as #6944, but Owen suggests that it is BDB #872 instead.

Translation: ...then the weapons [or, vessels] of the young men are consecrated... The word k^elîy properly means manufactured goods; context determines what sort of manufactured goods that we are speaking of. Given the meaning of the Hebrew word, there would be no reason to understand the vessels of the young men to refer to their bodies (although a similar phrase in the New Testament with the word vessel would reasonably understood in that way but this is not a typical Old Testament phrase). David will use this word in v. 8 to refer to weapons, and we will therefore understand it in that way. So, David is not saying that bodies of his young men are consecrated; however, he is saying that their weapons are consecrated, which implies that the young men are as well. This is a somewhat abstruse passage, but I would reasonably suppose that David is affirming that even the weapons of his soldiers have been consecrated (and the point here is for a typical, common mission).

1Samuel 21:5c
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and; even; in particular, namely; when, since, seeing, though; then	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]	he, it	3^rd person masculine singular, personal pronoun	Strong’s #1931 BDB #214
derek^e ( ∵ר ∵) [pronounced DEH-rek^e]	way, distance, road, journey, manner, course	masculine singular noun	Strong's #1870 BDB #202
chôl (לֹח) [pronounced kohl]	profaneness, commonness, unholy [thing]; common, profane	adjective	Strong’s #2455 BDB #320
Although this is a masculine noun, there are several passages where this acts more like an adjective (see 1Sam. 21:4 Ezek. 42:20 48:15).

Translation: ...even [if] it—the journey—[is] a common [one] [lit., even it (is) a common journey]. The idea here is that the mission [literally, road, journey] that David is speaking of—for which the weapons of his men are consecrated—is a common mission. So, David is telling the priest that his men are kept from women and that even their weapons are consecrated for even common or minor missions. In other words, what the priest is requesting is routine 6 for David. This is always the way things are done, is what he is affirming to the priest. Again, bear in mind the David is starving, he has not been honest with Ahimelech as to his real purpose or about his estrangement with Saul, and he is saying whatever he finds necessary in order to get what he wants, which is bread and a weapon.

1Samuel 21:5d
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
aph (ף ַא) [pronounced ah	in fact, furthermore, also, yea, even, indeed	conjunction	Strong’s #637 BDB #64
kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]	when, that, for, because	conjunction; preposition	Strong's #3588 BDB #471
Together, these two conjunctions mean in fact, more than; but also; but even; much more; how much more [when an affirmation precedes]; how much less [when a negation precedes].
yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]	day, today (with a definite article)	masculine singular noun with a definite article	Strong’s #3117 BDB #398
qâdash (שַד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DAHSH]	to be pure, to be clean; to be holy, to be sacred; to set apart, to consecrate, to sanctify, to dedicate, to hallow	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong's #6942 BDB #872
Rotherham tells us that this verb should be plural, as per the Syriac. The end result is, Rotherham renders this as the loaves of bread are hallowed. However, since he suggests to examine the AV and the RV for other possible renderings, that would indicate to me that he was not completely sold on his own translation, which is somewhat convoluted.
b^e (׃) [pronounced b^eh]	in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within	a preposition of proximity	Strong’s #none BDB #88
k^elîy (י.ל) [pronounced k^elee]	manufactured good, artifact, article, utensil, vessel, weapon, armor, furniture, receptacle; baggage, valuables	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong’s #3627 BDB #479
Although k^elîy clearly has several different uses, this word needs to be understood in context; understanding it to refer to a manufactured weapon makes more sense than any other understanding. I don’t know that this word is ever used to refer to a person’s body (ala, the NEB and REB); and it is never used that way in the book of Samuel, although it is used dozens of times to refer to weapons or armor.
I realize that this may seem to be somewhat of a contradiction, inasmuch as David is requesting Ahimelech to give him a weapon and yet he tells Ahimelech that all of their weapons are holy. However, this may not be exactly what David is saying (see below).

Translation: Much more is it holy by means of the weapon [or, vessel] today.” The difference today is that they are supposedly on a special mission; therefore, so much more are their weapons consecrated today. However, this is probably not what David is saying. He refers to the weapons of his compadres in v. 5b, here he is speaking of the weapon, which is probably a reference to Goliath’s sword. This weapon is considered somewhat holy, as it represents God’s deliverance of Israel and it was kept in the Tabernacle of God. So the idea is, the weapons of his young men are generally set aside unto God; however, even more so is this sword of Goliath’s.

Again, all of this is a lie; David is hungry and he wants to eat; therefore, he is going to lie in order to get consecrated bread for himself. He does not realize what sort of consequences will come of this lie (which consequences we will study in the next chapter).

And so gives to him the priest a holy [thing] for is not there bread for if bread of the faces the removed [loaves] from to faces of Y^ehowah to set bread of heat in a day of his being taken away.

1Samuel

21:6

The priest, therefore, gave to him a holy [thing], because there was no [common] bread [lit., the bread was not there] except the Bread of Presence [which] had been removed from the Presence of Y^ehowah to be replaced [lit., placed] [by] hot bread the day it was taken away.

The priest, therefore, gave David holy bread, because there was no other bread besides the Bread of Presence which had been removed from the Presence of Jehovah and replaced by hot bread.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so gives to him the priest a holy [thing] for is not there bread for if bread of the faces the removed [loaves] from to faces of Y^ehowah to set bread of heat in a day of his being taken away.

Septuagint So Abimelech the priest gave him the showbread; for there were no loaves there, but only the presence loaves which had been removed from the presence of the Lord in order that the hot bread should be set on, on the day on which he took them.

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV The only bread the priest had was the sacred bread that he had taken from the place of worship after putting out the fresh loaves. So he gave it to David.

NLT So, since there was no other food available, the priest gave him the holy bread—the Bread of the Presence that was placed before the Lord in the Tabernacle. It had just been replaced that day with fresh bread.

REB So, as there was no other bread there, the priest gave him the sacred bread, the Bread of the Presence, which had just been taken from the presence of the Lord to be replaced by freshly baked bread on the day that the old was removed.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ So the priest gave him holy bread because he only had the └bread┘ of the presence which had been taken from the Lord’s presence and replaced with warm bread that day.

JPS (Tanakh) So the priest gave him consecrated bread, because there was none there except the bread of display, which had been removed from the presence of the Lord, to be replaced by warm bread as soon as it was taken away.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, which was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in its place the day when it was taken away.

NASB So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.

Young's Updated LT And the priest gives to him the holy thing, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence, which is turned aside from the presence of Jehovah to put hot bread in the day of its being taken away.

What is the gist of this verse? The priest therefore gave David the holy Bread of Presence, as the only bread that they had there was bread that had been removed from the table and replaced by new bread.

1Samuel 21:6a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
wa (or va) (ַו) [pronounced wah]	and so, then	wâw consecutive	No Strong’s # BDB #253
nâthan (ן ַתָנ) [pronounced naw-THAHN]	to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect	Strong's #5414 BDB #678
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition with the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix	No Strong’s # BDB #510
kôhên (ן ֵהֹ) [pronounced koh-HANE]	priest	masculine singular noun with the definite article	Strong's #3548 BDB #463
qôdesh (ש∵דֹק) [pronounced koh-DESH]	holiness, sacredness, apartness, that which is holy, holy things	adjective/noun	Strong's #6944 BDB #871

Translation: The priest, therefore, gave to him a holy [thing],... The priest was therefore caused to give David that which was holy; which, in this context, are loaves of the Bread of Presence. We do not really have a precedent for this; as mentioned, David could have gone to the fields and harvest that which remained, but there is no indication anywhere in Scripture (other than this particular passage) that the Tabernacle of God also functioned as a soup kitchen.

1Samuel 21:6b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]	when, that, for, because	conjunction; preposition	Strong's #3588 BDB #471
lô (אֹל or אל) [pronounced low]	not, no	negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation	Strong’s #3808 BDB #518
hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]	to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass	3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect	Strong's #1961 BDB #224
shâm (ם ָש) [pronounced shawm]	there; at that time, then; therein, in that thing	adverb	Strong’s #8033 BDB #1027
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536

Translation: ...because there was no bread [lit., the bread was not there]... Here we are told why the priest had to give David holy bread; this is because there was no bread there except for the bread which had been the Bread of Presence. The exception comes up in the next phrase.

1Samuel 21:6c
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
kîy (י̣) [pronounced kee]	when, that, for, because	conjunction; preposition	Strong's #3588 BDB #471
îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem]	if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though	primarily an hypothetical particle	Strong's #518 BDB #49
Together, kîy îm (ם ̣א י ̣) [pronounced kee-eem] act as a limitation on the preceding thought, and therefore should be rendered but, except, unless and possibly only. However, these particles are not used in a limiting way if they follow an oath, a question or a negative. Then they can be rendered that if, for if, for though, that since, for if, but if, indeed if, even if.
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular construct	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536
pânîym (םי̣נ ָ) [pronounced paw-NEEM]	face, faces; presence	masculine plural noun (plural acts like English singular)	Strong’s #6440 BDB #815
çûwr (רס) [pronounced soor]	to be removed, to be taken away, to be caused to go away	masculine plural, Hophal participle with the definite article	Strong's #5493 (and #5494) BDB #693
min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]	from, away from, out from, out of from, off, on account of, since, above, than, so that not, above, beyond, more than	preposition of separation	Strong's #4480 BDB #577
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
pânîym (םי̣נ ָ) [pronounced paw-NEEM]	face, faces; presence	masculine plural construct (plural acts like English singular)	Strong’s #6440 BDB #815
Together, the two prepositions and pânîym mean from before, from the presence of, a from a position before a person or object, from before a place. However, this also expresses source or cause, and is also rendered because of, on account of.
YHWH (הוהי) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]	transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Y^ehowah	proper noun	Strong’s #3068 BDB #217
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
sûwm (ם) [pronounced soom]; also spelled sîym (םי ̣) [pronounced seem]	to put, to place, to set, to make	Qal infinitive construct	Strong's #7760 BDB #962
lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEH-khem]	literally means bread; used more generally for food	masculine singular construct	Strong’s #3899 BDB #536
chôm (םֹח) [pronounced khoum	heat, hot, warm	masculine singular noun	Strong’s #2527 BDB #328
b^e (׃) [pronounced b^eh]	in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within	a preposition of proximity	Strong’s #none BDB #88
yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]	day, today (with a definite article)	masculine singular construct	Strong’s #3117 BDB #398
lâqach (ח ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAHKH]	to be taken, to be taken away; to be brought; to be seized, to be captured	Niphal infinitive construct with a 3^rd person masculine singular suffix	Strong’s #3947 BDB #542

Translation: ...except the Bread of Presence [which] had been removed from the Presence of Y^ehowah to be replaced [lit., placed] [by] hot bread the day it was taken away. This is the exception. There is no bread there except for the bread which had been the Bread of Presence and had been on the holy table before God. It had been removed and replaced by warm (i.e., fresh) bread.

Almost every commentary that I have read gets this wrong. Even McGee talks about how human need supercedes all ritual and ceremonial laws. God did provide for the poor and hungry in the Old Testament, and it was by requiring that the farmers leave some of their fields un-harvested so that the poor could harvest the food themselves. I want you to be clear on what David is doing here: he is simply killing two birds with one stone: he needs a weapon and he is hungry. If he goes to the holy city, which is Nob at this time, he can get both. He figures that he can talk the priest into going along with his two requests—for food and a weapon. David believes that he can smooth-talk this priest and get what he wants. He doesn’t have time to stop first at a field and eat from the harvest and then go to Nob for the sword. Why not take care of both things at once, is David’s thinking here. It is called expediency.

The Tabernacle was not designed to be a soup kitchen—not even in those times. The priest was flabbergasted by David’s request. It was unprecedented. He did not know what decision to make. There is a high ranking official before him asking for bread and the priests did not bake bread for the poor, or for anyone else. They simply had the Bread of Presence which was replenished every week (Lev. 24:8 tells us that the bread was put out with each Sabbath day of worship; this could occur more often than every seven days, due to the various types of Sabbath days). So this priest needed to make an executive decision. He needed to determine what does one do when the Bread of Presence has been requested to eat. His solution was that David and his men must all be clean. Bear in mind that this was not lawful for David to eat these loaves, as Jesus told the Pharisees: “Did you not read what David did, when he was hungry, himself and those with him? How he went into the house of God, and the loaves of the presentation did eat, which it is not lawful to him to eat, nor to those with him, except to the priests alone?” (Matt. 12:3–4). Matthew Henry calls the priest over-nice if not superstitious. We’ve already dealt with this quotation of Jesus in great detail.

A moderately interesting question is, when did the priests bake the bread for the Sabbath? Weren’t they breaking the Sabbath in order to bake this bread? Obviously they did not break the Sabbath in order to bake this bread, as putting out this bread on each Sabbath day is a requirement of the priesthood. Ex. 12:16 gives us the simple solution: “You must have a holy assembly on the first day and another one on the seventh. You must not work on these days except to prepare your own meals. That's all you may do.” (God’s Word™). Another obvious exception would be preparing the Bread of Presence (some of the very weird explanations was miraculous heat or some other sort of miracle which made this possible).

And there a man from servants of Saul in the day the that detained to faces of Y^ehowah. And his name [is] Doeg the Edomite, mighty of the ones shepherding [a flock] who [are] to Saul.

1Samuel

21:7

Also in that day [there was] there one of Saul’s servants, detained before Y^ehowah. And his name [is] Doeg the Edomite, a powerful [man] of the shepherds who belong to Saul.

Also there that day was one of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, one of Saul’s chief shepherds.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And there a man from servants of Saul in the day the that detained to faces of Y^ehowah. And his name [is] Doeg the Edomite, mighty of the ones shepherding [a flock] who [are] to Saul.

Septuagint And there was there on that day one of Saul’s servants detained before the Lord, and his name [was] Doec the Syrian, tending the mules of Saul.

Significant differences .

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV It so happened that one of Saul's officers was there, worshiping the Lord that day. His name was Doeg the Edomite, and he was the strongest of Saul's shepherds.

NLT Now Doeg the Edomite, Saul’s chief herdsman, was there that day for ceremonial purification.

TEV (Saul’s chief herdsman, Doeg, who was from Edom, happened to be there that day, because he had to fulfil a religious obligation.)

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™ That same day one of Saul's servants who was obligated to stay in the Lord’s presence was there. His name was Doeg. A foreman for Saul's shepherds, he was from Edom.

JPS (Tanakh) Now one of Saul’s officials was there that day, detained before the Lord [i.e., excluded from the shrine, perhaps because of ritual impurity]; his name was Doeg the Edomite, Saul’s chief herdsman [the meaning of the final two word uncertain].

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord; and his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul’s shepherds.

Young's Updated LT And there is a man of the servants of Saul on that day detained before Jehovah, and his name is Doeg the Edomite, chief of the shepherds whom Saul has.

What is the gist of this verse? The chief of Saul’s shepherds, Doeg the Edomite, is also there, kept there by Jehovah.

What we now have is a parenthetical statement of what was happening while David was speaking to Ahimelech. Doeg, an Edomite, and one of Saul’s suck-up officials (probably because he was an Edomite), is standing off watching this. He knows who David is and he knows of the situation between Saul and David (these are reasonable assumptions; Doeg will at least find out about this situation when he returns to the ranks of Saul).

1Samuel 21:7a
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
w^e (or v^e) (ו) [pronounced weh]	and, even, then; namely	simple wâw conjunction	No Strong’s # BDB #251
shâm (ם ָש) [pronounced shawm]	there; at that time, then; therein, in that thing	adverb	Strong’s #8033 BDB #1027
îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh]	a man; a husband; one of virile age; an inhabitant of, a citizen of [when followed by a genitive of a place]; companion of, solider of, follower of [when followed by a genitive of king, leader, etc.]; anyone, someone, a certain one, each, each one, everyone	masculine singular noun	Strong's #376 BDB #35
min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min]	from, away from, out from, out of from, off, on account of, since, above, than, so that not, above, beyond, more than	preposition of separation	Strong's #4480 BDB #577
׳ebed (ד ∵ב ∵ע) [pronounced ĢE^B-ved]	slave, servant	masculine plural construct	Strong’s #5650 BDB #713
Shâûwl (לאָש) [pronounced shaw-OOL]	which is transliterated Saul; it means asked for	masculine proper noun	Strong’s #7586 BDB #982
b^e (׃) [pronounced b^eh]	in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, in the presence of, upon, against, by means of, among, within	a preposition of proximity	Strong’s #none BDB #88
yôwm (םי) [pronounced yohm]	day, today (with a definite article)	masculine singular noun with a definite article	Strong’s #3117 BDB #398
hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]	that	masculine singular, demonstrative pronoun (with a definite article)	Strong’s #1931 BDB #214

Translation: Also in that day [there was] there one of Saul’s servants,... We are in the city of the priest, Nob. David has just conned Ahimelech out of several loaves of bread. At the same time, one of Saul’s servants is also there. That he is called a man of Saul’s servants indicates more than just being on Saul’s staff. What follows will be an indication of this man’s faithfulness to Saul. Recall that David was a soldier and that he was popular with his own men, as well as with the people. However, there are some men who are going to be yes men (in this case, to Saul), no matter what.

A staff which I worked on was like that. Whoever was department head, there would be those who would attach themselves to him or her and act as their friend in order to get the better assignments. There are also those who agree with their superiors, no matter what (this is different than obeying those who are in charge). I believe that the proper term is brown-noser. This is Doeg (Saul’s servant). We will find out that he is a brown-noser.

1Samuel 21:7b
Hebrew/Pronunciation	Common English Meanings	Notes/Morphology	BDB and Strong’s Numbers
׳âtsar (ר ַצ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-TSAHR]	to shut up; to be confined, to be detained, to be restrained, to be surrounded, to be enclosed; to be gathered together	Niphal participle	Strong’s #6113 BDB #783
lâmed (ל) (pronounced l^e)	to, for, towards, in regards to	preposition	No Strong’s # BDB #510
pânîym (םי̣נ ָ) [pronounced paw-NEEM]	face, faces; presence	masculine plural construct (plural acts like English singular)	Strong’s #6440 BDB #815
Together, they mean upon the face of, before, before the face of, in the presence of, in the sight of, in front of. When used with God, it can take on the more figurative meaning in the judgment of.
YHWH (הוהי) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]	transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Y^ehowah	proper noun	Strong’s #3068 BDB #217

Translation: ...detained before Y^ehowah. Now this is odd. What many exegetes suggest is that Doeg was unclean and that he had to remain there before Jehovah. However, in most situations, those who were unclean were not allowed any sort of contact with God or with the Tabernacle of God. For some reason, Doeg was detained before God. Apparently, whoever he was with had already left (shepherds under his authority? Other high ranking officials?), and it was just him in the city of the priests. Another possibility is that there was some sort of religious feast going on, and being detained by Jehovah simply meant that he had to continue being there at the feast, even though his mind was elsewhere. Gill suggests that it is the Sabbath, and that Doeg cannot travel more than 2000 cubits on the Sabbath.

At first, I thought that Doeg alone was detained. Perhaps he was there with his shepherd underlings; and perhaps he was there with other members of Saul’s cabinet; and, for whatever reason, he was detained. However, it is not absolutely necessary that Doeg is the only man there of the shepherds or even of Saul’s cabinet. Others could have been with him; however, he will be the man to tell Saul that David went through Nob as well (1Sam. 22:9).

My thinking, because of the actions which will follow in the next chapter, are that Doeg was an opportunist. He wasn’t born a Jew so he didn’t exactly fit in, but he made an attempt to fit in. Here, he was at the city of priests, possibly practicing the religion of the Jews. Perhaps he was paying a vow or seeking cleansing of some sort from the priest. There are some people who expand their business contacts by attending a large church. Very likely, this is the sort of man that Doeg is. He is there not so much out of religious conviction, but as a man trying to fit in. In any case, we know that God has a plan, and that this plan is always functioning. So, no matter what the human viewpoint reason was, it was God Who kept Doeg there. This was part of God’s plan. Now, this is going to strike you as a little odd, as the result of Doeg’s being there will be the mass execution of all of the priests of God (save one). In one way, this will be a lesson to David. As for their deaths, what the priests had done wrong, if anything, is not revealed to us. Why God removed them, from their standpoint or from the standpoint of the priesthood, is not revealed to us. They may have simply been innocent bystanders. However, I do not believe that to be the case (and this will be discussed in greater detail below).