Bible Commentaries

After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled thenceand met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart.

(Note: According to Ewald and Thenius, this chapter was not writtenby the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earliersource, and 1 Samuel 20:1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the twotogether. But the principal reason for this conjecture - namely, thatDavid could never have thought of sitting at the royal table againafter what had taken place, and that Saul would still less haveexpected him to come - is overthrown by the simple suggestion, thatall that Saul had hitherto attempted against David, according to 1 Samuel 19:8., had been done in fits of insanity (cf. 1 Samuel 19:9.), whichhad passed away again; so that it formed no criterion by which tojudge of Saul's actual feelings towards David when he was in a state ofmental sanity.)

Though he had been delivered for the moment from the death whichthreatened him, through the marvellous influence of the divine inspirationof the prophets upon Saul and his messengers, he could not find in thisany lasting protection from the plots of his mortal enemy. He thereforesought for his friend Jonathan, and complained to him, “What have I done?what is my crime, my sin before thy father, that he seeks my life?”

1 Samuel 20:2

Jonathan endeavoured to pacify him: “Far be it! thou shalt notdie: behold, my father does nothing great or small (i.e., not the smallestthing; cf. 1 Samuel 25:36 and Numbers 22:18) that he does not reveal to me; whyshould my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.” The לו after הנּה stands for לא: the Chethibh עשׂה isprobably to be preferred to the Keri יעשׂה, and to be understoodin this sense: “My father has (hitherto) done nothing at all, which he hasnot told to me.” This answer of Jonathan does not presuppose that heknew nothing of the occurrences described in 1 Samuel 19:9-24, although it ispossible enough that he might not have been with his father just at thattime; but it is easily explained from the fact that Saul had made the freshattack upon David's life in a state of madness, in which he was no longermaster of himself; so that it could not be inferred with certainty from thisthat he would still plot against David's life in a state of clearconsciousness. Hitherto Saul had no doubt talked over all his plans andundertakings with Jonathan, but he had not uttered a single word to himabout his deadly hatred, or his intention of killing David; so that Jonathanmight really have regarded his previous attacks upon David's life asnothing more than symptoms of temporary aberration of mind.

1 Samuel 20:3

But David had looked deeper into Saul's heart. He replied with anoath (“he sware again,” i.e., a second time), “Thy father knoweth that Ihave found favour in thine eyes (i.e., that thou art attached to me); andthinketh Jonathan shall not know this, lest he be grieved. But truly, assurely as Jehovah liveth, and thy soul liveth, there is hardly a step (lit. about a step) between me and death.” כּי introduces the substanceof the oath, as in 1 Samuel 14:44, etc.

1 Samuel 20:4-5

When Jonathan answered, “What thy soul saith, will I do tothee,” i.e., fulfil every wish, David made this request, “Behold, to-morrowis new moon, and I ought to sit and eat with the king: let me go, that I mayconceal myself in the field (i.e., in the open air) till the third evening.” Thisrequest implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore thatthe new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law inNumbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and inthe latter character for two days; as we may infer both from the fact thatDavid reckoned to the third evening, i.e., the evening of the third day fromthe day then present, and therefore proposed to hide himself on the newmoon's day and the day following, and also still more clearly from 1 Samuel 20:12; 1 Samuel 20:27, and 1 Samuel 20:34, where Saul is said to have expected David at table on the dayafter the new moon. We cannot, indeed, conclude from this that there wasa religious festival of two days' duration; nor does it follow, that becauseSaul supposed that David might have absented himself on the first day onaccount of Levitical uncleanness (1 Samuel 20:26), therefore the royal feast was asacrificial meal. It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take partin a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is notexpressly forbidden in the law.

1 Samuel 20:6

“If thy father should miss me, then say, David hath askedpermission of me to hasten to Bethlehem, his native town; for there is ayearly sacrifice for the whole family there.” This ground of excuse showsthat families and households were accustomed to keep united sacrificialfeasts once a year. According to the law in Deuteronomy 12:5., they ought tohave been kept at the tabernacle; but at this time, when the centralsanctuary had fallen into disuse, they were held in different places,wherever there were altars of Jehovah - as, for example, at Bethlehem (cf. 1 Samuel 16:2.). We see from these words that David did not look uponprevarication as a sin.

1 Samuel 20:7

“If thy father says, It is well, there is peace to thy servant (i.e., hecherishes no murderous thoughts against me); but if he be very wroth,know that evil is determined by him.” כּלה, to be completed;hence to be firmly and unalterably determined (cf. 1 Samuel 25:17; Esther 7:7). Seb. Schmidt infers from the closing words that the fact was certainenough to David, but not to Jonathan. Thenius, on the other hand,observes much more correctly, that “it is perfectly obvious from this thatDavid was not quite clear as to Saul's intentions,” though he upsets hisown previous assertion, that after what David had gone through, he couldnever think of sitting again at the king's table as he had done before.

1 Samuel 20:8

David made sure that Jonathan would grant this request onaccount of his friendship, as he had brought him into a covenant ofJehovah with himself. David calls the covenant of friendship withJonathan (1 Samuel 18:3) a covenant of Jehovah, because he had made it witha solemn invocation of Jehovah. But in order to make quite sure of thefulfilment of his request on the part of Jonathan, David added, “But ifthere is a fault in me, do thou kill me (אתּה used to strengthen thesuffix); for why wilt thou bring me to thy father?” sc., that he may put meto death.

1 Samuel 20:9

Jonathan replied, “This be far from thee!” sc., that I should killthee, or deliver thee up to my father. חלילה points back towhat precedes, as in 1 Samuel 20:2. “But (כּי after a previous negativeassertion) if I certainly discover that evil is determined by my father tocome upon thee, and I do not tell it thee,” sc., “may God do so to me,” etc. The words are to be understood as an asseveration on oath, in which theformula of an oath is to be supplied in thought. This view is apparently amore correct one, on account of the cop. ו before לא, than to takethe last clause as a question, “Shall I not tell it thee?”

1 Samuel 20:10

To this friendly assurance David replied, “Who will tell me?”sc., how thy father expresses himself concerning me; “or what will thyfather answer thee roughly?” sc., if thou shouldst attempt to do it thyself. This is the correct explanation given by De Wette and Maurer. Geseniusand Thenius, on the contrary, take או in the sense of “ifperchance.” But this is evidently incorrect; for even though there arecertain passages in which או may be so rendered, it is only wheresome other case is supposed, and therefore the meaning or still lies at thefoundation. These questions of David were suggested by a correct estimateof the circumstances, namely, that Saul's suspicions would leave him tothe conclusion that there was some understanding between Jonathan andDavid, and that he would take steps in consequence to prevent Jonathanfrom making David acquainted with the result of his conversation withSaul.

1 Samuel 20:11

Before replying to these questions, Jonathan asked David to gowith him to the field, that they might there fix upon the sign by which hewould let him know, in a way in which no one could suspect, what wasthe state of his father's mind.

In the field, where they were both entirely free from observation, Jonathanfirst of all renewed his covenant with David, by vowing to him on oaththat he would give him information of his father's feelings towards him(1 Samuel 20:12, 1 Samuel 20:13); and then entreated him, with a certain presentiment thatDavid would one day be king, even then to maintain his love towards himand his family for ever (1 Samuel 20:14-16); and lastly, he made David swear againconcerning his love (1 Samuel 20:17), and then gave him the sign by which he wouldcommunicate the promised information (1 Samuel 20:18-23).

1 Samuel 20:12-15

1 Samuel 20:12 and 1 Samuel 20:13 are connected. Jonathan commences with asolemn invocation of God: “Jehovah, God of Israel!” and thus introduceshis oath. We have neither to supply “Jehovah is witness,” nor “as truly asJehovah liveth,” as some have suggested. “When I inquire of my fatherabout this time to-morrow, the day after to-morrow (a concise mode ofsaying 'to-morrow or the day after'), and behold it is (stands) well forDavid, and then I do not send to thee and make it known to thee, Jehovahshall do so to Jonathan,” etc. (“The Lord do so,” etc., the ordinary formulaused in an oath: see 1 Samuel 14:44). The other case is then added without anadversative particle: “If it should please my father evil against thee (lit. asregards evil), “I will make it known to thee, and let thee go, that thoumayest go in peace; and Jehovah be with thee, as He has been with myfather.” In this wish there is expressed the presentiment that David wouldone day occupy that place in Israel which Saul occupied then, i.e., thethrone. - In 1 Samuel 20:14 and 1 Samuel 20:15 the Masoretic text gives no appropriate meaning. Luther's rendering, in which he follows the Rabbins and takes the first ולא (1 Samuel 20:14) by itself, and then completes the sentence from thecontext (“but if I do it not, show me no mercy, because I live, not even if Idie”), contains indeed a certain permissible sense when considered in itself;but it is hardly reconcilable with what follows, “and do not tear away thycompassion for ever from my house.” The request that he would show nocompassion to him (Jonathan) even if he died, and yet would notwithdraw his compassion from his house for ever, contains an antithesiswhich would have been expressed most clearly and unambiguously in thewords themselves, if this had been really what Jonathan intended to say. De Wette's rendering gives a still more striking contradiction: “But let not(Jehovah be with thee) if I still live, and thou showest not the love ofJehovah to me, that I do not, and thou withdrawest not thy love from myhouse for ever.” There is really no other course open than to follow theSyriac and Arabic, as Maurer, Thenius, and Ewald have done, and changethe ולא in the first two clauses in 1 Samuel 20:14 into ולוּ or ולא,according to the analogy of the form לוּא (1 Samuel 14:30), and torender the passage thus: “And mayest thou, if I still live, mayest thoushow to me the favour of the Lord, and not if I do, not withdraw thyfavour from my house for ever, not even (ולא) when Jehovah shallcut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth!” “Thefavour of Jehovah” is favour such as Jehovah shall cut off,” etc., showsvery clearly Jonathan's conviction that Jehovah would give to David avictory over all his enemies.

1 Samuel 20:16

Thus Jonathan concluded a covenant with the house of David,namely, by bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever. Theword בּרית must be supplied in thought to יכרת, as in 1 Samuel 22:8 and 2 Chronicles 7:18. “And Jehovah required it (what Jonathan hadpredicted) at the hand of David's enemies.” Understood in this manner, thesecond clause contains a remark of the historian himself, namely, thatJonathan's words were really fulfilled in due time. The traditional renderingof וּבקּשׁ as a relative preterite, with אמר understood,“and said, Let Jehovah take vengeance,” is not only precluded by theharshness of the introduction of the word “saying,” but still more by thefact, that if אמר (saying) is introduced between the copula vavand the verb בּקּשׁ, the perfect cannot stand for the optativeבּקּשׁ, as in Joshua 22:23.

1 Samuel 20:17

“And Jonathan adjured David again by his love to him, becausehe loved him as his own soul” (cf. 1 Samuel 18:1, 1 Samuel 18:3); i.e., he once moreimplored David most earnestly with an oath to show favour to him and hishouse.

1 Samuel 20:18-19

He then discussed the sign with him for letting him knowabout his father's state of mind: “To-morrow is new moon, and thou wiltbe missed, for thy seat will be empty,” sc., at Saul's table (see at 1 Samuel 20:5). “And on the third day come down quickly (from thy sojourning place),and go to the spot where thou didst hide thyself on the day of the deed,and place thyself by the side of the stone Ezel.” The first words in this(19th) verse are not without difficulty. The meaning “on the third day” forthe verb שׁלּשׁ cannot be sustained by parallel passages, but isfully established, partly by השּׁלשׁית, the third day, and partlyby the Arabic usage (vid., Ges. Thes. s. v.). מאד after תּרד, lit., “go violently down,” is more striking still. Nevertheless thecorrectness of the text is not to be called in question, since שׁלּשׁתּ is sustained by τρισσεύσει in the Septuagint, and מאד תּרד by descende ergo festinus in the Vulgate, and also by therendering in the Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac versions, “and on the thirdday thou wilt be missed still more,” which is evidently merely a conjecturefounded upon the context. The meaning of המּעשׂה בּיום is doubtful. Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer render it “on the dayof the deed,” and understand it as referring to Saul's deed mentioned in 1 Samuel 19:2, viz., his design of killing David; others render it “on the day ofbusiness,” i.e., the working day (Luther, after the lxx and Vulgate), butthis is not so good a rendering. The best is probably that of Thenius, “onthe day of the business” (which is known to thee). Nothing further can besaid concerning the stone Ezel than that Ezel is a proper name.

1 Samuel 20:20

“And I will shoot off three arrows to the side of it (the stoneEzek), to shoot for me at the mark,” i.e., as if shooting at the mark. Thearticle attached to החצּים is either to be explained as denotingthat the historian assumed the thing as already well known, or on thesupposition that Jonathan went to the field armed, and when giving thesign pointed to the arrows in his quiver. In the word צדּה theRaphe indicates that the suffix of ־ה is not a mere toneless ה, although ithas no mappik, having given up its strong breathing on account of theharsh צ sound.

1 Samuel 20:21

“And, behold (הנּה, directing attention to what followsas the main point), I will send the boy (saying), Go, get the arrows. If Ishall say to the boy, Behold, the arrows are from thee hitherwards, fetchthem; then come, for peace is to thee, and it is nothing, as truly as Jehovahliveth.”

1 Samuel 20:22

“But if I say to the youth, Behold, the arrows are from theefarther off; then go, for Jehovah sendeth thee away,” i.e., bids thee flee. The appointment of this sign was just as simple as it was suitable to thepurpose.

1 Samuel 20:23

This arrangement was to remain an eternal secret between them. “And (as for) the word that we have spoken, I and thou, behold, the Lordis between me and thee for ever,” namely, a witness and judge in case oneof us two should break the covenant (vid., Genesis 31:48-49). This is impliedin the words, without there being any necessity to assume that עד had dropped out of the text. “The word” refers not merely to the signagreed upon, but to the whole matter, including the renewal of the bond offriendship.

David thereupon concealed himself in the field, whilst Jonathan, as agreedupon, endeavoured to apologize for his absence from the king's table.

1 Samuel 20:24-25

On the new moon's day Saul sat at table, and as always, athis seat by the wall, i.e., at the top, just as, in eastern lands at the presentday, the place of honour is the seat in the corner (see HarmarBeobachtungen ii. pp. 66ff.). “And Jonathan rose up, and Abner seatedhimself by the side of Saul, and David's place remained empty.” Thedifficult passage, “And Jonathan rose up,” etc., can hardly be understoodin any other way than as signifying that, when Abner entered, Jonathanrose from his seat by the side of Saul, and gave up the place to Abner, inwhich case all that is wanting is an account of the place to which Jonathanmoved. Every other attempted explanation is exposed to much graverdifficulties. The suggestion made by Gesenius, that the cop. ו should besupplied before אבנר, and ויּשׁב referred to Jonathan(“and Jonathan rose up and sat down, and Abner [sat down] by the side ofSaul”), as in the Syriac, is open to this objection, that in addition to thenecessity of supplying ו, it is impossible to see why Jonathan shouldhave risen up for the purpose of sitting down again. The rendering “andJonathan came,” which is the one adopted by Maurer and De Wette,cannot be philologically sustained; inasmuch as, although קוּם isused to signify rise up, in the sense of the occurrence of important events,or the appearance of celebrated of persons, it never means simply “tocome.” And lastly, the conjecture of Thenius, that ויּקם should be altered into ויקדּם, according to the senseless rendering ofthe lxx, προέφθασε τὸν Ἰονάθαν , is overthrown by the fact, that whilstקדּם does indeed mean to anticipate or come to meet, it never means tosit in front of, i.e., opposite to a person.

1 Samuel 20:26

On this (first) day Saul said nothing, sc., about David's absentinghimself, “for he thought there has (something) happened to him, that he isnot clean; surely (כּי) he is not clean” (vid., Leviticus 15:16.; Deuteronomy 23:11).

1 Samuel 20:27-29

But on the second day, the day after the new moon (lit., themorrow after the new moon, the second day: השּׁני is anominative, and to be joined to ויהי, and not a genitivebelonging to החדשׁ), when David was absent from table again,Saul said to Jonathan, “Why is the son of Jesse not come to meat, neitheryesterday nor to-day?” Whereupon Jonathan answered, as arranged withDavid (compare 1 Samuel 20:28 and 1 Samuel 20:29 with 1 Samuel 20:6). “And my brother, he hathcommanded me,” i.e., ordered me to come. צוּה as in Exodus 6:13,and אחי, the elder brother, who was then at the head of thefamily, and arranged the sacrificial meal.

1 Samuel 20:30-31

Saul was greatly enraged at this, and said to Jonathan, “Sonof a perverse woman (נעות is a participle, Niph. fem. fromעוה) of rebellion,” - i.e., son of a perverse and rebellious woman(an insult offered to the mother, and therefore so much the greater to theson), hence the meaning really is, “Thou perverse, rebellious fellow,” - “do Inot know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, andto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?” בּחר, to choose aperson out of love, to take pleasure in a person; generally construed with בּ pers., here with ל, although many Codd. have בּ here also. “For as long asthe son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou and thy kingdom (kingship,throne) will not stand.” Thus Saul evidently suspected David as his rival,who would either wrest the government from him, or at any rate after hisdeath from his son. “Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a child ofdeath,” i.e., he has deserved to die, and shall be put to death.

1 Samuel 20:32-34

When Jonathan replied, “My father, why shall he die? whathas he done?” Saul was so enraged that he hurled his javelin at Jonathan(cf. 1 Samuel 18:11). Thus Jonathan saw that his father had firmly resolvedto put David to death, and rose up from the table in fierce anger, and didnot eat that day; for he was grieved concerning David, because his fatherhad done him shame. כּלה is a substantive in the sense ofunalterable resolution, like the verb in 1 Samuel 20:9. השּׁני בּיום־החדשׁ, on the second day of the new moon or month.

The next morning Jonathan made David acquainted with what hadoccurred, by means of the sign agreed upon with David. The account ofthis, and of the meeting between Jonathan and David which followed, isgiven very concisely, only the main points being touched upon. In themorning (after what had occurred) Jonathan went to the field, דּוד למועד, either “at the time agreed upon with David,” or“to the meeting with David,” or perhaps better still, “according to theappointment (agreement) with David,” and a small boy with him.

1 Samuel 20:36

To the latter he said, namely as soon as they had come to thefield, Run, get the arrows which I shoot. The boy ran, and he shot off thearrows, “to go out beyond him,” i.e., so that the arrows flew farther thanthe boy had run. The form חצי for חץ only occurs inconnection with disjunctive accents; beside the present chapter (1 Samuel 20:36; 1 Samuel 20:37, 1 Samuel 20:38, Chethibh) we find it again in 2 Kings 9:24. The singular is usedhere with indefinite generality, as the historian did not consider itnecessary to mention expressly, after what he had previously written, thatJonathan shot off three arrows one after another.

1 Samuel 20:37-39

When the boy came to the place of the shot arrow (i.e., to theplace to which the arrow had flown), Jonathan called after him, “See, thearrow is (lies) away from thee, farther off;” and again, “Quickly, haste, donot stand still,” that he might not see David, who was somewhere near;and the boy picked up the arrow and came to his lord. The Chethibhהחצי is evidently the original reading, and the singular is to beunderstood as in 1 Samuel 20:37; the Keri החצּים is an emendation,according to the meaning of the words. The writer here introduces theremark in 1 Samuel 20:39, that the boy knew nothing of what had been arrangedbetween Jonathan and David.

1 Samuel 20:40

Jonathan then gave the boy his things (bow, arrows, and quiver),and sent him with them to the town, that he might be able to conversewith David for a few seconds after his departure, and take leave of himunobserved.

1 Samuel 20:41

When the boy had gone, David rose (from his hiding-place) fromthe south side, fell down upon his face to the ground, and bowed threetimes (before Jonathan); they then kissed each other, and wept for oneanother, “till David wept strongly,” i.e., to such a degree that David weptvery loud. הנּגב מאצל, “from the side of the south,”which is the expression used to describe David's hiding-place, according toits direction in relation to the place where Jonathan was standing, has notbeen correctly rendered by any of the early translators except Aquila andJerome. In the Septuagint, the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic, thestatement in 1 Samuel 20:19 is repeated, simply because the translators could not seethe force of הנּגב מאצל, although it is intelligibleenough in relation to what follows, according to which David fled fromthence southwards to Nob.

1 Samuel 20:42

All that is given of the conversation between the two friends isthe parting word spoken by Jonathan to David: “Go in peace. What wetwo have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between meand thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever:” sc., let it stand, orlet us abide by it. The clause contains an aposiopesis, which may beaccounted for from Jonathan's deep emotion, and in which the apodosismay be gathered from the sense. For it is evident, from a comparison of 1 Samuel 20:23, that the expression “for ever” must be understood as forming part ofthe oath. - 1 Samuel 21:1. David then set out upon his journey, andJonathan returned to the town. This verse ought, strictly speaking, to formthe conclusion of 1 Samuel 20.

(Note: In our English version it does; but in the Hebrew, which isfollowed here, it forms the opening verse of 1 Samuel 21:1-15. In the expositionof the following chapter it has been thought better to follow thenumbering of the verses in our version rather than that of theoriginal, although the latter is conformed to the Hebrew. - Tr.)

The subject to “arose” is David; not because Jonathan was the last onespoken of (Thenius), but because the following words, “and Jonathancame,” etc., are in evident antithesis to “he arose and went.”