Commentaria in I Regum (I Samuelis)
NOW THIS WAY IS DEFILED; BUT IT ALSO SHALL BE SANCTIFIED THIS DAY IN THE VESSELS.—The Hebrew derech, that is, “way,” is often taken for manner, use and custom: for a thing is worn by it, as a way often repeated is worn by feet. It is a metaphor, as though to say: “This way,” that is, this lay custom, is unclean and defiled; namely that laymen should eat the loaves of proposition, which by the law only priests may eat: “but it shall be sanctified in the vessels,” as though to say: This holy bread will not be defiled, but will be received holily, that is, purely, in holy, that is, pure bodies of ours, in this grave necessity of hunger, in which even laymen may eat holy loaves; wherefore this bread will not be defiled nor profaned, but will be eaten cleanly by clean men in hunger. So St. Jerome, Lyranus, Abulensis. Secondly, Vatablus would rather read, for “this way,” “this bread”: as though to say: This bread is defiled, profane, because it is removed from the sight of the Lord and the Tabernacle; wherefore it is lawful for us laymen to eat it. Thirdly, others: as though to say: “This way is defiled” by certain other inconveniences, but will be excused on account of cleanness from women. Fourthly, others: as though to say: Although “this way is defiled,” and lay, that is, undertaken on lay business; yet on account of the holiness of our garments and bodies it shall be sanctified, that is, in that necessity shall be held as holy; this bread will be eaten as by clean men. Fifthly, Angelomus: as though to say: By lying, the way and journey is defiled, while I pretend to be sent by the king, and that under necessity of death, but it shall be sanctified in those for whose sake also I flee, because I lie not only for my own danger: for they themselves will be saved by this; the first explanation, as it is simpler, so seems also more fitting.
Allegorically the same Angelomus: “David,” he says, “professed that he had come to Achimelech by a defiled way, because Christ the Lord also passed undefiled through the unclean actions of the Jews. And what he says: But it shall be sanctified this day also in my vessels, this signified that the holy Apostles, who were the Lord’s vessels, would be sanctified from the contagion of the Jews, faith purifying their hearts.” Moreover the Chaldee in the Books of the Kings has the contrary, and he himself was not walking in a defiled way. “He himself,” namely the bread, as though to say: Although the way, that is, this custom of eating, namely holy bread, by laymen, is defiled; yet here and now with us it will not be defiled, for the cause already stated. But the Venice and Basel codices delete “not,” and so the Chaldee plainly agrees with the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
6. FOR THERE WAS NO BREAD THERE, BUT ONLY THE LOAVES OF PROPOSITION.—How was it that Achimelech the Pontiff had no common loaves in his house? Abulensis answers that the cause was that he had just placed fresh loaves on the table of the loaves of proposition, and therefore according to the law had taken away the old ones for his own food and his household’s; and had not baked others, since those sufficed. But the loaves of proposition could be eaten only (as I said on Leviticus 24) by priests and their male sons, not by women and daughters: wherefore for these Achimelech ought to have had common loaves, which he could give to David, and with Achimelech he ought to have had them. Therefore you may say more plainly that David here transacted his business with Achimelech not in the house but in the tabernacle, where there were no other loaves than those of proposition. For David was feigning haste and urgent business, lest his flight should become widely known, and so he be taken or killed by Saul’s ministers. Symbolically St. Augustine, on Psalm 33, teaches that David here figures not only the person of a king but also of a priest, while he eats the holy loaves set before the priests, and so represents Christ, who was priest equally with king.
7. NOW THERE WAS A MAN THERE OF THE SERVANTS OF SAUL THAT DAY, SHUT UP IN THE TABERNACLE.—For “shut up” (intus), Serarius would have it read “detained” (tentus). For so have the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Chaldee, St. Jerome, Vatablus and others: he was bound by a vow, by which he had vowed to remain some days in the Tabernacle, to give himself to prayer and to reading and hearing the law of God. So Rabanus and, after him, the Gloss. Or, as Theodoret says, he was held in the Tabernacle because he was tormented by a certain demon; or he was held by sickness, and therefore prayed in the tabernacle to be delivered from it.
AND HIS NAME WAS DOEG THE EDOMITE,—because he had dwelt in Idumea; though Josephus says he was a Syrian. The Hebrews in St. Jerome relate that he was Saul’s armour-bearer, who, when Saul killed himself, killed himself too, chapter 31; but this is uncertain, and seems to have been devised by the Rabbis. This Doeg betrayed David and Achimelech to Saul, as we shall hear in the next chapter, and was therefore a type of Judas the traitor, betraying Christ to the Jews. So St. Augustine on Psalm 51.
THE MOST MIGHTY OF THE SHEPHERDS OF SAUL,—that is, as the Chaldee has it, the chief of Saul’s Shepherds; the Septuagint render it, feeding Saul’s mules; hence this, taken from the Septuagint, is read in some Latin codices, as also in Josephus. But the Romans rightly removed it, as Francis Lucas shows here in his Notations.
9. BEHOLD HERE THE SWORD OF GOLIATH, ETC., IS WRAPPED UP IN A CLOTH BEHIND THE EPHOD,—namely, David had offered and consecrated to God in the tabernacle this sword with which he had cut off Goliath’s head, as to the author of victory. So Abulensis, Serarius and others; although Lyranus denies it.
BEHIND THE EPHOD,—that is, behind the place or the vestry in which the Ephod and the priestly vestments were kept, says Vatablus. Otherwise the Chaldee: The sword of Goliath, he says, covered with a cloth, after he had inquired of him by the Ephod; as though to say: This sword was offered to God by an oracle, in which David, consulting God through the Pontiff clothed with the Ephod, in which were the Urim and Thummim, as to where he would have this sword laid up, heard from him that it was to be dedicated to him in the Tabernacle. So also Serarius, who gathers this from chapter 22, verse 10. Hence Abulensis gathers that it is right for swords, arms, banners and like offerings to be dedicated to God in temples, in memory and gratitude for healings, victories and other benefits received from God and the Saints.
AND DAVID SAID: THERE IS NONE LIKE THAT, GIVE IT ME.—Hence it is plain that David was of tall and large body, since he used and fought with Goliath’s sword.
Allegorically Angelomus: “David,” he says, “took away Goliath’s sword, because Christ the Lord also took away the devil’s arms. For being strong, he himself divided the spoils.”
10. AND DAVID AROSE AND FLED THAT DAY FROM THE FACE OF SAUL, AND CAME TO ACHIS THE KING OF GETH.—David, having sent away his other servants, fled alone, and came to Achis, that he might the better lie hid unknown; lest, if he were recognised, he be killed as the author of so many slaughters, as is plain from what follows. For Goliath, slain by David, was of Geth, of which Achis was king. Moreover this Achis in the title of Psalm 33 is called Abimelech, or rather Achimelech, that is, Achis the king, as Theodotion and Symmachus render it, and so St. Augustine explains it in that place.
11. IS NOT THIS DAVID THE KING OF THE LAND,—who everywhere fights, conquers and rules? or, as Vatablus, “the king of the land,” that is, of this our region: for the kingdom of our land seems to belong to him on account of Goliath’s defeat: for the fight had been on this law, that the victor should possess the region of the vanquished; as though to say: Since thy kingdom seems to belong to David, O Achis, why dost thou not admit him to it?
12. AND DAVID LAID UP THESE WORDS IN HIS HEART,—thinking of the manner and way of refuting or avoiding this accusation, and escaping so present a danger to his life. Hence he then prayed and composed Psalm 55, in which he asks to be delivered from slanderous enemies, and a little afterwards dictated Psalm 33; for its title is: “Of David, when he changed his countenance before Achimelech, and he dismissed him and he went away,” 1 Kings 21. Hence David seems to have dictated this psalm not at the beginning of the accusation and danger, but after he was dismissed by Achis and escaped free. For, giving thanks to God for deliverance, he sang: “I will bless the Lord at all times.” For David had killed Goliath of Geth and many other men of Geth and Philistines, whence he was hated and feared by them: for Geth was one of the five Satrapies of the Philistines, whose satrap, or king, that is, petty king, was Achis. Geth in Hebrew is the same as a winepress, and this is applied here. For David, compelled by fear of Saul, had to flee to the Philistines, sworn enemies of Israel and of himself; whence there he was pressed as in a winepress of fear and anguish. Geth in the time of St. Jerome was called Diocesarea. It lies near Gaza and Accaron. So Adrichomius.