THEOSISEusebius of Caesarea
When faced with the choice between righteousness and wickedness, he opted for the latter, choosing unrighteousness when called to do good. He acted unjustly by slandering the priest, attributing to him actions that were not his. The claim that the high priest questioned God regarding David was indeed a falsehood, as the Scriptures affirm nothing of the sort. The high priest might have accurately informed Saul that he was unaware of the reasons for David's departure, welcoming him instead as a friend of the king. It is clear that the high priest did not provide David with provisions, lacking even the necessary bread for his journey. In fact, he expressed regret to David, stating, "I have no ordinary bread at hand, but there is consecrated bread" (1 Sam. 21:4, 6).
Read more (139 words)
Thus, he did not stockpile supplies; rather, he chose to give according to the needs, exceeding what the law required by offering the sacred loaves due to his reverent and righteous character. Despite such considerations, Doeg could have spoken the truth if he had desired; instead, he chose to press on with his falsehoods, prioritizing deceit over honesty. Indeed, he had a penchant for harmful speech, favoring a deceptive tongue (Psalms 51:6). He made every effort to bring slander, destruction, and death upon the high priest and those who suffered alongside him. Consequently, the false utterances of Doeg are likened to the words of the flood (Psalms 51:6), as his words overwhelmed the entire priestly city. However, Doeg is not unique in this; anyone fueled by anger can engage in similar acts, harnessing the power of wickedness with impunity.