"The two chapters comprise a literary unit of three sections arranged in chiastic order. Chapters 21:1-9 and 22:6-23 are concerned with the priestly compound at Nob in Benjamin while the central section (21:10-22:5) summarizes David's flight to Gath in Philistia, Adullam in Judah, and Mizpah in Moab."227
Nob stood one and one-half miles northeast of Jerusalem and two and one-half miles southeast of Gibeah. There Ahimelech served as high priest. Priestly activity and evidently the tabernacle were now there (cf. 17:54). It is significant that David's first place of refuge was among God's representatives on earth. He wanted to get help from the Lord through them (cf. 22:10) as he had done in the past (22:15). Apparently Ahimelech was trembling because David was alone (cf. 16:4). Had Saul sent him to harm the priests (cf. 22:6-23), or was David in some kind of trouble? Bear in mind that David was Saul's general, and as such he usually travelled with escorting soldiers.
David appears to have lied to Ahimelech (v. 2). However, he may have been referring to Yahweh when he mentioned "the king"who had sent him (cf. 20:22; 21:8). Even so he wanted Ahimelech to think that Saul had sent him. This was deception at best and a lie at worst rooted ultimately in selfishness and lack of faith in God. David made some mistakes in his early years as a fugitive. He handled himself better as time passed. During this time God was training him for future service. David proceeded to explain that the reason he was alone was that he had sent his soldiers elsewhere. He intended to rendezvous with them shortly and had come to Nob himself to obtain provisions, protection, and prayer (cf. 22:10).
Ahimelech gave David the showbread that the priests ate (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9). This was the bread that for a week lay on the table of showbread in the tabernacle. Each Sabbath the priests replaced this bread with fresh loaves. Ahimelech was careful that David's men were ritually clean, not having had sexual relations with women that day (v. 4; cf. Lev. 15:8; Exod. 19:141-5). David assured him that their bodies were clean ritually (v. 5). This made it permissible for them to eat the consecrated bread. Ahimelech correctly gave David the provisions he needed (v. 6).
Jesus said this was proper for David to have done (Matt. 12:1-4). The reason was human life takes precedence over ceremonial law with God.228David was probably not at the point of starvation. Certainly the Lord's disciples were not (Matt. 12). Nevertheless human need should always be a higher priority than the observance of a ritual used to worship God. We acknowledge the same priority today. Suppose you pass a house that is on fire. You stop, run up to the front door, bang on the door, and ring the doorbell. You look in the window and see someone lying on the floor. You then kick in the door and drag the unconscious person outside to safety. Even though breaking into someone else's house is a criminal offense, the law will not prosecute you since you saved that person's life.
The mention of Doeg, an Edomite who had risen high in Saul's government (v. 7), prepares the reader for his informing Saul about what happened at Nob (22:9-19). Perhaps Doeg was "detained before the Lord"because he had come to the tabernacle to present an offering or to conduct some other business there.
Having previously requested provisions of Ahimelech (v. 3) David now asked for protection, namely, a sword (v. 8). Goliath's huge sword, which had initially rested in David's tent (17:54), was now in the tabernacle wrapped in the priest's ephod, perhaps because it was a historic relic. David eagerly accepted it from Ahimelech since there was no sword like it. It is interesting that David, and later Solomon, used the same expression to describe the Lord (2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23). Though there was no better protection than Goliath's sword physically, the Lord was an even better protector spiritually. There is none like Him.
David's next refuge also proved to be insecure. It is a mystery why he sought refuge with Goliath's sword in that giant's hometown. As Chuck Swindoll once said, David would have been as conspicuous in Gath as Dolly Parton in a convent. Evidently he thought he would be welcome in Gath since he was fleeing from Saul. Perhaps he went there since Achish was an enemy of Saul's, as David was. The people identified him at once and called him Israel's king (v. 11). This may have been a slight on his authority; they may have meant that he was only a local ruler (cf. Josh. 12:7). Alternatively they may have heard of David's anointing as Israel's next king. In any case Achish's advisers took David's presence as a threat (v. 11; cf. 29:1-5). Perhaps they felt as the American president might have felt if a high ranking Russian general defected and sought asylum in the United States during the Cold War. The potential of his helpfulness against the enemy needed weighing against the chance that he would prove disloyal, turn on his host, and do much damage.
David sensed his personal danger and pretended to be insane to save his life. Evidently Achish dismissed him concluding that David was mad and could be of no help to him against Saul (cf. 29:3, 6, 9; Ps. 34 title). Furthermore ancient Near Easterners regarded the insane as harbingers of evil and so avoided them.
". . . insanity was often believed in the ancient world to be an affliction of the gods, and it was customary to treat madmen as taboo if not holy, people who should not be harmed in any way."229
In both Nob and Gath David resorted to deception to protect himself, and in each place some bad consequences resulted. Doeg killed the priests, and David had to abandon Gath. However, he also trusted in the Lord. He wrote Psalms 56 and 34 during and after his time in Gath, according to the titles of those psalms. They reveal that he was trusting God. His ultimate hope for provision and protection was not the priests or Saul's enemies but the Lord Himself. This faith undoubtedly explains the fact that God preserved him and some good consequences came out of these experiences. David had two more encounters with Achish both of which were beneficial for David. 1 Samuel 21 helps us see the mixture of right and wrong in David's actions, but David's psalms clarify the proper response that the godly should make when opposition assails us.
The town of Adullam (lit. refuge) stood a mile or two south of the Elah Valley where David had slain Goliath and about 10 miles east-southeast of Gath. There are many huge caves in the limestone hills in that area several of which can accommodate over 400 people. Evidently David's family was no longer safe from Saul in Bethlehem, which was 10 miles east-northeast of Adullam.
"If Saul would attack his own family (20:33), there was no telling what he might do to David's."230
David now became the leader of a group of people who for various reasons had become discontented with Saul's government.231This growing movement of support behind him led eventually to David's crowning as king of all Israel.
Moab was a reasonable place for David's parents to seek protection since David's great-grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabitess. The exact location of Mizpah (lit. watchtower) of Moab is unknown. David may have wanted to secure the support of the Moabites since he could use help from neighboring kingdoms if Saul's antagonism led to full-scale war. The stronghold (v. 4) was probably another name for Mizpah or another place close to it in Moab.
Gad appears to have been a prophet who remained with David throughout his reign (cf. 2 Sam. 24:11). Samuel had died, but God provided another prophet through whom He communicated to the king-elect. The forest of Hereth was somewhere in Judah, but its exact location is unknown.232
The writer's attention focused next on Saul's activities. He used the literary device of focusing on David, then on Saul, then on David, etc. He used the same technique in chapters 1-3 with Samuel and Eli's sons to contrast Samuel's goodness with the wickedness of Hophni and Phinehas. The same purpose is in view in chapters 21-29 with David and Saul.
Saul was aware that some in his army, apparently even some of his tribal kinsmen from Benjamin, had deserted to David (v. 7). He showed signs of paranoia when he claimed that Jonathan had encouraged David to ambush him (vv. 8, 13). There is no indication that Jonathan had done this. Doeg was obviously loyal to Saul (vv. 9-10), but he proved disloyal to Yahweh (vv. 18-19).
Ahimelech appealed to Saul on David's behalf much as Jonathan had done earlier (vv. 14-15; cf. 17:4-5). Nevertheless this time Saul did not respond to reasonable persuasion (v. 16). Saul's disregard for Yahweh's will is obvious in his command to kill the priests whom God had appointed to serve Him. This punishment was entirely too severe since the crime Saul charged them with was failing to tell Saul where David was.
Saul's soldiers had too much respect for the priesthood to slay the anointed servants of the Lord (v. 17). Moreover they probably realized that Saul's order was irrational. Doeg was an Edomite, a foreigner who had less respect for the Mosaic Law (cf. 21:7). He not only obeyed the king but went beyond Saul's command and slaughtered all the men, women, children, and animals in Nob (v. 19). Nonetheless Saul was also responsible (v. 21). Earlier Saul had failed to slay all the Amalekites at the Lord's command (15:9). Now he was slaying all the Nobites without divine authorization.
"Through the hand of a foreigner, Saul perpetrates upon Israelites, priests of the Lord, what he himself did not perpetrate upon foreigners, the Amalekites."233
God preserved one of Eli's line even though 85 other priests died. This man fled to David, so from then on the priesthood was with David rather than Saul. David acknowledged that his deception of Ahimelech was responsible for the slaughter of the priests (v. 22; cf. 21:2). David became the protector of the priesthood. The king-elect and the priest-elect now became fellow fugitives from Saul. Read Psalm 52 to get insight into how David felt during this incident.
When people refuse to submit to God's authority over them, they begin to die: spiritually, socially, psychologically, and physically (Rom. 6:23). Eli and Saul had both refused to submit to God's authority. Eli, the priest, put his family before God. Consequently God cut off his family. Even though David was the cause of 85 priests' deaths, this was one way God partially fulfilled the prophecy concerning Eli's descendants (2:27-36). God used David's folly to accomplish His will. So even in this David became a blessing. This in no way justifies David's lie (21:2), but it does show how even in his sinning God used David for blessing (cf. Rom. 6:1-2). Saul, the king, put himself before God. Therefore God cut off his life. Saul became increasingly paranoid, isolated from others, hateful toward his supporters as well as his enemies, and guilty of shedding innocent blood.
When people submit to God's authority over them, they really begin to live (John 10:10). David submitted to God's authority over him. His sins, including his deceiving Ahimelech, bore bad consequences for himself and others. Nevertheless God continued to bless and use David. He blessed him personally. David continued to rise to the throne. God also blessed him by using him to accomplish God's will, here the pruning of Eli's descendants.
Therefore we conclude that the most important issue is one of long term authority, not incidental acts. Acts are important, but who is in control, God or self, is even more important. For a believer the most important issue is authority. Believers can determine who is in control of our lives fairly easily by asking ourselves two test question. Do I ask God for guidance, or do I ignore Him and make my own plans and decisions without praying? Do I submit to His word, or do I disobey it having ignored it or disregarded it?
