The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Samuel — Section 399

eigli ·~:-fi,·e priests now dwelt nt ]Sfob, where the tabernacle (and possibly tlm ark- cl1. v11. 1) h~d been placed. Bu~ (he condition of the priesthood was very different from what 1t ~)1CC was. The_spmtual power of the_ nation la.l'. in the "_company of t~e prophets; and Saul,_ r_eJected o~ God_ and ruhng accor1mg to his own will, ' assumed the l:'ower of gIYmg the l11gh pnest orders at all times through his mes- sengers (eh. xx1. 2); so far had the theocracy sunk from that state in which the people used to stand before the tabernacle to receive the sole behests of Jehovah their K~ng, through. the prop_het and priest "(Smith, 'O. T. History'). Neverthe- less Alumelech (Al11ah, eh. xiv. 36) appears to have been a man of high character ( eh. xxii. 14, 15) ; and when David, in his necessity, requested "five loaves" he gave them to him from the shewbread which had just been removed from the' holy place. He may have been influenced by sympathy with David's character and posit\on ( of which he could not fail to know something), as well as by compassion for l11s need and by loyalty to the king, or by the advice of Abiathar (bis son and suc- cessor, afterwards friend and companion of David-eh. xxii. 20-23; 1 Kings ii. 26 ; and removed from ~he pr~estl,ood by Solomon, giving place to Zadok, of the elder branch of the Aaromc family). The shewbread (literally, 11 bread of the presence") 11 set forth Isra,~l's perm~ne1;1t consecration ,i~ obedience and in producing the fruit of good works (see Fa1rba1rn, 'Typology, 11. 324), and was permitted to be eaten only by the priests (Levit. xxiv. 9); but he departed, with some reserve (ver. 4) from the strict later in observance of the spirit of the law. And our Lord II selected this act of Ahimelech as the one incident in David's life on which to bestow his especial commendation, because it contained-however tremulously and guardedly expressed-the great evangelical truth that the ceremonial law, however rigid, must gi,e way before the claims of suffering humanity" (Stanley). Observe that- I. THE LETTER IS DISTINCT FROM THE SPIRIT. To the former belong particular customs, maxims, rules, rites, and ceremonies; to the latter, general principles, and essential moral and spiritual obligations. As a simple illustration-Christ said to his di5ciples, 11 Ye also ought to wash one another's feet" (here is the rule); 11 Love one another" (here is the principle). 1. The letter rests upon the spi,rit as its foundation. The whole Mosaic law, as law (moral, ceremonial, political), was a II letter" based upon great principles, springing directly out of the relation of God to men-granite foundations on which more recent strata rest, and which often crop through them into distinct view (Levit. xviii. 18; Deut. vi. 5). 11 There is a 'letter' and 'spirit' in everything. Every statement, every law, every institution is the form of an essence, the body of a soul, the instrument of a power. These two things are quite distinct-they may be quite different" (A. J. Morris, 'Christ the Spirit of Christi- anity'). 2. The letter is a means to an end, the spirit is the end itself. The shew- bread was set apart for a particular purpose, and permitted to be eaten only by the priests, in order to represent and promote the consecration, good ~.orks, a1;~ true welfare of the whole _people. So "the sabbatb was made for man· (Mark u. 27). 3. The letter is restricted in its application to certain persons, places, and times; the spirit is universal and abiding. 4. The letter (as such) is in its requirement outward, formal, mechanical, and in its effect conservative, constraining, and pre- paratory; the spirit necessarily demands thoughtfulness, affection, moral choice, and is productive of liberty, energy, perfection. 11 The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" (John vi. 63). II. THE LETTER MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT. It is not essentially BO; it is not always so wl1en men imagine it to be, as, e. g., when it is a restraint only up_on their selfish convenience and sinful propensities. The fact that it is such a restramt shows that they still need the discipline of the law and the letter. If they were truly spiritual and free it would not be felt. But generally-I. When it is applied t~ Calfell not contemplated by it,-to inappropriate times and circumstances,-and when 1t hln- ders rather than promotes its chief end. 2. More particularly when it prevents t~e meeting of the real and urgent necessities of men, and the accomplishment of_ their true welfare-the satisfaction of hunger, ihe removal of sickness, the preservat10n II of life the salvation of the soul (Matt. xii. 1, 12). On this principle David entered int~ the house of God, and did eat the shewbrnad," &c. 3. When it is opposed to the proper exercise of benevolence. On this principle Ahimelech gave him the bread,_ OB. XXI. 1-15.] THE FJilST BOC!\. U~ ~1\.MUEL. 40i