Sermon 77: 1 Samuel 21:1-5

1. And David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech was astonished that David had come, and said to him: Why are you alone, and no one is with you? 2. And David said to Ahimelech the priest: The king has commanded me a matter and said: Let no one know the thing for which you have been sent by me, and what kind of commands I have given you; for I have appointed my boys to such and such a place. 3. Now therefore if you have anything at hand, give me five loaves, or whatever you find. 4. And the priest answering David said to him that he did not have common bread at hand, but only holy bread, if the boys are clean, especially from women. 5. And David answered the priest and said to him: Indeed if the question is about women, we have refrained ourselves since yesterday and the day before, when we set out, and the vessels of the boys were holy; but this journey is polluted, but yet we ourselves shall be sanctified today in the vessels.

We must proceed in the history of David as a fugitive and exile from the land of Israel. How harsh that temptation was, to be exiled from that land which God had chosen as his dwelling — for there was no other place in the whole world consecrated and dedicated to God, in which he was purely and sincerely worshiped and adored, except the region of Judea alone — we saw in yesterday's sermon. Indeed, when David is forced to flee from it, he seemed far removed from possession of the kingdom promised to him. And without doubt those tears of David, which we treated before, declared sufficiently into what straits he had been thrown. For although he was a brave and great-souled man, he could not nevertheless restrain the tears that he poured out abundantly. For even though Jonathan wept bitterly, David nevertheless wept more abundantly. Nor however did these things prevent him from placing his trust in God; for as Scripture often teaches, faith does not make men into stones or stupid people who are not moved by the evils they feel. But meanwhile the faithful must necessarily be exercised in these ways, so that having overcome all temptations they may enjoy a sweeter victory. Therefore although the faithful rest on God's word, the force of feelings and passions is not entirely extinguished in them. But even if they are turned now to this side, now to that, they will yet hold out until the end, for whom God's will is like a firm rock. And although they may be agitated by winds and storms, they will yet remain firm and undaunted in the divine promises, and their expectation will never be in vain. As for Jonathan, we saw him being confirmed by God's promises more than by any present things. For David's flight seemed to restore him to his former state — just as Saul also held the opinion that Jonathan his son and his descendants could not retain the dignity of the kingdom while David lived. But Jonathan on the contrary hoped that David, when he was dead, would have mercy on him and his family. And yet at that time he was looking at David as wretched and afflicted, with the sword threatening his throat, against whom all aimed as at a target, whose death all sought with the utmost zeal in order to gratify Saul. In short, he observed David reduced to the greatest straits, but nevertheless asks from him grace and mercy for himself and his family. Therefore by this deed Jonathan declared that he had looked to the immutable decree and will of God revealed through Samuel concerning the kingdom owed to David. And accordingly he had recognized that what God had foretold would in fact be accomplished, although in human opinion it seemed impossible. Furthermore, if Jonathan recognized so great a certainty of the divine promises in David's person, what is fitting for us to do today, beholding the Son of God raised to heavenly glory, although he allows us to be exercised in this world with various punishments and troubles, and his kingdom on these lands to be hidden? Indeed, we have far ampler material for handing ourselves over into God's power and hand than Jonathan once had, and for not doubting that, although we may be exercised by calamities a thousand times harsher, he has the power to rescue us from all dangers and to have mercy on us.

Moreover, the words that follow must be diligently observed: that David, fleeing, came to Nob, where God's sanctuary was at that time, since mention is made of the bread of the Presence, which was daily offered to God and set out on the table by the priest's hand, and when one set was removed, others were substituted. Here it must first be observed that David, in addition to the danger that threatened him from men, was also struggling with hunger. For it was not permitted him as a fugitive to provide any provisions, and as long as he hid, it is likely that he had even then begun to fast; now, however, as a fugitive and wandering through impassable ways, he dares not entrust himself to any house in which he might ask for even a morsel of bread for himself and his few servants. David therefore seems to be excluded from the company of men, and deprived of communication with kinsmen and friends, much less to expect any help from strangers. He is also pressed by hunger, and finds nowhere a remedy for these evils, except to flee to the sanctuary of the Lord. For this could in men's opinion happen as the most dangerous place for him. For there people gathered for the sacrifices, and accordingly he could easily be recognized as in a public market. And so, having previously hidden himself, now he seems to come into everyone's sight and to betray himself. Yet there is no doubt that David, thrown into such great straits, considered as a most safe asylum that place which God had dedicated to his worship, and thought God would have mercy on him when he fled into his sanctuary, and would conceal him in it. And indeed it is clear that this was his confidence in his greatest afflictions, from his Psalms in which here and there these words are heard: O Lord, you will conceal me in some corner of your sanctuary. By which words there is no doubt that David expressed those meditations and thoughts by which he sustained himself in the midst of conflicts. When therefore he says he is to be hidden in some corner of the sanctuary, he testifies that at all times in the midst of the storm of adverse things he had recognized that there was no safer asylum nor any stronger place of refuge than to entrust himself into God's hands. and to surrender himself to him. For this reason, therefore, he preferred to come to the sanctuary rather than to any other place, although he suspected by no uncertain conjectures that there too he would be seen and reported to the king. Just as we shall later see happened through the ministry of that wretched Doeg. But indeed he did not doubt that God would have mercy on him and grant him refuge in that place, so that he might escape the otherwise present death. Therefore there is no doubt that, after he had turned over various plans in his mind, he finally concluded that there was no safer refuge for him than the place where God is worshiped and from which he had promised that he would hear the prayers of his own and exercise his power toward all who invoke him. We therefore see David not so disturbed by his affections and passions that there did not remain in his mind a sure trust in God's mercy toward him. Therefore although he shed many tears and showed himself doubtful in mind, he did not on that account fail to flee to God's help, and hoped that God would at last recall him as it were from the tomb of death; but he had to fight against his affections and to be pressed by the weakness of the flesh, so that his faith might be strengthened more and more and rest with firm faith on God's promises. And indeed when he proclaims God's goodness, which he felt in the midst of afflictions, he does not proclaim his own fortitude, does not boast in his evils, but rather acknowledges his terror and fear. Just as in Psalm 116 he says: I said in my haste, every man is a liar. By which words he shows that he was not far from a fall. Just as someone easily pushes a man running on a slope headlong. David therefore in those other straits recognized that men have nothing in which to glory or presume anything about their strength, since by nature every man is a liar and vain, so that whatever fortitude of mind seems to be in him melts away in a moment, unless God by his power restrained it.

It follows next that the priest was astonished, because he saw him alone. Not because he was usually surrounded by many servants, but because he did not see him surrounded by his usual retinue. For we have just seen that King Saul had set him over many soldiers and lands, and since he was the king's son-in-law, it was fitting that he should be conspicuous with a great retinue of servants and soldiers. The priest therefore wonders at him as wretched and a fugitive, somehow pressed by hunger without provisions. Furthermore, David excuses himself before the priest with a certain lie and false pretext, namely that he had been sent by the king on some secret business with express commands not to reveal the matter to anyone, and that therefore he had brought one or two of his servants with him secretly, and had appointed them to meet at a certain place. All these things are made up by David, from which it appears that the servants of God, even those endowed with the greatest virtues, nevertheless labor with many vices; and that God willed by this means to humble them and to show them their own weakness. Indeed, it was neither lawful nor permitted for David to lie, and it is certain that he cannot be excused by any reasoning, so that those who labor to justify him in this matter waste time and effort and make God, as it were, the author of a lie. But on the contrary, from these men's weakness we are taught to take heed for ourselves, since we see that the holiest of men — as also here David — fall so easily. Earlier we saw David adorned with such excellent gifts of God's Spirit that he was an admiration to all; but now we see him fallen by weakness and caught in danger, unable to defend himself except by lying. We must therefore pray to God all the more earnestly that he himself rule us and supply the spirit of counsel in narrow and doubtful matters, so that whatever temptations may assail us, we may never sin with our tongue. For it is well known how fragile a member the tongue is. For although both the parts of the body and of the mind are fragile, we observe that the tongue is the most fragile of all. Therefore it must necessarily be kept in check by God as within an enclosure, and our speech ruled by him; which David's example admonishes us to obtain from him by prayer. And it is certain that David himself was taught by this experience, when in Psalm 39 he burst out into these words: Guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue, set a watch before my mouth, when the sinner stands against me. David therefore was recalling to memory what he had suffered, when he so earnestly prayed God to set a guard upon his mouth lest anything should be uttered rashly. Furthermore, we see that David could not provide for himself and his life unless by persuading the priest that he had been sent away by King Saul on certain secret business. In which matter it appears how wretched David's condition was: for he who had been designated king by God, who was to be a figure of our Lord Jesus Christ, is reduced to such necessity that he seems unable to provide for his life except by a lie. Great therefore were David's difficulties, from which it does not seem he could emerge except at the greatest risk; observing these things, let us learn to commit ourselves to God, especially when, about to test us, he reduces us to such great straits that no means of safety appears before men. Meanwhile we shall also see how greatly David ought to have grieved over and been troubled by this lie, because it provided occasion for the slaughter of the priests, as we shall see in its place. For it is certain that David was by no means conscious of this slaughter, nor that an account would be required of him by God for Saul's cruelty. Yet God willed by this means to humble him more and more and to show his special care for him when he allowed the wretched priests to be dragged to slaughter and cruelly killed because of David's lie. But let us apply this useful teaching to ourselves: namely that although we wish to deceive no one by lying, nor to inflict harm on anyone, yet we must abstain from all lying, and always act sincerely and candidly, leaving the outcome of affairs to God's providence, whatever dangers surround us — even if death itself appears before our eyes.

Next follows that David asked from the priest five loaves for himself and his servants, and the priest answered that he did not have common bread at hand — that is, bread that all may eat indifferently — but only holy bread, that is, the bread of the Presence which was reserved for the priests alone. And the priest adds: Provided he himself and his boys are clean, especially from women, he will give them those loaves to eat. To which David replied that he and his boys were pure and had abstained from women yesterday and the day before, that is, in the preceding days, according to the customary phrase of Scripture. And he added moreover that the journey, although polluted, yet they themselves were pure and polluted by no stain. Although it is more likely that this should be understood about the loaves: that those holy loaves would nevertheless still be holy even if eaten by those who are not of the order of priests, since neither he nor his companions were polluted by any stain. Since therefore, he says, we are clean, the loaves which have been removed from the Lord's presence will not be polluted, that is, the sacrifice will not on that account be profaned. Then therefore the priest gave to him and his companions the loaves which had been in the sanctuary and dedicated to God in sacred offering. As for those loaves of the Presence, the reason should be observed in a few words why God willed that the sanctuary's table should be perpetually loaded with those loaves. For at first sight it would seem absurd and ridiculous that God willed a table to be set for himself, and the loaves to be offered with great display on silver plates, and to remain placed in his presence, as if he were going to take food from them. The Jews thus seemed to be held in suspense and doubt, as though God were not of a spiritual nature. But here a general rule must be observed: all those offerings made under the law were not made out of respect for God, but for the instruction of men. Therefore if anything in those offerings seems absurd to us, let us look at ourselves, and know that whatever was done there in divine matters was done because of the slowness and rudeness of men. And since we are too coarse and dull in understanding, on account of the earthly mass of this body which surrounds us, let us recognize that God accommodates himself to our capacity and follows a method of instructing us not entirely befitting his glory and judgments, since we cannot rise to the height of his glory and majesty.

These loaves of the Presence then, to put it in a word, taught those eating bread at home that they ought to recall to memory those loaves of the Presence offered to the Lord in the sanctuary as holy, so that they themselves eating and drinking would also acknowledge God's presence; and accordingly would neither eat nor drink without this certainty of faith — that God is present to those eating and drinking to sanctify their food, by which they themselves through this presence of the Lord might be more and more moved to thanksgiving. And this is the very thing that the divine Paul teaches us, namely that although this ceremony has been abolished, yet the faithful ought never to eat a morsel of bread or to drink unless their drinking is referred to God's glory. But someone may say: Will then God be glorified in our eating and drinking? Yes, if we eat soberly. Then we can also testify how paternally God is concerned for us, when he presides over our eating and drinking, and deigns to exercise his goodness and power toward us by providing food suitable and sufficient for our bodies, which would otherwise collapse like corpses, so that by meditating on these things we may be more and more stirred up to render him immortal thanks. Behold how those legal figures still teach us today that in drinking and eating we may exercise ourselves in the fear of God, and pursue sobriety and temperance, and be more and more excited to thanksgiving for divine benefits. But what today are spiritual things had to be represented in the time of the ceremonies by certain visible and external signs. For this reason in the law the loaves were set forth in the sanctuary to denote God's presence, and to admonish each one as he took food at home to think that he was being invited as it were by God to a table over which he himself, although having no need of our tables, would yet wish to preside, and to testify his paternal care and zeal toward those eating and drinking — as if with his own hand he not only distributed the loaves but, like a careful nurse, put food into the mouth.

Some traces of this rite appear in the sacred customs of the pagans, in which they celebrated their feasts with a certain great religious solemnity. And although they generally indulged in intemperance, luxury, and drunkenness, God nevertheless never permitted that thought to be erased from men's minds, but it was always denoted by some ceremony and external sign of the divine majesty: so that if some oath was taken at the table during a feast, the obligation was double; if some contract was made, it was held sacred, as having been made in God's presence. Although they did not have the knowledge of the true God, they were nevertheless rendered all the more inexcusable. And if this prevailed among the pagans and unbelievers, much less can we be excused today, unless — when they recognized God's presence in their feasts — we today much more offer the grain and whatever else the earth produces to God in sacred offering, that is, hold all earthly goods by which our life is sustained as accepted from God, and render him immortal thanks for them. For not without reason does Paul say that all things are clean and pure to those purified by faith, namely because the foods that we receive for nourishment, and on which we feed, are sanctified, since we ourselves are sanctified by the word of God and prayers and supplications. And so much for that ceremony in passing. Let us pass on to the exposition of the history, where this first occurs: that the priest in some way at first refused to give those loaves to David and his companions, but then granted them, on condition however that he and his companions were pure. And we see that mention is specifically made of cleanness from women, since the priests themselves, when they were occupied in their turns at God's worship in the sanctuary, had to abstain from their wives. By no means as though marriage were not lawful: for what the Apostle wrote long afterwards is most true, and God is not contrary to himself who changes neither nature nor will, and willed marriage from the beginning of the ages to be common to all men. But because that Levitical priesthood somehow represented the perfection that is in our Lord Jesus Christ — more than human, indeed more than angelic — therefore the priests abstained from their wives when they were performing sacred services to the Lord by turns. What the papists wished to infer from this was mere superstition and a kind of ridiculous imitation. For they say today that their sacrificers daily perform the office of offering Christ; and accordingly they ought perpetually to abstain from women. But I ask, who has commanded them to sacrifice daily, as they do? For whatever they pretend rests on that diabolical blasphemy of the mass, as if it were their office to offer the Lord our Lord Jesus Christ. But there is no other sacrifice today through which we can approach God, except that one alone common to all the faithful: the sacrifice of our Lord offered once on the cross. Then the office of pastors is to offer souls to God by the preaching of the Gospel, as Paul says. Why then? That papistical abuse is sufficiently apparent, and vanishes of its own accord. But the reason of that legal offering was different, in which it was necessary that a certain perfection more than angelic be represented by certain external rites, namely so that those ancient fathers might recognize that he who was to reconcile the world to God was not capable of so excellent an office unless he stripped off all human corruption, and had nothing earthly or common with the rest, but in dignity and excellence and holiness far surpassed even the blessed angels themselves. Let us therefore draw a useful teaching from this, namely that we must take the utmost care not to fall into those papistical abuses by which they say that their priests should not be polluted by marriage, and accordingly let us not despise that most holy state of life as the cause of our defilements and stains, which God has so carefully prescribed; but rather let us recognize that the vice, if there is any in marriage, is from us; and let us detest the impudence of those men who think to conciliate God to themselves by their subterfuges and external masks, as if sufficiently fit for this. But it is certain that our Lord Jesus Christ himself, if he had suffered anything of human fragility and corruption, would not have been fit for the office of mediator and for placating the wrath of God the Father, and accordingly there would be no access for us to God through him, nor confidence that our prayers would be heard. Therefore let us recognize that there is in us matter of confusion and humiliation before God, but in Christ we have great material for confidence, since all perfection and holiness was in him, so that whenever we approach God in his name, we will be acceptable to him, by virtue, namely, of that purity and holiness with which he is pure even from his mother's womb.

It follows that the priest delivered bread to David and David received it from him. Here it must first be asked whether the priest sinned in delivering those loaves to David, or also David in receiving them; far be it that the priest's deed should be condemned, since it is approved by the very mouth of God. And accordingly if the priest is not to be condemned, neither can David be said to have fallen in this matter, but rather innocent — whom, if there was any sin, the priest could have admonished. The loaves therefore were given by the priest and received and retained by David without fault. But if anyone objects that the priest was forced by David's importunate request, we say that here no force appears made by David against the priest, but only his necessity laid before him. These things therefore are joined together: if the priest could give David the loaves of the Presence without sin, David could likewise receive them from his hand without sin. But our Lord Jesus Christ himself solves this question in chapter 12 of Matthew, when his disciples were rebuked by the scribes for plucking ears of grain on the sabbath day as they were passing through the fields and rubbing them with their hands to eat. Indeed it was necessary that the disciples did this compelled by hunger, who, not as profane men, as the luxurious or ambitious driven sideways by their desires, or as those who endure many things to satisfy their lusts, but most far from all those vices, were following their master, who with great labor and care was traversing that region to advance the kingdom of God the Father, and to recall miserable sinners to the way of salvation. And so his disciples, serving God with humility and obedience, followed him, and suffered some hunger, and therefore as they passed through the fields began to pluck some ears, and to rub them with their hands, that they might sustain themselves with some food. But the scribes, like severe judges, accuse them and make the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ guilty as violators of the sabbath: not only seeking the disgrace of the disciples, but rather wishing to declare the Lord and master himself a violator and contemner of the sabbath. To these our Lord Jesus Christ replied: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God and ate the loaves of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? In which however he was not reproved by God. Indeed our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme judge and arbiter of things, with his own mouth absolves David. And accordingly the whole question must here be removed about which our Lord Jesus Christ himself, in whom is the supreme authority, has passed sentence. But let us examine what foundation Jesus Christ himself rests upon. For he adds the reason: because the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath, by which words he indicates that the sabbath was instituted to serve men, and therefore the faithful observing the sabbath as sons of God are not forced into such servitude that they do not have liberty to do what does not contradict the institution of the legislator. Now therefore let us examine why the Lord had forbidden those loaves of the Presence to be eaten by the common people, but had willed only the priests, and indeed those separated as it were from common life, to eat them. Already at the end of this law we have shown that the loaves of the Presence were offered and placed on the sanctuary's table so that by the virtue and efficacy of this holy table the rest of the people drinking and eating at the table might be sanctified by the majesty as it were of God present. Furthermore, if those loaves of the Presence which were taken from the sanctuary had passed into use for everyone without distinction, they would not have venerated that mystery with the reverence due to it, as Paul did, and they would not have thought of glorifying God in food and drink. And accordingly their table would have been impure, which ought to be dedicated to God, and the people gradually turned to an adulterous religion would have been affected by no zeal for the divine law. But this deed of David was by no means contrary to the divine will. Why so? Namely, he did not wish him to be oppressed by this necessity of hunger, nor had he so bound him to that ceremonial observance of the law that he could not and might not lawfully eat of those loaves in case of necessity. For example, if perhaps it had happened that some needy and wretched man passing by the sanctuary suffered a faintness of spirit which the priest noticed, certainly it appears that this man, although neither asking nor speaking but as if placed in the article of death, ought to have been sustained by the priest himself, and would not have been sinning against the legislator's intention; because not only the words of the law are to be considered, but most of all its substance. Since therefore it was lawful for the priest to help and refresh someone in mortal danger with this holy bread, the priest by relieving even David with these loaves did not sin against God's command — especially since he thought that David had come into such great danger and was pressed by such great necessity for the sake of the public good.

And these are the foundations of that deed of David, which is by no means to be called some special privilege of God granted to him as a one-time act on account of a transgression of the law, but a divine benefit and liberality flowing from the pure intention of the legislator. When therefore our Lord Jesus Christ says that it was not lawful for David to eat of those loaves, this is not to be understood as if it were unlawful or absolutely forbidden to eat of them. It is well known that whatever God condemns can never be approved as good. And although men think the contrary, God's sentence is always firm and ratified. Therefore when our Lord Jesus says it was not lawful for David to eat of those loaves, let us know that he spoke according to common usage. Just as for example it was not lawful on the sabbath day to cook meat or bake bread by fire, nor to set out on a journey, nor to chop wood at home — all of which were forbidden by the law, but on this condition unless they were compelled by some necessity. And so it must be noted that this permission given to David was not a special privilege against the law. And this is to be carefully observed, because men are ingenious in this matter at seeking escapes by which they persuade themselves that this or that is lawful for them, and they are accustomed to prove their deeds especially by examples of saints. It must therefore be observed that David, although he used the loaves of the Presence which God had ordered to be reserved for priests alone, was nevertheless not condemned by the divine sentence, because the legislator's intention was that the law should retain its force unless some necessity drew the contrary. That this is so appears from what we said before, why God willed only the priests to feed on those loaves and not for them to become common. For should not those loaves have been used to relieve a wretched man dying of hunger because God had commanded only priests to feed on them? Surely these things agree well with one another: that priests alone were commanded to feed on the loaves of the Presence, and that meanwhile humanity should be given a place, so that in case of necessity help might be brought to those laboring. Therefore also our Lord Jesus Christ confirms this same sentence with his vote: saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifice. He therefore refutes the malice and venom of those scribes and Pharisees, when they tried to subject God's law to their foolish opinion, since God through Hosea declared that he prefers mercy to sacrifice. Without doubt, as I said before, sacrifices in themselves were nothing, for they were not instituted by God because he needed them, but so that men might be instructed by them. Since therefore the sacrifices were useless in themselves, that word of the prophet must be weighed: that God prefers mercy to sacrifice. For under this word of mercy the prophet comprehends all human affections and compassions by which one ought to embrace the others, and in narrow and difficult matters to help one another. Furthermore, it is certain that just as charity is the perfection of the whole law, so also clemency and gentleness toward the wretched is a sacrifice pleasing to God. Since therefore God himself through the prophet declared that mercy toward a neighbor placed in necessity is not impeded by this offering of the loaves of the Presence, the scribes ought to have acquiesced in the divine sentence. Our Lord Jesus Christ therefore openly declared that David did not assume for himself any authority against the law, but faithfully looked to God's will and the law's intention. So also it appears that the priest for his part was persuaded that he sinned in nothing in this matter by allowing David those loaves, but that this permission was in agreement with the legislator's will and intention. Hence a useful teaching is to be drawn for us, namely that all ceremonial laws are to be referred to friendship for one's neighbor, and to be measured by it, so that if at any time the neighbor needs to be helped in some matter, the ceremonial law should yield to the love and affection of one's neighbor. Why so? Namely because all laws ought to agree with charity: for God, who is merciful and gentle, does not change his nature, nor ever renounces himself; therefore I say it is not only vain superstition, but mere simulation full of arrogance, if anyone persuades himself that the honor and worship of God can well agree with injuries and inconveniences to men. For it is most certain that these directly contradict God's intention. And why so, I ask? Namely because such is God's love and humanity toward us, that the things which pertain to his honor and glory are joined with our usefulness and benefits. Therefore let us learn so to worship and venerate God that we may not be cruel and inhuman toward our neighbors. I confess indeed that when the matter is simply about God's glory, each one ought to spontaneously despise father and mother, wife and children, and whatever precious things he has, and forget them, and with burning prayers entreat God that he be not held by any desire for these earthly things, but prefer them to God's glory. But now I am speaking about the external observance of the ceremonial commands, which are to be so conformed to that humanity and charity that we do not draw God away from himself. But we know that God so prescribed the ceremonies to men for the observance of his worship that we should be led to charity by them rather than turned away from it.

Now then, come, etc.

1. David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, 'Why are you alone, and no one with you?' 2. David said to Ahimelech the priest, 'The king has given me a commission and told me, Let no one know anything about the mission I am sending you on and what orders I have given you. I have directed my men to a certain place. 3. Now then, if you have anything on hand, give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.' 4. The priest answered David, 'I have no common bread on hand, only holy bread — if the men have kept themselves from women.' 5. David answered the priest, 'In fact, women have been kept from us, as always when I go on a campaign. The men's things are holy even on an ordinary campaign, and how much more today when they will be consecrated with their equipment.'

We must continue following David's story as a fugitive and exile from the land of Israel. We saw in yesterday's sermon how severe that trial was — to be driven from the land God had chosen as His dwelling. There was no other place in the whole world consecrated and dedicated to God's pure worship except the region of Judea. And when David was forced to flee from it, he seemed utterly cut off from the kingdom promised to him. Those tears of David we discussed were sufficient evidence of what straits he had been thrown into. Though he was a brave man of great spirit, he could not hold back the tears that poured out abundantly. Jonathan wept bitterly — but David wept even more. Yet none of this prevented him from placing his trust in God. As Scripture often teaches, faith does not turn people into stone or make them so numb that they feel nothing of the evils they face. The faithful must necessarily be put through these experiences — so that having overcome all temptations, they may enjoy a sweeter victory. Therefore, though the faithful rest on God's Word, the power of feelings and emotions is not entirely extinguished in them. Even if they are driven now in one direction and now in another, they hold out to the end — for those who have God's will as their solid rock. Though shaken by winds and storms, they remain firm and undaunted in God's promises, and their hope will never be put to shame. Jonathan, as we saw, was confirmed more by God's promises than by anything he could see at present. David's flight appeared to restore Jonathan's prospects — just as Saul had told him that he and his descendants could not hold the kingdom as long as David lived. But Jonathan on the contrary was hoping that when David came to power, David would show mercy to him and his family. At that moment he was looking at David as wretched and afflicted — the sword threatening his throat, everyone taking aim at him, all pursuing his death eagerly to please Saul. In short, Jonathan saw David reduced to the most desperate circumstances, yet still asked him for grace and mercy for himself and his family. By this act Jonathan declared that he had fixed his eyes on the unchangeable decree and will of God revealed through Samuel concerning the kingdom owed to David. He was persuaded that what God had foretold would in fact come to pass — though by any human reckoning it seemed impossible. Now if Jonathan recognized such certainty in God's promises when looking at David's desperate condition — what should we do today, when we behold the Son of God raised to heavenly glory, even though He allows us to be put through various punishments and troubles in this world and keeps His kingdom hidden here? We have far more grounds for entrusting ourselves into God's power and hand than Jonathan once had, and for not doubting that — even if we are put through trials a thousand times harsher — He has the power to rescue us from all dangers and to have mercy on us.

We must now carefully observe what follows: that David, in his flight, came to Nob, where God's sanctuary was at that time — as indicated by the mention of the bread of the Presence, which was daily set out on the table by the priest and replaced with fresh loaves when the old ones were removed. The first thing to note here is that David, in addition to the danger threatening him from men, was also struggling with hunger. As a fugitive, he was not able to carry supplies. He had probably already been going without food for some time in hiding, and now, wandering as a fugitive through trackless ways, he dared not knock on any door to ask even for a crust of bread for himself and his few servants. David was effectively cut off from human society — deprived of communication with family and friends, with no hope of help from strangers. Pressed by hunger, he could find no remedy for his desperate situation except to flee to the Lord's sanctuary. In human terms, this could have seemed the most dangerous possible place for him to go. People gathered there for the sacrifices, and so David could easily have been recognized — as if he had walked into a public marketplace. After hiding himself, he now seemed to be walking into full view of everyone, essentially giving himself away. Yet there is no doubt that David, thrown into such great desperation, regarded the place God had dedicated to His worship as the safest of shelters — and trusted that God would have mercy on him when he fled into His sanctuary and would hide him there. This was indeed his confidence in his greatest afflictions, as is clear from his Psalms, where these words are heard: 'O Lord, You will conceal me in a corner of Your sanctuary.' By these words David was expressing the meditations and thoughts by which he sustained himself in the midst of his conflicts. When he said he would be hidden in a corner of the sanctuary, he testified that in the midst of every storm of adversity he had recognized that there was no safer shelter and no stronger fortress than to entrust himself into God's hands and surrender himself to Him. This is why he preferred to come to the sanctuary rather than any other place — even though he had good reason to suspect that he would be seen there and reported to the king. As we will see later, that is exactly what happened through the treachery of that wretched Doeg. But David did not doubt that God would have mercy on him and grant him refuge in that place — enough to escape the death that otherwise seemed certain. There is no doubt that, after weighing various plans in his mind, he concluded that there was no safer refuge than the place where God is worshipped — the place from which God had promised to hear the prayers of His people and to exercise His power toward all who called on Him. So we see David not so overwhelmed by his feelings and passions that a firm trust in God's mercy toward him was not still present in his heart. Though he shed many tears and appeared uncertain in mind, he still did not fail to flee to God's help, and hoped that God would at last recall him as it were from the very tomb of death. He had to struggle against his feelings and endure the weakness of the flesh — but this was precisely so that his faith could be strengthened more and more and rest with firm confidence on God's promises. And when he later proclaimed God's goodness, which he had experienced in the midst of afflictions, he was not celebrating his own fortitude or boasting in his trials. Rather, he acknowledged his terror and fear. As he says in Psalm 116: 'I said in my alarm, every man is a liar.' By these words he shows that he was not far from falling. Just as a man running downhill can easily be pushed headlong with the slightest shove. David therefore, in those desperate straits, recognized that people have nothing in themselves by which to boast or presume upon their own strength — for by nature every person is a liar and empty, and whatever apparent courage of mind he seems to possess melts away in a moment unless God holds it steady by His power.

The priest was astonished to see David alone. Not because David normally traveled without any attendants, but because he was not accompanied by his usual retinue. We saw that Saul had placed David over many soldiers and territories — and as the king's son-in-law, David should normally have been accompanied by a substantial escort of servants and soldiers. The priest therefore looked at him as wretched and fugitive — pressed by hunger and apparently without any provisions. David then made excuses to the priest with a lie and a false pretext — claiming he had been sent by the king on a secret mission with express orders to tell no one what the errand was, and that he had brought one or two servants quietly with him and had arranged for them to meet him at a certain place. All of this was invented by David. This shows that even God's servants, endowed with the greatest virtues, still labor under many faults — and that God chose to humble them by this means and show them their own weakness. It was neither right nor permitted for David to lie, and no argument can excuse him. Those who labor to justify him in this matter waste their time and effort and effectively make God the author of a lie. On the contrary, the weakness of these men teaches us to watch over ourselves — for we see that the most holy of men, like David here, fall so easily. We saw David adorned with such outstanding gifts of God's Spirit that he was admired by all — and now we see him brought low by weakness and caught in danger, unable to defend himself except by lying. We must therefore pray all the more earnestly that God Himself would govern us and supply a spirit of wisdom in tight and uncertain situations, so that whatever temptations assail us, we may never sin with our tongue. It is well known how fragile a member the tongue is. Though every part of the body and mind is fragile, the tongue is the most fragile of all. It must therefore be kept in check by God as if within a fence, and our speech must be governed by Him. David's example urges us to seek this from God through prayer. David himself was taught by this very experience, as we see in Psalm 39, where he burst out: 'Keep watch over my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue; set a guard over my mouth, when the wicked man stands against me.' David was recalling what he had suffered when he prayed so earnestly for God to set a guard upon his mouth, lest anything be spoken rashly. We also see that David could not take care of himself and his life without persuading the priest that he had been sent by King Saul on a secret mission. This shows how wretched David's condition was: the man designated king by God, who was to be a figure of our Lord Jesus Christ, was reduced to such desperate need that he seemed unable to preserve his life without a lie. David's difficulties were great — he seemed to have no way out except at the greatest risk. As we observe these things, let us learn to commit ourselves to God, especially when He is about to test us and reduces us to such straits that no means of safety appears by human reckoning. We will also see later how greatly David ought to have grieved and been troubled by this lie — because it provided the occasion for the slaughter of the priests, as we will see in the appropriate place. David was certainly unaware that the slaughter would follow, nor that God would hold him responsible for Saul's cruelty. Yet God chose by this means to humble David further and demonstrate His special care for him — allowing the wretched priests to be dragged to slaughter and cruelly killed as a consequence of David's lie. Let us therefore apply this useful lesson to ourselves: even when we intend to deceive no one and harm no one, we must still abstain from all lying, and always act sincerely and honestly, leaving the outcome of affairs to God's providence — whatever dangers surround us, even if death itself appears before our eyes.

David then asked the priest for five loaves for himself and his servants. The priest replied that he had no ordinary bread on hand — bread that anyone could eat without restriction — only holy bread, that is, the bread of the Presence, which was reserved for the priests alone. The priest added: if David and his men were ritually clean, especially having refrained from women, he would give them those loaves to eat. David replied that he and his men were indeed pure and had abstained from women the day before and the day prior to that — according to the customary way of expressing the preceding days in Scripture. He also added that the journey, though it involved common activity, had not made them unclean — they themselves were pure, stained by no defilement. Though it is more likely this was meant in reference to the loaves: that those holy loaves would not be defiled by being eaten by men who were not of the priestly order, since neither David nor his companions were in any state of uncleanness. Since we are clean, he was saying, the loaves that have been removed from the Lord's presence will not be made unclean — the sacred offering will not be profaned by our eating it. The priest therefore gave to David and his companions the loaves that had been in the sanctuary and dedicated to God as a sacred offering. Regarding the bread of the Presence, the reason God commanded that the sanctuary table be kept perpetually loaded with these loaves deserves a brief explanation. At first glance it might seem strange and even ridiculous — as if God had a table set for Himself, with loaves displayed ceremonially on silver plates in His presence, as though He were about to eat from them. The Jews might have seemed to be left in confusion about whether God was of a spiritual nature at all. But a general principle must be observed: all those offerings under the law were not made for God's benefit but for the instruction of the people. Therefore if anything in those offerings seems strange to us, let us look at ourselves. We must understand that everything done in divine matters under the law was done because of the slowness and roughness of human understanding. Since we are too dull and thick in our comprehension — weighed down by the earthly mass of this body that surrounds us — let us recognize that God accommodated Himself to our capacity. He used methods of teaching not entirely fitting to His own glory and majesty, since we cannot rise up to the height of His glory on our own.

To put it simply: the bread of the Presence was meant to teach the people, as they ate bread at home, to recall those sacred loaves offered to the Lord in the sanctuary. Eating and drinking, they should acknowledge God's presence — never eating or drinking without this certainty of faith: that God is present with those who eat and drink, sanctifying their food, so that through His presence they might be moved more and more to give thanks. This is exactly what the apostle Paul teaches us: even though this ceremony has been abolished, the faithful should never eat a morsel of bread or take a drink without referring it to God's glory. But someone might ask: How is God glorified in our eating and drinking? When we eat with self-control and moderation. We can also show how fatherly God's care for us is, when He presides over our eating and drinking and condescends to exercise His goodness and power by providing food suited and sufficient for our bodies — which would otherwise collapse like lifeless frames. By meditating on these things we are stirred up more and more to render Him immortal thanks. This is how those legal figures still teach us today: that in our eating and drinking we exercise ourselves in the fear of God, practice sobriety and moderation, and are more and more moved to thankfulness for God's gifts. What today are purely spiritual realities had to be represented in the era of ceremonies through visible, external signs. This is why the law prescribed that loaves be set out in the sanctuary — to signify God's presence and to remind every person, as he took food at home, that he was being invited as it were by God to a table over which God Himself, though having no need of our tables, chose to preside. God wanted to declare His fatherly care and concern for those eating and drinking — as if with His own hand He not only distributed the loaves but, like a careful nurse, placed the food in their very mouths.

Some traces of this idea appear even in the religious customs of the pagans, who celebrated their feasts with a certain solemn religious observance. Even though they generally gave themselves over to excess, luxury, and drunkenness, God never permitted the thought of His divine presence to be completely erased from human minds. It was always marked by some ceremony and outward sign of divine majesty: if an oath was taken at the table during a feast, the obligation was doubly binding; if a contract was made, it was considered sacred, as though made in God's presence. Though they had no knowledge of the true God, this made them all the more without excuse. If this was true among pagans and unbelievers, how much less can we be excused today? Since they recognized God's presence even at their feasts, we must far more gladly offer grain and everything the earth produces to God as a sacred acknowledgment — holding all earthly goods by which our life is sustained as received from God, and rendering Him immortal thanks for them. Paul's statement is not without reason: all things are clean and pure to those who are purified by faith, because the foods we receive for nourishment are sanctified — since we ourselves are sanctified by God's Word and by prayer and supplication. So much for that ceremony, briefly noted. Let us proceed with the account. The first thing we see is that the priest initially hesitated to give those loaves to David and his companions, but then agreed — on the condition that David and his men were ritually clean. Notice specifically that cleanness from women is mentioned — because the priests themselves, when serving their turns in the sanctuary at God's worship, were required to abstain from their wives. This was not because marriage is unlawful. What the apostle wrote much later is completely true, and God does not contradict Himself — He never changed either nature or will, and from the beginning of the ages He willed marriage to be common to all people. But because the Levitical priesthood in some way represented the perfection that is in our Lord Jesus Christ — a perfection beyond human, indeed beyond angelic — the priests abstained from their wives when they were performing their sacred service by rotation in the sanctuary. What the papists wished to infer from this was nothing but superstition and a kind of ridiculous imitation. They say today that their sacrificing priests perform the office of offering Christ daily — and accordingly they should perpetually abstain from women. But I ask: who commanded them to sacrifice daily in this way? Whatever they claim rests on the diabolical blasphemy of the mass — the idea that it is their office to offer our Lord Jesus Christ. But there is no other sacrifice today through which we can approach God except the one sacrifice common to all the faithful: the offering of our Lord made once on the cross. The office of pastors today is to offer souls to God through the preaching of the Gospel, as Paul says. So what is the basis for the papists' rule? Their abuse is plain and collapses on its own. The reason for that legal ceremony was entirely different. In it, a perfection beyond even the angels had to be represented through external rites — so that those ancient fathers might recognize that the One who was to reconcile the world to God had to be completely free from human corruption, having nothing earthly or ordinary in common with the rest of humanity, but surpassing even the holy angels themselves in dignity, excellence, and holiness. Let us therefore draw a useful lesson from this: we must take the greatest care not to fall into the papistic abuse that says their priests should not be defiled by marriage. Let us not despise that most holy way of life — which God so carefully established — as though it were the cause of our defilements and stains. Rather, let us recognize that whatever fault exists in the matter comes from us. And let us detest the arrogance of those who think they can win God's favor through their evasions and outward shows, as if they were already fit for His presence. It is certain that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, if He had shared in any human fragility and corruption, would not have been fit for the office of mediator or for appeasing the wrath of God the Father. In that case there would be no access to God through Him, and no confidence that our prayers would be heard. Therefore let us recognize that in ourselves there is every reason for shame and humiliation before God — but in Christ we have great grounds for confidence, since all perfection and holiness was in Him. So whenever we approach God in His name, we will be acceptable to Him, by virtue of the purity and holiness with which He was pure from His mother's womb.

The priest then gave the bread to David, and David received it. Here we must first ask whether the priest sinned in giving those loaves to David, and whether David sinned in receiving them. The priest's action must certainly not be condemned — it was approved by the very mouth of God. And if the priest is not to be condemned, David cannot be said to have done wrong in this matter either — he is innocent. If there had been any sin, the priest could have rebuked him. The loaves were therefore given by the priest and received by David without fault. If anyone objects that the priest was pressured by David's urgent request — we say there is no evidence of any coercion. David simply laid his need before the priest. These two things go together: if the priest could give David the bread of the Presence without sin, David could likewise receive it from his hands without sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself resolves this question in Matthew 12, when His disciples were accused by the scribes for plucking heads of grain as they walked through fields on the Sabbath and rubbing them to eat. The disciples were compelled by hunger to do this — and these were not self-indulgent or ambitious men driven by their desires or willing to suffer hardship in order to satisfy their lusts. They were as far from such vices as possible. They were following their master, who was traveling with great effort throughout that region to advance the kingdom of God the Father and to call miserable sinners back to the way of salvation. His disciples, serving God in humility and obedience, followed Him — bearing some hunger — and as they passed through the fields they began to pick a few heads of grain and rub them in their hands to sustain themselves. But the scribes acted like severe judges, accusing them and charging the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ with violating the Sabbath — seeking not only to disgrace the disciples but ultimately to declare the Lord and master Himself a violator and despiser of the Sabbath. To these men, our Lord Jesus Christ replied: 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him — how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests?' And yet God did not rebuke him for it. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme judge and arbiter of all things, acquits David with His own mouth. The whole question is therefore settled — our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in whom is supreme authority, has rendered judgment. But let us examine the foundation on which Jesus Christ rested His case. He added the reason: 'For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' By these words He indicated that the Sabbath was made to serve people — and therefore the faithful who observe the Sabbath as children of God are not bound into such rigid servitude that they have no freedom to do what does not contradict the legislator's actual intention. Let us then examine why the Lord had forbidden the common people from eating the bread of the Presence, reserving it only for the priests — men set apart from common life. We have already shown in treating the end of this ceremonial practice that the bread of the Presence was offered and placed on the sanctuary table so that, by the power and effect of this holy table, the rest of the people eating and drinking at their own tables might be sanctified — as if by the very majesty of God present. Furthermore, if those loaves from the sanctuary had passed freely into everyone's use without distinction, the people would not have honored that mystery with the reverence it deserved. They would not have remembered to glorify God in their eating and drinking. As a result, their table would have become impure — the very table that should be dedicated to God — and the people, gradually slipping into an adulterated religion, would have lost all zeal for God's law. But David's action was not contrary to God's will. Why? Because God did not intend for David to be oppressed by hunger — and He had not bound him so strictly to the ceremonial law that he could not lawfully eat those loaves in a case of genuine necessity. Consider this example: if some poor, wretched man passing the sanctuary suddenly collapsed from weakness — and the priest saw it — that man, even without asking or speaking, even as if at the very point of death, should clearly have been helped by the priest with that holy bread. The priest would not have been sinning against the legislator's intention in doing so. For it is not only the letter of the law that must be considered, but above all its purpose. Since it was therefore lawful for the priest to help a person in mortal danger with this holy bread, the priest did not sin against God's command in relieving David with those loaves — especially since he believed David had come into such great danger and was pressed by such extreme necessity for the sake of the public good.

These are the foundations of David's action, which should by no means be labeled some special divine privilege granted to him as a one-time exception to the law. It was a benefit and generosity flowing from the pure intention of the lawgiver. Therefore when our Lord Jesus Christ says it was not lawful for David to eat those loaves, this must not be understood as if it were absolutely and unconditionally forbidden. It is well established that whatever God condemns can never be approved as good. And even when people think otherwise, God's judgment always stands firm and unalterable. So when our Lord Jesus says it was not lawful for David to eat those loaves, He was speaking according to common usage. It was, for example, not lawful on the Sabbath to cook meat, bake bread, set out on a journey, or chop wood at home — all of this was forbidden by the law, but with the understanding that it would be permitted when some genuine necessity compelled it. So it must be understood that the permission given to David was not a special privilege against the law. This point is worth careful attention, because people are very clever at finding escape routes by which they convince themselves that this or that is lawful for them — and they are especially fond of proving their actions by examples from the saints. It must therefore be carefully noted that David, though he ate the bread of the Presence that God had commanded to be reserved for priests alone, was nonetheless not condemned by God's judgment — because the legislator's intention was that the law should hold its force except where some genuine necessity required otherwise. This is shown by what we said before about why God willed only the priests to eat those loaves and not make them available to everyone. Surely those loaves ought to have been used to relieve a wretched man dying of hunger, rather than letting him die because God had said only priests could eat them? These two things fit well together: priests alone were commanded to eat the bread of the Presence — and at the same time, human compassion was to have a place, so that in cases of necessity help could be given to those in need. Our Lord Jesus Christ therefore confirms this same judgment with His own verdict, saying that God desires mercy rather than sacrifice. In this way He refuted the malice and venom of the scribes and Pharisees, who tried to subject God's law to their own foolish opinion — when God had declared through Hosea that He desires mercy rather than sacrifice. Without doubt, as I said before, the sacrifices in themselves were nothing — God did not institute them because He needed them, but to instruct men through them. Since therefore the sacrifices were in themselves of no value, the prophet's word carries great weight: God desires mercy rather than sacrifice. Under this word 'mercy' the prophet includes all human compassion and kindness — the obligation we have to embrace one another and to help each other in difficult and pressing circumstances. Furthermore, it is certain that just as charity is the fulfillment of the whole law, so also clemency and kindness toward those in need is a sacrifice pleasing to God. Since God Himself through the prophet declared that mercy toward a neighbor in need is not hindered by the offering of the bread of the Presence, the scribes ought to have yielded to the divine verdict. Our Lord Jesus Christ therefore openly declared that David was not claiming any authority against the law, but was faithfully looking to God's will and the law's true intention. The priest was also evidently persuaded that he had sinned in nothing by allowing David those loaves — that his decision was in agreement with the legislator's will and intention. A useful lesson for us follows from this: all ceremonial laws are to be measured against love for one's neighbor, so that if the neighbor needs to be helped in any matter, the ceremonial law should yield to the love and care for that neighbor. Why? Because all laws must agree with charity. God, who is merciful and gracious, does not change His nature or ever contradict Himself. It is therefore not only vain superstition but a pretense full of arrogance when anyone convinces himself that honoring and worshipping God can be reconciled with injuring and harming people. This contradicts God's intention directly. And why? Because God's love and goodness toward us is such that whatever pertains to His honor and glory is joined together with our benefit and well-being. Let us therefore learn to worship and reverence God in such a way that we are not cruel and inhuman toward our neighbors. I will acknowledge: when the matter is purely about God's glory, each person should willingly set aside father and mother, wife and children, and whatever else is precious, and with fervent prayer ask God not to let him be held by desire for earthly things, but to prefer God's glory above them all. But I am speaking now about the outward observance of ceremonial commands, which must be so shaped by that humanity and charity that we do not end up acting contrary to God's own nature. For we know that God prescribed the ceremonies to men for the observance of His worship in such a way that those ceremonies should lead us toward charity, not away from it.

Now then, come, etc.