David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?”
He said to him, “Far from it; you will not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small, but that he discloses it to me. Why would my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.”
David swore moreover, and said, “Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he says, ‘Don’t let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved;’ but truly as Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death.”
Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your soul desires, I will even do it for you.”
David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to dine with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field to the third day at evening. If your father misses me at all, then say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city; for it is the yearly sacrifice there for all the family.’ If he says, ‘It is well,’ your servant shall have peace; but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by him. Therefore deal kindly with your servant; for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Yahweh with you; but if there is iniquity in me, kill me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?”
Jonathan said, “Far be it from you; for if I should at all know that evil were determined by my father to come on you, then wouldn’t I tell you that?”
Then David said to Jonathan, “Who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?”
Jonathan said to David, “Come! Let’s go out into the field.” They both went out into the field. Jonathan said to David, “By Yahweh, the God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if there is good toward David, won’t I then send to you, and disclose it to you? Yahweh do so to Jonathan, and more also, should it please my father to do you evil, if I don’t disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in peace. May Yahweh be with you, as he has been with my father. You shall not only show me the loving kindness of Yahweh while I still live, that I not die; but you shall also not cut off your kindness from my house forever; no, not when Yahweh has cut off every one of the enemies of David from the surface of the earth.” So Jonathan made a covenant with David’s house, saying, “Yahweh will require it at the hand of David’s enemies.” Jonathan caused David to swear again, for the love that he had to him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul. Then Jonathan said to him, “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty. When you have stayed three days, go down quickly, and come to the place where you hid yourself when this started, and remain by the stone Ezel. I will shoot three arrows on its side, as though I shot at a mark. Behold, I will send the boy, saying, ‘Go, find the arrows!’ If I tell the boy, ‘Behold, the arrows are on this side of you. Take them;’ then come; for there is peace to you and no danger, as Yahweh lives. But if I say this to the boy, ‘Behold, the arrows are beyond you;’ then go your way; for Yahweh has sent you away. Concerning the matter which you and I have spoken of, behold, Yahweh is between you and me forever.”
So David hid himself in the field. When the new moon had come, the king sat himself down to eat food. The king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall; and Jonathan stood up, and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was empty. Nevertheless Saul didn’t say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has happened to him. He is not clean. Surely he is not clean.”
On the next day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was empty. Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why doesn’t the son of Jesse come to eat, either yesterday, or today?”
Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked permission of me to go to Bethlehem. He said, ‘Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city. My brother has commanded me to be there. Now, if I have found favor in your eyes, please let me go away and see my brothers.’ Therefore he has not come to the king’s table.”
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, don’t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you will not be established, nor will your kingdom. Therefore now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die!”
Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?”
Saul cast his spear at him to strike him. By this Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death. So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month; for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully. In the morning, Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little boy with him. He said to his boy, “Run, find now the arrows which I shoot.” As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. When the boy had come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the boy, and said, “Isn’t the arrow beyond you?” Jonathan cried after the boy, “Go fast! Hurry! Don’t delay!” Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows, and came to his master. But the boy didn’t know anything. Only Jonathan and David knew the matter. Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to him, “Go, carry them to the city.”
As soon as the boy was gone, David arose out of the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times. They kissed one another, and wept one with another, and David wept the most. Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have both sworn in Yahweh’s name, saying, ‘Yahweh is between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” He arose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42 For Saul was stayed, and prophesied a day and…
For Saul was stayed, and prophesied a day and a night by God’s providence, that David might have time to escape.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–42 1Sa 20:1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah,…
1Sa 20:1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what [is] mine iniquity? and what [is] my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
Ver. 1. And David fled from Naioth in Ramah.] To Gibeah of Saul, which is twelve miles from Ramah, say some, {a} and where Jonathan was resident and president in his father’s absence. Hither David was hunted "as a partridge in the mountains"; and so hard bestead, that he knew not whither to betake him, unless it were to heaven (as he did, Psa 11:1-7 throughout), and to his fast friend Jonathan, who did his utmost for him when he was forlorn and forsaken of his hopes: God being now fitting him for the kingdom, by making "his soul even as a weaned child." {Psa 131:2}
Read full note →
That he seeketh my life.] There could no other reason be given of it, but that Saul was an unreasonable and wicked, or troublesome, man, {2Th 3:2} acted and agitated by that old man-slayer, "who worketh effectually in the children of disobedience," {Eph 2:2} as a smith worketh in his forge. Poor David found the doing of anything or of nothing dangerous alike; such was the malice of his enemy, who was captain of the devil’s sworn swordmen.
{a} Patriach., Travels.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 David fled, whilst Saul lay in an ecstasy,
David fled, whilst Saul lay in an ecstasy,
from Naioth in Ramah to Gibeah, where Jonathan was, taking the opportunity of Saul’s absence.
Read full note →
What is my sin before thy father? what is it which thus incenseth thy father against me? what crime doth he charge me with?
That he seeketh my life, to wit, to destroy it, as this phrase is oft used, as 1Sa 22:23; Psa 38:12; 54:3; 63:9.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 24, 35 Here, I. David makes a representation to Jonathan of…
Here, I. David makes a representation to Jonathan of his present troubles. While Saul lay bound by his trance at Naioth David escaped to the court, and got to speak with Jonathan. And it was happy for him that he had such a friend at court, when he had such an enemy on the throne. If there be those that hate and despise us, let us not be disturbed at that, for there are those also that love and respect us. God hath set the one over against the other, and so must we. Jonathan was a friend that loved at all times, loved David as well now in his distress, and bade him as welcome into his arms, as he had done when he was in his triumph (Sa1 18:1), and he was a brother that was born for adversity, Pro 17:17. Now, 1. David appeals to Jonathan himself concerning his innocency, and he needed not say much to him for the proof of it, only he desired him that if he knew of any just offence he had given his father he would tell him, that he might humble himself and beg his pardon: What have I done? Sa1 20:1. 2. He endeavors to convince him that, notwithstanding his innocency, Saul sought his life. Jonathan, from a principal of filial respect to his father, was very loth to believe that he designed or would ever do so wicked a thing, Sa1 20:2. He the rather hoped so because he knew nothing of any such design, and he had usually been made privy to all his counsels. Jonathan, as became a dutiful son, endeavored to cover his father's shame, as far as was consistent with justice and fidelity to David. Charity is not forward to think evil of any, especially of a parent, Co1 13:5. David therefore gives him the assurance of an oath concerning his own danger, swears the peace upon Saul, that he was in fear of his life by him: "As the Lord liveth, than which nothing more sure in itself, and as thy soul liveth, than which nothing more certain to thee, whatever thou thinkest, there is but a step between me and death," Sa1 20:3. And, as for Saul's concealing it from Jonathan, it was easy to account for that; he knew the friendship between him and David, and therefore, though in other things he advised with him, yet not in that. None more fit than Jonathan to serve him in every design that was just and honourable, but he knew him to be a man of more virtue than to be his confidant in so base a design as the murder of David.
II. Jonathan generously offers him his service (Sa1 20:4): Whatsoever thou desirest, he needed not insert the proviso of lawful and honest (for he knew David too well to think he would ask any thing that was otherwise), I will even do it for thee. This is true friendship. Thus Christ testifies his love to us: Ask, and it shall be done for you; and we must testify ours to him by keeping his commandments.
Read full note →
III. David only desires him to satisfy himself, and then to satisfy him whether Saul did really design his death or no. Perhaps David proposed this more for Jonathan's conviction than his own, for he himself was well satisfied. 1. The method of trial he proposed was very natural, and would certainly discover how Saul stood affected to him. The two next days Saul was to dine publicly, upon occasion of the solemnities of the new moon, when extraordinary sacrifices were offered and feasts made upon the sacrifices. Saul was rejected of God, and the Spirit of the Lord had departed from him, yet he kept up his observance of the holy feasts. There may be the remains of external devotion where there is nothing but the ruins of real virtue. At these solemn feasts Saul had either all his children to sit with him, and David had a seat as one of them, or all his great officers, and David had a seat as one of them. However it was, David resolved his seat should be empty (and that it never used to be at a sacred feast) those two days (Sa1 20:5), and he would abscond till the solemnity was over, and put it upon this issue: if Saul admitted an excuse for his absence, and dispensed with it, he would conclude he had changed his mind and was reconciled to him; but if he resented it, and was put into a passion by it, it was easy to conclude he designed him a mischief, since it was certain he did not love him so well as to desire his presence for any other end than that he might have an opportunity to do him a mischief, Sa1 20:7. 2. The excuse he desired Jonathan to make for his absence, we have reason to think, was true, that he was invited by his elder brother to Bethlehem, his own city, to celebrate this new moon with his relations there, because, besides the monthly solemnity in which they held communion with all Israel, they had now a yearly sacrifice, and a holy feast upon it, for all the family, Sa1 20:6. They kept a day of thanksgiving in their family for the comforts they enjoyed, and of prayer for the continuance of them. By this it appears that the family David was of was a very religious family, a house that had a church in it. 3. The arguments he used with Jonathan to persuade him to do this kindness for him were very pressing, Sa1 20:8. (1.) That he had entered into a league of friendship with him, and it was Jonathan's own proposal: Thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord with thee. (2.) That he would by no means urge him to espouse his cause if he was not sure that it was a righteous cause: "If there be iniquity in me, I am so far from desiring or expecting that the covenant between us should bind thee to be a confederate with me in that iniquity that I freely release thee from it, and wish that my hand may be first upon me: Slay me thyself." No honest man will urge his friend to do a dishonest thing for his sake.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–42 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah,.... While Saul…
And David fled from Naioth in Ramah,.... While Saul was prophesying, or lay in a trance there:
and came; to Gibeah, where Saul dwelt, and had his palace, and kept his court:
Read full note →
and said before Jonathan; whom he found there, and for whose sake he thither fled to have his advice, and to use his interest with his father, and be his friend at court:
what have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life? surely, as if he should say, I must have been guilty of some very great crime, and yet I am not sensible of it; canst thou tell me what it is that has so provoked thy father, that nothing will satisfy him but the taking away of my life, which he seeks to do?
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, 37, 40 David complains to Jonathan; and desires his help, ver.…
David complains to Jonathan; and desires his help, ver. 1-5. Jonathan promises to give him intelligence, and confirms his friendship, ver. 9-23. He finds his father implacable, ver. 24-34. He gives David notice of it, in the manner they had agreed on, ver. 35-42.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 25, 29, 30, 34, 38, 40, 41 David complains to Jonathan of Saul's enmity against him;
CHAPTER XX
David complains to Jonathan of Saul's enmity against him;
Read full note →
Jonathan comforts him, 1-10.
They walk out into the field, and renew their covenant, 11-17.
David asks Jonathan's leave to absent himself from Saul's
court; and Jonathan informs him how he shall ascertain the
disposition of his father towards him, 18-23.
David hides himself; is missed by Saul; Jonathan is questioned
concerning his absence; makes an excuse for David; Saul is
enraged, and endeavours to kill Jonathan, 24-33.
Jonathan goes out to the field; gives David the sign which they
had agreed on, and by which he was to know that the king had
determined to take away his life, 34-39.
He sends his servant back into the city; and then he and David
meet, renew their covenant, and have a very affectionate
parting, 40-42.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Verse 1. David fled frown Naioth] On hearing that Saul had come to that place, knowing that he was no longer in safety, he fled for his life.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 42 1Sa 20:1. David fled, and came and said before…
1Sa 20:1. David fled, and came and said before Jonathan — Saul’s being thrown into a trance, as mentioned in the foregoing verse, gave David time to escape, and he went from Naioth to Gibeah, where Jonathan was. “It was happy for David that he had such a friend at court, when he had such an enemy on the throne.” — Henry. What have I done? What is mine iniquity? — He appeals to Jonathan himself concerning his innocence, and endeavours to convince him that, notwithstanding he had committed no iniquity, Saul sought his life.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 19, 26, 30, 41, 42 While Saul was under the constraining influence of the…
While Saul was under the constraining influence of the spirit of prophecy, David escaped from Naioth, and, probably by Samuel’s advice, returned to Saul’s court to commune with Jonathan. Nothing could be a better evidence of his innocence than thus putting himself in Jonathan’s power. Perhaps something passed between Samuel and Saul on the subject, since it appears from 1Sa 20:5, 1Sa 20:25, 1Sa 20:27, that Saul expected David at the feast of the new moon.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42 To Jonathan, at Gabaa. He thought it no longer…
To Jonathan, at Gabaa. He thought it no longer safe to remain at Najoth.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came…
1Sa_20:1-23
1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan,1 What have I done? what is my iniquity and what is my sin before thy father that 2he seeketh my life? And he said unto him, God forbid [Far be it2]! Thou shalt not die; behold, my father will do3 nothing either great or small but that he will 3show it me, and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. And David sware4 moreover,5 and said, Thy father certainly knoweth [knoweth well]6 that I have found grace in thine eyes, and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this.7 lest he be grieved. But truly, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, and as thy soul 4liveth, there is but a step between me and death.8 Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said] unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth [saith],9 I will even [om. 5even] do it for thee. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to-morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit10 with the king at meat; but let me go, that 6I may hide myself in the field unto the third11 day at even. If thy father at all [decidedly]12 miss me, then say, David earnestly asked13 leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem, his city, for there is a yearly sacrifice14 there for all the family. 7If he say thus, It is well, [ins. then] thy servant shall have peace; but if he be 8very wroth,15 then be sure that evil is determined by him. Therefore [And] thou shalt deal kindly with16 thy servant, for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] with thee; notwithstanding [but], if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself, for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? And Jonathan 9said, Far be it17 from thee; for, if I knew certainly that evil were determined 10by my father to come upon thee, then would I not tell it thee?18 Then said David [And David said] to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly ?19 And Jonathan said unto David, Come and let us go out 11into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
Read full note →
12And Jonathan said unto David, O [By]20 Lord [Jehovah], God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to-morrow any time [this time to-morrow] or the third day,21 and behold, if there be good towards David, and I then send not 13unto thee and shew it thee, the Lord [Jehovah] do so and much more to Jonathan.22 [13] But if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace, and the Lord [Jehovah] be with thee 14as he hath been with my father. And thou shalt not only [And O that thou wouldest]23 while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord [Jehovah] that I 15die not [And O,23 if I die]. But also thou shalt [that thou wouldst] not cut off thy kindness from my house forever, no, not [ins. even] when the Lord [Jehovah] 16hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So [And] Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying,24 Let the Lore, even require [David, and Jehovah required] it at the hand of David’s enemies.
17And Jonathan caused David to swear25 again, because he loved him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
18Then [And] Jonathan said to David [him], To-morrow is the new moon, and 19thou shalt [wilt] be missed, because thy seat will be empty. And when thou hast stayed three days, then [om. then] thou shalt go down quickly26 and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and thou shalt 20remain by the stone Ezel.27 And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as 21though I shot at a mark.28 And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find out [om. out] the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them, then come thou, for there is peace to thee and no hurt, 22as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth. But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold the arrows are beyond thee, [ins. then] go thy way, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath sent 23thee away. And, as touching [as to] the matter which thou and I [I and thou] have spoken of, behold the Lord [Jehovah] be between thee and me [me and thee] forever.29
2. Jonathan learns Saul’s disposition towards David, and gives information to the latter, who flees
1Sa_20:24 to 1Sa_21:1 [1Sa_20:42]
24So [And] David hid himself in the field. And when the new moon was 25come, the king sat him down to eat meat. And the king sat upon his seat as at other times, even [om. even] upon a [the] seat by the wall, and Jonathan arose30 26and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s place was empty. Nevertheless [And] Saul spake not any thing that day, for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he 27is not clean, surely he is not clean.31 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month [the morrow of the new moon, the second day],32 that David’s place was empty; and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore 28cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day? And Jonathan 29answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; And he said, Let me go, I pray thee, for our family hath a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he33 hath commanded me to be there; and now, if I have found favor in thine eyes, let me get away,34 I pray thee, and see my brother. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table.
30Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman,35 do I not know that thou hast chosen36 the son of Jesse to thy own confusion [shame] and unto the confusion [shame] of thy 31mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore [And] now, send and fetch 32him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father and 33said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? And Saul cast37 a [his] javelin at him to smite him, whereby [and] Jonathan knew that it was determined38 34of his father to slay David. So [And] Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
35And it came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out into the field at the 36time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. And he said unto his lad, Run, find out [om. out] now the arrows which I shoot. And as [om. and as] the 37lad ran [ins. and] he shot an [the] arrow beyond him. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the 38lad and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee? And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrows39 and 39came40 to his master. But [And] the lad knew not any thing; only Jonathan and 40David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave his artillery41 unto his lad, and said 41unto him, Go, carry them to the city. As soon as the lad was gone [The lad went.] [ins. And] David arose out of a place toward the south [arose from beside the stone],42 and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David exceeded [wept greatly].43 42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] saying, The Lord [Jehovah] be between me and thee and between my seed and thy seed forever.
1Sa_21:1 And he arose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. 1Sa_20:1-23. Conversation and agreement between David and Jonathan on the mode of discovering Saul’s real attitude toward David, and informing him of it.
1Sa_20:1 is connected immediately with the foregoing, the narrative of David’s flight from Naioth in Ramah standing in pragmatic connection with the account (close of 1 Samuel 19.) of the proceedings of Saul and his messengers. They came to seize David; instead of which the irresistible Spirit of God had overpowered them and defeated their design. David must herein have seen the protecting hand of his God, which thus gave him opportunity to flee from Naioth, where he could no longer Find asylum.—Having by flight escaped the machinations of Saul and his followers, he seeks and finds a way to an interview with Jonathan.—David’s three-fold question as to his fault is a three-fold denial of it, since it involves as many assertions of his innocence. An echo of this assertion is found in the declaration, so frequent in the Davidic Psalms, of his innocence and purity in respect to the persecutions of his enemies.—That he seeks my soul, that is, my life, comp. Exo_4:19. S. Schmid: “The questions in this verse are an appeal to Jonathan’s own knowledge.”
1Sa_20:2. Jonathan’s answer to David’s complaint is (1) the distinct assurance: far be it, thou shalt not die, and (2) the ground of this affirmation. Though this assurance has immediate reference to what David says of Saul’s attack on him (as Jonathan’s following words are intended to show that he knew nothing of such a murderous plan on Saul’s part), yet at the same time Jonathan, looking to David’s high divine mission for the people, prophetically declares what was determined in the Divine counsel concerning the maintenance and preservation of his friend’s life.—For לו (“to him”) read לֹא (“not.”) The marginal Impf. (יַעֲשֶׂח) is to be preferred to the Perf. of the text, expressing customary action (“does nothing” [Eng. A. V. “will do nothing”]); so Sept., Vulg., Chald. We may indeed read the word as Prtcp. with Bunsen, who therefore regards the “masoretic change” as unnecessary. Jonathan means to say: “My father as a rule does nothing without telling me, nothing great or small,” that is, absolutely nothing, comp. 1Sa_22:15, 1Sa_25:36, Num_22:18. The appended remark: “Why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so!” supposes that the intitimate relation between Jonathan and David had been concealed as far as possible from Saul. They were secret friends, as far as he was concerned. Otherwise Saul would certainly not have spoken to his son Jonathan (1Sa_19:1) of his purpose to kill David. This confirms what Jonathan here says to David. Saul’s lack of self-control44 showed itself in his taking counsel about his scheme of murder with those about him, his violent passion so mastering him that he could not at all conceal the fury of his heart. His communication of his plan (1Sa_19:1) was the occasion of Jonathan’s hindering it; Saul even swore to Jonathan that he would not kill David, and this Jonathan told David (1Sa_19:6-7). To this Jonathan’s word here refers: “thou shalt not die,” &c. Since that time there had been another war with the Philistines (ib. 1Sa_20:8), and shortly before this conversation of David and Jonathan the incident narrated in 1Sa_20:9-24 occurred. David’s words in 1Sa_20:3 : “he (Saul) thought Jonathan must not know this,” confirm Jonathan’s assurance that his father had told him nothing of a plan of murder. But, it may properly be asked, did Jonathan know nothing of the events just described, on which David’s declaration is based? It is certainly possible that he [Jonathan] was at that time absent from court; but the connection does not favor this view. But, if he were present, Saul’s attempt against David could not possibly have remained concealed from him. Accepting this supposition as the more probable, we must, in order to understand Jonathan’s words, look at the whole situation. The account of all the occurrences from 1Sa_19:9 on exhibits Saul in a relatively unsound state of mind, produced by a new attack of rage and madness. As now Saul had before, after recovering from such an attack, sworn to Jonathan in consequence of his representations, that he would not kill David, Jonathan might regard this late attempt on David as the result of a new but temporary access of rage, and, remembering his distinct oath in his lucid period, might suppose that he would not in a quiet state of mind resolve on and execute such a murder. Thus his decided “it is not so” may be psychologically explained. Nägelsbach: “Between 1Sa_19:2 and 1Sa_20:2 there is no contradiction, since in the latter passage Jonathan merely denies that there is now a new attempt against David’s life” (Herz. R.-E. xiii. 403). But while Jonathan had in mind merely the symptom in his father’s condition, David knew how deeply rooted in envy and jealousy Saul’s hate toward him was. He assures him with an oath, what was perfectly clear to him, that Saul sought his destruction. עוֹד refers to what is said in 1Sa_20:1, and so=“thereto, moreover,” not “the second time, again,” since nothing is said of a previous oath. David’s reply contains two things: (1) the explanation (connected with the indirect affirmation that Saul had resolved to murder him) of Jonathan’s statement that Saul had said nothing to him of the murder, by referring to Saul’s undoubted knowledge of the friendship between them, and (2) the assertion (with a double oath) that he saw nothing but death before him. (כִּי is here intensive, =imo, so especially in oaths, 1Sa_14:44, 1Ki_1:29 sq., 1Sa_2:23 f., 2Ki_3:14.—כְּ expresses comparison or similarity). “Yea, as a step, like a step.” The picture is of a precipice, from which he is only a step removed, over which he may any moment be plunged.
1Sa_20:4. Jonathan’s answer supposes that he gives credence to David’s assertion, and proves his friendship by offering his help, with the declaration that he wished to fulfill every wish of his soul. The reply of David (1Sa_20:5) shows how far he had cause to fear that there was only a step between him and death. The recollection of the obligation on him to take part in the new moon feast at court as a member of Saul’s family (not merely as one (Then.) who had a standing formal invitation), brings him face to face with the danger in which his life stood; for the feast fell on the following day. On the religious celebration of the day of new moon with burnt-offering and sin-offering and sound of trumpet see Num_10:10; Num_28:11-15. As a joyful festival it was connected with a cheerful meal. To this refers Saul’s conjecture (1Sa_20:26) that David was absent on account of levitical uncleanness. And I must sit at table with the King. That is, as a matter of course, according to custom, he would be expected by Saul to take part in the meal. The Vulg. rightly renders ex more sedere soleo, but the Sept., proceeding from the fact that David was not present, wrongly inserts a negative: “I shall not sit at meat.” Ew. § 338 b.: “I am to sit,” where the meaning is, “I will certainly sit.” As in 1Sa_16:2, it is here supposed that the custom was to sit, not to recline at table.—Let me go, that I may hide myself. This is not a mere formula of courtesy, but a request that Jonathan would not press him to appear at table, but permit him to depart, that he might escape the danger threatening him. Till the evening of the third day, that is, from the present day. This supposes that the festival was prolonged by a meal the day after new moon.—Comp. 1Sa_20:12; 1Sa_20:27; 1Sa_20:34, where Saul looks for David also the day after new moon.—From the fact that both David and Saul here look to the former’s appearance at the royal table, it has been held (Then., Ew.) that this whole narrative contradicts 1 Samuel 19., and is taken from another source. But there is no contradiction if we remember that Saul acted (according to 1Sa_19:9 sq.) under an attack of rage or madness, and, on the return of a quiet frame of mind, would expect everything to go on as usual, and the whole personnel of his family to be present at table. After his previous experiences, David must now know certainly whether Saul in his times of quiet and lucidness, maintained against him that hostile disposition which showed itself in his intermittent attacks of rage.
1Sa_20:6. David wishes through Jonathan to determine Saul’s attitude toward him, and find out certainly whether in his hate the latter has really conceived a plan for his destruction. As David, according to 1Sa_20:5, is to hide in the field till the evening of the third day, his excuse for absence can be regarded only as a pretext, or a “lie of necessity,” and the explanation that, by reason of the proximity of Bethlehem to Gibeah, he might, meantime, easily go home, must be rejected as out of keeping with the sense of the whole narrative. In this statement, which Jonathan was to make in case Saul missed David, namely, that the latter had gone to attend a family feast, the fact (easily explained from the absence of a central sanctuary) is supposed “that individual families in Israel were accustomed to celebrate yearly festivals” (Keil); this would be the case more naturally in those places where, as in Bethlehem (comp. 1Sa_16:2 sq.), there were altars dedicated to the Lord as centres of sacrifice. O. v. Gerlach: “In the then disorganized condition of public worship, to which David first gave regular form, family usages of this sort, after the manner of other nations, had established themselves, which were contrary to the prescriptions concerning the unity of divine worship.” On the yearly sacrifice see on 1Sa_1:1.,—(נִשְׁאַל from the connection not Pass. but Reflex.,=“sought for himself.”) David could ask leave of absence from Jonathan as competent representative of the royal family, if he did not wish to go to Saul.
1Sa_20:7. Saul’s conduct in these two contrasted forms, was for Jonathan as for David the sign of his permanent attitude towards David in the condition of quiet in which he now was; for such a sign was necessary not only for Jonathan (S. Schmid) but also for David, since, as appears from the tenor of the whole narration, he did not yet certainly know how Saul in the depths of his heart was disposed towards him. If he says “well,” it means peace for thy servant, that is, from the connection, “he has laid no plot of murder against me.” In the other event, if his “anger burn,” know that evil on his part is a settled thing. כָּלָח = “to be finished, settled,” “firmiter decretum est” (S. Schmid). The “evil” is not “malice,” and its development to the highest point (Vulg.), but the danger to David, Saul’s murder scheme, as appears from the phrase “by him.”
1Sa_20:8. And show mercy to thy servant,—this refers not merely to the request of 1Sa_20:6 (S. Schmid, Keil), nor to what Jonathan should do in case Saul’s answer was unfavorable, but to the general help expected from him, that David might escape the threatened danger. That it includes what David looks for from Jonathan in case Saul answers angrily, appears from Jonathan’s reply in 1Sa_20:9. David grounds his request on the covenant of the Lord which Jonathan had made with him. So he calls their covenant of friendship, because it was not only made with invocation of the Lord’s name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God. Thou hast brought me,—this indicates the initiative which, in the concluding of the covenant, was on the side of Jonathan (1Sa_18:1-3).—In the words: “If there is iniquity in me, slay thou me,” David adds a special request, which is closely connected with what precedes. He would rather atone for any sin which might rest on him by death at his friend’s hand; Jonathan shall do him the kindness in this case not to deliver him up to Saul, that he may not be slain by him. This supposes that Jonathan had the right to inflict capital punishment for crimes against his father as king.
1Sa_20:9. Jonathan’s answer first decidedly sets aside the case last put by David. The “far be it from thee” is not to be connected with what follows, as if it were here said what was to be far (Ges., Del., Maur.), but is to be taken absolutely, and to be referred (as 1Sa_20:2) to what David had just said. The “from thee” is therefore not expletive (Cleric.) The Vulg. rightly: absit hoc a te. This involves Jonathan’s firm conviction of David’s innocence.—Then follows Jonathan’s solemn assurance that he will inform David if Saul exhibits a hostile disposition towards him. This was the service of love which he had first to do for his friend, that the latter might then take further measures for saving his life. (כִּי is particle of asseveration=yea, truly.) If I know certainly that * * * * that is, if, from your statement (1Sa_20:7), I know beyond doubt that evil on my father’s part is a thing determined. From the connection, and on account of the vigor and emphasis of the interrogation, which is in keeping with Jonathan’s excited feeling, it is better to construe the “if,” etc., as first member (protasis), and the “and not,” &c, as second interrogative member (apodosis) of a conditional sentence45 [as in Eng. A. V.]
1Sa_20:10, Tremell, Ges., Ew. (§ 352 a), Then, and Bunsen take this as one sentence: “who will show me what rough thing perchance thy father will answer thee” (אוֹ מָח = whatever thing); against which we must insist with Keil that this signification of או occurs only where another case is mentioned, where the ground-meaning is “or.” As מָה [“what”] indicates a new question, we must here suppose two questions. The first: Who will show me? is connected immediately with the last words of Jonathan in 1Sa_20:9 : “I will come to thee and tell thee,” namely, the evil determined on by my father. David is thinking in this first question of the danger which Jonathan would thus incur, and, for that very reason, putting him out of the question, asks: “Who will show me (the evil),” that is, what thy father decrees against me (Maur.) “He asks what he would be willing to tell a servant” (S. Schmid). The Berl. Bib. explains excellently: “The matter cannot be entrusted to a servant, and thou must have care for thyself, lest thou also come under thy father’s displeasure.” The sense is therefore: “No one will tell me,” namely, the evil determined by Saul. This question, with its negative sense, is the answer, spoken with excited feeling, to Jonathan’s word: “I will tell thee the evil determined on,” and the tender, thoughtful form in which he clothes the decided: “Thou canst not tell me.” The second question: Or what harsh thing will thy father answer thee? refers to Saul’s anger (1Sa_20:7), whence Jonathan purposed learning that Saul’s evil plan against David was completed. Schmid’s explanation: “and if thou choose a messenger, how shall I understand what evil thy father answers?” rests on the false distinction between a person bringing the information (to whom only the first question is to refer), and the nature of the information (to which the second question is to refer), and requires us to supply a sentence which could by no means have been omitted. Maur., De Wette, Keil regard the question as referring to the evil consequences to Jonathan, if he himself brought the information to David: What would thy father answer thee hard (Maur.: “what thinkest thou he would decree against thee,” contrary to to the meaning of עָנָה), if thou thyself didst it? Against this is the word “answer,” since Jonathan would not say to Saul that he intended to tell David—and we cannot appropriately supply the idea that, if Saul afterwards heard of Jonathan’s going to David, he would answer him harshly. Rather the second question reads fully: “Or who will tell what thy father,” etc. Saul’s evil word, by which his fixed evil purpose is to be discovered, is distinguished from this latter. But the evil answer is not to be understood of threats against David (Böttcher), but of harsh language towards Jonathan (1Sa_20:6-7). In this double question David denies or doubts that in this unfortunate case information can be given him. The two-fold question, with its negative meaning, corresponds to David’s excited state of mind, and makes a full and candid conversation necessary, for which purpose Jonathan invites David to go with him to the field. [Erdmann’s translation is hardly satisfactory; the second clause does not suit the question: “who will tell?” The rendering: “who will tell me if perchance thy father,” &c, is the smoother, and suits the context better, but it is doubtful whether אוֹ can mean simply “if.”—Tr.] 1Sa_20:11. Let us go into the field, namely, out of the city of Gibeah, or the royal residence therein, where this conversation was held. It certainly accords with David’s words to suppose that they wished to escape from observation (Then.), in order to speak further undisturbedly of the matter, and to think over ways and means (Berl. Bib.); but at the same time the context suggests as another aim, that Jonathan wished to point out what he thought a fit place wherein to give his friend by a trustworthy sign the desired information, comp. 1Sa_20:19-24. This obviously supposes Jonathan’s fixed determination, in spite of David’s protest, to bring the message himself. That Jonathan went out for the sake of the oath which he afterwards [see 1Sa_20:42] renewed with David (Grot.: “they used to swear in the open air”) is less probable.
1Sa_20:12-23 is essentially the full positive answer to David’s question, which was meant in a negative sense. 1Sa_20:12-13. Jonathan’s solemn oath that he will inform him of the mind of his father. The solemnity and loftiness of the vow, heightened by the oath, answers to the epoch-making importance and decisive significance of this moment in David’s life; for from this moment David’s way must coincide with that of Saul, or for ever diverge from it and be for him a way of uninterrupted suffering.—That Jonathan begins his address with a solemn invocation of God, “Jehovah, God of Israel” (De Wette, Keil) [so Eng. A. V., see “Text, and Gram.”] is untenable, because there is no analogy for such a mode of address, and because of the introduction “Jonathan said to David” (Thenius). Nor can we suppose an interrupted discourse, resumed in 1Sa_20:13, for against this is the beginning of 1Sa_20:13 : “The Lord do so.”46 As an oath follows, it is simplest to regard this as the formula of an oath by God, not supplying (with Maurer): “may God destroy me,” or (Syr., Arab.): “God is my witness,” but (with Thenius supplying חַי “after Cod. Kenn. 560 and 224 margin,” which might easily fall out before יהוה) reading: “as God lives;” unless with Bunsen we take the “Jehovah, God of Israel,” as a lively ejaculation in the sense of an oath = “by God.”—The protasis begins: “when I sound my father,” and goes to the end of 1Sa_20:12. כָּעֵת מָחָר = “to-morrow about this time,” as in 1Ki_19:2; 1Ki_20:6; 2Ki_7:1; 2Ki_7:18, and the full phrase in Jos_11:6 (Gesen.). The following word “on the third day” is without a conjunction (which with Sept. and Vulg. is to be supplied from the sense) and similarly depends on כָּעֵת,= “the third day about this time.” This expression “to-morrow or next day” refers to the statement of time in 1Sa_20:5, and supposes that the festival was continued by a meal the day after new moon. And behold, there is good for David, etc.—In circumstantial phrase, which befits the solemn and serious character of the situation, Jonathan distinguishes the two cases, the favorable and the unfavorable, in order to make each the object of a solemn oath. Jonathan swears that in the first case he will send to David to uncover his ear, that is, to reveal to him, inform him that Saul is favorably disposed towards him, comp. 1Sa_22:8.
1Sa_20:13 the apodosis: “so do the Lord to Jonathan,” etc. The same formula in oaths in 1Sa_14:44; 1Ki_19:2.—The opposite case is introduced with כִּי without adversative particle: “(But) if it please my father to do thee evil,” etc.47 The apodosis: “I will show it thee and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace,” asserts, in distinction from the preceding apodosis, that Jonathan in this case will bring David the information himself without the intervention of a messenger. With this promise, confirmed by an oath, Jonathan connects the wish: “The Lord be with thee as he hath been with my father.” This indicates that Jonathan has at least a presentiment of David’s high destiny and his future calling, which he is some time to fulfil as King of Israel in Saul’s place.—This comes out still more clearly in what follows. For in 1Sa_20:14-16 with such a presentiment he begs David in the future to maintain faithfully his mercy and love towards him even in misfortune. On the ground of what is now happening to Saul and David under the divine providence, he foresees how Saul and his house will be hurled from the royal power, and David thereto elevated. In Jonathan’s pious soul, which felt and perceived God’s righteous working, there lay hid a divinatory and prophetic element, as here appears. Jonathan, having before expressed his wish for David, here declares what he desires from David as counter-proof of faithful friendship. With reference to the oriental custom of killing the children and relations of the former king on ascending the throne, Jonathan begs David hereafter to show mercy to his house. “The syntactical construction is a somewhat violent one, as accords with the emotion of the speaker” (Bunsen). Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 1Sa_20:14 : “And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not?” 1Sa_20:15 cannot then be a part of the question, but must be taken as the subjoined expression of confident expectation: “And thou wilt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever, not even when,” etc. But this sudden, abrupt transition to a question and then again to direct discourse is strange, even if these vacillations and diversities of discourse are referred to Jonathan’s excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew.48 Jonathan, having invoked a blessing on David, thus expresses his wish for himself: “And wouldst thou, if I still live, wouldst thou show me the kindness of God, and not, if I die, not cut off thy love from my house for ever?” So Syr., Arab., Maur., Then., Ew., Keil. The correspondence and parallelism of the clauses is thus evident: to “if I yet live” answers “if I die.”49 To the “show kindness to me” answers the similar negative request, “cut not off thy kindness from my house,—not even when,” &c. “Kindness of the Lord;” that is, love, goodness, such as the Lord, as covenant-God, shows His people according to His promise, and, therefore, one member of the people ought to show to another, especially in such a covenant of love made in the presence of the Lord. By this request for the “kindness of the Lord” Jonathan indicates David’s duty to show him this love. “Not even when the Lord shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth.” The בְֹּהַכְרִית forms an assonance תַכְרִית וְלֹא: “do not cut off … even when the Lord shall cut off.” Jonathan clearly understands that enmity against David is enmity against the Lord’s purpose and act, and that God s destroying judgment must fall on his father’s house because of its opposition to the will of the Lord. His request that his house may be excepted from this judgment, as executor of which he regards David, is founded on and justified by his position outside of the circle of “enemies” (since he recognises God’s will concerning David, and bends to it as David’s friend), so that, though a member of Saul’s house, he does not belong to it so far as concerns the judgment of extermination.—See the fulfilment of Jonathan’s request, 2 Samuel 9.
1Sa_20:16 is a remark of the narrator 1) on this covenant between Jonathan and David, and 2) on the actual fulfilment of Jonathan’s word respecting the overthrow of David’s enemies. “And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David.” After וַיִּכְרֹת supply בְּרִית: comp. 1Sa_22:8; Jos_6:1; Jdg_19:30; 2Ch_7:18 [1Ki_8:9. The examples from Josh, and Judges present omissions of other words.—Tr.]—The second part of the verse (וּבֵקִּשׁ) is by many put into Jonathan’s mouth as part of his oath, “and the Lord take vengeance on the enemies of David” (Then., Maur., De Wette, Buns.). But the objection to this is, that then (unless with Then, we adopt the corrupt Sept. and Vulg. text: “and may Jonathan’s name not be cut off from the house of David”) we must supply “saying” (אָמַר between וּ and בֵקִּשׁ), which is hard, and is not found elsewhere. And Keil rightly remarks that after the insertion between conjunction and verb the Perf. could not have an Optative sense. Finally against this view is the fact that it is psychologically and ethically not quite conceivable how Jonathan should have expressed such a wish, especially as this judgment as a future fact had already been distinctly looked at by him, and was the condition and basis of his wish. “Require at the hand” (בֵּקִּשׁ מִיַד =“take vengeance, punish,” with the word “blood,” 2Sa_4:11, without it here and Jos_22:23.
1Sa_20:17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again. According to the connection this does not refer to what follows from 1Sa_20:18 on (Maur.), but concludes naturally the transaction between Jonathan and David,—but not as an oath by which Jonathan assures David anew that he will keep his promise (Then.), according to the incorrect rendering of Sept. and Vulg. “he swore to David” (from which Then, would read “to David,” instead of Acc. “David”)—rather it is an oath by which Jonathan adjures David to fulfil his last request (1Sa_20:14-15). The “again” refers to 1Sa_20:12. He adjured him “by his love to him;” that is, he made his love to David the ground of his request, so that David might in turn show his love. [Or, his love to David made him anxious to maintain friendly relations between their houses; he could not bear to think of his children shut out from the love of this his much-loved friend, whom he loved as himself.—Tr.]. The words: “for he loved him as his own soul” confirm and define the preceding “by his love to him,” and indicate the cordialness of his friendly love, which is like his love for himself; that is, he loves his friend as himself. The “soul” is the centre of the inner life and of the whole personality. Comp. 1Sa_18:1-3.
1Sa_20:18 sq. Further conversation on the carrying out of Jonathan’s promise.—As to 1Sa_20:18 comp. 1Sa_20:5.—(The Perf. with Waw consec. has a future signification when preceded not only by an express Fut. but also by any indication of futurity, as here the words: “to-morrow is new moon.”) The presupposed situation is resumed as basis for the following agreement.
1Sa_20:19. And on the third day come down quickly. If we point the Heb. form as a verb =“to do a thing the third day” (וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ), Ges., Ew., Maur., it is to be taken asyndetically with the following word in an adverbial sense (Ges., § 142, 3, c) = “do it on the third day that thou come down.” But this sense of the word occurs nowhere else; Gesenius’ reference to the Arab. “to come every fourth day” does not suit here, because nothing is said of coming every fourth day. We might more easily assume the meaning “to do a thing the third time” (1Ki_18:34), and render “a third time come down.” The first time of his going down was in 1Sa_19:2, our present narrative gives the second time, and 1Sa_20:35 would be the third time. But besides the forced character of this explanation, we have against this vocalization of the Heb. text (the Sept. τρισσεύσεις favors it) the Chald., Syr., Arab., and Vulg., which render “And on the third day,” and we must therefore read וּשְׁלִשִׁית, which agrees with 1Sa_20:5. The words “Come down very” [so literally the Heb.] are also somewhat strange; not on account of the Adv. “down” (Then.), for this is explained by the nature of the ground, the field of meeting being lower than the surrounding highlands (Cler.: “Jonathan seems to wish David to go down into a very deep valley as near as possible to Gibeah, where Jonathan himself would tell him what was to be done”—but on account of the word “very” (מְאֹר). The Vulg. has “descend quickly.” From the difficulty of the reading some substitute “thou wilt be missed” (תִּפָּקֵד, Chald., Syr., Ar.) for the “come down;” but, apart from the difficulty of explaining how the Heb. text came from this reading, the expression “On the third day thou wilt be much missed” is very strange, and the “very” with “come down” is less surprising if we take it = “quickly,” and suppose it necessary to insist on a quick descent to the place of meeting on account of the danger of being observed. Perhaps, however, the text is corrupt, and instead of מְאֹד (“very”) we should read מוֹעֵד, “appointed place of meeting,” comp. Jos_8:14. It would be an Acc. of place as in 1Sa_20:11; see the similar expression in verse 35, which refers to this passage. [Eng. A. V. gives a very doubtful translation of the Heb. text; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.].—And come to the place where thou didst hide on the day of the business. These words are usually rightly referred to the narrative in 1Sa_19:2. But what does “the day of the business” mean? Against the reference to the wicked deed of Saul, which forced David to fly (Maur., Ew., De Wette), Thenius rightly says that the word never means “wicked deed” in itself, but only when the connection points to it (Job_33:17). But in 1Sa_19:2. there is mention not of a deed, but only of a purpose of Saul; the explanation “on the day of the purposed evil” (Ew.) adds something not contained in the word. Against the rendering “on the work day” as opposed to “feast-day” (Chald., Sept., Vulg., Ges., Luther) is the fact that, as Then. remarks, to obtain a fitting sense, we must then read: “Thou wilt come from, the place where thou (on the work-day) shalt have hidden thyself.” Bunsen’s explanation “on the day when that happened” (1Sa_19:2-3) attenuates the meaning of the Heb. word (מַּעֲשֶׂה), yea, directly contradicts it. [The word means “something done.”—Tr.] The rendering “on the day of the business (known to thee)” (Tanchum, Then., Keil) is unsatisfactory, because it is then wholly uncertain what business occurred on that day. Holding fast to the view that that day (1Sa_19:2 sq.) was the one here referred to, the “business,” regarded by Jonathan as specially memorable, could only be Jonathan’s deed, when near that spot he turned aside his father’s murderous thoughts from David, having brought him to the spot where David was hidden and could hear the conversation. This was the business which Jonathan’s brief allusion would suggest to David. A reference to this explanation is found as early as Clericus: “rather the allusion seems to be to the day when Jonathan occupied himself with this very business of David’s safety.”—And remain by the stone Ezel. (Sept. παρὰ τὸ Εργὰβ ἐκεῖνο, הָאַרְגּב הַלָּז, “by that stone-heap.” So Then, and Ew., except that the latter reads הָאָזֵל, “the lonely waste.” There is, however, no need for change of text; אֶבֶן is a hollow rock as a hiding-place, and Ezel is a proper name.) [On the reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.].
1Sa_20:20. He will shoot three arrows on the side of the stone; the Art. “the three arrows” is explained by supposing that Jonathan, who had no doubt come armed, showed David three arrows by which the latter might from his hiding-place recognise his presence. Jonathan would act as if he were practicing at a mark (Vulg. “as if exercising at a mark”), it being understood that the arrows thus shot were to be gathered up50 from the place where they fell, whether in front of or behind the mark. (Böttcher: In צדָּהֿ the Raphe, as the accent shows, denotes that ה loses its aspiration by reason of the neighboring hard consonants (2 צ and then ר), or remains as suffix ־ָהּ, not as toneless local ־ַה; this—־ָה refers to the preceding fem. אֶבֶן, so that צִדָּהֿ = juxta eam, at its (the stone’s) side (so render Vulg., De Wette, and even Luther), expresses a definite mark.)
1Sa_20:21. The agreement as to the sign, whereby David was to know whether there was danger for him or not. Before “go, find the arrows” the word “saying” has not fallen out, but is to be supplied (with Sept. and Vulg.) from the sense. Comp. 1Sa_11:7; Isa_10:3-4. The procedure is as follows: The servant, taking position by order on the side of the mark, is first, after the shooting, to go to the mark in order to find the arrows; if then Jonathan calls to him: “The arrows are from thee,” that is from the place where thou art “hitherward,” bring them,—that is a sign for David that it is well, he is to come; for there is peace to thee, and it is nothing, as the Lord liveth. But if (1Sa_20:22) he says: “The arrows are from thee,” that is “yonsides,” that is a sign that David is to go away, to flee. For the Lord sendeth thee away, that is, commands thee to go away.
1Sa_20:23. And the word that we have spoken, that is, not merely the sign agreed on, but (as is indicated by the “we” and the “I and thou”) what they had said to one another in the whole affair, and promised one another before the Lord. Behold, the Lord is between me and thee for ever, comp. Gen_31:49. We need not with Sept. supply the word “witness,” since without it the thought is clearly expressed that it is the Lord in whom they have here anew concluded their covenant of friendship, and in whose fear they feel themselves bound to maintain it and fulfil their promises to one another.
1Sa_20:24-34. The execution of the agreement, and the open exhibition of Saul’s deadly hate against David.
1Sa_20:24. Instead of “sat,” the Sept. has “came to the table,” but the Heb. text is to be retained as in keeping with the rapid and minute portraiture of the narrative. The text “on” (above) the food [עַל, Eng. A. V. omits the prep.] is to be retained against the marginal reading (Qeri) “to;” “he who sits at table is elevated, comp. Pro_23:30” (Maur.).—“David hid himself—Saul sat at table on new-moon-day,”—this lapidary double remark admirably and vividly introduces the following narration, which is marked precisely by this two-fold fact. Saul sat in his “seat by the wall,” as the highest, most honorable place, opposite the door. See Harmar, Beob. über d. Orient, II. 66 sq. “As time on time,” that is, as formerly, as usually, comp. iii. 4; Num_24:1. Vulg. secundum consuetudinem. The word “arose” presents serious difficulties. It is proposed to adopt the Sept. κὰι προ έφθασε τὸν ’Ιωνάθαν (וַיְּקַדֵּם for וַיָּקָּם), and render “Jonathan sat in front” (Then., Ew., Buns.). But this meaning of the Heb. word is not proved, while the rendering of the Sept. “he (Saul) went before Jonathan” would certainly accord with it, since the verb means “to go before.” But that would be understood of itself, apart from the fact that the context and the syntax do not allow us to take “Saul” as subject; therefore, too, Clericus’ explanation falls to the ground; “Saul alone preceded Jonathan,” that is, Jonathan sat down next after him. The rendering of the Sept. clearly springs from the difficulty of the expression “And Jonathan arose.” We must try to hold to the text. The Syr. renders: “And Jonathan arose and seated himself and Abner (seated himself) at Saul’s side” (connecting וַיֵּשֶׁב with וַיָקָם, and putting וְ before אַבְנֵר). But the insertion of “and” is arbitrary, the “sat” must be connected with “Abner,” and the circumstantial introduction of the simple matter-of-course act “sat” by the phrase “arose,” which always emphatically indicates a transition from rest to a new act or activity, is somewhat farcical. The explanation “and Jonathan came” (De Wette, Maurer: Jonathan sat down next after Saul) does not agree with the meaning of the Heb. word (קוּם), which is used instead of “coming” in the elevated, solemn sense = “appearing,” but never of simple “coming.” If we keep the text and render “and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat” (Vulg.), the only possible explanation is: Jonathan rose from his place when Abner came, whether to show him honor as his uncle, or to give him his proper place at Saul’s side, which he had taken perhaps in Abner’s absence under the impression that the latter would not come to the meal.—Another rendering, however, naturally suggests itself; pointing the verb (ישׁב) as causative (Hiph. וַיּשֶׁב), written defectively) as in 2Ch_10:2 (Ges. § 69, 3 R. 7), and understanding that Jonathan had already seated himself after Saul, and that David’s absence was observed, we translate “he arose, and seated Abner at Saul’s side,” that is, in the place left vacant by David’s absence,51 in order that the seat next to Saul might not be empty, he himself having taken the seat on the other side of Saul.—Maurer conjectures that the words “and Jonathan arose” have been inserted here by the mistake of a transcriber from the beginning of 1Sa_20:34.
1Sa_20:26. The first day Saul explained David’s absence by supposing that he was ceremonially unclean and unable to take part in the religious festival. See Lev_7:20 sq.; 1Sa_15:16; Deu_23:4. [Kitto suggests as the explanation of Saul’s expecting David, that he supposed David would infer from the occurrence at Naioth 1Sa_19:24, that Saul’s mood was changed, and there was no longer danger.—Tr.].
1Sa_20:27. The statement of time here is with Keil to be literally rendered: “it was on the morrow after the new moon, the second day (הַשֵּׁנִי is Nom. with וַיְהִי, not Gen. after הַחֹדֶשׁ) and David’s place was missed,” so De Wette: “it came to pass on the following day of the new moon, the second.” In reply to Saul’s question about him Jonathan gave the answer agreed on in 1Sa_20:6, only adding that David was called to Bethlehem by his brother.
1Sa_20:28. David earnestly asked leave of me to Bethlehem, an elliptical expression, in which “to go” (1Sa_20:6) is to be supplied
1Sa_20:29. And he hath commanded me, my brother, and now, etc. Stumbling at the Sing. “brother,” the Sept. has “brothers;” we are to understand the eldest brother (Ew.) as head of the family, who had the care of the domestic arrangements for the feast. Vulg. wrongly: “one of my brothers.” Syr. and Arab. wrongly translate: “and he (David) exhorted me and said to me, my brother, if, etc.” Jonathan’s quotation of David’s words is somewhat loose and incompact, agreeing with the cordial, light tone in which one friend makes such statements to another in confidential intercourse. This is the explanation also of the somewhat rough and jocose phrase “let me get away, take myself off” (אִמָּלְטָה). Comp. the “run” in 1Sa_20:6 (Bunsen).
1Sa_20:30 sq. Saul’s outbreak of wrath in consequence of these words of Jonathan. Against the rendering “thou son of a woman perverse and rebellious” (literally, “perverse one of rebellion,” נַעֲוָה as Ni. partcp., Maurer: “son of a perverse and contumacious mother—O perverse and obstinate son”) is partly the hardness of the phrase “perverse one of rebellion,” partly the monstrosity of the insult thus offered to Jonathan’s mother, which contradicts the Heb. family-spirit.52 The last objection lies also against the rendering of Sept. and Vulg. “thou son of a rebellious woman” (נַעֲוָה for נַעֲוָה, Then.), or, as Vulg., “thou son of a woman who voluntarily seizes on a man” (obviously reading הַמֻּרְדָּף (Isa_14:6) or הַמִּרְדּוֹף for מַרְדּוּת). So Ew., who puts Plu. instead of Sing.: “thou son of wenches who run after (men).” The most tolerable rendering is that of Köster, unjustly made light of by Then., found also in Clericus: “Thou son of perversity of rebellion” (taking נַעֲותַ as abstract noun, Ni. particip. of עוה), full of perverse rebellion. Cleric.: “It is much better to say that Jonathan is called a son of perversity of rebellion, a common Hebraism for a man of perverse and refractory nature.”53 Saul observes that Jonathan is on the side of David, whom he wishes to destroy as an aspirant after the throne and therefore a rebel. And so he looks on Jonathan also as a rebel.—In the words “Do I not know?” Saul intimates that he is well aware of the secret friendship between Jonathan and David, and regards this excuse as confirmatory of his opinion. (בָּחַר denotes choice out of love, commonly construed with בְּ, here only with לְ. [On the unnecessary Sept. reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]). To thy shame and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness, who will be ashamed of having borne thee. So we must translate, and not with De Wette, “to the shame and nakedness of thy mother,” nor with Bunsen, “to the shame of thy unchaste mother.” Such an expression from Saul would be in contradiction to his previous reference to Jonathan’s mother according to the translation which we have rejected. In 1Sa_20:31 we see clearly why Saul called Jonathan a “son of perverse rebellion.” David is making a rebellious attempt on the royal throne, and Jonathan, bound to him in intimate friendship, is therefore a rebel. He calls this rebellion “perversity,” because “as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, he (Jonathan) and his kingdom will not be established.” It is therefore Saul’s determined and permanent purpose to slay David as a rebel. And so he says: Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a son of death. These words fully reveal his disposition towards David.
1Sa_20:32. In spite of this outbreak of rage on his father’s part Jonathan tries with mild and quiet words to set forth David’s innocence and the injustice of putting him to death, as in 1Sa_19:4-5. At that time Saul’s better feeling got the upper hand. Here, completely enslaved by his passion, he is an impotent instrument of his own blind hate.
1Sa_20:33. As David before, so now Jonathan is the mark of his spear hurled [or, brandished,—Tr.], in blind rage (comp. 1Sa_18:11). Jonathan saw that it was a settled thing with his father to kill David (comp. 1Sa_20:9).
1Sa_20:34. A vivid and psychologically true description of Jonathan’s consequent conduct; he rises in fierce anger from the table, eats nothing this second day of the new moon (in contrast with the first, when he took part in the meal), and, what is the reason of his not eating, is grieved for David,54 because his father had done him shame [that is, done David, not Jonathan shame.—Tr.]. That there is nothing of this in the text (Then.) cannot be maintained, for the way in which Saul spoke of the relation of Jonathan to David, and his indirect declaration that David was a rebel against him, the king, and therefore deserved death, was shame and insult enough. And that Jonathan thought this insult offered to his friend as a completely innocent man is clear from his question: Why shall he die? What has he done?
1Sa_20:35-42. [Heb. 21:1]. According to the agreement David is informed of Saul’s attitude towards him, and, after a sorrowful parting with his friend, betakes himself to flight.
1Sa_20:35. The following morning Jonathan went to the field to meet David at the appointed place (לְמוֹעֵד דּ׳), not “at the time agreed on,” which translation requires too much to be supplied; and with him a small servant “who would not so easily suspect anything; this trifling notice is of great value as testimony to the historical realness of the occurrence”—(Then.).
1Sa_20:36. The narration is evidently abridged. Jonathan says to the servant: Bring the arrows. This plural answers to the agreement in 1Sa_20:20 sq., which seems to be contradicted by the following statement that Jonathan shot only one arrow (חֵֽצִי is ancient unshortened Sing. for later חֵץ, as in 1Sa_20:37-38; 2Ki_9:24; see Ew., § 186, 2 e). “To send it beyond him,” so that the arrow went further than the servant had run.
1Sa_20:37. To the place (or, the region, Thenius) of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, according to the agreement with David, which referred to three arrows to be shot, Jonathan calls to the boy: “Is not the arrow beyond thee?” Jonathan uses a question instead of direct discourse (as in 1Sa_20:20-22) in order more certainly to make the boy believe that he was merely practicing at a mark. He heaps up words of command “hasten, hurry, stay not,” to keep the boy’s attention fixed on the arrow, that he might not chance to see David, who was hid near by. “The boy took up the arrow.” The text (Sing.) is to be retained against the Qeri (Plu.), since the purpose is to tell of one arrow only. “He came (not as Sept. ‘brought’) to his master,” that is, bringing the arrow. While in 1Sa_20:20-22 this procedure is summarily described of three arrows, the account here is of one. The difference is not to be explained by the supposition that Jonathan shortened the affair and shot only once, because there was danger in delay (Then.), for the shooting of three arrows was a principal point in the agreement, and if there had been such need of haste, the following parting-scene could not have taken place. Rather we must suppose that Jonathan did so with each of the three arrows. Either, as Bunsen remarks, Jonathan shot the arrows one right after another, or he thrice repeated it. In the first case we must hold with Keil that the Sing. here “stands in an indefinite general way, the author not thinking it necessary, after what he has before said, to state that Jonathan shot three arrows one after another.”
1Sa_20:40. Jonathan, having given his artillery to the lad—we need not with Sept. read עַל for אֶל (Then.)—sent him to the city, that he might be alone with David.
1Sa_20:41. David rose from the south side of the rock, where he had been concealed, the preceding affair having occurred on the north side, whence the boy returned to the city which lay north of David’s hiding-place, so that the latter was completely hid from him. It accords very well with this statement of the points of the compass that David afterward fled southward to Nob.55 The affecting description of the sorrowful parting is in keeping with the deep emotion of these two hearts (one loving the other as himself) not merely on account of the separation, which was final, but on account of the great dangers and grievous sufferings which the one saw that the other must inevitably endure from Saul. “David fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself thrice.” Clericus: “To do Jonathan honor, that he might implore his help or gratefully acknowledge his kindness.” Josephus: “he did obeisance and called him the saviour of his life.”—There is no need to render with Vulgate and Syriac (אַךְ for עַד): “But David wept still more,” that is, than Jonathan. No sense can be extracted from the reading of the Septuagint “unto a great consummation” (ἔως συντελείας μεγάλης, according to Thenius from substitution of תֹּם for דָּוִד), which provokes from Capell the merry remark that, according to this, the two friends are still weeping, and will continue to weep till the last day.56 We must render literally: “David did greatly,”—namely, wept violently, aloud. For the construction comp. Joe_2:20-21; Psa_126:2-3.
1Sa_20:42. Jonathan must quickly part from his weeping friend to spare him further danger. From the connection and the circumstances it is not probable that another conversation [of which Jonathan’s words are merely the conclusion] had before taken place (Keil). Jonathan’s parting word is: 1) a wish for peace or blessing, and 2) conjuring him that the covenant of friendship be forever maintained. The apodosis is not uttered; the aposiopesis accords with Jonathan’s deep emotion.—1Sa_20:1 [in Eng. A. V. 1Sa_20:42]. The concluding scene. David goes his way in flight; Jonathan returns in the opposite direction to the city.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. David designates the covenant of friendship which Jonathan had made with him (1Sa_28:1 sq.) as one which he made with him in the Lord (comp. 1Sa_23:18). It was therefore not a friendship which rested merely on mutual good feeling, but was based on a recognized common union of heart with the living God. Jonathan’s heart clung in firm faith and trust to the Lord; this was the root of his heroic courage and his victorious prowess (comp. 1Sa_24:6); this fresh power of faith, which elevated and sanctified his whole being, won him David’s regard and love. David’s whole life-course showed Jonathan the direct wonderful gracious leading of the Lord, to which he humbly submitted himself. The two hearts were one in looking to and hoping in the living God, in humble obedience to His holy will. This was the foundation of their communion of love and life in the Lord. “God works such unions through and in Himself, so that such souls become wholly one” (Berl. Bib.).
2. On the light of this noble friendship concluded in the Lord falls the shadow of the “lie of necessity” to which David resorts in order to save himself from Saul’s murderous designs, and into which Jonathan allows himself to be enticed by David, having given the unconditional promise: “What thy soul says, I will do for thee.” Yet the duty of absolute truthfulness could not be known so clearly from the stand-point of the Old Testament as from that of the New; of the same David who expressly said “Keep thy lips from speaking guile” (Psa_34:14 [13]) precisely the opposite is here and elsewhere related. But though there is in the narrative no condemnation of the lie, the course of events brings a judgment on it; for Saul sees through it immediately. On Jonathan falls his father’s rage (thereby roused), and Saul’s anger burns the more violently against David. Instead of having recourse to a lie as a supposed necessary self-help, they ought to have united in unconditional trust in the Lord’s help, and have committed their affairs to Him. Compare how the Lord formerly exposed and brought to naught the lies of Abraham and Isaac (Gen_12:11 sq.; 1Sa_26:7 sq.), and punished the lie of Rebecca and Jacob (Gen_27:6 sq.).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa_20:1 sqq. Schlier: The old saying is right:
Silently suffer, forbear and endure,
Thy troubles to no one lament;
Despair not of God, for His promise is sure,
And daily thy help will be sent.
But it is another thing when we are indeed silent to the world, but tell our troubles and conflicts to a faithful friend, when we communicate to others all that oppresses us, when we do not complain and lament, but do seek counsel and consolation.—Starke: Even great-hearted men sometimes grow faint-hearted; let us therefore not build too much on ourselves, but on God, whose power is mighty in the weak (2Co_12:9; Psa_30:8).—[1Sa_20:2. Scott: Pious children will veil the faults of their parents as far as consists with other duties, and speak as favorably of them as truth permits.—Tr.]
1Sa_20:3. Starke: Even in the midst of life we are in death.57 O man, do think of it, and never feel secure (Psa_39:6).—[1Sa_20:4. Here friendship goes too far. It is wrong to promise unconditional compliance with the wishes of another. He may err in judgment and ask what is unwise, or may be misled by interest and ask what is wrong. And, besides, every man is solemnly bound to exercise his own judgment and conscience in the direction of his conduct. Jonathan was led by this promise to tell a falsehood, which his father detected, and was thereby the more enraged (1Sa_20:28-33).
1Sa_20:6. Taylor: From brooding morbidly over Saul’s treatment of him, to the entire exclusion from his mind of God’s constant care over him, David fell into despair, and ran into a course of reckless deceit which brought the most fearful consequences in its train (1 Samuel 20-22).—Tr.]
1Sa_20:8. Starke: So long as one sees before him ordinary ways and means of escaping from danger, he should make use of them, and not look for extraordinary help from God, that he may not tempt God.
1Sa_20:10. S. Schmid: A wise man not only proposes to himself to do good, but he looks around him for suitable means of accomplishing his good designs (Pro_21:25-26).
1Sa_20:11. Conversations between friends united in the Lord upon the highest and holiest matters of the inner or the outer life are to be preserved from the disturbing influences of the unquiet world; the thoughts interchanged in stillness before the Lord and in the Lord unite their hearts in all the closer inward ties for time and eternity.
1Sa_20:13. All the highest and most blessed things that souls united in the Lord can wish for each other are included in the one word: The Lord be with thee; for what is greater and more blessed than the Lord’s guidance and gracious presence?
1Sa_20:14. The kindness of the Lord itself exercises and employs the child of God as its instrument for his fellow-children and brethren; children of God love one another with and in the love of God which dwells in their hearts.
1Sa_20:15. Berlenb. Bible: A truly tranquil soul seeks neither honor nor advantage for itself. It is just as joyful when God is glorified in others as in itself. It only asks such a faithful friend, whom with joy it sees preferred before itself, that he will give it any help it may need in the spiritual life.
1Sa_20:17. Disselhoff: Unselfish love bears especially two noble fruits—to rejoice with them that rejoice, and to weep with them that weep. How heart-refreshingly do both of these beckon to us from the history of our two friends. Through David’s glorious victory, Jonathan, who had before been highly praised by the people as a conqueror, fell wholly into the shade. He lost through David even his hope of the crown. Yet he looked with joyful eye upon the deeds of David and his growing fame.—[True love delights in receiving and giving repeated and strong assurances. This is very different from the renewed assurance which distrust demands.—Tr.]
1Sa_20:23. S. Schmid: What has been once promised and is not opposed to God must be held fast.—Schlier: A faithful friend is a gift of God, and God gives such a blessing to him that fears Him. The God-fearing David received from the Lord such a noble blessing of friendship as few others ever enjoyed.
1Sa_20:30 sqq. Schlier: We take up so easily with anger, and yet how fearful is the power of anger! How blind does anger make a man—how it carries him out of himself, so that he does not even know what he is doing; how it makes a man like a beast, so that he ceases to be himself, and falls under the power of darkness.
1Sa_20:35-40. Starke [from Hall]: In vain are those professions of love which are not answered with action (1Jn_3:18).
1Sa_20:32. Berl. Bible: A friend in grace cannot possibly let himself be moved by self-advantage. When he has once let self-seeking go, in order to give himself to God, then nothing disturbs him of all that may be said or done against him. He well knows the essential deep ground of unity, which is in God alone.—Unity with favored souls draws after it also a like condition and like sorrow. So long as David is thy friend, thou must also have part in his cross.—[1Sa_20:34. Scott: Under great provocations the meekest cannot always refrain from anger; but when its emotions are felt, it is our wisdom to withdraw in silence; and it is generous to be more grieved for our insulted friends than for ourselves.—Tr.]
1Sa_20:41. S. Schmid: In misfortune the love of true friends must much rather increase than fall off.—Osiander: The pious experience such weakness when they stand in fear of death or other trials, in order that they may know, when they have overcome misfortune, that they have done so not by their own strength, but that it is God’s gift. 1Sa_20:42. S. Schmid: When we are separated from our dearest friends in the world, it is our consolation if we are not separated from God, but have Him for a friend (Psa_73:25 sq.).—Berl. Bible: The unions that are made in God are for that reason the strongest of all. Nothing human forms their bond. Presence does not increase them, just as little as absence diminishes them. Thence comes it that such persons separate without pain if God so wills. They desire only one thing, namely, to maintain peace even amid the greatest antagonisms, since this peace is a sure sign that one has not withdrawn from submission to the will of God.
J. Disselhoff to 1 Samuel 20 : Friendship among the servants of God. Three questions: 1) Wherein is friendship among the servants of God grounded?—It is a covenant in the Lord. 2) What perils threaten even friendship among the servants of God?—That one friend, overlooking another’s sin, may do for his sake what is not right in the sight of God. 3) What blessing rests upon friendship among the servants of God?—It teaches unenvying joy with them that rejoice, and faithful mourning and forbearing with them that mourn.
F. W. Krummacher (1Sa_20:16-17): Sanctified friendship: The love of Jonathan for David is put to a severe test by a three-fold discovery which he makes: he gets a glimpse of the real disposition cherished by his royal father towards his friend, the heroic youth—of the high destiny which God designs for his beloved friend—and of the danger which threatens himself through his connection with David.
[1Sa_20:3 (end). A good funeral text in case of sudden death, especially when from accident.
1Sa_20:14-15. The friend’s plea for kindness. 1) Kindness notwithstanding separation and outward antagonism. 2) Kindness not merely on grounds of personal regard, but “kindness of Jehovah.” 3) Kindness not only to himself, but also to his posterity.
1Sa_20:41. Strong men weeping. 1) Great occasion for it here, a) Personal separation, b) Mad in justice of their father (comp. 1Sa_24:16). c) Prospect of a bitter conflict. 2) Not unbecoming when on sufficient occasion. Compatible a) With manly courage and spirit. David and Jonathan were certainly brave, b) With great self-control (1Sa_17:29; 1Sa_18:14; 1Sa_20:32). c) With living trust in Providence (v. 42).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa_20:1. Sept. “came before Jonathan and said,” not so well. Wellhausen refers for a similar order to 2Sa_18:18.—Tr.]
[2][1Sa_20:2. The divine name is not in the Heb.—Tr.]
[3][1Sa_20:2. On the Qeri and Keth. see Exposition.—Tr.]
[4][1Sa_20:3. So Chald., Syr., Vulg., Arab.; Sept. “answered.” Wellh.: “The Sept. is right for David never swears,” but see latter part of this verse and 1Ki_2:8.—Tr.]
[5][1Sa_20:3. See Erdmann’s Expos. against Thenius.—Tr.]
[6][1Sa_20:3. The Inf. Absol. is throughout the chapter variously translated.—Tr.]
[7][1Sa_20:3. Anonymous Greek version adds: “lest he tell David,” which is probably a gloss and not a translation.—Tr.]
[8][1Sa_20:3. The Sept. here gives substantially the sense of the Heb.—Tr.]
[9][1Sa_20:4. Margin of Eng. A. V.: “Say what is thy mind,” which is a free rendering—Tr.]
[10][1Sa_20:5. Literally: “I should certainly sit,” and so Chald. and Vulg., Syr., Arab., Rashi (“I am accustomed to sit”) and the Greek vss. except Sept., which has “I will not sit,” clearly from the succeeding narrative; on a special occasion like this (there seems to have occurred between 1 Samuel 19 and 1 Samuel 20 a reconciliation of Saul and David) he would be looked for.—Tr.]
[11][1Sa_20:5. The fem. form is difficult. We may suppose עֶרֶב here fem., or render (Rashi) “evening of the third day,” against which is the Art. with ערב, or (with Sept. and Wellh.) omit the numeral.—Tr.]
[12][1Sa_20:6. Infin. Absol. “pressingly inquire after me.”—Tr.]
[13][1Sa_20:6. Niph. reflexive.—Tr.]
[14][1Sa_20:6. Margin of Eng. A. V. “feast,” which gives the sense.—Tr.]
[15][1Sa_20:7. Sept., “if he answer thee roughly,” probably from 1Sa_20:10.—Tr.]
[16][1Sa_20:8. Heb. עַל. Sept., Chald., Syr. (perh. Vulg., Arab.) עִם which is the Heb. usage (עַל seems to be found nowhere else, לִפְנֵי ,אֵל ,לְ in a few instances after חֶסֶד).—Tr.]
[17][1Sa_20:9. This is the same Heb. phrase as is found in 1Sa_20:2.—Tr.]
[18][1Sa_20:9. Or, we may render: “If I knew, etc., and did not tell thee—” and supply “Jehovah do so,” etc. Syr.: “If I knew, etc., I would come and tell thee,” an impossible rendering, but perhaps from a different text.—Sept. adds after “come upon thee,” μη ῇ εἰς τὰς πόλεις σου, which is probably a duplet (so Wellh.).—Tr.]
[19][1Sa_20:10. See Erdmann in the Expos. No satisfactory rendering is offered by vss. or expositors. Eng. A. V. is substantially supported by Chald.; the other vss. render: “who will tell me whether thy father, etc?” and this seems best if the present text is retained. But, while there is no good external authority for changing the text, the meaning “whether perchance” for או מָה is not established.—Abarbanel quotes the explanation: “who will tell me if thy father answers peace, or who will tell me what thy father answers rough?” (which is nearly the form adopted by Erdmann), and then gives his own view that David says two things: 1) he asks who will tell him Saul’s decision, whether good or bad? 2) he exclaims “or what will thy father, etc?”—Ewald and others follow the vss. as above.—Tr.]
[20][1Sa_20:12. On the whole passage, 1Sa_20:12-17, see Erdmann’s discussion.—The Vocative here (as in Eng. A. V.) is hardly possible. The vss. supply different words, Syr., Arab., “witness,” Sept., “knows.” Two MSS. insert חַי “by the life of Jehovah” and Rashi calls it an oath. We must either so take it (which is simpler), or suppose the phrase interrupted and resumed below in the beginning of 1Sa_20:13.—Tr.]
[21][1Sa_20:12. The same difficulty as in 1Sa_20:5; יוֹם occurs a few times (perhaps only in Eze_7:10) as fem. We have also to supply “or” between מחר and השׁלשׁית. Yet we cannot throw out the latter (Wellh.) which is sustained by all the vss., and does not in its content contradict the narrative. Jonathan may easily have seen reason for putting off his inquiry till the third day.—Tr.]
[22][1Sa_20:12. This clause clearly belongs to 1Sa_20:13.—Tr.]
[23][1Sa_20:14-15. Instead of לאֹ read לוּא ,לוּ = לֻא.—Tr.]
[24][1Sa_20:16. There is no reason for the insertion of “saying” here. Chald., Vulg., render by the Aor. “required,” Syr. has Fut. It is properly a remark of the author, not of Jonathan, but it sounds like a marginal gloss which has crept into the text, though the Sept. had it before them. See the Exposition. On the opinion that “David’s enemies” here stands for “David” himself, and that this was fulfilled when his kingdom was divided because he deprived Mephibosheth of half of his possessions (2 Samuel 19), see Poole’s Synopsis in loco.—Tr.]
[25][1Sa_20:17. Sept., “swore to David.” The difficulty is in the reason assigned, namely, Jonathan’s love for David, which seems to support the Greek reading, on which see Erdmann in loco.—Tr.]
[26][1Sa_20:19. Literally “very.” Sept. and apparently Chald (תִּתְבְּעִי) and Syr. read פקד instead of ירד. The מְאֹד seems to be maintained by the vss., Chald. and Syr., “well, greatly,” Vulg. “quickly” (so Eng. A. V.); some explain it of a deep descent into the valley. The Denom. שִׁלַּשְׁתָּ “thou shalt thrice do” (So Erdmann), hardly “thou shalt wait three days” (but contra Philippson, Wellh., and apparently some vss.). Perhaps the best rendering would be: “and the third day thou shalt watch thy opportunity and come to the place.”—Tr.]
[27][1Sa_20:19. Syr., “that stone,” Chald., “stone of a sign,” whence Rashi “lapis viatorius” to point travellers on the way.—Tr.]
[28][1Sa_20:20. Literally “to shoot (me) at a mark.” Sept. “I will shoot three times with arrows,” afterwards one arrow only is mentioned; as in 1Sa_20:21, where the Heb. has the plu. And in 1Sa_20:36 we have the Sing. in the Heb. Yet this does not establish the Sept. reading, since the Plu. in the Heb. may be used in a general sense, while the Greek may have changed the number to make it agree with 1Sa_20:36.—Tr.]
[29][1Sa_20:23. Chald. and Sept. have “a witness for ever,” which may be simply an explanation, or they may have read עֵד for עַד.—Tr.]
[30][1Sa_20:25. On this reading see the Exposition.—Tr.]
[31][1Sa_20:26. Better, after the Sept., “he has not cleansed himself.”—Tr.]
[32][1Sa_20:27. The Heb. is difficult. Wellh., combining Heb. and Sept., reads simply “on the second day.” Chald.: “on the day after, which was the interealation of the second month” (translated in Walton’s Polyg. “the day after that day which was, etc.”) that is the day after the “second new-moon,” or the second day of the month. The rendering given above is altogether the easiest.—Tr.]
[33][1Sa_20:29. The Heb. does not admit this rendering. Wellh. suggests וְהֵא “and lo!”—Tr.]
[34][1Sa_20:29. Some MSS. and edd. have “send me away.”—Tr.]
[35][1Sa_20:30. Sept., son of “a faithless damsel,” as if they read נַעֲרַת instead of נַעֲוַת, which is against the vss. and the rule proclivi scriptioni prœstat ardua.—Tr..]
[36][1Sa_20:30. Sept., “art associated with” (חבר). The לְ before בֶן is unusual. Yet if we substitute בְּ for לְ there seems to be no good reason for changing the text.—Tr.]
[37][1Sa_20:33. Or, brandished (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]
[38][1Sa_20:33. Instead of כָּלָה הִיא read כָּלְתָה (Wellh.).—Tr.]
[39][1Sa_20:38. So in Qeri; the text has Sing. “arrow.” See on 1Sa_20:20.—Tr.]
[40][1Sa_20:38. Sept., brought them,” וַיָּבֵא. Between the two readings it is hard to decide.—Tr.]
[41][1Sa_20:40. Literally his “implements.” The distinctive word “artillery,” though now rarely used in this sense, is needed and should be retained.—Tr.]
[42][1Sa_20:41. A difficult passage. The Heb. (as given in Eng. A. V.) does not yield a good sense, and the vss. deal variously with the sentence. Chald.: “from beside the stone of the sign (or the stone Atha) which is on the south” (from 1Sa_20:19), Syr.: “from beside the stone,” Sept., Vat., “from the Argab,” Alex., “from sleep” (see Orig. Hex. ed Montf.), Vulg. and others as the Heb. It seems probable that the readings here and in 1Sa_20:19 are the same, and that we should render in both cases either “beside the stone” or “beside the stone Ezel (or, the sign-stone”).—Tr.]
[43][1Sa_20:42. Or, with Sept. and Wellh. omitting “David,” “wept with one another greatly.”—Tr.]
[44][This seems to be the meaning of Erdmann’s innere haltlosigkcit here.—Tr.]
[45][See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
[46][Yet it is quite possible to read: “Jehovah, God of Israel—when I have sounded, etc.,—if there be good and I show it not, so do Jehovah to Jonathan,” which is instead of “Jehovah do so to me if there be good and I show it not.” The difficulty is only in the post-position of the adjuration.—Tr.]
[47]Instead of Hiphil יִיִטַב read with Böttch. and Then. Qal. יִיטַב, “which may be construed, as with בְּעֵינֵי לְ לִפְנֵי (Ps. 64:32), so also with אֵל” (Böttch.). The Accus, particle before the subject הָרָעָה =“as respects,” quoad, “if it please my father in respect of evil.” “But this word (אֵת) can never denote the Nominative; yet often only the general sense of the discourse calls forth the Acc., since the active form of connection everywhere presses in as the most natural” (Ew., §277 d). So stands the Accus.-particle after the opposite of יִיטַב, that is, יֵרַע, 2Sa_11:25. Bunsen remarks that after “my father” לְהָבִיא “to bring,” has probably fallen out. But “it is not necessary, in order to maintain אֵת as Accus. particle, to insert a supposed לְהָבִיא from the Sept. What the latter renders ἀνοίσω is clearly not לְהָבִיא, but אָבִי itself read as אָבִיא (as in 1Ki_21:29; comp. 1Sa_17:54; 1Sa_18:27), because יִיטַב אֶל־ was wanting in its text” (Böttch.).
[48]In 1Sa_20:14, instead of the double וְלֹא is read וְלוּא, or וְלוּ = וְלֻא, particle of wish, so in 1Sa_14:30; Isa_63:19 : “O that,” utinam, usually with the Impf., Ew. § 329 b, § 358 b.
[49]For אָמוּת, which, put thus absolutely, accords with the feeling of the speaker, we are not with Thenius after Sept. and Vulg. to read וְאִם מוּת אָמוּת; the conditional particle is often wanting, and is here naturally supplied from the preceding “if I still live.”
[50][This Verb is supplied conjecturally, being omitted in the German text.—Tr.]
[51][Similar is Abarbanel’s view, and also Rashi’s.—Tr.]
[52][The most grievous insult to an Arab is one directed against his mother, but such a phrase is not probable here; in the general uncertainty and obscurity of the language, Erdmann’s explanation seems the least objectionable.—Tr.]
[53][Wellhausen reads after Sept.נַעֲרַת ה׳ and renders from Jdg_16:12 (παῖδας αὐτομολούντων, comp. Lagarde’s Syr. vs.) “runaway slave.” On our passage Frankel (Vorstudien zur LXX. 187) says: “The Hagada relates that Jonathan’s mother was one of the maidens carried off at Shiloh (Judges 21), and willingly offered herself to Saul (comp. Rashi in loco). This Hagada is expressed in the Greek (LXX.), and still more clearly in the Vulgate. So also in Joseph. Ant. VI. 11, 9, probably from the Sept., as is frequent with Josephus.”—Tr.]
[54][Bib. Comm.: The generosity of Jonathan’s character is seen in that he resented the wrong done to his friend, not that done to himself.—Tr.].
[55][A point can hardly be made of this. David might just as well have fled in any other direction, and chose the south because he was naturally more familiar with the region where he was brought up.—See “Text. and Gram.” for the difficulties of the text.—Tr.].
[56][The phrase συντελεία is used in New Test of the end of the world, as in Mat_13:39 al.—Tr.].
[57] [Starke quotes this saying in substantially the form given it by Luther in a metrical version. We have substituted the form familiar to the English-speaking world from the Book of Common Prayer. Luther’s hymn (Knapp 2824, Schaff 446) derives its first stanza, with alterations, from an older German version. The original Latin is found in Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus II. 329, is certainly quite old, and believed by some to have been written by a monk who died A. D. 912. It was once a favorite battle-song. The first line is so famous that it may be well to insert the whole:
Media vita in morte sumus:
Quem quœrimus adjutorem nisi te, domine,
Qui pro peccatis nostris iuste irasceris:
Sancte Deus, sancte fortis, sancte et misericors salvator:
Amarœ morti ne tradas nos.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv5, 11, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42 David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to-morrow the new moon,…
David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to-morrow the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat--The beginning of a new month or moon was always celebrated by special sacrifices, followed by feasting, at which the head of a family expected all its members to be present. David, both as the king's son-in-law and a distinguished courtier, dined on such occasions at the royal table, and from its being generally known that David had returned to Gibeah, his presence in the palace would be naturally expected. This occasion was chosen by the two friends for testing the king's state of feeling. As a suitable pretext for David's absence, it was arranged that he should visit his family at Beth-lehem, and thus create an opportunity of ascertaining how his non-appearance would be viewed. The time and place were fixed for Jonathan reporting to David; but as circumstances might render another interview unsafe, it was deemed expedient to communicate by a concerted signal.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 40, 41 JONATHAN’S LAST INTERCESSION FOR DAVID, 1Sa_20:1-42.
JONATHAN’S LAST INTERCESSION FOR DAVID, 1Sa_20:1-42.
1. David fled — Probably very soon after he witnessed the desperate attempts of Saul to seize upon him in the presence of Samuel and the prophets. Recently he fled to Samuel, (1Sa_19:18,) hoping, in the sanctity of the school of the prophets, to find a secure asylum; but now he sees that his persecutor will rashly invade even that sacred retreat. Next he flies to his tried friend, Jonathan.
Read full note →
What have I done — David feels conscious of innocence. He probably did not yet understand that he was destined to supersede Saul, and that the king looked upon him as a rival. In all his intercourse with him at Ramah, Samuel seems not to have deemed it prudent to acquaint the young psalmist with this matter of the kingdom.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42 Ch. 1Sa_20:1-10. David’s consultation with Jonathan
Ch. 1Sa_20:1-10. David’s consultation with Jonathan
1. David fled from Naioth] While Saul lay helpless in his trance, David, perhaps by Samuel’s advice, returned to consult with Jonathan. It may seem surprising that he could think of venturing back to Gibeah after Saul’s late outbreak; but he on his part would be unwilling to break with Saul and become an outlaw till absolutely forced to do so; while Jonathan, knowing David’s value to the kingdom, would use every effort to effect a reconciliation. This he might still hope for, since all Saul’s actual attempts upon David’s life had been made in his fits of, insanity.
Read full note →
What have I done] The three questions are a virtual assertion of his innocence. Compare the passionate protests of the Seventh Psalm, written probably somewhat later, during his flight, but reflecting the feelings of this time. See on 1Sa_24:9.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42 (1) And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and…
(1) And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan.—The strange course of events in the prophetic schools by Ramah, while warning David that even the home of his old master, the great seer, was no permanent sanctuary where he could safely rest, still gave him time to fly, and to take counsel with his loved friend, the king s son. It was, no doubt, by Samuel’s advice that he once more betook himself to the city of Saul, but his return was evidently secret.
Alone with his friend, he passionately asserts his entire innocence of the crimes laid to his charge by the unhappy, jealous Saul. His words here are found in substance in not a few of his Psalms, where, in touching language, he maintains how bitterly the world had wronged and persecuted a righteous, innocent man.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35, 40, 41 JONATHAN"S COVENANT WITH DAVID RENEWED (vers. 1-23).
JONATHAN"S COVENANT WITH DAVID RENEWED (vers. 1-23).
David fled from Naioth. While Saul was under the influence of the prophetic enthusiasm David escaped; but it is evident that this visit to Samuel, and the extraordinary occurrences which attended it, were not without, a good influence for the time upon Saul"s mind. Some sort of reconciliation must have been patched up, probably by the mediation of Samuel; for David assumed that at the new moon be would be expected to dine at the king"s table (ver. 5), and that Saul would look for him as a matter of course (ver. 6). We find, moreover, that his place was made ready, not only on the new moon (ver. 25), but also on the following day (ver. 26). But whatever professions Saul may have made to Samuel, it is evident that no promise had been made personally to David, and taught by past experience that the intention of slaying him had grown more and more fixed in the king"s mind, he feels that his position is full of danger, and takes counsel with Jonathan, with the view of learning whether he might venture once again to take his place as a member of Saul s family.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-10.
Endangered life and reputation.
The facts are
1. David, believing in Saul"s purpose to kill him, flees to Jonathan, andinquires into the cause of this persecution.
2. Jonathan quiets him by the assurance that Saul would not hide anypurpose from him.
3. On David referring to Saul"s knowledge of their friendship and its effecton his methods, Jonathan expresses readiness to do whatever David may suggest.
4. Thereupon David suggests a means by which Saul"s disposition towardshim can be ascertained.
5. He further pleads, on the ground of their strong friendship, that Jonathanshould slay or aid to deliver him. It is not improbable that the coming of the prophetic spirit on Saul was, among other reasons, designed to help him once more to a due consideration of his course. But by this time David appears to have awakened to the conviction that the recent attempts on his life were not to be ascribed to fitful outbursts of madness, but to a fixed purpose, for reasons he could not surmise. As then he had sought refuge with Samuel from the hand of passionate violence, so now he naturally turns to his beloved friend Jonathan to ascertain from one presumably in his father"s secrets the causes of this persistent attempt on his life, and to demand of him the offices of true friendship. A triple consciousness pervades this appeal of David: namely, of integrity, of danger, of duty of self-preservation.
I A MAN CONSCIOUS OF INTEGRITY OF LIFE. It would appear that David was quite unaware of the secret of Saul"s conduct. It is probable that he knew nothing of that fearful doom pronounced by Samuel (1Sa_15:26-29) which had operated so disastrously on the guilty mind of Saul. With the innocence of an unworldly man, he could not imagine that a monarch reigning over the people of God could ever devise destruction against a subject unless he believed that subject to have committed some crime worthy of death. Possibly the king might be under an unfounded impression; and as Jonathan was heir to the throne and in his father"s confidence, he would surely inform his friend. At all events, so far as he knew his own heart, he was conscious only of integrity. "What have I done? What is mine iniquity?" In dealing with the important matter involved in these questions, let us observe that
1. Integrity is to be sought in every man. David was correct in the assumption underlying his inquiry that every one ought to be characterised by integrity of life, and that on its existence alone can we justly claim exemption from scorn, suffering, abandonment, and a right to respect, enjoyment of life, and personal protection. There is in every man a voice unceasingly demanding of him uprightness, moral soundness. The eye with which we look on one another is guided by this conviction. And it is in the universal recognition of the truth that integrity is to be sought in every one that we find a basis of appeal in the name of righteousness, and a rational place for the doctrines of atonement and regeneration.
1. Integrity is to be regarded in a twofold aspect. It will be observed that David simply raises the question as to what he had done in relation to Saul or his kingdom. He distinguished between integrity in his relations to man and integrity in his relations to God. All moral relations to man involve moral relations to God, but the reverse is not true. Man"s relations to God are wider than those to his fellow men. Religious morality is not identical with secular morality. The spiritual embraces obligations transcending the humanly moral. Integrity in relation to man lies in the faithful discharge of all obligations due to man, under the influence of pure motives in detail, and a supreme sense of justice in general. But integrity in relation to God means perfect rightness of spirit, manifesting itself in perfect love of God, perfect obedience to God, perfect purity of thought in fact, conformity in every secret and open movement of will with the holy will of God. This
2. soundness, this health, is certain to insure integrity in relation to man, but the reverse is not true. This distinction is of great importance to the understanding of Scripture and the regulation of life (cf. 2Ch_6:36-39; Job_15:14 Ps 15.; Isa_33:15, Isa_33:16; Rom_3:23- Jam_5:16; 1Jn_1:8)
3. Integrity in its human relation is, in ordinary life, maintained withoutself-assertion. During the months of David"s service, from the day he entered into conflict with Goliath till his flight to Naioth, he had been a true, sincere man, doing his duty. But all this time he was not conscious of anything remarkable. The beauty of integrity of life lies in the naturalness which suggests no reflection upon itself. True virtue excludes self-admiration, and, when in exercise, self-consciousness. Our Saviour never refers to his goodness as a praise to himself. The sun needs only to shine, the truth only to be (Mat_6:1-4; Luk_18:12)
4 . Integrity may be asserted when challenged by detractors, or when wrong is done to one"s interests. David"s uprightness of life would have gone on without self-introspection and self. assertion were it not that he was subject to a treatment not explicable on ordinary principles. It was time for him to affirm his innocence, and bring his natural integrity into distinct consciousness. He often does this in the Psalms, not to claim righteousness in relation to God, but to rebut accusations in reference to his conduct amongst men. It was the same sense of injustice which led Job to assert his innocence of many of the charges of his friends. "I will maintain mine own ways before him". (Job_15:13-16) The Apostle Paulalso vindicated his own life against the insinuations of false brethren. (2Co_10:8-11 2Co_11:6-10, 2Co_11:21-30) Our Saviour also, when persecuted by malicious men, could ask, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?". (Joh_8:46) Only a stern sense of duty a protest against wrong will break a righteous man"s silence in relation to himself.
5 . Integrity before man must never be a substitute for integrity before God. David"s object was simply vindication from supposed charges of wrong deliberately done to Saul. He had a deep consciousness at the same time that in the sight of God, as a spiritual being, he was unworthy and in need of mercy. Only such a man, sensible of sinfulness before God, would dwell so much on mercy, (Psa_52:8 Psa_62:12 Psa_86:5) and at the same time on "integrity" and "uprightness". (Psa_7:8 Psa_25:21 Psa_26:1 Psa_41:4) Men take a very superficial view of things when they imagine that goodness which passes among men, and is a fulfilment of our earthly obligations, "extendeth" unto God. (Psa_16:2, Psa_16:3) This was one of the deadly errors of the Pharisees, and it was exposed by the whole tenor of our Saviour"s teaching. (Luk_18:9-14; Joh_3:1-11) As we have not integrity before God, we must be born again, repent, seek forgiveness and acceptance, not because of what we are and have done, but because of Christ having loved us and given himself for us. (Act_4:12; Rom_3:24-28 Rom_4:5, 6 5:1, 2; Php_3:8, 9)
II A MAN SENSIBLE OF GREAT PERIL. Two perils beset David. He feared death at the hand of Saul, and, most of all, loss of reputation. He rightly judged that if the king of Israel sought his life and chased him with that end in view, the impression would be conveyed to many that he had been guilty of some act of wrong well known to Saul, though unknown to the people. An upright man, although able to commit himself to God, dreads to be thought a wrong doer, and to die as though he were such. Hence his pleading with Jonathan, his pain at the suspicion of want of integrity, his desire to learn whether the king"s mind was more placable. These two perils beset us all. In one sense we are safe from death till our appointed time has come, for God"s care fails not; yet in relation to the forces at work around us we know not what a day or an hour may bring forth. Life is begirt with powers of destruction. There is but a "step" between us and death. "In the midst of life we are in death." The proper effect of this sense of peril is wholesome. It leads to such an estimate of life as renders it wiser, more sober, earnest, and devout (Psa_39:4-7; Ecc_9:10 Ecc_11:9 Ecc_12:13; 1Co_7:29-31) But to a sincerely good man danger to reputation is more serious. Many would rather die than either actually lose character or be deemed to have lost it. They can sympathise with David"s wish that Jonathan would slay him if really moral cause existed. Our Saviour"s pain was great because of the effort to ruin his character. But though all are exposed to these two perils in common with David, there is one other peril of life which often is an occasion of loss of reputation. We are exposed to the wiles of the devil. As Saul sought the life of David, so Satan goeth about seeking whom he may devour. (1Pe_5:8) Every day the adversary destroys by "his strong ones." The language of the Psalmist (Psa_10:8-10) will apply with wonderful precision to the destroyer of souls, the "murderer from the beginning". (Joh_8:44) The proper effect of this sense of peril is to induce watchfulness, avoidance of the haunts of iniquity, prayer for strength, and such consecration to work as shall leave no time or thought for dalliance with the tempter. (Mat_7:13 Mat_26:41; Eph_6:11, Eph_6:12, Eph_6:18)
III A MAN INTENT ON SELF-PRESERVATION. While in conflict with Goliath, amidst the regular duties of his public course, David seems to have been under no concern for his life or reputation. He did his duty and trusted in God. But when he suspected attempts in the dark on his life and character, he felt bound to devise means of securing himself, and rightly manifested much anxiety in relation thereto. It is possible that character may be so defamed during life that only death will prove its vindication, as in case of our Saviour; nevertheless, no means should be left unused to assert our innocence and if possible prove it. The subtle powers which threaten our life may be often avoided by observance of laws of health and abstention from unnecessary risks. Many men commit slow suicide by wilful neglect of fresh air, good and moderate food, and by excessive toil for gain. The preservation of character may often be secured by abstaining from the "appearance of evil," though we shall never rid ourselves of uncharitable defamers.
General lessons:
1. We should strive to be free from the narrow suspicions and uncharitable thoughts which tend to injure excellent reputations. (1Co_13:4-7)
2. If we cannot vindicate our reputation before men, let us have comfort inGod"s knowledge of us. (Psa_37:5, 6 139:1-4)
3. Like Jonathan, we should manifest great sympathy with those whosehonourable character is defamed or in peril.
4. Our supreme concern should be to live in spirit so as to find acceptancewith the holy, all-seeing God.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-10. (GIBEAH.)
The intercourse of friends.
The regard which true friends have for each other prompts to much communion. In it they find an exalted pleasure, and a sure resource of help and comfort in adversity. Hence David, in his continued distrust and fear of Saul, hastened to his friend Jonathan. Concerning their intercourse, notice
1. Its entire freedom. They tell each other, without reserve, all that is in their hearts. Such freedom can be wisely indulged only in the presence of a friend. "A principal fruit of friendship is the ease and discharge of the fulness and swellings of the heart which passions of all kinds do cause and induce. No receipt openeth the heart but a true friend, to whom you may impart griefs, joys, fears, hopes, suspicions, counsel, and whatsoever lieth upon the heart to oppress it, in a kind of civil shrift or confession. It redoubleth joys, and cutteth griefs in halves" (Bacon, "Essays").
1. Its gentle expostulations and reproofs. When David said, "Thy father seeketh my life" (an expression often used in the Psalms), Jonathan reproved his distrust is not so;" and only after a solemn oath could be induced to share it (ver. 9). Rebuke is a duty and evidence of true friendship; and "where a man"s ears are shut against the truth so that he
2. cannot hear it from a friend, the welfare of such a one is to be despaired of." "As many as I love I rebuke.
3. Its kindly assurances. "Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will do it for thee." Such assurances he gave generously, sincerely, solemnly, and repeatedly, and they imparted encouragement and increased confidence. How "exceeding great and precious" are the promises which the heavenly Friend has given for this purpose to his friends!
1. Its anxious consultations and intelligent counsels. "The second fruit of friendship is healthful and sovereign for the understanding, as the first is for the affections; for friendship maketh indeed a fair day in the affections from storm and tempests, but it maketh daylight in the understanding out of darkness and confusion of thoughts; neither is this to be understood only of faithful counsel. The last fruit is aid, and bearing a part in all actions and occasions" (Bacon).
2. Its earnest requests of aid (ver. 8). Although it is the part of friendship to grant help to a friend rather than to beg it of him, yet it shows itself by reliance upon him in great emergencies, and confidently claims the fulfilment of former assurances; nor will it look for aid to a true friend in vain.
3. Its manifest imperfection. For, like all things earthly, human friendship is imperfect. Its communion is liable to interruption (vers. 10, 41). It often entertains thoughts, devises plans, and makes requests which are mistaken and injurious. The statement of David (though founded upon a measure of truth) was a mere pretext, and through failing faith in God he fell into "foolish and hurtful devices." It also omits reproof when it should be given, complies with doubtful requests, and promises what it is not able to perform. But all the defects which are found in the highest human friendship are absent from, and all the excellences which it possesses, and infinitely more, are present in, the friendship of Christ. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 6, 10, 17, 18, 20, 25, 32, 34, 42 And David fled from Naioth, in Ramah, and came…
1Sa_20:1-42
And David fled from Naioth, in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan.
Read full note →
David and Jonathan
1. It will be suitable for us to dwell on the remarkable friendship between David and Jonathan--a beautiful oasis in this wilderness history.
(1) It was a striking proof of the ever mindful and considerate grace of God, that at the very opening of the dark valley of trial through which David had to pass in consequence of Sauls jealousy, he was brought into contact with Jonathan, and in his disinterested and sanctified friendship, furnished with one of the sweetest earthly solaces for the burden of care and sorrow. In merciful adaptation to the infirmities of his human spirit, God opened to him this stream in the desert, and allowed him to refresh himself with its pleasant waters; but to show him that his great dependence must be placed, not on the fellowship of mortal man, but on the ever-living and ever-loving God, Jonathan and he were doomed, after the briefest period of companionship, to a lifelong separation.
(2) In another view, Davids intercourse with Jonathan served an important purpose in his training. The very sight he constantly had of Sauls outrageous wickedness might have nursed a self-righteous feeling, might have encouraged the thought that as Saul was rejected by God for his wickedness, so David was chosen for his goodness. The remembrance of Jonathans singular virtues and graces was fitted to rebuke this thought; for if regard to human goodness had decided Gods course in the matter, why should not Jonathan have been appointed to succeed his father?
(3) But there was one feature of the friendship of Jonathan and David that had no parallel in classic times--it was friendship between two men, of whom the younger was a more formidable rival to the older. It is Jonathan that shines most in this friendship, for he was the one who had least to gain and most to lose from the other.
(4) Besides being disinterested, Jonathans friendship for David was of an eminently holy character. Evidently Jonathan was a man that habitually honoured God, if not in much open profession, yet in the way of deep reverence and submission. And thus, besides being able to surrender his own prospects without a murmur, and feel real happiness in the thought that David would be king, he could strengthen the faith of his friend, as we read afterwards (1Sa_23:16). What a priceless blessing is the friendship of those who support and comfort us in great spiritual conflicts, and help us to stand erect in some great crisis of our lives!
2. We cannot turn from this chapter without adding a word on the friendships of the young. It is when hearts are tender that they are more readily knit to each other, as the heart of Jonathan was knit to the heart of David. But the formation of friendships is too important a matter to be safely left to casual circumstances.
(1) It ought to be gone about with care. A friend is very useful, if he is rich in qualities where we are poor.
(2) But surely, of all qualities in a friend or companion who is to do us good, the most vital is, that he fears the Lord. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
A friendly prince a princely friend
I. The princely friendship.
1. An unselfish and self-denying avowal. He had soon to learn by experience, and he must have known the fact then, that to befriend David was to displease Saul. Yet is there no faltering in his fidelity. However contrary the waves may be, he changes not the vessels head; undeterred, he abides faithful. Calumnies and adulations change him not.
2. The religious character of this friendship is forced upon us. He begins with a covenant. Are any friendships worth cultivating whereupon we may not ask the Divine blessing?
3. Such a friendship was not only the affection of a man. He drew the power to thus love on from the Great Source of Love.
II. The purpose this friendship served.
1. God gave David a friend at court.
2. Another purpose the friendship of Jonathan served was to strengthen Davids faith. During his exile, especially in the early past, when his fortunes changed so suddenly, Davids faith became clouded. It is his voice that exclaims, There is but a step between me and death. The strong confidence is breathed by Jonathan (1Sa_20:14-15). When pressed almost beyond endurance and weary with continual flight, it is Jonathan who directs the trembling heart to God (1Sa_23:16-17).
Lessons:
1. Sanctified friendships are Gods hands of guidance. Such lead us always to Himself and never from Him.
2. Friendships formed for social or temporal gain are akin to traffic and bargain driving on the Temple floor, and must end in ruin. That is no real friendship which fails to lead us to God.
3. True friendships are stable. Human alliances are as fragile as the flowers the frost has traced upon the window, which melt away before the pure beams of love or the heat of trial from within. All friendships that are worth anything must begin with a covenant. (H. E. Stone.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER X X V I I.
DAVID AND JONATHAN.
Read full note →
1Sa_20:1-42.
WE have no means of determining how long time elapsed between the events recorded in the preceding chapter and those recorded in this. It is not unlikely that Saul's experience at Naioth led to a temporary improvement in his relations to David. The tone of this chapter leads us to believe that at the time when it opens there was some room for doubt whether or not Saul continued to cherish any deli- berate ill-feeling to his son-in-law. David's own suspicions were strong that he did; but Jonathan appears to have thought otherwise. Hence the earnest conversation which the two friends had on the subject; and hence the curious but crooked stratagem by which they tried to find out the truth.
But before we go on to this, it will be suitable for us at this place to dwell for a little on the remarkable friendship between David and Jonathan - a beautiful oasis in this wilderness history, - one of the brightest gems in this book of Samuel.
It was a striking proof of the ever mindful and considerate grace of God, that at the very opening of the dark valley of trial through which David had to pass in consequence of Saul's jealousy, he was brought into contact with Jonathan, and in his disinterested and sanctified friendship, furnished with one of the sweetest earthly solaces for the burden of care and sorrow. The tempest suddenly let loose on him must have proved too vehement, if he had been left in Saul's dark palace without one kind hand to lead him on, or the sympathy of one warm heart to encourage him; the spirit of faith might have declined more seriously than it did, had it not been strengthened by the bright faith of Jonathan. It was plain that Michal, though she had a kind of attachment to David, was far from having a thoroughly congenial heart; she loved him, and helped to save him, but at the same time bore false witness against him (1Sa_19:17). In his deepest sorrows, David could have derived little comfort from her. Whatever gleams of joy and hope, therefore, were now shed by human companionship across his dark firmament, were due to Jonathan. In merciful adaptation to the infirmities of his human spirit, God opened to him this stream in the desert, and allowed him to refresh himself with its pleasant waters; but to show him, at the same time, that such supplies could not be permanently relied on, and that his great dependence must be placed, not on the fellowship of mortal man, but on the ever-living and ever-loving God, Jonathan and he were doomed, after the briefest period of companionship, to a lifelong separation, and the friendship which had seemed to promise a perpetual solace of his trials, only aggravated their severity, when its joys were violently reft away.
In another view, David's intercourse with Jonathan served an important purpose in his training. The very sight he constantly had of Saul's outrageous wickedness might have nursed a self-righteous feeling, - might have encouraged the thought, so agreeable to human nature, that as Saul was rejected by God for his wickedness, so David was chosen for his goodness. The remembrance of Jonathan's singular virtues and graces was fitted to rebuke this thought; for if regard to human goodness had decided God's course in the matter, why should not Jonathan have been appointed to succeed his father? From the self-righteous ground on which he might have been thus tempted to stand, David would be thrown back on the adorable sovereignty of God; and in deepest humiliation constrained to own that it was God's grace only that made him to differ from others.
Ardent friendships among young men were by no means uncommon in ancient times; many striking instances occurred among the Greeks, which have sometimes been accounted for by the comparatively low estimation in which female society was then held. ''The heroic companions celebrated by Homer and others," it has been remarked, "seem to have but one heart and soul, with scarcely a wish or object apart, and only to live, as they are always ready to die, for one another. . . . The idea of a Greek hero seems not to have been thought complete without such a brother in arms by his side."* (*Thirlwalls ''History of Greece. '')
But there was one feature of the friendship of Jonathan and David that had no parallel in classic times, - it was friendship between two men, of whom the younger was a most formidable rival to the older. It is Jonathan that shines most in this friendship, for he was the one who had least to gain and most to lose from the other. He knew that David was ordained by God to succeed to his father's throne, yet he loved him; he knew that to befriend David was to offend his father, yet he warmly befriended him; he knew that he must decrease and David increase, yet no atom of jealousy disturbed his noble spirit. What but divine grace could have enabled Jonathan to maintain this blessed temper? What other foundation could it have rested on but the conviction that what God ordained must be the very best, infinitely wise and good for him and for all? Or what could have filled the heart thus bereaved of so fair an earthly prospect, but the sense of God's love, and the assurance that He would compensate to him all that He took from him? How beautiful was this fruit of the Spirit of God! How blessed it would be if such clusters hung on every branch of the vine!
Besides being disinterested, Jonathan's friendship for David was of an eminently holy character. Evidently Jonathan was a man that habitually honoured God, if not in much open profession, yet in the way of deep reverence and submission. And thus, besides being able to surrender his own prospects without a murmur, and feel real happiness in the thought that David would be king, he could strengthen the faith of his friend, as we read afterwards (1Sa_23:16): ''Jonathan, Saul's son, arose and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God." At the time when they come together in the chapter before us, Jonathan's faith was stronger than David's. David's faltering heart was saying, ''There is but a step between me and death" (1Sa_20:3), while Jonathan in implicit confidence in God's purpose concerning David was thus looking forward to the future, - "Thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord that I die not; but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever; no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David everyone from the face of the earth." There has seldom, if ever, been exhibited a finer instance of triumphant faith, than when the prince, with all the resources of the kingdom at his beck, made this request of the helpless outlaw. What a priceless blessing is the friendship of those who support and comfort us in great spiritual conflicts, and help us to stand erect in some great crisis of our lives! How different from the friendship that merely supplies the merriment of an idle hour, at the expense, perhaps, of a good conscience, and to the lasting injury of the soul!
But let me now briefly note the events recorded in this chapter. It is a long chapter, one of those long chapters in which incidents are recorded with such fullness of detail, as not only to make a very graphic narrative, but to supply an incidental proof of its authenticity.
First of all, we have the preliminary conversation between David and Jonathan, as to the real feeling of Saul toward David. Incidentally, we learn how much Saul leant on Jonathan: ''My father will do nothing, either great or small, but he will show it me," - a proof that Jonathan was, like Joseph before him, and like Daniel after him, eminently trustworthy, and as sound in judgment as he was noble in character. Guileless himself, he suspected no guile in his father. But David was not able to take so favourable a view of Saul. So profound was his conviction to the contrary, that in giving his reason for believing that Saul had concealed from his son his real feeling in the matter, and the danger in which he was, he used the solemn language of adjuration: ''As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death." Viewed from the human point, this was true; viewed from under the Divine purpose and promise, it could not be true. Yet we cannot blame David, knowing as he did what Saul really felt, for expressing his human fears, and the distress of mind to which the situation gave birth.
Next, we find a device agreed on between David and Jonathan, to ascertain the real sentiments of Saul. It was one of those deceitful ways to which, very probably, David had become accustomed in his military experiences, in his forays against the Philistines, where stratagems may have been, as they often were, a common device. It was probable that David would be missed from Saul's table next day, as it was the new moon and a feast; if Saul inquired after him, Jonathan was to pretend that he had asked leave to go to a yearly family sacrifice at Bethlehem; and the way in which Saul should take this explanation would show his real feeling and purpose about David. In the event of Saul being enraged, and commanding Jonathan to bring David to him, David implored Jonathan not to comply; rather kill him with his own hand than that; for there was nothing that David dreaded so much as falling into the hands of Saul. Jonathan surely did not deserve that it should be thought possible for him to surrender David to his father, or to conceal anything from him that had any bearing on his welfare. But inasmuch as David had put the matter in the form he did, it seemed right to Jonathan that a very solemn transaction should take place at this time, to make their relation as clear as day, and to determine the action of the stronger of them to the other, in time to come.
This is the third thing in the chapter. Jonathan takes David into the field, that is, into some sequestered Wady, at some distance from the town, where they would be sure to enjoy complete solitude; and there they enter into a solemn covenant. Jonathan takes the lead. He begins with a solemn appeal to God, calling on Him not as a matter of mere form or propriety, but of real and profound significance. First, he binds himself to communicate faithfully to David the real state of things on the part of his father, whether it should be for good or for evil. And then he binds David, whom by faith he sees in possession of the kingly power, in spite of all that Saul may do against him, first to be kind to himself while he lived, and not cut him off, as new kings so often massacred all the relations of the old; and also after his death to show kindness to his family, and never cease to remember them, not even when raised to such a pitch of prosperity that all his enemies were cut off from the earth. One knows not whether most to wonder at the faith of Jonathan, or the sweetness of his nature. It is David, the poor outlaw, with hardly a man to stand by him, that appears to Jonathan the man of power, the man who can dispose of all lives and sway all destinies; while Jonathan, the king's son and confidential adviser, is somehow reduced to helplessness, and unable even to save himself. But was there ever such a transaction entered into with such sweetness of temper? The calmness of Jonathan in contemplating the strange reverse of fortune both to himself and to David, is exquisitely beautiful; nor is there in it a trace of that servility with which mean natures worship the rising sun; it is manly and generous while it is meek and humble; such a combination of the noble and the submissive as was shown afterwards, in highest form, in the one perfect example of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Next conies a statement of the way in which Jonathan was to announce to David the result. It might not be safe for him to see David personally, but in that case he would let him know what had transpired about him through a preconcerted signal, in reference to the place where he would direct an attendant to go for some arrows. As it happened, a personal interview was obtained with David; but before that, the telegraphing with the arrows was carried out as arranged.
On the first day of the feast, David's absence passed unnoticed, Saul being under the impression that he had acquired ceremonial uncleanness. But as that excuse could only avail for one day, Saul finding him absent the second day, asked Jonathan what had become of him. The excuse agreed on was given. It excited the deepest rage of Saul. But his rage was not against David so much as against Jonathan for taking his part. Saul did not believe in the excuse, otherwise he would not have ordered Jonathan to send and fetch David. If David was at Bethlehem, Saul could have sent for him himself; if he lay concealed in the neighbourhood, Jonathan alone would know his hiding-place, therefore Jonathan must get hold of him. If this be the true view, the stratagem of Jonathan had availed nothing; the plain truth would have served the purpose no worse. As it was, Jonathan's own life was in the most imminent danger. Remonstrating with his father for seeking to destroy David, he narrowly escaped his father's javelin, even though, a moment before, in his jealousy of David, Saul had professed to be concerned for the interests of Jonathan. "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and to the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" What Strange and unworthy methods will not angry men and women resort to, to put vinegar into their words and make them sting! To try to wound a man's feelings by reviling his mother, or by reviling any of his kindred, is a practice confined to the dregs of society, and nauseous, to the last degree, to every gentle and honourable mind. In Saul's case, the offence was still more infamous because the woman reviled was his own wife. Surely if her failings reflected on any one, they reflected on her husband rather than her son. But that it was any real failing that Saul denounced when he called her ''the perverse rebellious woman," we greatly doubt. To a man like Saul, any assertion of her rights by his wife, any refusal to be his abject slave, any opposition to his wild and wicked designs against David, would mean perversity and rebellion. We are far from thinking ill of this nameless woman because her husband denounced her to her son. But when we see Saul in one breath trying to kill his son with a javelin and to destroy his wife's character by poisoned words, and at the same time thirsting for the death of his son-in-law, we have a mournful exhibition of the depth to which men are capable of descending from whom the Spirit of the Lord hath departed.
No wonder that Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month. One wonders how the feast went on thereafter, but one does not envy the guests. Did Saul drown his stormy feelings in copious draughts of wine, and turn the holy festival into a bacchanalian rout, amid whose boisterous mirth and tempestuous exhilaration the reproaches of conscience would be stifled for the hour?
The third day has come, on which, by preconcerted agreement, Jonathan was to reveal to David his father's state of mind. David is in the agreed-on hiding-place; and Jonathan, sallying forth with his servant, shoots his arrows to the place which was to indicate the existence of danger. Then, the lad having gone back to the city, and no one being on the spot to observe them or interrupt them, the two friends come together and have an affecting meeting. When Jonathan parted from David three days before, he had not been without hopes of bringing to him a favourable report of his father. David expected nothing of the kind; but even David must have been shocked and horrified to find things so bad as they were now reported. In an act of unfeigned reverence for the king's son, David bowed himself three times to the ground. In token of much love they kissed one another; while under the dark cloud of adversity that had risen on them both, and that now compelled them to separate, hardly ever again (as it turned out) to see one another in the flesh, "they wept one with another until David exceeded."
''They wept as only strong men weep,
When weep they must, or die."
One consolation alone remained, and it was Jonathan that was able to apply it. ''Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever." Yes, even in that darkest hour, Jonathan could say to David, ''Go in peace.'' What peace?" Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee." "The angel of the Lord encampeth about them that fear Him, and delivereth them." "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth them out of them all." We cannot turn from this chapter without adding a word on the friendships of the young. It is when hearts are tender that they are most readily knit to each other, as the heart of Jonathan was knit to the heart of David. But the formation of friendships is too important a matter to be safely left to casual circumstances. It ought to be gone about with care. If you have materials to choose among, see that you choose the best. At the foundation of all friendship lies con- geniality of heart - a kindred feeling of which one often becomes conscious by instinct at first sight. But there must also be elements of difference in friends. It is a great point to have a friend who is above us in some things, and who will thus be likely to draw us up to a higher level of character, instead of dragging us down to a lower. And a friend is very useful, if he is rich in qualities where we are poor. As is in In Memoriam-
''He was rich where I was poor,
And he supplied my want the more
As his unlikeness fitted mine."
But surely, of all qualities in a friend or companion who is to do us good, the most vital is, that he fears the Lord. As such friendships are by far the most pleasant, so they are by far the most profitable. And when you have made friends, stick by them. Don't let it be said of you that your friend seemed to be everything to you yesterday, but nothing to-day. And if your friends rise above you in the world, rejoice in their prosperity, and banish every envious feeling; or if you should rise above them, do not forget them, nor forsake them, but, as if you had made a covenant before God, continue to show kindness to them and to their children after them. Pray for them, and ask them to pray for you.
Perhaps it was with some view to the friendship of Jonathan and his father that Solomon wrote, "There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." Jonathan was such a friend to David. But the words suggest a higher friendship. The glory of Jonathan's love for David fades before our Lord's love for His brethren. If Jonathan were living among us, who of us could look on him with indifference? Would not our hearts warm to him, as we gazed on his noble form and open face, even though we had never been the objects of his affection? In the case of Jesus Christ, we have all the noble qualities of Jonathan in far higher excellence than his, and we have this further consideration, that for us He has laid down His life, and that none who receive His friendship can ever be separated from His love. And what an elevating and purifying effect that friendship will have! In alliance with Him, you are in alliance with all that is pure and bright, all that is transforming and beautifying; all that can give peace to your conscience, joy to your heart, lustre to your spirit, and beauty to your life; all that can make your garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; all that can bless you and make you a blessing. And once you are truly His, the bond can never be severed; David had to tear himself from Jonathan, but you will never have to tear yourselves from Christ. Your union is cemented by the blood of the everlasting covenant; and by the eternal efficacy of the prayer, ''Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 1Sa_20:1. “And David fled,” while Saul was still under…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
1Sa_20:1. “And David fled,” while Saul was still under the power of the prophetic influence. “Nothing could be a better evidence of his innocence than his thus putting himself in Jonathan’s power. Perhaps something passed between Samuel and Saul on the subject, since it appears from 1Sa_20:5; 1Sa_20:25; 1Sa_20:27, that Saul expected David at the feast of the new moon.” (Biblical Commentary.)
Read full note →
1Sa_20:2. “Why should my father hide this thing from me?” This remark supposes that the intimate relation between Jonathan and David had been concealed, as far as possible, from Saul.” (Erdmann.) “Jonathan, it would seem, clung to a hope that the extraordinary scene at Naioth might have wrought a sanctified improvement on Saul’s temper and feelings.” (Jamieson.) Or, “he might regard the late attempt on David as the result of a new but temporary access of rage, and remembering his distinct oath in his lucid intervals, might suppose that he would not in a quiet state of mind resolve on and execute such a murder. (Erdmann.)
1Sa_20:3. “Moreover:” rather “again.”
1Sa_20:5. “To-morrow is the new moon,” etc. “This request implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore that the new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law in Num_10:10; Num_28:11; Num_28:15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and in the latter character for two days; as we may infer both from the fact that David reckoned to the third evening, i.e., the evening of the third day from the day then present.… it does not follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness, therefore the royal feast was a sacrificial meal. It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take part in a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law.” (Keil.)
1Sa_20:6. “A yearly sacrifice.” “In the then disorganised condition of public worship, to which David himself first gave regular form, family usages of this sort, after the manner of other nations, had established themselves, which were contrary to the prescriptions concerning the unity of Divine worship.” (Von Gerlach.)
1Sa_20:8. “Covenant of the Lord.” “Because it was not only made with invocation of the Lord’s name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God.” (Erdmann.)
1Sa_20:11. “Come, let us go out,” etc. “The scene of this memorable conference was,” as Porter describes it (Handbook, p. 324), “a shallow valley between Gibeah (Tell el Fûlil) and Nob, breaking down on the east in rocky declivities into Wady Suleim. Behind some of the rocks in it David could easily lie hid, and yet see Jonathan descending from the city above.” (Jamieson.)
1Sa_20:12. “O Lord God of Israel.” This is not a prayer, but an invocation—a calling upon God to witness to his sincerity.
1Sa_20:14-15. “Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 1Sa_20:14, ‘And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not?’ 1Sa_20:15 cannot, then, be a part of the question, but must be taken as the subjoined expression of confident expectation: ‘And thou wilt not cut off thy kindness,’ etc. But this sudden, abrupt transition to a question, and then, again, to direct discourse, is strange, even if these vacillations and diversities of discourse are referred to Jonathan’s excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew. Jonathan, having invoked a blessing on David, thus expresses his wish for himself: ‘And wouldst thou, if I still live, wouldst thou show me the kindness of God, and not, if I die, not cut off thy love from my house for ever?’ So Syr., Arab., Maur., Then., Ew., Keil.” (Erdmann.) Jonathan’s request was fulfilled. See 2 Sam., chap. 9.
1Sa_20:16. “So Jonathan made a covenant,” etc., “namely, by bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever.” (Keil.) The second clause is generally understood to be a continuation of the historian’s words, and is rendered, “And Jehovah required it at the hand of David’s enemies,” i.e., Jonathan’s words were fulfilled. So Keil and others.
1Sa_20:17. This verse is generally understood to mean that Jonathan made his love to David the ground of his request, or (Trans. of Lange’s Commentary) “his love to David made him anxious to maintain friendly relations between their houses.”
1Sa_20:19. “When thou hast stayed three days.” “Either with your family in Bethlehem, or wherever you find it convenient.” (Jamieson.) Come down quickly.” The Hebrew here is literally “Come down very,” but our authorised rendering seems to accord better with the sense than any other. Erdmann remarks that it might be necessary to insist on a quick descent to the place of meeting on account of the danger of being observed. “When the business,” etc. Literally “on the day of the deed.” Gesenius refers it to the attempt of Saul to kill David, narrated in 1Sa_19:2, and Jonathan’s effort to save his friend on that occasion. Erdmann coincides in this view. “Exel.” The stone of departure. (Gesenius.) “So called, probably, from its being the spot whence David separated from his friend.” (Jamieson.)
1Sa_20:23. “The matter.” Rather, “the word.” “This refers not merely to the sign agreed upon, but to the whole matter, including the renewal of the bond of friendship.” (Keil.) “Behold, the Lord is between,” etc. Sec Gen_31:49.
1Sa_20:24. “So David hid himself,” etc. Some expositors think that David went first to Bethlehem, others that the visit to his father’s house was entirely a fabrication. “Meat,” i.e., food of any kind.
1Sa_20:25. “A seat by the wall.” “The left-hand corner at the upper end of a room was, and still is, in the East, the most honourable place. The person seated there has his left arm confined by the wall but his right hand is at full liberty. From Abner’s position next the king, and David’s seat being left empty, it would seem that a state etiquette was observed at the royal table, each of the courtiers and ministers having places assigned to them according to their respective gradations of rank.” (Jamieson). “Jonathan arose.” Kiel understands here that when Abner entered Jonathan rose from his seat by the side of Saul and gave up his place to Abner, others that he arose and seated Abner on the other side of Saul in David’s vacant place in order that the latter might not be missed. This latter suggestion seems, however, to be contradicted by the last clause of the verse which states that David’s place was empty.
1Sa_20:27. “The son of Jesse.” “Saul seems to hate the name of David and in contempt he calls him the son of Jesse.” (Wordsworth).
1Sa_20:30. “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman.” “This is a striking oriental form of abuse, the counterpart of that ancient benediction (Luk_11:27). Saul was not angry with his wife; it was the son only upon whom he meant by this style of address to discharge his resentment; and the principle upon which it is founded seems to be that of a genuine filial instinct; it is a more inexpiable offence to hear the name and character of a parent traduced than any personal reproach. In every Eastern family the great object of devotion and respect is the mother. There are familiar expressions which show this very strongly. ‘Pull my father’s beard, but do not speak ill of my mother,’ ‘Strike me, but do not curse my mother.’ ”(Jamieson).
1Sa_20:31. “He shall surely die.” Literally, “he is a son of death.”
1Sa_20:34. “He was grieved for David.” “The generosity of Jonathan’s character is very apparent. He did not resent the injury and insult offered to himself so much as the wrong done to his friend.” (Biblical Commentary).
1Sa_20:38. “While in 1Sa_20:20-22, this procedure is summarily described of three arrows, the account here is of one.… We must suppose that Jonathan did so with each of the three arrows.” (Erdmann).
1Sa_20:40. “Artillery.” i.e., his bows and arrows. “The French word artillerie signifies archery, and the term is still used in England, in the designation of the “artillery company of London,” the association of archers, though they have long disused bows and arrows.” (Jamieson).
1Sa_20:41. “A place toward the south.” “An unintelligible description; one expects a repetition of the description of David’s hiding-place in 1Sa_20:19. The word rendered toward is the same as that rendered near in 1Sa_20:19, but instead of the stone Ezel following, there comes the inexplicable “the south,” (negeb) a word with which the adverb near is never joined, as it never is either with any other denoting a quarter of the heavens. The Sept. in both places read argab or ergab, a word meaning a heap of stones. If this is the true reading, David’s hiding-place was either a natural cavernous rock which was called argab, or some ruin of an ancient building, equally suited for a hiding place.” (Biblical Commentary).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
SAUL’S DISPLEASURE AGAINST JONATHAN
Here we have—
I. A strengthening of friendship between David and Jonathan. Two things contributed to this.
1. An act of confidence on the part of David. It shows how entire was the trust that David had in his friend’s fidelity, that in his extremity at this time he sought his presence and help. That he was to displace Jonathan on the throne of Israel was probably a fact which both of them now recognised, and in a friendship less perfect it would have had the effect of making David somewhat doubtful of the continuance of Jonathan’s regard. But he shows that he has fully gauged the exceeding love which left no room in Jonathan’s heart for any feeling of rivalry, and the very fact that he confided so entirely in his friend formed a new link in the already strong chain which bound them together. Where there is a sincere and unselfish love at the foundation of friendship, acts of mutual confidence increase and strengthen it.
2. A new act of self-denial on the part of Jonathan. Jonathan had before ventured to plead with his father on behalf of David. He had done more—he had fearlessly asserted his innocence, and now, although his method of procedure was different, it was evidently regarded by Saul as a declaration of friendship for David. And in proportion as Saul’s wrath grew more fixed, so was the danger proportionately increased of those who showed him any favour. How dangerous it now was for Jonathan to defend him was apparent when his father’s anger went so far as an attempt to slay him. But this new exposure to danger for his friend’s sake would only cement the friendship on both sides. It is almost certain that David came to hear of Jonathan’s narrow escape from Saul’s javelin, and the thought that the risk had been run on his account must have deepened his grateful love. But the same risk and danger would have had a deepening influence also on Jonathan’s love for David, for every act of self-denial for another gives us a new interest in him, and makes our affection for him stronger than before. It is like new wood placed upon a fire—it gives new life to that which is already burning, and increases the volume of the whole.
II. A widening of the distance between Saul and his son. Jonathan’s filial respect for his father is as bright a feature in his character as his devotion to his friend. It manifests itself in his temperate remonstrance with his father when himself condemned to death by his unreasoning rashness (see 1Sa_14:43), and when the same blind passion was prompting Saul to seek the life of David. In this chapter also it is displayed in his unwillingness to believe David’s assertion that Saul still sought his life. But the infatuation which had made a breach between the monarch and probably his most courageous and faithful subject, now creates one between the father and his most noble and dutiful son. It may well be supposed that the relations of Saul and Jonathan were never, after the occurrence here related, what they were before, and Saul’s conduct is a striking illustration of the infatuation of wilful sin, which leads a man to cut off from his life one by one his truest sources of blessing and happiness.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
Friendship among the servants of God. Three questions:
1. Wherein is friendship among the servants of God grounded?—It is a covenant in the Lord.
2. What perils threaten even friendship among the servants of God?—That one friend, overlooking another’s sin, may do for his sake what is not right in the sight of God.
3. What blessing rests upon friendship among the servants of God?—It teaches unenvying joy with them that rejoice, and faithful mourning and forbearing with them that mourn.—J. Disselhoff.
1Sa_20:3. It must not be forgotten that, to believers under the Old Covenant especially, Death was not yet the angel with the palm-branch of peace, as we to whom “life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel” know it, or at least ought to know it. If, notwithstanding, the thought that there is “but a step between us and death” fills us also with horror, as too frequently happens, how shall we venture to blame the man living under the Old Testament economy, if we hear him, in his trying situation, express the wish that he might escape at least that form of death which was intended for him?—Krummacher.
1Sa_20:4. Here friendship goes too far. It is wrong to promise unconditional compliance with the wishes of another. He may err in judgment and ask what is unwise, or may be misled by interest and ask what is wrong. And, besides, every man is solemnly bound to exercise his own judgment and conscience in the direction of his own conduct. Jonathan was led by this promise to tell a falsehood which his father detected, and was thereby the more enraged.—Trans. of Lange’s Commentary.
1Sa_20:8. So long as one sees before him ordinary ways and means of escaping from danger, he should make use of them, and not look for extraordinary help from God, that he may not tempt God.—Starke.
1Sa_20:17. True love delights in receiving and giving repeated and strong assurances. This is very different from the repeated assurance which distrust demands.—Trans. of Lange’s Commentary.
1Sa_20:41. Strong men weeping.
1. Great occasion for it here. (a). Personal separation. (b). Mad injustice of their father. (c). Prospect of a bitter conflict.
2. Not unbecoming when on sufficient occasion. Compatible (a). With manly courage and spirit. David and Jonathan were certainly brave. (b). With great self-control (1Sa_17:29; 1Sa_18:14; 1Sa_20:32). (c). With living trust in Providence (1Sa_20:22).—Trans. of Lange’s Commentarg.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 1Sa 20:6
1Sa 20:6
The word in this verse rendered "sacrifice," is in the margin of our English Bibles rendered with somewhat greater felicity "feast." The family of Jesse continued to keep up their residence in Bethlehem after David had been chosen and anointed as the successor of Saul upon the throne, and carefully observed the household festivals through the year as in earlier days they had been accustomed.
Read full note →
I. At the outset let us notice some of the advantages found in the observance of this yearly thanksgiving festival. (1) First and chief of these is the consideration that for all God’s love and care for us, there is due at least full acknowledgment of the hand which has given them to us. (2) There is manifest advantage in these annual festivals growing out of the cultivation of our domestic affections and the perpetuation of our home tastes and feelings. (3) Again there is manifest advantage in these thanksgiving festivals found in the perpetuation of ancestral memories to which they are calculated most strongly to minister. (4) The yearly festival gives an opportunity for kindling and quickening a true patriotism in the hearts of the people.
II. Notice, secondly, where David went to keep the festival. (1) To his own city, the story says, and that city was Bethlehem; a poor little town indeed, but it was his, and that was enough. (2) David went to his own home in Bethlehem. Escaping for a day from the frightful dangers of Saul’s palace, he would rehearse at home the many troublous experiences he had had. (3) David would go to the various houses of his brethren.
No appliances are within our reach so easy of employment and so sure in result as thanksgiving associations carefully observed. Once a year, at least, the fetters of business and care drop off, and the worn man becomes a sort of hero in a family triumph and is refreshed by becoming a child again.
C. S. Robinson, Sermons on Neglected Texts, p. 193.
References: 1Sa 20:6.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 523. 1Sa 20:10.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1188. 1Sa 20:16, 1Sa 20:17.—F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 102. 1Sa 20:25.—J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 153; E. Mellor, The Hem of Christ’s Garment, p. no; Parker, vol. vii., pp. 73, 74. 1Sa 20:27.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1454. 1Sa 20:34.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 8 (see also The Ark of God, p. 264). 1Sa 20:39.—Ibid., p. 74
1Sa 20:42
This was the last meeting and the final leaving of two young men whose friendship has been a proverb for nearly thirty centuries.
I. There are partings in every life; the ties of yesterday are loosened to-day, and will be broken to-morrow. We are closely bound to each other by the strong bonds of circumstances one moment, and the next we are severed and each goes on his way to strive or to suffer, and to conquer or to fall, alone. The hour of parting came to David and Jonathan, and nought remained but this, "Jonathan said to David, Go in peace."
II. There was one thought which took away some of the bitterness of that moment and allowed them to go each on his way with a firm step and a strong heart, for theirs had been no light and trifling friendship, which had sprung up in a day and might be dissolved in an hour, but a serious, manly, steadfast love, rooted in a common faith and held together by a common object animating their lives; and therefore the one could say to the other, "Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord." One might go back to the haunted house, where Saul would curse and rave, and the other might wander abroad in the wilderness; but come what might, they were both prepared for good or evil fortune. Both had sworn to put their trust in the living God.
A. Jessopp, Norwich School Sermons, p. 263.
References: 1Sa 21:1.—F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 118. 1Sa 21:6.—J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 82. 1Sa 21:7.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 74. 1Sa 21:8.—Ibid., p. 75.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v1 1 Samuel
1 Samuel
JONATHAN, THE PATTERN OF FRIENDSHIP
Read full note →
1Sa 20:1 - 1Sa 20:13.
The friendship of Jonathan for David comes like a breath of pure air in the midst of the heavy-laden atmosphere of hate and mad fury, or like some clear fountain sparkling up among the sulphurous slag and barren scoriae of a volcano. There is no more beautiful page in history or poetry than the story of the passionate love of the heir to the throne for the young champion, whom he had so much cause to regard as a rival. What a proof of the victory of love over self is his saying, ‘Thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee’! {1Sa 23:17}. Truly did David sing in his elegy, ‘Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women’; for in that old world, in which the relations between the sexes had not yet received the hallowing and refinement of Christian times, much of what is now chiefly found in these was manifested in friendship, such as that of these two young men. Jonathan is the foremost figure in it, and the nobility and self-oblivion of his love are beautifully brought out, while David’s part is rather that of the loved than of the lover. The scene is laid in Gibeah, where Saul kept his court, and to which all the persons of the story seem to have come back from Samuel’s house at Kamah. Saul’s strange subjugation to the hallowing influences of the prophet’s presence had been but momentary and superficial; and it had been followed by a renewed outburst of the old hate, obvious to David’s sharpened sight, though not to Jonathan. In the interview between them, David is pardonably but obviously absorbed in self, while Jonathan bends all his soul to cheer and reassure his friend.
There are four turns in the conversation, in each of which David speaks and Jonathan answers. David’s first question presupposes that his friend knows that his death is determined, and is privy to Saul’s thoughts. If he had been less harassed, he would have done Jonathan more justice than to suppose him capable of knowing everything without telling him anything; but fear is suspicious. He should have remembered that, when Saul first harboured murderous purposes, Jonathan had not waited to be asked, but had disclosed the plot to him, and perilled his own life by his remonstrances with his father. He should have trusted his friend. His question breathes consciousness of innocence of any hostility to Saul, but unconsciously betrays some defect in his confidence in Jonathan. The answer is magnanimous in its silence as to that aspect of the question, though the subsequent story seems to imply that Jonathan felt it. He tries to hearten David by strong assurances that his life is safe. He does not directly contradict David’s implication that he knew more than he had told, but, without asserting his ignorance, takes it for granted, and quietly argues from it the incorrectness of David’s suspicions. Incidentally he gives us, in the picture of the perfect confidence between Saul and himself, an inkling of how much he had to sacrifice to his friendship. Wild as was Saul’s fury when aroused, and narrow as had been his escape from it at an earlier time {1Sa 14:44}, there was yet love between them, and the king made a confidant of his gallant eldest son. They ‘were lovely and pleasant in their lives.’ However gloomy and savage in his paroxysms Saul was, the relations between them were sweet. The most self-introverted and solitary soul needs some heart to pour itself out to, and this poor king found one in Jonathan. All the harder, then, was the trial of friendship when the trusted son had to take the part of the friend whom his father deemed an enemy, and had the pain of breaking such close ties. How his heart must have been torn asunder! On the one side was the lonely father who clung to him: on the other, the hunted friend to whom he clung. It is a sore wrench when kindred are on one side, and congeniality and the voice of the heart on the other. But there are ties more sacred than those of flesh and blood; and the putting of them second, which is sometimes needful in obedience to earthly love or duty, is always needful if we would rightly entertain our heavenly Friend.
Jonathan’s soothing assurances did not satisfy David, and he ‘sware’ in the earnestness of his conviction. David gives a very good reason for his friend’s ignorance, which he has at once believed, in the suggestion that Saul had not taken him into his confidence, out of tenderness to his feelings. Their friendship, then, was notorious, and, indeed, was an element in Saul’s dread of David, who seemed to have some charm to steal hearts, and had bewitched both Saul’s son and his daughter, thus making a painful rift in the family unity. It does not appear how David came to be so sure of Saul’s designs. The incident at Ramah might have seemed to augur some improvement in his mood; and certainly there could have been no overt acts, or Jonathan could not have disputed the suspicions. Possibly some whispers may have reached David through his wife Michal, Saul’s daughter, or in the course of his attendance on the king, which he had now resumed, his quick eye may have noticed ominous signs. At all events, he is so sure, that he makes solemn attestation to his friend, and convinces him that, in the picturesque phrase which has become so familiar, ‘There is but a step between me and death.’ Such temper was scarcely in accordance with ‘the prophecies which went before on’ him. If he had been walking by faith, he would have called Samuel’s anointing to mind, and have drawn arguments from the victory over Goliath, for trust in victory over Saul, as he had done for the former from that over the lion and the bear. But faith does not always keep high-water mark, and we can only too easily sympathise with this momentary ebb of its waters.
None the less is it true that David’s terror was unworthy, and showed that the strain of his anxious position was telling on his spirit, and making him not only suspect his earthly friend, but half forget his heavenly One. There was but a step between him and death; but, if he had been living in the serenity of trust, he would have known that the narrow space was as good as a thousand miles, and that Saul could not force him across it, for all his hatred and power.
Jonathan does not attempt to alter his conviction and probably is obliged to admit the justice of the explanation of his own ignorance and the truth of the impression of Saul’s purposes. But he does what is more to the purpose; he pledges himself to do whatever David desires. It is an unconditional desertion of his father and alliance with David; it is the true voice of friendship or love, which ever has its delight in knowing and doing the will of the beloved. It answers David’s thoughts rather than his words. He will not discuss any more whether he or David is right; but, in any event, he is his friend’s.
The touchstone of friendship is practical help and readiness to do what the friend wishes. It is so in our friendships here, which are best cemented so. It is so in the highest degree in our friendship with the true Friend and Lover of us all, the sweetness and power of our friendship with whom we do not know until we say, ‘Whatsoever thou desirest, I will do it,’ and so lose the burden of self-will, and find that He does for us what we desire when we make His desires our law of conduct.
Secure of Jonathan’s help, David proposed the stratagem for finding out Saul’s disposition, which had probably been in his mind all along. It says more for his subtlety than for his truthfulness. With all his nobility, he had a streak of true Oriental craft and stood on the moral level of his times and country, in his readiness to eke out the lion’s skin with the fox’s tail. It was a shrewd idea to make Saul betray himself by the way in which he took David’s absence; but a lie is a lie, and cannot be justified, though it may be palliated, by the straits of the liar. At the same time it is fair to remember the extremity of David’s danger and the morality of his age, in estimating, not the nature of his action, but the extent of his guilt in doing it. The same relaxation of the vigour of his faith which left him a prey to fear, led him to walk in crooked paths, and the impartial narrative tells of them without a word of comment. We have to form our own estimate of the fitness of a lie to form the armour of a saint. The proposal informs us of two facts,-the custom of having a feast for three days at the new moon, and that of having an annual family feast and sacrifice, neither of which is prescribed in the law. I do not here deal with the grave question as to the date of the ceremonial law, as affected by these and similar phenomena; but I may be allowed the passing remark that the irregularities do not prove the non-existence of the law, but may be accounted for by supposing that, in such unsettled times, it had been loosely observed, and that many accretions and omissions, some of them inevitable in the absence of a recognised centre of worship, had crept in. That is a much less brilliant and much more old-fashioned explanation than the new one, but perhaps it is none the worse for that. This generation is fond of making ‘originality’ and ‘brilliancy’ the tests of truth.
David’s words in 1Sa 20:8 have a touch of suspicion in them, in their very appeal for kind treatment, in their reminder of the ‘covenant’ of friendship, as if Jonathan needed either, and still more in the bitter request to slay him himself instead of delivering him to Saul. He almost thinks that Jonathan is in the plot, and means to carry him off a prisoner. Note, too, that he does not say, ‘We made a covenant,’ but ‘Thou hast brought me into’ it, as if it had been the other’s wish rather than his. All this was beneath true friendship, and it hurt Jonathan, who next speaks with unusual emotion, beseeching David to clear all this fog out of his heart, and to believe in the genuineness and depth of his love, and in the frankness of his speech. True love ‘is not easily provoked,’ is not soon angry, and his was true in spite of many obstacles which might have made him as jealous as his father, and in the face of misconstruction and suspicion. May we not think of a yet higher love, which bears with our suspicions and faithless doubts, and ever answers our incredulity by its gentle ‘If it were not so, I would have told you’?
David is not yet at the end of his difficulties, and next suggests, how is he to know Saul’s mind? Jonathan takes him out into the privacy of the open country {they had apparently been in Gibeah}, and there solemnly calls God to witness that he will disclose his father’s purposes, whatever they are. The language is obscure and broken, whether owing to corruption in the text, or to the emotion of the speaker. In half-shaped sentences, which betray how much he felt his friend’s doubts, and how sincere he was, he invokes evil on himself if he fails to tell all. He then unfolds his ingenious scheme for conveying the information, on which we do not touch. But note the final words of Jonathan,-that prayer, so pathetic, so unselfish in its recognition of David as the inheritor of the kingdom that had dropped from his own grasp, so sad in its clear-eyed assurance of his father’s abandonment, so deeply imbued with faith in the divine word, and so resigned to its behests. Both in the purity of his friendship and in the strength of his faith and submission, Jonathan stands here above David, and is far surer than the latter himself is of his high destiny and final triumph. It was hard for him to believe in the victory which was to displace his own house, harder still to rejoice in it, without one trace of bitterness mingling in the sweetness of his love, hardest of all actively to help it and to take sides against his father; but all these difficulties his unselfish heart overcame, and he stands for all time as the noblest example of human friendship, and as not unworthy to remind us, as from afar off and dimly, of the perfect love of the Firstborn Son of the true King, who has loved us all with a yet deeper, more patient, more self-sacrificing love. If men can love one another as Jonathan loved David, how should they love the Christ who has loved them so much! And what sacrilege it is to pour such treasures of affection at the feet of dear ones here, and to give so grudgingly such miserable doles of heart’s love to Him!
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Friendship of David and Jonathan
The Friendship of David and Jonathan
4. Thy soul] a pathetic periphrasis for 'thou.'
Read full note →
5. The new moon] Many nations of antiquity appear to have observed the day of the new moon as a religious festival. For its observance in Israel cp. 2Ki_4:23; Isa_1:13; Amo_8:5 (where it is coupled with the sabbath) Num_10:10. Num_10:25 and Num_10:27 imply that David, like Abner, ate regularly at Saul's table.
6. A yearly sacrifice] This refers to the ordinary annual festival of the family. Such family festivals were very widespread both among European and Semitic peoples.
8. A covenant of the lord] i.e. in which God had been invoked as a witness and the breach of which He would punish.
12. About to morrow any time] RV 'about this time tomorrow.' Or the third day] probably a gloss.
14, 15. That I die not: but also] LXX has an attractive reading: 'If I die, thou shalt not cut off thy kindness': cp. 2Sa_9:1
16. At the hand of David's enemies] David's enemies are a euphemism for David himself. Jonathan shrinks from invoking retribution on his friend or suggesting in so many words the possibility of bis breaking the covenant.
19. Thou shalt go down quickly] LXX reads 'Thou shalt be greatly missed,' and the whole clause means 'thou shalt be greatly missed on the third day.' The business] i.e. some matter well known to David and Jonathan. The stone Ezel] LXX 'this mound.'
25. Jonathan arose, and Abner sat] Jonathan gave up his rightful place and Abner took it.
26. He is not clean] i.e. some ceremonial defilement has happened to him which prevents him from sharing in the festival: cp. Joh_18:28.
30. Mother's nakedness] She would become the wife of the new king: cp. 2Sa_12:8.
41. Out of a place toward the south] LXX 'from beside the mound.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 5. Jonathan Protects David and Their Separation
5. Jonathan Protects David and Their Separation
CHAPTER 20
Read full note →
1. David with Jonathan (1Sa 20:1-10)
2. The strengthened bonds and the token (1Sa 20:11-23)
3. Saul’s attempt to kill Jonathan (1Sa 20:24-34)
4. David separated from Jonathan (1Sa 20:35-42)
We do not need to enlarge upon this beautiful story of the further devotion of Jonathan to David. What friendship and affection is here! Indeed the chapter contains one of the most charming incidents in this book. When David told Jonathan of his great danger, Jonathan refused to believe it. But David knew there was but a step between him and death. The conversation which took place in the field is most pathetic. Both were men of faith putting their trust in Jehovah and hence this great affection. Jonathan also was deeply conscious of David’s destiny as the Lord’s anointed. Verses 14 and 15 bear witness to this. “And thou shalt not only while I live show me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not. But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever, no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.” Then Jonathan caused David to make a covenant with him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul. And Jonathan had to taste his father’s anger. Vicious are Saul’s words to his own son, and in wrath he threw a javelin at him to smite him. How this illustrates Satan’s hatred, both against Christ and those who are one with Him, as David and Jonathan were one.
Then comes the parting. They kissed one another, and wept one with another till David’s weeping exceeded (literally, “till David wept loudly”). Jonathan went into the city and David into the suffering of the exile. They met but once more (1Sa 23:16-18).
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 24 Conference between David and Jonathan
Conference between David and Jonathan
v. 1. And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, from the enclosure in which the seminary of the prophets was located, and came and said before Jonathan, with whom he was united in the closest and firmest friendship, 1Sa 18:1-4, What have I done? What is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father that he seeketh my life? The threefold question by which he appealed to the personal knowledge of Jonathan was a threefold denial of any fault on his part.
Read full note →
v. 2. And he, Jonathan, said unto him, God forbid, that is, By no means; thou shalt not die, this is not only the assurance of a friend, but of a prince. Behold, my father will do nothing, either great or small, absolutely nothing, but that he will show it me, he uncovered or revealed, talked over, all his plans with Jonathan as the heir apparent to the throne. And why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so; he was sure that Saul had not again determined upon the destruction of David at any cost.
v. 3. And David, whose experience with Saul had taught him to estimate the true state of affairs more correctly, sware moreover, in addition to what he had said to Jonathan, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes, the kindly feeling of his son for David could not have escaped his observation; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this lest he be grieved; but truly, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, the double oath expressing the gravity of the situation as he saw it, there is but a step, hardly as much as a step, between me and death. "The picture is of a precipice, from which he is only a step removed, over which he may any moment be plunged. " (Lange. )
v. 4. Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee, he would be glad to fulfill David’s every wish, every thought.
v. 5. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, a minor, but joyful festival of the Jewish church-year, connected with a cheerful meal, Num 10:10; Num 28:11-15, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat, as custom required it; but let me go, Jonathan should consent to his remaining away deliberately, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even, for according to David’s plan so much time was required to find out the disposition of the king.
v. 6. If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem, his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family, a celebration with a sacrificial meal, for such celebrations at that time, when the Tabernacle had been desecrated by the removal of the ark, were held in various parts of the country.
v. 7. If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace, it would be evident that Saul’s hostile disposition showed itself only during his attacks of rage; but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him, that the destruction of David was a settled thing in Saul’s mind.
v. 8. Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant, show him merciful kindness; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord with thee; it was on the basis of this covenant of friendship that David appealed to Jonathan. Notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself, in case of a trespass on his part, he would rather die by the hand of his friend; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father?
v. 9. And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee, there was no sin for which David was bound to atone by death; for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee? It is a solemn protestation, with the force of an oath.
v. 10. Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? He wondered how he could get the information about Saul’s decree concerning himself, for the matter was too delicate to be entrusted to a servant. Or what if thy father answer thee roughly? There was great danger that Saul would deal harshly with Jonathan in case he would make known his evil plans to David and this fact come to the knowledge of the king.
v. 11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field, where they would be away from observation, not in danger of being overheard, and where Jonathan might point out to David a hiding place which he had in mind for his own plan. And they went out, both of them, into the field.
v. 12. And Jonathan said unto David, in a solemn invocation and vow before Jehovah, O Lord God of Israel, when I have sounded, searched out, gotten the information from, my father about tomorrow any time or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and show it thee,
v. 13. the Lord do so and much more to Jonathan. Jonathan most. solemnly promised that he would immediately inform David in case Saul was favorably disposed toward him. But if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will show it thee and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace, he would not even entrust the message to a servant, but would come in person to impress his warning upon his friend’s mind and to make arrangements for his escape; and the Lord be with thee, as he hath been with my father, a wish which indicates that Jonathan may have guessed the true situation of affairs.
v. 14. And thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not, in case he should enter upon his royal office before Jonathan’s death;
v. 15. but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house forever, kindness of the nature shown by Jehovah, the covenant God, to His people; no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David, every one, from the face of the earth. Although Jonathan was a member of Saul’s house, who was an enemy of David, he himself was united with David by the bonds of the truest friendship, and therefore wanted both himself and his children spared when David’s time of revenge would come.
v. 16. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the Lord even require it at the hand of David’s enemies, namely, by punishing all those who opposed him, for this Jonathan foresaw.
v. 17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, adjuring David to fulfill this last request, because he loved him, making his love toward David the ground of his request; for he loved him as he loved his own soul, 1Sa 18:1.
v. 18. Then Jonathan said to David, Tomorrow is the new moon; and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat, at the table of the king, will be empty.
v. 19. And when thou hast stayed three days, on the third day, then thou shalt go down quickly, on account of the danger of being observed, and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, when Jonathan, near that spot, had changed the murderous intention of Saul, 1Sa 19:2, and shalt remain by the stone Ezel, evidently a well-known landmark.
v. 20. And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot at a mark, three arrows being taken because some other archer might shoot just one. or two by chance, but surely not three.
v. 21. And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go find out, fetch, the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them; then come thou; for there is peace to thee, and no hurt, as the Lord liveth. Just as the boy would come nearer to Jonathan, so David would be able to return without danger.
v. 22. But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows are beyond thee, on the farther side, (then) go thy way; for the Lord hath sent thee away, bids him flee. The sign was simple and easily remembered.
v. 23. And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of, everything pertaining to their covenant, behold, the Lord be between thee and me forever, for it was in His fear that they should feel bound to keep their promises of mutual faithfulness. True friendship and mercy requires us to take as eager and real an interest in the weal and woe of another as if it concerned ourselves, to stand by him in danger, and to show kindness even to the children of one who has bestowed kindness upon us.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38, 41 What have I done? What is my iniquity? What…
What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father, that he seeks to take my life?
These three questions mean basically the same thing. David uses them to emphasize that he has done nothing wrong to Saul. This rhetorical question can be translated as a statement. AT: "I have done nothing wrong. I have not committed any iniquity. I have not sinned against your father. He has no reason to take my life." (See: Parallelism and Rhetorical Question)
Read full note →
that he seeks to take my life?
Here "take my life" is an idiom for "kill me." (See: Idiom)
Far from it
Here "far from it" is an idiom that refers to that it is not true. AT: "This is certainly not true" (See: Idiom)
nothing either great or small
The words "great or small" include everything in between. AT: "nothing at all" (See: Merism)
Why should my father hide this thing from me?
Jonathan uses this question to emphasize that Saul would have told him if he planned to kill David. This rhetorical question can be translated as a statement. AT: "My father has no reason to hide this thing from me!" or "If this thing were true, my father would certainly let me know!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
It is not so
"It is not true"
translationWords
David
Ramah
Jonathan
iniquity
sin
seek
life
die
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 41, 42 20:2-3 Jonathan was naive about his father’s intentions. David’s…
20:2-3 Jonathan was naive about his father’s intentions. David’s willingness to swear . . . by the Lord showed how convinced he was about Saul’s intentions.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.