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.

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?^[1] 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.^[2] The apostle also agrees with this: Do not lie to one another.^[3]

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.^[1] Another element is depicted for us there. Before David was persecuted, he partook of the bread with authority.

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.^[1] . . . 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.^[2] 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?

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.

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,^[1] 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.