1 Samuel 21:2

The king hath commanded. There is no question about the fact that David gave Ahimelech a complete misrepresentation of the facts. David was in a place of great danger. He had been so overwhelmed by the turn of recent events that it was difficult for him to view present tests in the light of manifest evidences of God’s call and protective watchcare. If he tied to Samuel, he might endanger the life of that venerable man. If he returned to his own home in Gibeah, his presence might incur the death of his wife. In the sincerity of his soul he longed to inquire of the Lord, and the only place he could think of was the tabernacle at Nob. Inasmuch as Saul had required the priest to be in attendance upon him in war, it is probable that David, as captain over a thousand (chapter 18:13), had previously stopped at Nob for help before proceeding on his various forays.

His problem now was to make inquiry without giving Ahimelech any real knowledge of the situation. That the priest did inquire for him seems evident from Doeg’s tale to Saul (chapter 22:10), and Ahimelech’s implied admission of utter ignorance of any trouble between Saul and his son-in-law (chapter 22:14, 15). David found the situation at Nob greatly complicated by Doeg’s presence. It seemed as if everything was against him. He needed help, and in the moment of temptation it appeared that the only way to get assistance and at the same time protect the priest was to speak in such a way as to keep Ahimelech from knowing his reason for coming. In this resort to deception David did wrong (see PP 656).

The fact that the Bible here does not condemn David’s duplicity must not be taken as a justification of the act. The Scriptures require strict truthfulness.

From the standpoint of the standards of the day David’s dissimulation would be regarded as reasonably defensible. It is said that among the peoples of the Near East it was — and still is to a great extent — believed that it was not a crime to tell a lie to save a life. The Gibeonites resorted to such stratagem, and yet their lives were spared (Joshua 9:3–18). But though God accepted men tainted with the customs of the day, He was trying to lead them on to a higher standard. He did not reject them or forsake them for the occasional or perhaps habitual practice of the customs of the time. It was God’s plan eventually to bring about reform in all these matters.

Although David could not plead ignorance for his act, God did not forsake him. Perhaps it would have been better for him to have gone to Samuel, who was acquainted with the whole matter. God had a thousand ways out of the difficulty. If David had told Ahimelech the truth, the priest would have been forewarned and could have escaped the murderous hand of the king (see PP 656).

I have appointed. Grammatically this sentence could be interpreted as either the words of Saul or those of David. Perhaps David had stationed his men near the eastern road running from Gibeah to Bethlehem to watch for the officers of Saul on their way to Bethlehem to apprehend him. A knowledge of the movements of these emissaries of Saul would be of great value to David.