1 Samuel (1 Kings) 21

In similar fashion, whenever we have God on our side, even if we are utterly alone, we will live more securely than those who dwell in the cities. After all, the grace of God is the greatest security and the most impregnable fortification. To prove to you how the person who, in fact, lives utterly alone turns out to be more secure and efficacious than a person living in the middle of cities and enjoying plenty of human assistance, let us see how David, though shifting from place to place and living like a nomad, was protected by the hand from above, whereas Saul, who in fact was in the middle of cities and had armies at his command, bodyguards and shieldbearers as well, still spent each day in fear and dread of enemy assaults. Whereas the one man, although alone and with no one else in his company, had no need of assistance from human beings, the other, by contrast, needed his help, despite wearing a diadem and being clad in purple. The king stood in need of the shepherd; the wearer of the crown had need of the peasant.

Homilies on Genesis 46.8

And Achimelech was astonished, etc. The ancient chosen ones were astonished, and the modern ones are astonished too, whenever they receive the coming of the Lord's visitation with a simple mind. They are not only stunned by the majesty of His vision, but also disturbed by the rarity of those who desire to follow the grace of such great piety. For it is said: Why are you alone, and no one with you? As it is said elsewhere: My escape has perished, and there is no one who seeks my soul (Psalm 141). Though it is certain that during the time of the passion, many saints, although very few compared to the crowd of persecutors, lovingly sought the soul of Christ. But just as where it was not among them, of those whose snares are set for me, those who seek the soul of Christ (Psalm 34), so here there was none of those who expelled Christ who followed the faith of Christ. And elsewhere, when he says: All have turned aside, they have together become worthless; there is none who does good, not even one (Psalm 13). To show that he meant not all men entirely, but all of those who were to be spoken about, he added further and said: They devour my people as they devour bread: they do not call upon the Lord, they trembled with fear where there was no fear, because God is in the generation of the righteous. And in the Gospel the Lord says: Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit (John 12). It is known that the same grain before the passion of its death had many faithful followers. But it is said to be alone without the company of those who were previously unbelievers who were to be called to faith through the same passion. Why then, he says, are you alone, and no one with you? Why are you alone, that is, with your faithful members, and none outside the predetermined number by the Father could be saved from such a multitude? This is said more with astonishment than for the chosen ones to speak by reasoning against proud counsel.

Commentary on Samuel

No wonder that these dispensations were uprightly made use of in the Old Testament and that holy men sometimes lied in praiseworthy or at least in pardonable fashion, since we see that far greater things were permitted them because it was a time of beginnings. For what is there to wonder at that when the blessed David was fleeing Saul and Ahimelech the priest asked him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?” he replied and said, “The king gave me a commission and said, Let no one know the reason why you were sent, for I have also appointed my servants to such and such a place”? And again: “Do you have a spear or a sword at hand? For I did not bring my sword and my weapons with me because the king’s business was urgent”? Or what happened when he was brought to Achish, the king of Gath, and made believe that he was insane and raging, and “changed his countenance before them, and fell down between their hands, and dashed himself against the door of the gate, and his spittle ran down his beard”? For, after all, they lawfully enjoyed flocks of wives and concubines, and no sin was imputed to them on this account. Besides that, they also frequently spilled their enemies’ blood with their own hands, and this was held not only to be irreprehensible but even praiseworthy.We see that, in the light of the gospel, these things have been utterly forbidden, such that none of them can be committed without very serious sin and sacrilege. Likewise we believe that no lie, in however pious a form, can be made use of by anyone in a pardonable way, to say nothing of praiseworthily, according to the words of the Lord: “Let your speech be yes, yes, no, no. Whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” The apostle also agrees with this: “Do not lie to one another.”

Conference 17.18.1-2

And David said to Achimelech the priest: "The king has commanded me a certain matter," etc. The Lord said to the apostles, the heirs of the everlasting kingdom and priesthood: "The people of persecutors and unbelievers commanded me, as much as possible, not to call them to faith by teaching. And he said, as it were, in my ears: Let no one know the reason for the envy and plots for which, having left me, you were sent to bring salvation to the nations, and what kind of deceitful commands overflowing with wicked hatred I strove to remove you from my borders." Similar to what the Psalmist said: "They have plotted to hide snares: they said, 'Who will see them?' (Psalm 63)?" When he saw, who even searched the kidneys and hearts of the plotters, God (Jer. 17). For he said, "I have separated the peoples of the nations who would believe and obey me in various parts of the world; to whom, I beseech you, if you have anything at hand of perfect work, use it as an example for conversion, or the food of the sacred law, which shines forth in the five books written by Moses, or whatever you can find from yourselves, diligently offer it for their salvation." Some boast either of the impunity of their lie or of the denigration of Scripture, claiming that David did not hesitate to seek his and his followers' salvation by lying. They should be answered that David himself elsewhere and many of the saints often offended God by sinning, indeed no living being is justified before Him, as the great apostle said, who deserved to recline in the bosom of his Creator and Lord due to his exceptional love: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1). However, the words of Holy Scripture were not given to us so that we might learn to sin by the examples of good people; but their sins were included in the sacred Scriptures so that we might be taught not to presume upon our own righteousness from their faults, but to trust in obtaining pardon for our own sins by their penance. Nevertheless, I believe it can be easily defended in this passage that the blessed David did not lie, but, given the necessity, concealed the truth in more cautious words. For he did not say the king was his friend, nor denied fleeing the king’s plots; but he said, "The king has commanded me a certain matter, and said: Let no one know the matter about which you are being sent by me." To this statement, such a sense can be applied without the stain of falsehood: "Therefore, I come alone and deserted by the company of others, because the king gave me such a command to flee quickly, which none of the enemies should know lest they betray my presence here." But if anyone desires to know about the necessity of lies or the constancy of a just man possibly requiring such a necessity, let him read the book of Saint Augustine on the eight kinds of lies, wonderfully and healthily moderated; and also the conferences of the Fathers, where Joseph, a distinguished figure amongst the Fathers, disputed excellently about not defining anything, also fully addressing this minor question. I have proposed only that this is enough to say briefly for the present. While truth should always be preferred to a lie without any doubt, sometimes, due to the circumstances, a lie might be usefully resorted to for a time, and the truth healthily hidden. Finally, did not Rahab the harlot, justified by works, receive the messengers and send them out another way? But she could not fulfill the merit of justification without temporarily assuming the aid of a lie. And Doeg the Edomite, whose present reading includes spying, and the following reading shows betrayal, deserved to be destroyed in the type of Judas Iscariot, to be plucked up, rooted out, and eradicated from the land of the living due to his evident knowledge of the truth.

Commentary on Samuel

3–6

When the disciples had been hungry on the sabbath and had plucked some ears [of grain] and rubbed them in their hands, they violated the holy day by so preparing their food. Yet Christ excuses them and even became their accomplice in breaking the sabbath. … For from the Creator’s Scripture and from the purpose of Christ there is derived a vivid precedent from David’s example when he went into the temple on the sabbath and provided food by boldly breaking up the show bread. Even he remembered that this privilege (the dispensation from fasting) was allowed on the sabbath from the very beginning, from when the sabbath itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, he permitted it on only one occasion—the day before the sabbath—so that the previous day’s provision of food might free them from fasting on the following sabbath. Therefore the Lord had good reason for pursuing the same principle in the “annulling” of the sabbath (since that is the word which people will use). He had good reason, too, for expressing the Creator’s will, when he bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath. In short, might he have—right then and there—put an end not only to the sabbath but to the Creator himself if he had commanded his disciples to fast on the sabbath, as this would have been contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will. But is he alien from the Creator because he did not directly defend his disciples but excuses them? Or because he interposes human need, as if deprecating censure? Or because he maintains the honor of the sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work? Or because he puts David and his companions on a level with his own disciples in their fault and their validation? Or because he is pleased to endorse the Creator’s indulgence? Or because he is himself good according to his example—is he therefore alien from the Creator?

Against Marcion 4.12

3–6

Even if they accuse, yet Christ excuses, and he makes the souls that he wishes, that follow him, similar to David, who ate the loaves of proposition outside of the law—for even then he foresaw in his mind the prophetic mysteries of a new grace.

On Isaac and the Soul, 6.56

And the priest answering David, said to him, etc. Because "laos" in Greek means "people," "laic breads" signify common breads, that is, those not consecrated by offering, but common and prepared for ordinary use. Therefore, the sacred order of spiritual leaders answering Christ says: I have nothing of secular wisdom in the work of righteousness, but only the word of the Gospel, which I will commit to clean listeners. But neither do I consider that this is to be believed among the Gentiles, unless perhaps those who are converted from the various temptations of errors to the chastity and piety of the one Church virgin. For it is not good to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs (Matthew V; Mark VII).

Commentary on Samuel

And David answered the priest, and said to him: Indeed, if it concerns women, etc. He answered those sending forth the apostles to teach the nations: What God has purified, do not call common (Acts X). For the Church restrained itself with my present help from idolatry and other crimes, from the time when it emerged through confession from the hiding place of ancient blindness, until it came to the light of knowing the holy Trinity, which is God; and the hearts of the humble were holy through the renunciation of Satan. Moreover, this manner of life, which is lived among the nations, is polluted, not yet purified, sanctified, and justified by those being catechized through the fountain of regeneration and the grace of the Spirit; but the very light of present reconciliation will sanctify it in those who receive baptism with a devout heart. It should truly be noted, according to the letter, how cautiously and wisely David either questioned the priest, or responded to the priest about his own and his followers' purity. For he not only inquired if the boys could receive the holy bread if they were clean from women, but also examined if they were clean from all pollution, which typically happens to mortals, especially concerning the contamination of womanly coupling, as if investigating matters greater than others. For indeed, this is the greatest of those things which, though they do not make people guilty by fault, yet deter them from the touch of the saints through the impurity of any kind, for example, the touch of a dead body, or of a reptile. But David, not without discernment, examining himself and his followers, asserts that they abstained from the embrace of a wife, carefully explaining the duration of the same abstinence. He testifies that all the utensils of the boys are holy, that is, their weapons, clothes, and even the small vessels they carried for likely provisions were clean from the contamination of any filth. And because he knew that what was consecrated to divine ministries was not to be transferred to common use without great discernment, so that he would hide nothing of his state from the priest who was a steward of these things, he says only that the road by which they had come was polluted, evidently with some funerary object lying on it, or by being unclean itself. But he also says that today it will be sanctified in the vessels; that is, I do not believe that we could be defiled by the fact that we traveled a path containing something unclean, since we carefully preserved all our utensils and bodies from the touch of the same contamination.

Commentary on Samuel

Our Lord put forward the clear example of David, who was not accused either over this, as he was over something else. It was not permissible, he said, for David to eat [the holy bread] since he was not a priest. However, he was a priest, because he was a temple of the Spirit. Because they did not understand this, he openly proved them wrong with regard to their own [position]: “The priests were defiling the sabbath in the temple, and they were not guilty of sin.” Another element is depicted for us there. Before David was persecuted, he partook of the bread with authority.

Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 5.24

In many other testimonies of the divine Scriptures, Christ appears both as king and as priest. With good reason, therefore, he is declared to be David’s son more frequently than he is said to be Abraham’s son. Matthew and Luke have both affirmed this: the one viewing him [David] as the person from whom, through Solomon, his [Jesus’] lineage can be traced down, and the other taking him [David] for the person to whom, through Nathan, his [Jesus’] genealogy can be carried up. So he [David] did represent the role of a priest, although he was patently a king, when he ate the show bread. For it was not lawful for any one to eat that, except the priests alone.

Harmony of the Gospels 1.3.5

The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread. Because he heard that they were clean who were to receive it, he consented to give them the sanctified bread; which he would in no way dare to do if he had not recognized them as clean in all respects. But if such careful attention to purity was required of him who was to taste the typical bread sanctified by the hands of Moses, how much more necessary is it for those who, having accepted the bread sanctified into the sacrament of Christ's body in his holy and venerable hands, received in memory of his death, are to partake of it as a help to eternal life, to take care of their purity? Indeed, it is necessary for one always to remember the saying of the Apostle: "For whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11). The priest therefore gave him the sanctified bread.

Commentary on Samuel

For there was no bread there but that, etc. The apostles gave to those who believed, and were baptized from among the Gentiles, the word of the law and the prophets, sanctified by the grace of the Gospel. For there was no literal knowledge among the apostles and the disciples of the apostles, except only the prophetic books, which had been openly proposed to the ancient people for reading, and had recently been fulfilled by the Incarnation of the Lord, so that they were no longer held to be said, in order that the books of the New Testament might be written, to refresh the souls of priests, that is, those united to the eternal priest's members, warmed by the fire of the Holy Spirit. And it should be noted that David asked for bread, not five or twelve (for that was the number of the showbread), but it is said that he received sanctified bread singularly; just as he is remembered to have put five stones into his pouch, but struck down Goliath with one. There are five books containing the elements of legal doctrine. But, as the apostle says, the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22; Mark 12). It can also rightly be understood that the sanctified bread is singularly named, either because of the unity of faith and love, but should be understood plurally due to either the various works of virtues or the multiple abundance of divine Scriptures by which we are instructed in virtues; just as what is written singularly in the Psalms: He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them (Psalm 77), there is no doubt that it must be understood in the plural, especially since the Lord in the Gospels, preferring mercy over sacrifice, affirms that the bread given to him must be understood in the plural (Matthew 9). Have you not read, he says, what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests (Luke 6)? Where, according to the interpretation in which we said that the Lord our Savior was figuratively shown in this reading as both priest and king, it must be understood as prefigured, that the priestly food, upon the coming of the Lord, was no longer to be given to Levi or the people of the children of Israel only, but to all the Gentiles who are to be called to faith. For it has been said to all who hunger for righteousness, who wish to belong to the company of the true David: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession (1 Peter 2). And because we have spoken about the mystery to the best of our ability, Josephus's statements (Antiquities 3, 13) also help to elucidate the plain sense of the letter more clearly regarding the showbread, which we thought should be briefly looked into and inserted into our treatise for the benefit of the readers. For, since the religion and status of Jerusalem and the temple were still standing in his times, he could very easily know and reveal to the readers what was carried out by the priests through hereditary succession, as he himself was a priest. He says, therefore, "they used to make them out of fine flour without leaven, twenty-four in number." And he adds: "They are baked two by two, split before the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath morning, they are placed on the sacred table, facing each other, with two golden dishes full of incense placed on top of them, which remain until the next Sabbath, when other loaves are brought in their place. Those loaves are then offered to the priests, and after the incense is burnt in the sacred fire, in which all holocausts are made, other incense is added to the other loaves."

Commentary on Samuel

Now there was there a man of the servants of Saul... and his name was Doeg, etc. There were among the preaching apostles false brothers, the foremost being Judas; indeed within the Church, constituted by the mystery of faith, but moved from the firmness of their stability, bloodthirsty to betray the peace of fraternity (for Doeg is called the Edomite, a bloodthirsty man), the most powerful of the Jewish persecutors, because he received it recently. Nor do I think it should be overlooked that this Doeg, according to the Septuagint interpreters, was not merely any shepherd, but a muleteer; evidently, a shepherd of a sterile and unfruitful flock. For we know a mule, because it is a hybrid from a mare and a donkey, just as conversely a hinny from a stallion and a she-donkey, tends to seek the pleasure of mating without the fruit of generating. Their works are similar to the unfruitful works of darkness, produced from a defiled seed, so to speak, of luxurious or deceitful thoughts. For both animals are equally lustful. Whence it is said of certain ones: "Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is as the issue of horses" (Ezekiel 23). But the donkey's kind, moreover, with more acute sense, is always intent upon deceptions and snares. By these same wicked works, accumulating to a greater degree, with any movement itself from justice, and he is prompt to weave frauds against the just, he is placed in charge with impious zeal, as if feeding, Doeg the Edomite is preferred over the flock of mules.

Commentary on Samuel

But David said to Ahimelech, "If you have a spear or a sword here at hand, etc." The Savior urges the apostles to train their listeners not only to learn but also to teach the word of life, by which He Himself can conquer the world, because He delayed sending preachers of the Gospel throughout the world, who would always fight for the Church against the aerial powers, instead of the angelic virtues through which the law was ordained in the hand of the Mediator. For the word of the king was pressing, that is, the enormity of human depravity, which preferred to reign by neglecting God, compelled that not angels, whose spiritual glory they could not see due to habitual carnal life, but mortal men alike to them should be sent to instruct them, who would proclaim to them to turn from vanity to the living God; who, if they had never sinned, would now rejoice in the familiar fellowship of angelic light.

Commentary on Samuel

And the priest said: Behold the sword of Goliath the Philistine, etc. The apostles said to Christ, teachers seeking against the kingdom of the world: Behold men accustomed to battle for the devil with perverse doctrines for a long time, whom you have overcome in the humility of the cross, are entangled in the trappings of the first transgression, far removed from the garments or ornaments of the priesthood, that is, works worthy of divine sight; if you wish to release them from these same trappings, and promote them to the rank of preaching truth, we know this is due to your power, not to our virtue or piety. For there is no mortal on earth who was not immediately subjected to the service of this kingdom upon being born, because the corrupted root, once defiled, could only produce branches of a corrupted progeny. And the Lord said: No one is better equipped to refute doctrines of vanity than those who were once imbued with them and accustomed to defend them against the Church: from their number, whom I already know to have been snatched from the hands of the devil, I will make teachers and bishops of the Church through teaching and baptizing. The title of Psalm 34 aptly recalls this choice, which reads: A Psalm of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed. For he changed his behavior by declaring a false reason for his journey and concealing the true one. This can be interpreted as the Lord changing his appearance before the apostles, either by appearing immortal after the glory of the resurrection, having previously been seen as mortal before the agony of the passion; or by commanding them to go and teach and baptize all nations (Matthew 28), whereas shortly before he had instructed them to preach only to Judea, avoiding the ways of the Gentiles and the cities of the Samaritans; but he sent them out to preach everywhere, himself cooperating and confirming the word by the accompanying signs (Mark 16), and he himself departed by the triumph of his ascension, returning to heaven. And in the same Psalm, the Lord himself testifies in the first part that he continuously blesses the Father, admonishing his meek ones—the apostles—to persevere with him in preaching his praise, who had delivered him from the tribulation of passion and death. In the second part, he declares the rewards for the faithful's conversion, especially encouraging them to the feast of that most sweet bread, which in the present reading he receives sanctified, to be shared with his own in the kingdom of the Father. In the third part, he admonishes his boys as if they were his children, from whom they should abstain from impurities when approaching this bread. In the fourth part, he says the just will be delivered from all tribulations, and the impious will suffer due punishments. These things have been briefly stated by way of summary, so that every reader may recognize how excellently and harmoniously Scripture always and everywhere concurs with itself. And if anyone wishes to object that the priest to whom David came was called Ahimelech, not Abimelech, we respond that he had two names, not according to our opinion, but according to the inscription of another Psalm, which states: When Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul, and said to him: David has come to the house of Abimelech (Psalm 52). And even by this name the glory of the saints is not improperly shown, for it means "My Father's kingdom." They are the ones of whom the Lord spoke the parable of the kingdom: A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself, and to return (Luke 19). That is, Christ the man, departing from the bosom of the Father, went to men who had distanced themselves from his grace by sinning, to make them worthy of his reign, and to return with them to the joys of eternal peace. And concerning whom the Apostle, preaching the glory of the resurrection, had said: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at his coming, then the end; he added and said: When he hands over the kingdom to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15), that is, when he leads those saints he redeemed to the vision of the Father to be glorified.

Commentary on Samuel

10–15

Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, "My beloved ate and drank, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked." [Deuteronomy 32:15] Hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity. So the worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and has become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world. [Wisdom 2:24]

For thus it is written: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." [Genesis 4:3-8] You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother [Genesis 27:41-45]. Envy made Joseph be persecuted unto death, and to come into bondage. [Genesis 37:18-28] Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow-countryman, "Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? Will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?" [Exodus 2:14] On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their abode without the camp. [Numbers 12:14-15] Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God's servant Moses. [Numbers 16:33] Through envy, David not only underwent the hatred of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel. [1 Samuel 21:10-15]

Clement's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 3-4

Is this not David, the king of the land? etc. The scribes and Pharisees of the Jewish kingdom, serving wickedness badly, said: “See that we gain nothing; behold, the whole world has gone after him” (John XII), to whom they sang in choirs, saying: “Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David, Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. XXI; Mark XI). Whom his faithful ones glorify with harmonious exultation, bearing him on high, because more are called to merit the denarius of heavenly life through his teaching than through ours are summoned to observe the commands of the law.

Commentary on Samuel

David, however, placed these words in his heart, etc. The Lord saw in his wisdom the unbelieving and deceitful hearts of some of the Jews; and, as the Scripture customarily speaks of God in human manner, he feared so much from the face of the people who were his brothers by human communion of fragility, but were persecutors by the impiety of their conspiracy against the Lord, that to them he spoke his sacraments or warnings more in parables and riddles than in open light, lest he cast the holy to dogs and pearls to swine (Matt. VII). For just as David, who was accustomed to always show himself sober to his own, altered his mouth before the Gittites; so also the Lord, speaking in parables before the proud and those bearing hearts eager to torment him and his own, privately made everything manifest by explanation to his own; and indeed he appeared to them in understanding so that they might comprehend the scriptures. Some wish to say that the Lord altered his mouth when he said: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, but I say to you" (Matt. V); or when, with the priesthood having been transferred, he wanted also the transfer of the law and ceremonies to take place. But they should observe that he did not show this type of change specifically to his enemies, but rather to those receiving the mysteries of his faith; and for that reason, the alteration of the mouth, which the blessed David exhibited as a type of him so that he would not be recognized by his enemies, is rather to be referred to the understanding of those who, seeing the signs and doctrine of the Savior, did not see, and hearing, did not understand.

Commentary on Samuel

All these modes of expression will be thought lies, if a figurative expression or action is to be considered a lie. But, if it is not a lie when signs signifying one thing are put for another to serve the understanding of a truth, certainly that should not be judged a lie either which Jacob did or said to his father in order to be blessed, or what Joseph said in sporting with his brothers, or David’s pretense of insanity, or other signs of the same kind. They should be judged as prophetic expressions and actions set forth for the understanding of those things which are true. Those things are veiled in figures, in garments as it were, in order that they may exercise the mind of the pious inquirer and not become cheap for being bare and obvious. Although we have learned their meaning stated openly and plainly in other places, still, when they are dug out of obscurity, they are somehow recreated in our knowledge and thus become sweet. A student is not hindered because they are shrouded in this way. On the contrary, they are rendered more acceptable: for being remote they are more ardently desired, and for being desired they are more joyfully discovered.

Against Lying 10.24

When Saul was pursuing David, David fled to king Achish, and since through the motive of jealousy he was suspected there, he carefully changed his countenance, covering his face with spittle so that he would be thought to be diabolically possessed and thus released unharmed as an object of pity. But these and other deeds were accomplished by David as evidence of a great mystery, for he showed that the spittle, which represented the holy Scriptures, was running down his beard, that is, had great strength. The significance of these things led to the substitution of the name of Abimelech, meaning “kingdom of my father,” for Achish, to whom David had fled. Clearly this incident aptly refers to the Lord Christ, through whom the glorious Father with most holy devotion undertook service to the world. The expression “who dismissed him” refers to king Abimelech; “and he went his way” means that David departed to another region because, as we have said, he had begun to be suspected.

Exposition of the Psalms 33 (34).1

And he collapsed in their hands, etc. The hands of the Gethites, the works of the Jews; the doors of the gate reveal the beginnings of heavenly grace; saliva signifies infirmity; the beard signifies virtue. David collapsed in the hands of the Gethites; the Lord seemed to the blind to fall into sin, compared to the works of the Jews, who not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was their Father, making Himself equal to God (John V). David struck against the doors of the gate; the Lord found the fall of death among the beginnings of the proclaimed new salvation, which prefers to now open the doors to the worthy, now to close them to the unworthy; indeed, He had the doors of life through the occasion of death, either because the Jews, persecuting Him, managed to kill the grace of the evangelical preaching, or because He Himself, that He might open the gates of paradise for us, deigned to extinguish the flaming and turning sword with His blood and water, which He would bring forth from His side. Hence, it is fitting that the Psalmist, seeing Him, so that He might lead us to announce His praise at the gates of the daughter of Zion, first spoke of striking against the doors of the gate when He had warned about our hope of salvation, saying, "Our God, our saving God, will make a prosperous journey for us, our God, the God of salvation, and the exits of death belong to the Lord God" (Psalm 68). The saliva flowed down David's beard, and the Lord on the cross, despised and blasphemed among thieves by the wicked, enduring all things patiently, temporarily covered the strength of His divinity with the show of human frailty. Hence, the prophet Habakkuk, commending the trophy of the glorious cross, said: "His splendor will be like the light, horns in His hands, where His strength was hidden" (Habakkuk 3). For it is not for nothing that in the Song of Songs, where so much skill, such diligent repetition of the mystical Christ, just as all the limbs of the Church, are described, we find nothing said about the beard alone, which especially befits a man, because undoubtedly the perpetual virtue of the word clothed the beard as if with saliva, the weakness of the flesh hiding it in time. Therefore, He changed His mouth, hiding the mysteries of the kingdom of God from those who preferred to be outside. He collapsed in their hands, appearing as a sinner to those who boasted of the works and righteousness of the law. He struck against the doors of the gate, among the beginnings of the revealed heavenly entrance, undergoing the inflicted passion, casting saliva on His beard, temporarily hiding the divine power and majesty, among the vices and mockeries of enemies, at that time ignominious, that is, dying the shameful death of the cross.

Commentary on Samuel

And Achish said, "Have you seen the man who is insane," etc.? David, indeed, suspected by the Gittites due to his reputation for virtues, industriously imitated the actions of one who was mad, so that he might be thought to be possessed and, pitied by those who saw him, released unharmed. But their king, unaware of his pretense, truly expelled him as if he were insane, excluding him from entering his house as a madman. Nor does the truth of allegory depart from the shadow of history. For the Lord, to heal the eyes of the hearts of those who could not see the glory of His divinity, applied the ointment of human humility; but some of the impious accused Him in His sufferings as if He were a man of frailty, in His virtues as if demoniac, and abhorred Him as performing miracles by a power contrary to God. Finally, as the Gospel recounts, we learn not only what was thought by adversaries, but also what was thought and said by His own, who were not yet strengthened in full faith: "And they came to the house, and again a crowd gathered, so that they could not even eat bread. And when His family heard it, they went out to seize Him; for they said, 'He is out of his mind'" (Mark 3). This His family did, still carnal in their perception, due to the immeasurable quantity and quality of His growing virtues; but look also at what the others did: "And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of demons He casts out demons'" (Matthew 12; Mark 3). But even after His resurrection and ascension into heaven, as the apostles preached the truth of the Gospel, some deranged people ridiculed and rejected it as madness. Hence it is that the one who is debtor to both the wise and the foolish, bearing witness to Christ, heard: "You are insane, Paul; much learning is driving you mad" (Acts 26). Consequently, all who accuse Christ of madness and mania, it is no wonder if, by contemptuously rejecting Him, they furiously exclude Him from the house of their minds.

Commentary on Samuel