David flees from Naioth in Ramah after Saul's religious experience and goes to Jonathan for help. He asks Jonathan what crime he has committed against Saul to make Saul try to kill him. Jonathan does not believe Saul would actually try to harm David, but agrees to help David determine the truth by observing Saul at an upcoming feast. Jonathan and David renew their covenant of loyalty to one another. At the feast, Jonathan discovers that Saul does indeed intend to kill David, and warns David so that he can flee for his safety. Jonathan and David part ways sadly, as Jonathan understands he can no longer protect David from Saul.

1. 1 SAMUEL 20 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
Henry was a man who carried a heavier burden thananyone. When guests
would visit his home they would sometimes hear strange noises and joke about
his haunted house. Little did they realize how those noises haunted Henry. He
knew what the noises were. When guests would leave he would light a lantern
and go to the trap door in the hallway floor and pull open the false panel. He
would slip down into the darkness of the cold cellar and over to the corner
where the light would reveal the tormented face of his wife. She had gone
insane and in 1775 there was no place for her to go, and so Henry chained her
in the cellar and took care of her. For many months her madness filled his life
with the burden of despair. There can be doubt about it that this burden was a
powerful factor in his flaming conviction that made him so famous when in
that unforgettable speech
he made in March 23, 1775, when he said, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as
to be purchased at the price of chains? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not
what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
Patrick Henry’s eloquent defense of freedom was greatly influenced by the
circumstances of his life.
Remember when you read through the Psalms and see the eloquent
expressions of the depth of depression and despair, as well as the heights of joy
and freedom, these emotions are not coming from the pen of a man in an ivory
tower who got his material from reading books. David writes out of the
experience of his own life. He can write about the pits because he had been
there often enough and long enough to know the negative feelings well. Had
David known only joy and laughter and success he never could have written
many of the Psalms that had been used by God to help and heal millions of his
children. David did not know it, but all of his trials and struggles were a
valuable part of God’s purpose of his life. God used every heartache of David
to be a blessing to millions. David did not know the end result as we do, and so
as we look in on his life in chapter 20 we see a very upset and despairing young
man. He was on his way to the top, but he could only see the pits, and he felt
like the pit was the end of the line.
David and Jonathan
BRIAN MORGAN
Four scenes make up the chapter, as follows:
1

2. ⦁ A. Scene 1: In the Court -- The Revelation of Death (20:1-11)
David reveals Saul's intentions of death to Jonathan
B. Scene 2: In the Field -- The Revelation of Loyal-love (20:12-23)
Jonathan reveals his loyal-love to David
A'. Scene 3: In the Court -- The Revelation of Death (20:24-34)
Saul reveals his intentions of death to Jonathan
B'. Scene 4: In the Field -- The Revelation of Loyal-love (20:35-42)
Jonathan reveals his loyal-love to David
MACLAREN “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'! (1 Samuel
xxiii. 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 New Interpreter’s Bible
“This is a story of conflicting claims of loyalty. The conflict is between the
familial and the covenantal. Jonathan has responsibility as a son to his father;
for that matter, David has obligations as a son in law to Saul. But Saul’s
intention to kill David places family loyalty in conflict with a covenant made
between Jonathan and David (vv. 8, 16; 18:3). In I Sam. 20, hesed is used only
in reference to this covenant commitment between the two friends. The
conflict of loyalties also occurs between the personal and the political. The
“love” (v. 17; 18:1, 3) and “loyalty” (vv. 8, 14-15) between David and Jonathan
are not limited to the personal and intimate relationship between them. Both
terms also reflect sociopolitical loyalties and commitments. Jonathan and
David both understand that it is not just their personal future at stake but the
political future of Israel. Saul angrily insists that Jonathan’s political interest
as heir to the throne require that he set aside the shameful choice of personal
commitment to David (vv. 30-31). Jonathan knows that loyalty to David is not
2

3. simple to a friend but to one who will be king instead of him, and he asks of
David loyalty as a king and not just as a friend (vv. 13-16).”
See another lie in verses 5-6. Jonathan and David were brother in laws and
David married his sister. It is all in the family.
1 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went
to Jonathan and asked, "What have I done? What is
my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he
is trying to take my life?"
BARNES, "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.
CLARKE, "David fled from Naioth - On hearing that Saul had come to that
place, knowing that he was no longer in safety, he fled for his life.
GILL, "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:
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?
3

4. HENRY, "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 (1Sa_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?
JAMISON, "1Sa_20:1-10. David consults with Jonathan for his safety.
David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan —
He could not remain in Naioth, for he had strong reason to fear that when
the religious fit, if we may so call it, was over, Saul would relapse into his
usual fell and sanguinary temper. It may be thought that David acted
imprudently in directing his flight to Gibeah. But he was evidently
prompted to go thither by the most generous feelings - to inform his friend
of what had recently occurred, and to obtain that friend’s sanction to the
course he was compelled to adopt. Jonathan could not be persuaded there
was any real danger after the oath his father had taken; at all events, he felt
assured his father would do nothing without telling him. Filial attachment
naturally blinded the prince to defects in the parental character and made
him reluctant to believe his father capable of such atrocity. David repeated
his unshaken convictions of Saul’s murderous purpose, but in terms
delicately chosen (1Sa_20:3), not to wound the filial feelings of his friend;
while Jonathan, clinging, it would seem, to a hope that the extraordinary
scene enacted at Naioth might have wrought a sanctified improvement on
Saul’s temper and feelings, undertook to inform David of the result of his
observations at home.
K&D, "After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled
thence and met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart.
(Note: According to Ewald and Thenius, this chapter was not written
by the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earlier
source, and 1Sa_20:1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the two
together. But the principal reason for this conjecture - namely, that
David could never have thought of sitting at the royal table again after
what had taken place, and that Saul would still less have expected him to
come - is overthrown by the simple suggestion, that all that Saul had
hitherto attempted against David, according to 1Sa_19:8., had been done
in fits of insanity (cf. 1Sa_19:9.), which had passed away again; so that it
formed no criterion by which to judge of Saul's actual feelings towards
David when he was in a state of mental sanity.)
4

5. Though he had been delivered for the moment from the death which
threatened him, through the marvellous influence of the divine inspiration
of the prophets upon Saul and his messengers, he could not find in this any
lasting protection from the plots of his mortal enemy. He therefore sought
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?”
PULPIT, "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 (1Sa_20:5), and that Saul would look for him as a
matter of course (1Sa_20:6). We find, moreover, that his place was made
ready, not only on the new moon (1Sa_20:25), but also on the following day
(1Sa_20:26). 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.
1 Samuel 20:1
..."What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, tthat he is trying to take my
life?"
⦁ The cost of being one of God's anointed can be great. Those whom God has anointed for
service and influence in His Kingdom go through a special preparation. David was anointed to
be the next king over Israel. Shortly after this, while still a young boy, he was brought into King
Saul's service to play music in Saul's court. While there, the opportunity to stand up against
Goliath elevated David for his next stage of development as future king. As his popularity grew
so did Saul's jealousy. However, even Saul's jealousy was God's instrument for molding and
shaping David.
Saul finally decided he could no longer tolerate David's success and popularity among the
people, so he tried to kill David. The confused young shepherd boy spent many years hiding in
wilderness caves before he was able to see the hand of God in all of this. No doubt David thought
that when he was anointed by Samuel he would be conveniently raised up to be king with all the
accompanying benefits of kingship. Not so. God's preparation of David involved much
persecution, disloyalty, and hardship. These were the lessons necessary to be a godly king. God
brought many tests in David's life, just as He did with Saul. David passed these tests. Saul did
not.
When God anoints us, it often is accompanied by some severe tests. These tests are designed to
prepare us for the calling God has on our life. Should we fail these tests God cannot elevate us to
the next level. For a businessperson, these tests often involve money, relationships, and other
issues of the heart.
What if God has chosen you for a specific purpose in His Kingdom? Are you passing the tests He
is bringing about in your life? These tests are designed to bring about greater obedience. In most
instances it will involve great adversity. The Bible tells us that the King of kings learned
obedience through the things that He suffered (see Heb. 5:8). If this is true, why would it be any
different for His children? Be aware of the tests God may be bringing before you in order to
prepare you for His service." author unknown
In chapter 19, David escaped death at the hand of Saul four different times.
5

6. Here in chapter 20 he flees from Naioth (the dormitories of the prophets) in
Ramah and returns to the royal court to present his case to Jonathan.
David could see no reason for Saul’s determination to destroy him. He begs
Jonathan to try and make sense of it by giving him a reason. Who can stand
most anything better if we know a reason. David is a skeptic in spite of Saul’s
great religious experience. It is of no value when it does not change a person’s
behavior.
You know you are dealing with the best possible friend when you can talk
frankly about the friend’s father in a negative way. A true friend will not
reject you for having negative feelings.
PETT, "Introduction
C). Jonathan Acts On David’s Behalf In Order To Protect Him From Saul But
They Finally Have To Say Farewell (1 Samuel 20:1-42).
In this subsection Jonathan at first refuses to believe David when he claims
that Saul is trying to kill him (David) but determines to discover the truth.
Meanwhile he renews a firm covenant with David and then attends the New
Moon Festival where he discovers that David is right. He goes to Warn David
and they say their final farewell.
Analysis.
a David Tells Jonathan That Saul Intends To Kill Him (David). Jonathan Does
Not Believe It But Excuses David From Attendance At The New Moon Festival
(1 Samuel 20:1-9).
b Jonathan Renews Covenant With David And Declares That He Will
Discover His Father’s Intentions (1 Samuel 20:10-24 a).
b Jonathan Discovers Saul’s Intentions At The Moon Festival And Fasts Out
Of Grief (1 Samuel 20:24-34).
a Jonathan Confirms To David That He Was Right And They Say Farewell (1
Samuel 20:35-42).
Chapter 20. David Finds Himself At Crisis Point, And Jonathan Is At Last
Finally Convinced That His Father Means To Kill David.
It appears from the narrative that although he had now made two major
attempts to arrest David, presumably for treason, Saul had gone to some pains
to conceal his actions from Jonathan. He knew of his son’s deep friendship
with David, and clearly felt that it was better for him not to know anything of
6

7. what he was doing. Jonathan, who was an open and honest person, was thus in
complete ignorance of Saul’s attempts to arrest David, and was satisfied that
the agreement that he had made with his father about David’s safety (1 Samuel
19:6) still stood.
Meanwhile David was bewildered as to why Saul was treating him like an
enemy. While he would not know the detailed workings of Saul’s mind he was
certainly now aware that Saul was seeking to arrest him and that his life was in
danger. And he was also equally confident that he had done nothing to deserve
it. Indeed because he had at this time no designs on the throne, he was
completely baffled by Saul’s behaviour. But he was also astute enough to
recognise that the problem appeared to be permanent, something Jonathan
could not be convinced of, until in the end he had no option but to be so.
Another problem that David had was that the new moon was approaching, and
at this particular new moon all Saul’s courtiers and commanders were
required to attend at the palace for the new moon celebrations. This put him in
a quandary, for he knew that Saul had the intention of arresting him, which
meant that he dared not attend, while on the other hand he knew that not to be
present would be tantamount to rebellion and would give good cause for
arresting him. It would be looked on as a deliberate insult to the king. So being
a man who dealt wisely he sought out Jonathan in order to obtain a legitimate
excuse from him for not attending the festival, an excuse which was valid
because it was sealed by royal authority, the authority of Jonathan the crown
prince. This would mean that he could then avoid attending without insulting
the king, as he would basically have had royal permission for his absence.
In this chapter we have described for us Jonathan’s slow recognition that
David’s position at court was hopeless, followed by his communication of the
fact to David, and then their parting as he bids David ‘God speed’.
Central to the whole passage is the relationship between Jonathan and David.
It is a moving account of the brotherly love between two men. But even more
importantly, it provides us with the final evidence of David’s integrity,
otherwise Jonathan, who was fully up with all political affairs (apart from
those to do with David’s proposed demise) would not have stood by him like he
did, and would not have made a firm covenant with him. Furthermore there is
also here an indication that Jonathan himself recognises that in the end it is
David who is bound for the throne, and is quite content that its should be so.
Verses 1-9
David Seeks Out Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:1-9).
While Saul was rendered incapable of doing anything by the working of God’s
Spirit on him, David was able to flee from Naioth, and his first action was to
7

8. take advantage of the fact that Saul was busy elsewhere to seek out Jonathan,
presumably in Gibeah. He was genuinely puzzled as to why Saul was behaving
in the way that he was because he did not know what he had done wrong. And
if anyone would know, surely it would be Jonathan.
Analysis.
a And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and he came and said before
Jonathan, “What have I done? what is my iniquity? and what is my sin before
your father, that he seeks my life?” (1 Samuel 20:1).
b And he said to him, “Far from it. You will not die. Look, my father does
nothing, either great or small, but that he discloses it to me. And why should
my father hide this thing from me? It is not so” (1 Samuel 20:2).
c And David swore moreover, and said, Your father knows well that I have
found favour in your eyes, and he says, “Do not let Jonathan know this, lest he
be grieved,” but truly as YHWH lives, and as your soul lives, there is but a step
between me and death” (1 Samuel 20:3).
d Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your soul desires, I will even do it
for you” (1 Samuel 20:4).
c And David said to Jonathan, “Look, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should
not fail to sit with the king at meat, but let me go, that I may hide myself in the
field until the third day in the 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 say thus, ‘It is well,’ your
servant will have peace, but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by
him” (1 Samuel 20:5-7).
b “Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant
into a covenant of YHWH with you, but if there be in me iniquity, kill me
yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?” (1 Samuel 20:8).
a And 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 would I not inform you?”
(1 Samuel 20:9).
Note that in ‘a’ David declares that he is innocent and asks why Saul seeks his
life, and in the parallel Jonathan basically declares by his words that his father
does not seek his life. In ‘b’ Jonathan declares that Saul has no intention of
putting David to death (‘it is not so’), while in the parallel David asks that if
Jonathan knows of any evil in him, Jonathan himself will put him to death. In
‘c’ David stresses that that is Saul’s intention (‘there is but a step between me
and death’), and in the parallel David asks Jonathan to put the question to the
8

9. test so as to ascertain whether Saul does intend to put him to death. Central in
‘d’ is Jonathan’s heartfelt assurance that he will do whatever David desires.
1 Samuel 20:1
‘And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and he came and said before
Jonathan, “What have I done? what is my iniquity? and what is my sin before
your father, that he seeks my life?” ’
Strictly ‘and David fled from Naioth in Ramah’ closes off the last passage. It is,
however, also a connecting link between the two.
Having ‘fled’ he arrived at Jonathan’s house, and gaining admittance he asked
Jonathan man to man what the problem was. He was genuinely concerned. He
wanted to know what he had done that made Saul want to have him executed.
Note the earnestness expressed by the three fold request, ‘What have I done?’,
What is my iniquity?’ ‘What is my sin before your father?’ He was baffled.
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
THE FINAL BREAK BETWEEN SAUL AND DAVID;
DAVID FLEES FROM NAIROTH TO JONATHAN
"Then David fled from Nairoth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan,
"What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin before your father
that he seeks my life"? And he said to him, "Far from it! You shall not die.
Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to
me; and why should my father hide this from me? It is not so." But David
replied, "Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he
thinks, `Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.' But truly, as the Lord
lives, and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death."
It is a mystery to this writer why certain critical commentators reject this
chapter as "unhistorical,"[1] declaring that, "It cannot be reconciled with the
story of Michal ... It is hard to see where this incident can be made to fit in."[2]
All such "difficulties" in the acceptance of this chapter are due to the failure of
writers to understand the situation. Note the following:
(1) David was the son-in-law of King Saul, having recently married his
daughter Michal.
(2) David was an honored member of the king's court and, at this point in time,
he had not been formally expelled.
9

10. (3) He was even expected to sit at the king's table in the approaching feast of
the new moon.
(4) The king had recently sworn in a solemn oath that David should not die.
(5) David was uncertain whether he was indeed committed to life as a fugitive
and an outlaw, or if Saul's violent attempt to take his life might be attributed
to a sudden fit of madness, and from which a reconciliation through the aid of
Jonathan might be arranged, as upon a similar previous occasion.
(6) Besides all this, a visitation from God himself had frustrated Saul's
expedition to Nairoth. That visitation had overtones of prophecy connected
with it; and, near the beginning of Saul's career, such an experience had
resulted in Saul's being turned, "into another man" (1 Samuel 10:6). David
had every right to hope that a similar change in Saul's life might have been
effected by this new prophetic experience.
(7) "David is still a court member and would be acting very improperly if he
absented himself at the approaching festival without permission."[3]
(8) Finally, the loving arms of his wife Michal awaited him in their home on the
city wall.
Any writer who finds it "difficult" to understand why David would have
returned to Gibeah in the light of these circumstances has simply failed to read
his Bible.
"He (David) fled from Nairoth" (1 Samuel 20:1). "While Saul lay bound by his
trance at Nairoth, David, escaped to the court and got to speak with
Jonathan."[4]
"What have I done? What is my guilt? What is my sin?" (1 Samuel 20:1). Saul
had made no formal charge whatever against David; he had given no reason
whatever to support his reasons for trying to kill David; and it was most
natural that, in this circumstance, David should have attempted to find out
what lay behind Saul's violent behavior.
"Far from it! ... It is not so" (1 Samuel 20:2). Jonathan simply could not
believe that his father was trying to kill David after that solemn oath which the
king had sworn that David should not die (1 Samuel 19:6). As one of the king's
chief advisers, Jonathan felt sure that he would have been informed of any
such intention on the part of his father.
"There is but a step between me and death" (1 Samuel 20:3). David reinforced
his words with a double oath, and provided Jonathan with the real reason why
he had not been taken into the king's confidence in the matter of his decision to
10

11. kill David. That reason was the king's knowledge that Jonathan, through his
friendship for David, would not have approved of it.
BI 1-42, "And David fled from Naioth, in Ramah, and came and said before
Jonathan.
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 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. 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, 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 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?
(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, 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).
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
11

12. 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 vessel’s 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
David’s faith. During his exile, especially in the early past, when his
fortunes changed so suddenly, David’s 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 God’s 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.)
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:1. David fled, and came and said before Jonathan —
12

13. 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.
WHEDON, " JONATHAN’S LAST INTERCESSION FOR DAVID, 1 Samuel
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, (1 Samuel 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.
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.
GUZIK, "JONATHAN’S FINAL ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE HIS FATHER
AND DAVID
A. David, coming from Naioth, meets Jonathan.
1. (1Sa_20:1-4) David asks Jonathan about Saul’s intentions towards
him; Jonathan promises his help to David.
Then David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and went and said to Jonathan,
“What have I done? What is my iniquity, and what is my sin before your
father, that he seeks my life?” So Jonathan said to him, “By no means!
You shall not die! Indeed, my father will do nothing either great or small
without first telling me. And why should my father hide this thing from
me? It is not so!” Then David took an oath again, and said, “Your father
certainly knows that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said, ‘Do
not let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.’ But truly, as the LORD
lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death.” So
Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you yourself desire, I will do it for
you.”
a. Then David fled from Naioth: Why? Why did David leave Naioth?
The Spirit of God protected David there in a powerful way. He could
have simply stayed there for however long it took Saul to give up or
die. Yet David left for a good reason: He wanted to know if Saul’s
heart had changed, and if there was still a chance to reconcile with
13

14. King Saul.
b. When David left, he went to see his close friend Jonathan.
Jonathan was Saul’s son, and the crown prince of Israel. Everyone
thought he would be the next son - everyone except David and
Jonathan. Jonathan knew that David was called by God to be the next
king, and he was willing to step aside so that he would not be resisting
the will of the LORD.
c. What have I done? We should see in this that David is testing
Jonathan’s loyalty. Of course, he wants to know what Saul thinks, but
even more important to David is to know what Jonathan thinks. In
asking, “What have I done?” David wants to know if Jonathan has
come to a place of agreement with his father Saul.
d. So Jonathan said to him, “By no means!” This assures David that
Jonathan is still his loyal friend, and that Jonathan hasn’t bought into
Saul’s lies about David. Jonathan also assures David that he will
protect him, by warning David of Saul’s intentions.
i. Why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so!
Apparently, David wondered why Jonathan didn’t tell him about
the attempted arrest at Naioth. Jonathan expresses astonishment
that his father did not tell him, but assures David of his heart
towards him.
ii. Why did Jonathan seem slow to believe that his father still
wanted to kill David? “For Jonathan gave credit to his father’s
oath, chap. xix. 6; and the worthiest minds are least suspicious
and most charitable in their opinions of others.” (Poole)
e. There is but a step between me and death: This reveals David’s
discouragement. He knows that Saul has attempted to kill him many
times, and it seems that Saul will not quit until David is gone. David
feels that his death is inevitable, and that he is walking on a slippery
plank over a great canyon.
i. “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.” (Trapp)
f. Whatever you yourself desire, I will do it for you: Jonathan
continues to reassure David, bringing encouragement to a
discouraged man.
i. Jonathan’s approach is to encourage David and to offer help to
him. Conceivably, he could have said, “Where is your faith,
brother? Why aren’t you just trusting God?” Instead, Jonathan
knew David’s heart was pointed in the right direction, and he just
offered to help.
2. (1Sa_20:5-11) David proposes to test Saul’s attitude.
And David said to Jonathan, “Indeed tomorrow is the New Moon, and I
should not fail to sit with the king to eat. But let me go, that I may hide in
14

15. the field until the third day at evening. If your father misses me at all,
then say, ‘David earnestly asked permission of me that he might run over
to Bethlehem, his city, for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the
family.’ If he says thus: ‘It is well,’ your servant will be safe. But if he is
very angry, then be sure that evil is determined by him. Therefore you
shall deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant
into a covenant of the LORD with you. Nevertheless, if there is iniquity in
me, kill me yourself, for why should you bring me to your father?” But
Jonathan said, “Far be it from you! For if I knew certainly that evil was
determined by my father to come upon you, then would I not tell you?”
Then David said to Jonathan, “Who will tell me, or what if your father
answers you roughly?” And Jonathan said to David, “Come, and let us go
out into the field.” So both of them went out into the field.
a. If your father misses me: David asks Jonathan to observe Saul’s
reaction to David’s absence at an important feast held monthly for the
high officials of state. Apparently, Saul hoped that David would be at
this feast as expected, and David wondered how Saul would react to
his presence. Would he take the opportunity to reconcile with David?
Or, would he take the opportunity to kill him?
i. The New Moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king to eat:
Special sacrifices were commanded for the new moon (Num_
28:11-15).
b. If there is iniquity in me: Again, David seems somewhat shaken by
the fact that Jonathan did not tell him about the attempted arrest at
Naioth. David is asking Jonathan, “Am I in the wrong here? Are you
still behind me?” Essentially, David says “If you really are working for
your father, and agree with him that I deserve to die, then just kill me
right now!”
i. We have to see all of this from David’s perspective. He
remembers that Jonathan’s support for him is challenged by the
fact that his father is against David. He also remembers that
Jonathan’s support for him is challenged by the fact that Jonathan
is next in line for the throne, and might perhaps have an interest
in being against David.
ii. Jonathan’s response is the same as in 1Sa_20:2; he didn’t know
that Saul set out to get David in Naioth, though previously to that
point, his father would tell him everything.
c. Far be it from you! Jonathan, with encouragement, tells David to
put away his doubts about Jonathan’s loyalty. Jonathan senses that
David is in a vulnerable place, and he wants to give him
encouragement in the midst of it.
d. Who will tell me? David now poses a practical problem. If Saul has
determined evil against David, and Jonathan intends to warn him,
how will he do it? How will Jonathan get the message to David?
B. Jonathan’s agreement.
15

16. 1. (1Sa_20:12-13) Jonathan vows to find out the state of his father’s heart
for David.
Then Jonathan said to David: “The LORD God of Israel is witness! When
I have sounded out my father sometime tomorrow, or the third day, and
indeed there is good toward David, and I do not send to you and tell you,
may the LORD do so and much more to Jonathan. But if it pleases my
father to do you evil, then I will report it to you and send you away, that
you may go in safety. And the LORD be with you as He has been with my
father.
a. When I have sounded out my father: Jonathan will find out his
father’s heart, and will report it to David, if say if it is good or bad
towards David.
b. And send you away, that you may go in safety: Jonathan knows that
if his father Saul intends evil against David, it means that David must
go away. He would not be welcome again in the palace, and he would
not be safe again at home. By giving David early warning of this, he
would help David go in safety.
c. And the LORD will be with you as He has been with my father:
Jonathan wants to give David more than a warning. He wants to give
him encouragement also. “David, even if you must leave the palace
and your home behind, and flee as a fugitive, the LORD will be with
you. You can be sure of it.”
i. We almost might think that Jonathan is being sarcastic when he
says, “as He has been with my father,” because one might think
that the LORD was really against Saul instead of for him. But
Jonathan had enough wisdom in the LORD to know that the LORD
was really for Saul, because the LORD was trying to lead Saul to
repentance.
ii. In the spiritual relationship between David and Jonathan,
sometimes David was stronger spiritually, and sometimes
Jonathan was stronger. But there was a bond in the LORD
between these men that could not be broken.
2. (1Sa_20:14-17) In response, Jonathan makes David commit himself in
a covenant.
“And you shall not only show me the kindness of the LORD while I still
live, that I may not die; but you shall not cut off your kindness from my
house forever, no, not when the LORD has cut off every one of the
enemies of David from the face of the earth.” So Jonathan made a
covenant with the house of David, saying, “Let the LORD require it at
the hand of David’s enemies.” Now Jonathan again caused David to vow,
because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
a. You shall not cut off your kindness for my house forever: Jonathan
was aware of the political dynamic between the family of David and
the family of Jonathan. In that day, when one royal house replaced
another, it was common for the new royal house to kill all the
16

17. potential rulers from the old royal house. Jonathan knew that one
day, David and his descendants would rule over Israel, and he wants
David to promise that David and his descendants will not kill or
mistreat the descendants of Jonathan.
b. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David: Jonathan
and David agreed to care for one another. Jonathan agreed to care for
David in the face of Saul’s threat, and David agreed to care for
Jonathan and his family in the future. David fulfilled this promise to
Jonathan (2Sa_9:1-8 and 2Sa_21:7).
3. (1Sa_20:18-23) Jonathan proposes a signal to inform David of Saul’s
reaction.
Then Jonathan said to David, “Tomorrow is the New Moon; and you will
be missed, because your seat will be empty. And when you have stayed
three days, go down quickly and come to the place where you hid on the
day of the deed; and remain by the stone Ezel. Then I will shoot three
arrows to the side, as though I shot at a target; and there I will send a
lad, saying, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I expressly say to him, ‘Look, the
arrows are on this side of you; get them and come’; then, as the LORD
lives, there is safety for you and no harm. But if I say thus to the young
man, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you’; go your way, for the LORD has
sent you away. And as for the matter which you and I have spoken of,
indeed the LORD be between you and me forever.”
a. I will shoot three arrows: After Jonathan learns his father’s heart
and intention towards David, he will communicate to David through a
signal. Jonathan will go out to take target practice, and where he
shoots the arrows will tell David the answer.
b. The arrows will bring one of two messages. Either Saul’s heart has
changed towards David, and there is safety for you and no harm, or
Saul is still determined to kill David, and the LORD has sent you
away.
i. This was a crucial time in David’s life. Either he would be
welcomed back to the palace and his home, or he would be a
fugitive until Saul gave up the hunt for David. A lot was riding on
the message brought through a few arrows!
C. Saul’s settled hatred towards David.
1. (1Sa_20:24-34) Saul is enraged when he learns of David’s absence.
Then David hid in the field. And when the New Moon had come, the king
sat down to eat the feast. Now the king sat on his seat, as at other times,
on a seat by the wall. And Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul’s side,
but David’s place was empty. Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that
day, for he thought, “Something has happened to him; he is unclean,
surely he is unclean.” And it happened the next day, the second day of
the month, that David’s place was empty. And Saul said to Jonathan his
son, “Why has the son of Jesse not come to eat, either yesterday or
today?” So Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked permission
17

18. of me to go to Bethlehem. And he said, ‘Please let me go, for our family
has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be
there. And now, if I have found favor in your eyes, please let me get away
and see my brothers.’ Therefore he has not come to the king’s table.”
Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him,
“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not 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 shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and
bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” And Jonathan answered Saul
his father, and said to him, “Why should he be killed? What has he
done?” Then Saul cast a spear at him to kill him, by which Jonathan
knew that it was determined by his father to kill David. 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.
a. But David’s place was empty: David was expected to be at this
special feast of the New Moon, and so he was conspicuous by his
absence. At first, this did not trouble Saul greatly, because he
thought, “Something has happened to him; he is unclean, surely he is
unclean.” Ceremonial uncleanliness might cause a person to miss a
feast such as this, but the ceremonial uncleanliness would only last a
day (Lev_22:3-7). So, when it happened the next day . . . that David’s
place was empty, Saul demanded an explanation.
i. Meyer on the son of Jesse: “Speaking of him derisively as ‘the
son of Jesse,’ thus accentuating his lowly birth, and ignoring the
relationship that bound him to the royal family.”
b. Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked permission of me
to go to Bethlehem.” Jonathan is covering for David, trying to give
Saul a plausible - and truthful - explanation for David’s absence.
i. “It seems probably that he went first to Bethlehem, as he bade
Jonathan to tell his father, 1Sa_20:6, and thence returned to the
field, when the occasion required; else we must charge him with a
downright lie, which ought not to be imagined (without any
apparent cause) concerning so good a man.” (Poole)
c. Saul’s anger was aroused . . . “You son of a perverse, rebellious
woman!” Jonathan knew from this response that Saul’s heart was
settled on evil against David. If Saul’s heart was different towards
David, he might have been disappointed that he wasn’t there, but he
wouldn’t have been furious.
i. Poole on to the shame of your mother’s nakedness: “Men will
conclude, that thy mother was a whore, and thou a bastard; and
that thou hast no royal blood in thy veins, that canst so tamely give
up thy crown to so contemptible a person.”
d. In his anger, Saul accused Jonathan of siding with David (you have
chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame). He tried to encourage
18

19. Jonathan’s sense of hurt and self-interest against David (as long as
the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor
your kingdom). He tried to enlist Jonathan’s help in killing David
(bring him to me, for he shall surely die).
i. These were “Taunts that were intended to instil into Jonathan’s
heart the poison which was working in his own.” (Meyer)
ii. “Thus he grossly mistakes the cause of Jonathan’s loss of the
kingdom, which was not David’s art, but Saul’s sin; and vainly
endeavours to prevent God’s irrevocable sentence.” (Poole)
e. He shall surely die: Certainly, this was Saul’s intention, despite his
previous oath (As the LORD lives, he shall not be killed, 1Sa_19:6).
Apparently, Saul believed oaths were for other people, but not for
him! Saul lived by what Trapp called “That Machiavellian maxim . . .
It is for tradesmen, and not for kings to keep their oaths.” Yet, despite
Saul’s intentions, David would not die at the hands of Saul or any
other enemy. Man proposes, but God disposes.
f. Jonathan responds by defending not only David, but right in this
cause: Why should he be killed? What has he done? Jonathan’s
support of David wasn’t a blind support; it was a support based on
what was right before the LORD. Jonathan’s support of David
enraged Saul, and Saul cast a spear at him to kill him. This shows how
deep Saul’s hatred of David is; he will kill his own son for siding with
David.
i. “Jonathan made one vain attempt to reason with the furious
monarch; he might as well have tried to arrest the swelling of
Jordan in the time of flood.” (Meyer)
ii. Jonathan saw this at once; he knew that it was determined by
his father to kill David. This made Jonathan very angry, and he
refused to continue participating in the feast.
2. (1Sa_20:35-40) Jonathan tells David bout Saul’s state of mind through
the pre-arranged signal of the arrows.
And so it was, in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the
time appointed with David, and a little lad was with him. Then he said to
his lad, “Now run, find the arrows which I shoot.” As the lad ran, he shot
an arrow beyond him. When the lad had come to the place where the
arrow was which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried out after the lad
and said, “Is not the arrow beyond you?” And Jonathan cried out after
the lad, “Make haste, hurry, do not delay!” So Jonathan’s lad gathered up
the arrows and came back to his master. But the lad did not know
anything. Only Jonathan and David knew of the matter. Then Jonathan
gave his weapons to his lad, and said to him, “Go, carry them to the city.”
a. Is not the arrow beyond you? In 1Sa_20:21-22, Jonathan and David
determined that if the arrows were shot at a shorter distance, then
David could know that Saul’s heart was favorable to him. If the
arrows were shot further beyond, David could know that Saul’s heart
19

20. was still hard and he determined to destroy David.
i. It took courage for Jonathan to communicate with David, even
secretly - because he knew that if his father became aware of it, he
would focus his murderous rage against Jonathan again. There
was something noble in Jonathan’s commitment to David as a
friend.
ii. “But there is something still nobler - when one dares in any
company to avow his loyalty to the Lord Jesus. Like David, he is
now in obscurity and disrepute; his name is not popular; his
gospel is misrepresented; his followers are subjected to rebuke
and scorn. These are days when to stand up for anything more
than mere conventional religion must cost something; and for this
reason let us never flinch.” (Meyer)
b. A small thing - the signal of a single arrow - told David his whole
life was changed. He would no longer be welcome at the palace. He
would no longer be welcome among the army of Israel. He would no
longer be able to go home. David now knew he would have to live as a
fugitive, on the run from an angry, jealous king determined to destroy
him.
i. Sometimes our lives can turn on a small thing. One night of
carelessness may change a girl’s life forever. One night with the
wrong crowd may give a boy an arrest record. It often times does
not seem fair that so much in life should turn on small moments,
but a lifetime is made of nothing but many small moments!
ii. “You have hoped against hope; you have tried to keep your
position; you have done your duty, pleaded your cause, sought the
intercession of your friends, prayed, wept, agonized. But it is all in
vain; the arrows’ flight proves you must go wither you may.”
(Meyer)
3. (1Sa_20:41-42) The tearful farewell of David and Jonathan.
As soon as the lad had gone, David arose from a place toward the south,
fell on his face to the ground, and bowed down three times. And they
kissed one another; and they wept together, but David more so. Then
Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, since we have both sworn in the
name of the LORD, saying, ‘May the LORD be between you and me, and
between your descendants and my descendants, forever.’“ So he arose
and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.
a. They wept together: David and Jonathan loved each other, and had
a strong bond of friendship. But David couldn’t stay, and Jonathan
couldn’t go. They remembered their bond of friendship back in 1Sa_
18:1-4, when Jonathan gave David his armor and princely robe. It was
Jonathan’s way of saying, “David, I recognize that you are God’s
choice to be the next king, not me. I’ll lay aside my right to the throne,
and help you take it. This armor of a prince, and the robe of a prince,
belongs to you now, not me.” Jonathan and David probably
envisioned working together, as partners, as friends, both before and
20

21. after the time David became king. But now all that was gone, so they
wept together.
b. But David more so: If Jonathan had reason to weep, David had
more so. The pain of being apart was bad enough, but it was worse for
David because he was cut off from everything, and destined to live for
many years the life of a fugitive.
i. “Behind you is the sunny morning, before you a lowering sky;
behind you the blessed enjoyment of friendship, wife, home, royal
favor, and popular adulation, before you an outcast’s life.”
(Meyer)
c. Go in peace, since we have both sworn in the name of the LORD:
Jonathan knew he might never see David again. In fact, David and
Jonathan will only meet once more, shortly before Jonathan’s death.
But David now left for a life of hiding, secrecy, and danger. But
Jonathan could send David away in peace, because they have both
have agreed to honor each other not only in life, but to honor each
other’s families beyond their own lifetimes.
i. Jonathan might have been threatened by David, but instead he
loved him and was loyal to him. Jonathan, with his excellent
character before God, served an important role in David’s life. David
might have started to think that Saul was rejected simply because he
was wicked, and David was chosen simply because he was godly. But
if God just wanted a godly man to be king, why not Jonathan? God’s
choice of David was a reminder that God has His own reasons for
choosing, reasons we can’t always figure out.
d. So he arose and departed: David will not return to “normal life”
until Saul is dead and David is king. This is a pretty bleak road for
David to walk, but it is God’s road for him.
i. Was David in God’s will? How can anyone set out on such a bleak
road and be in the will of God? Because God often has His people
spend at least some time on a bleak road, and He appoints some of
His favorites to spend a lot of time on that road - think of Job,
Joseph, Paul, and even Jesus.
ii. This bleak road is important in David’s life, because if God will
put David in a place where people must depend on him, God will
teach David to depend upon God alone. Not himself, not Saul, not
Jonathan, not anyone except God
iii. This bleak road is important in David’s life, because if David
will be safe now and promoted to king later, David must learn to
let God be his defense and his promoter.
iv. This bleak road is important in David’s life, because if David is
to be set in such a great position of authority, David must learn to
submit to God’s authority, even if it is in a man like Saul. David
could have decided to challenge Saul’s authority, thinking “I’ll stay
around here and gather loyal people away from Saul and to
21

22. myself. I’ll start a campaign to bring me to the throne.” But David
wouldn’t; he would submit to Saul’s authority, trust the Lord, and
just leave.”
v. “Let God empty you out that He may save you from becoming
spiritually stale, and lead you ever onward. He is always calling us
to pass beyond the thing we know into the unknown. A throne is
God’s purpose for you; a cross is God’s path for you; faith is God’s
plan for you.” (Redpath)
HAWKER, "The subject of David's distresses, on account of Saul's seeking
his life, is continued through this Chapter. David leaveth Naioth, and flees
to Jonathan for counsel. They confer on the best means for David to adopt.
A plan is suggested for this purpose, but it fails. They meet by appointment,
and it becoming necessary for David to escape for his life, Jonathan and
David part with tears.
1 Samuel 20:1
(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?
In those frequent flights of David from one place to another, is not the
Reader reminded how Jesus was frequently compelled to make his escape
from the fury of his enemies. From his birth, he was constrained to flee into
Egypt. And in the Synagogue, when they thrust him out, and led him to the
brow of the hill to cast him down headlong, he was obliged to seek his safety
in hastening to Capernaum: and again, to avoid being stoned, to conceal
himself from their knowledge by passing through the crowd. See Matthew
2:13; Luke 4:28-30; John 8:59.
LANGE, "1. 1 Samuel 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.
1 Samuel 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 Samuel19.) 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
22

23. 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 Psalm, of his innocence and purity in
respect to the persecutions of his enemies.—That he seeks my soul, that
Isaiah, my life, comp. Exodus 4:19. S. Schmid: “The questions in this verse
are an appeal to Jonathan’s own knowledge.”
MACLAREN, "JONATHAN, THE PATTERN OF FRIENDSHIP
1 Samuel 20:1 - 1 Samuel 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’! [1 Samuel 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
23

24. 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 [1
Samuel 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.
24

25. 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
25

26. 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 1 Samuel 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
26

27. 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!
2 "Never!" Jonathan replied. "You are not going to
die! Look, my father doesn't do anything, great or
small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide
this from me? It's not so!"
BARNES, "It is not so - Jonathan’s unwillingness to believe evil of his
father is one of the many admirable traits in his character.
CLARKE, "My father will do nothing - Jonathan thought that his father
could have no evil design against David, because of the oath which he had
sworn to himself 1Sa_19:6; and at any rate, that he would do nothing against
David without informing him.
GILL, "And he said unto him, God forbid, thou shalt not die,.... He could not
believe his father had any such intention; and that if he discovered anything
of that kind, it was only when he was in a frenzy, and a melancholy disorder
had seized him; and that David had nothing to fear on that head, and that he
would secure him from all danger in that respect; the thing was too gross
and detestable to be credited:
behold, my father will do nothing, either great or small, but that he will
show it me; such an interest had he in him, and in his favour, being his son
and heir to his crown, and having done many warlike exploits, which had
the more endeared him to him, that he made him privy to all his secret
designs, and took his opinion in all matters of moment and importance:
and why should my father hide this thing from me? his design of taking
away the life of David, if he had really formed one:
it is not so; Jonathan concluded, from his ignorance of it, there was nothing
in it, and that it was only a surmise of David's; and yet it is strange that
Jonathan should know nothing of the messengers being sent to David's
house to take him, and of others sent to Naioth after him, and of Saul's
going there himself with such a design; and if he did know anything of the
matter, he made the best of it to David, partly to allay his fears, and partly
27

28. that his father might not appear so black and vile as he really was.
HENRY, "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, 1Sa_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, 1Co_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,” 1Sa_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.
K&D, "1Sa_20:2
Jonathan endeavoured to pacify him: “Far be it! thou shalt not die:
behold, my father does nothing great or small (i.e., not the smallest thing;
cf. 1Sa_25:36 and Num_22:18) that he does not reveal to me; why should
my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.” The ‫ל‬ after ‫ֵה‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫ה‬ stands for
‫ֹא‬ ‫:ל‬ the Chethibh ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ָ‫ע‬ is probably to be preferred to the Keri ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ע‬ַ‫י‬, and to be
understood in this sense: “My father has (hitherto) done nothing at all,
which he has not told to me.” This answer of Jonathan does not presuppose
that he knew nothing of the occurrences described in 1 Samuel 19:9-24,
although it is possible enough that he might not have been with his father
just at that time; but it is easily explained from the fact that Saul had made
the fresh attack upon David's life in a state of madness, in which he was no
longer master of himself; so that it could not be inferred with certainty from
this that he would still plot against David's life in a state of clear
consciousness. Hitherto Saul had no doubt talked over all his plans and
undertakings with Jonathan, but he had not uttered a single word to him
about his deadly hatred, or his intention of killing David; so that Jonathan
might really have regarded his previous attacks upon David's life as nothing
more than symptoms of temporary aberration of mind.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:2
God forbid. An exclamation of horror; literally, "Far be it" (see on 1Sa_
9:1-27:45). In spite of the many proofs of Saul’s bitter hatred, Jonathan
cannot believe that after all that had taken place at Ramah his father would
still persist in his murderous purpose. He further assures David that Saul
28

29. would do nothing without telling him; literally, without uncovering his ear,
without telling it him privately (see on 1Sa_9:15). The phrase is used again
in 1Sa_20:12. For will do nothing the written text reads "has done for
himself," which the Kri properly corrects. The rashness of Saul’s temper,
and his frank talk about killing David recorded in 1Sa_19:1, confirm
Jonathan’s statement about the openness of his father’s ways, and he
therefore assures David that he may take his place in safety.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:2
‘And he said to him, “Far from it. You will not die. Look, my father does
nothing, either great or small, but that he discloses it to me. And why should
my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.”
Jonathan, who was seemingly unaware of the attempts made to arrest
David, was astounded, and thought that David must have got it wrong. He
could not believe that his father could do such a thing without consulting
him. Why, did not his father discuss everything with him? Why then should
he hide this? Thus his conclusion was that David must be mistaken.
ELLICOTT, " (2) God forbid; thou shalt not die.—Jonathan even now refuses
to believe that his loved father, when he was himself, really wished ill to
David; all that had hitherto happened the princely Jonathan put down to his
father’s unhappy malady. He urges upon his friend that if the king in good
earnest had designs upon David’s life, he would in his calm, lucid days have
consulted with him, Jonathan, to whom he ever confided all his State
secrets.
Will do nothing.—Here the commentators and the versions—LXX., Vulg.,
and Cbaldee—all agree to read in the Hebrew text, lo “not,” for lo “to him,”
that is, for a vau an aleph must be substituted.
MORGAN, "Jonathan's response is very emotional. "Far from it, you shall not
die!" he cries. The term "far from it" comes from the Hebrew root which
means "to pollute, profane, dishonor." The noun form means that the thing or
thought is so profane or reprehensible, it evokes deep emotions. Abraham
attributed these words to God in Genesis 18:17 when he asked whether God
would destroy Sodom if fifty righteous men were found in the city. The
patriarch answers his own question: "Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge
of all the earth deal justly?" (For other uses see 1 Sam 2:30; 14:45; 22:15;
26:11; 2 Sam 20:20; 23:17; here the word frames the passage in verses 2 and 9.)
⦁ Jonathan can't believe what he is hearing from the lips of David. He is a little
29

30. naive. He always wants to think the best about people. His relationship with
his father was open and transparent, and Saul had taken an oath before him
that David would not die, so both logic and experience assured him that
everything was fine between his father and David. I confess I am a lot like
Jonathan. I, too, tend to think the best about people. I'm a bit naive when it
comes to evil. Years ago I was betrayed and greatly wronged by a friend.
When another friend began to investigate this man's story and his character, I
was shocked. Everything in my emotional makeup protested his innocence.
But, like Jonathan in this story, I was wrong.
Next, David counters Jonathan's logic with a little of his own. He says to his
friend, "Your father knows well that you love me. If he had been open with
you about the matter, you would be grieved" (the appropriate emotion for
death). Then David backs his logic with a vow: "As the LORD lives and as
your soul lives, there is hardly a step between me and death." David brings the
living Lord into the equation. Though Jonathan doesn't yet see the matter as
David sees it, this vow presses the seriousness of the circumstances deep into
Jonathan's heart and brings him to a place where at least he is willing to listen.
Because he loves David he responds by saying, "Whatever your soul says, this I
will do." This is the turning point of the scene. Jonathan at last is willing to
view things differently.
This is the first step that love must take: Even when everything in you says
that the other person can't be right, love demands that we be open to listen to
another point of view. We must be willing to bypass our emotions and listen to
the other side of things. This is where Jonathan has arrived at last. So he asks
David, "What do you want me to do for you?"
A FRIEND WILL LISTEN Saul was deceiving his own son about his hate and
desire to kill David. The plot thickens for Jonathan reveals that he thinks he
knows his father completely. He is more trusting than David and feels that
Saul has reformed. David was an example of positive pessimism. It was like
Jesus not jumping off the temple in false optimism. Jonathan was loyal to his
mad dad to the end because he ever hoped he would change. We see the
realistic value of pessimism. David had a negative view of the future and
Jonathan a positive one, but the negative view was right. It is just not realistic
to assume that positive thinking can change all negative circumstances.
Negative thinking is often necessary in order to plan for escape from
dangerous situations. The Pollyanna attitude that all will be well can lead you
into a trap. There is always a place in Christian thinking for caution. There
are traps set by the enemy and troubles galore are possible if we go through
life with a superficial optimism. We need to say with David, I need more
information before I move forward on that path. It looks dangerous to me.
MACLAREN, “ Wild as was Saul'sfury when aroused, and narrow
as had been his escape from it at an
30

31. earlier time (1 Samuel xiv. 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.
When David spoke to Jonathan about his feelings, Jonathan immediately
defended his father and told David that he was overreacting; his father would
never hide such a thing from him. Now I'm not sure what Jonathan was
thinking, because he had already talked his dad out of killing David once and
must have heard that he'd sent his messengers over to his house shortly
thereafter to kill him. Hadn't he heard about the spears? But Jonathan did
what most of us do when some criticizes a family member to us, he defended
his Dad-after all, Father knows best, right? Jonathan agreed to find out if is
father meant David any harm and then to report back to David by a
prearranged sign.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 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.
HAWKER, "Verses 2-4
(2) And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father
will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why
should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. (3) And David sware
moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in
thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but
truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me
31

32. and death. (4) Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I
will even do it for thee.
It is somewhat astonishing, that as David had been anointed for the succession
to the kingdom, and as such, was sure of the Lord's design, that his faith had
not got the better of his fears. But we see in him, that mingled frame of mind
which distinguishes, more or less, all God's people. Sometimes believing, and
acting according to that belief. At others doubting, and then calling in question
all God's promises. Fear not, little flock, (saith Jesus to his people) it is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. But in the midst of this, how
often do we find the people of God complaining lest they should fail of the
grace of God. Luke 12:32; Hebrews 12:15.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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
‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ (“not.”) The marginal Impf. (‫ח‬ ֶ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ﬠ‬ַ‫י‬) 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 Isaiah, absolutely nothing, comp. 1 Samuel 22:15, 1
Samuel 25:36, Numbers 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 ( 1 Samuel 19:1) of his purpose
to kill David. This confirms what Jonathan here says to David. Saul’s lack of
self-control[FN44] 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 ( 1
Samuel 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 ( 1
Samuel 7-19:6 ). To this Jonathan’s word here refers: “thou shalt not die,” &c.
Since that time there had been another war with the Philistines (ib. 1 Samuel
20:8), and shortly before this conversation of David and Jonathan the incident
narrated in 1 Samuel 24-20:9 occurred. David’s words in 1 Samuel 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
32

33. 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 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 19:2 and 1 Samuel 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. xiii403). 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 1 Samuel 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. (‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ is
here intensive, =imo, so especially in oaths, 1 Samuel 14:44, 1 Kings 1:29 sq, 1
Samuel 2:23 f, 2 Kings 3:14.— ְ‫כּ‬ 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.
3 But David took an oath and said, "Your father
knows very well that I have found favor in your
eyes, and he has said to himself, 'Jonathan must not
know this or he will be grieved.' Yet as surely as the
LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step
between me and death."
33

34. It is normal to fear death and to do all that you can to escape it and avoid it.
David senses that Jonathan is over-optimistic. He can feel the breath of death
down the back of his neck and is not so confident as Jonathan. It is wise not to
underestimate someone who has tried to kill you. David may be paranoid at
this point, but not without reason. Spurgeon preached a message from his
passage dealing with the persecution that many Christians receive from their
families. He tells of some who desert the faith because of the pressure from
earthly fathers and brothers.
David is in the prime of life and has so much to live for. Death then is an
enemy that robs one of life. Believers fear death for the same reason they fear
spiders, snakes, mice and many other things that are repulsive to them. You
don’t have to like maggots to be a good Christian, nor do you have to like
death. It is one of the things that is repulsive.
David was not being a chicken in having such fear of Saul. It was hard for him
to be misunderstood by Jonathan. Joey Barrow was called a class sissy by
other teen-agers because he took violin lessons. His mother wanted him to
make something of himself, but children can be cruel and they called him a
fiddle playing sissy. One day Joey could not take the taunting and he smashed
another boy over the head with his violin. This only led to worse teasing.
Thurston McKinney felt sorry for Joey and decided to help him get involved
with something with a little more muscle. He exercised at a local gym and
invited Joey to join him. Joey so liked it that it became the dominate part of
his life. In 5 years in was 23 years old and instead of being a sissy he would be
the heavy weight champion of the world. Joey dropped his last name of
Barrow so his mother would not know it was her son they were writing about
in the paper. She thought he was still taking violin lessons. The name he went
by was Joe Lewis.
David is not one who is easily made fearful, for he has been in many battle and
faced death many times. But here is the fear of being killed unaware by a
surprise. There are ways of dying that even the most courageous are afraid of,
and they would do anything to avoid it. History is filled with stories of those
one step from defeat who become victorious. One is Dr. Pemberton, a corner
druggist after the Civil War, who concocted a drink for headaches. Most
medicine was alcoholic, but he kept that out and added caffeine instead. The
people of Georgia were not sold on his mixture, and it looked like it would be
flop. Then a man with a hangover came into the drugstore while a new clerk
was on duty. He asked for something to help him and the new clerk took some
of the syrup fo Dr. Pemberton’s new medicine and by mistake used carbonated
water in mixing it. That was the first Coca-cola. Today it is produced at a 165
million bottles a day. So David was a step from death but became the greatest
34

35. king in Israel’s history. You can be close to being out of the picture and still
become the center of the picture.
BARNES, "And David sware moreover - Rather, “yet again.” He met
Jonathan’s denial by repeating his statement and confirming it with an
oath.
CLARKE, "There is but a step between me and death - My life is in the
most imminent danger. Your father has, most assuredly, determined to
destroy me.
The same figure used here, there is but a step between me and death, may
be found in Juvenal, who, satirizing those who risk their lives for the sake of
gain in perilous voyages, speaks thus: -
I nune et ventis animam committe, dolato
Confisus ligno, digitis a morte remotus
Quatuor aut septem, si sit latissima teda.
Sat. xii., ver. 57.
“Go now, and commit thy life to the winds,
trusting to a hewn plank, four or seven fingers thick,
if the beam out of which it has been cut have been large enough.”
GILL, "And David sware moreover, and said,.... To assure Jonathan of the
truth of it, that he did most certainly seek after his life, of which, as he had
no doubt himself, by an oath he endeavoured to remove any that might be in
Jonathan, who was not willing to believe his father could be guilty of so foul
a crime:
thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes: that he
was high in his favour, that he had a great value for him, and he had a large
share in his love and friendship, and that was the reason why he hid from
him his base intentions:
and he saith, let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved; as he would be,
both for the evil his father would be guilty of, and the danger David, his
beloved friend, would be in:
but truly, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step
between me and death; as appeared by his casting a javelin at him, 1Sa_
18:11, sending messengers to his own house to slay him, 1Sa_19:11, and
others to Naioth to seize him, 1Sa_19:20, and coming himself thither with
an intention to kill him, 1Sa_19:22, and in each of these instances he had a
narrow escape for his life; and this he declared in the most solemn manner
by an oath, for the confirmation of the truth of it to Jonathan.
35

36. K&D, "1Sa_20:3
But David had looked deeper into Saul's heart. He replied with an oath
(“he sware again,” i.e., a second time), “Thy father knoweth that I have
found favour in thine eyes (i.e., that thou art attached to me); and thinketh
Jonathan shall not know this, lest he be grieved. But truly, as surely as
Jehovah liveth, and thy soul liveth, there is hardly a step (lit. about a step)
between me and death.” ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1Sa_
14:44, etc.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:3
‘And David swore moreover, and said, Your father knows well that I have
found favour in your eyes, and he says, “Do not let Jonathan know this, lest
he be grieved,” but truly as YHWH lives, and as your soul lives, there is but a
step between me and death.” ’
David then asserted strongly to Jonathan (‘David swore’) that the reason
why he did not know was because his father knew of the great bond that
there was between them, and was thus trying to avoid grieving him. Saul no
doubt felt that once David was safely dead he could then explain to
Jonathan why it had been necessary. Men in Saul’s state of mind always
think that they can justify what they do. David then further pressed
Jonathan with the utmost force (‘as YHWH lives and as your soul lives’) to
recognise that there could really be no doubt about it, and that in fact his
life hung by a thread. He was but one step from death.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:3, 1Sa_20:4
Thy father certainly knoweth, etc. Though Saul did not know the entireness
of Jonathan’s love for David, yet he was aware of the friendship that existed
between them, and consequently might keep his purpose a secret from
Jonathan, especially if he considered that his frankness in speaking openly
to his son and servants on a previous occasion had led to David’s escape.
David, therefore, urges upon his friend a different course, to which he
assents. But how are we to explain the entirely different views taken of
Saul’s conduct by the two. When David tells his fears Jonathan utters an
exclamation of horror, and says, "Thou shalt not die." Yet he knew that his
father had talked to him and his Officers about putting David to death; that
he had tried to kill him with his own hand, and on his escape had set people
to watch his house with orders to slay him; and on David’s flight to the
prophet had thrice sent emissaries to bring him away by force. The
explanation probably lies in Saul s insanity. When he threw his javelin at
David and during the subsequent proceed. ings he was out of his mind. The
violent fit at Naioth had for the time cleared his reason, and he had come
36

37. back sane. Jonathan regarded all that had taken place as the effect of a mind
diseased, and concluded, therefore, that David might now return to his
home and wife, and resume his duties and take his place at the royal table.
Should the old craze come back about David being his rival and destined
successor, Saul would be sure to talk about it, and then Jonathan would give
him timely warning. But David was convinced that it was no craze, but that
Saul, sane or insane, had determined upon his death.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in
thine eyes.—David urges that his fall, and even his death, had been decided
upon by Saul, who, knowing how Jonathan loved him, would shrink from
confiding to his son his deadly plans respecting his loved friend. David, with
his clear, bright intellect, looked deeper into Saul’s heart than did the
heroic, guileless son. He recognised only too vividly the intensity of the
king’s hatred of him; and we see in the next verse that the mournful
earnestness of the son of Jesse had its effect upon the prince, who
consented to make the public trial of Saul’s real mind which his friend
asked for.
4 Jonathan said to David, "Whatever you want me
to do, I'll do for you."
Jonathan understands David’s fears and was willing to cooperate to alleviate
them. These two disagreed about the facts-was Saul out to kill David or not?
Jonathan did not agree with David but he was willing to cooperate to meet his
need for assurance. Neither knew for sure where Saul was at this point. They
were both going by feelings. But they did the right and wise thing, and they
found out for sure.
Jonathan was a true friend to David, sacrificing the possibility of sitting on the
throne himself, instead, opting to aid God's choice for King to escape the sword
of his father. True friends are irreplaceable. Greg Asimakoupoulos of The
Chapel Ministries in Wheaton, Illinois writes, "Friends can steer us away from
moral icebergs that would tear a Titanic-size hole in the hull of our soul.
Friends are willing to hurt our feelings to save our reputations. Friends listen
when we are confused about what to do, where to go, how to trust God.
37

38. Friends dare to challenge us with truth. True friends accept our imperfections
and forgive us. True friends fuel our hopes and dreams with their
undiminished expectations."
Small minds are apt to make the mistake of supposing that the crushing down
of others is essential to their own honor and exaltation; but it was because
Jonathan was not thus small-minded, but noble-hearted, that his character has
been beloved by all who have known it from then until now.
What was there in David's character that attracted Jonathan's love?
Undoubtedly it was his nobility, his courage, his honesty, his faithfulness to the
king and to the nation, and, above all, his trust in God, his reliance on him.
What was there in Jonathan which drew forth the responsive love of David?
There were many of the same qualities: Jonathan was also courageous and had
already demonstrated this; he was sincere, honest, humble-minded, generous,
faithful to a friend, and above all faithful to his God.--
GILL, "Then said Jonathan unto David,.... Now giving credit to what he had
said, and in order to comfort and support him under the apprehensions he
had of danger:
whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee; for the preservation
of his life, by speaking to his father on his behalf, endeavouring to dissuade
him from his evil intentions, or by hiding and concealing him in some
obscure place, that he might not execute his evil designs upon him, or by
any method he could point out to him.
HENRY, " Jonathan generously offers him his service (1Sa_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.
K&D, "1Sa_20:4-5
When Jonathan answered, “What thy soul saith, will I do to thee,” i.e.,
fulfil every wish, David made this request, “Behold, to-morrow is new
moon, and I ought to sit and eat with the king: let me go, that I may
conceal myself in the field (i.e., in the open air) till the third evening.” 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_28:11-15, 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, and therefore proposed to hide himself on the new
moon's day and the day following, and also still more clearly from 1Sa_
20:12, 1Sa_20:27, and 1Sa_20:34, where Saul is said to have expected David
at table on the day after the new moon. We cannot, indeed, conclude from
38

39. this that there was a religious festival of two days' duration; nor does it
follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself
on the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness (1Sa_20:26), 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.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:4-5. Whatsoever thou desirest — He does not say, that
shall be lawful and honest; for he knew David too well to think he would ask
anything that was otherwise. I will do it for thee — This is true friendship.
Thus Christ testifies his love to us; Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that
will I do. And we must testify ours to him by keeping his commandments.
Behold, to-morrow is the new-moon — There were solemn sacrifices every
new-moon, and then a feast upon them. And David being one of the king’s
family, by marrying his daughter, used to eat with them at these festival times.
That I may hide myself in the field till the third day — That is, unto the next
day but one after the new-moon. His meaning is not, that he would hide
himself in any certain place all the three days, but that he would secure
himself, either at Beth-lehem with his friends, or in some other place till the
third day.
COFFMAN, "Verse 4
JONATHAN HELPS DAVID TO KNOW THE TRUTH
"Then said Jonathan to David, "Whatever you say, I will do for you." David
said to Jonathan, "Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to
sit at table with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field till
the third day at evening. If your father misses me at all, then say, `David
earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly
sacrifice there for all the family.' If he says, `Good? it will be well with your
servant; 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 sacred
covenant with you. But if there is guilt in me, slay me yourself; for why should
you bring me to your father"? And Jonathan said, "Far be it from you. If I
knew that it was determined by my father that evil should come upon you,
would I not tell you"? Then said David to Jonathan, "Who will tell me if your
father answers you roughly"? And Jonathan said to David, "Come let us go
out into the field." So they both went out into the field."
"Whatever you say, I will do for you" (1 Samuel 20:4). Jonathan reluctantly
accepted David's word and offered to help in any way possible. David at once
responded with a plan to ascertain the real situation between himself and Saul.
"Tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at the table with the
39

40. king" (1 Samuel 20:5). The Jews, and many other ancient peoples, celebrated a
feast of the new moon. Numbers 10:10 and Numbers 28:11-15 give the Mosaic
instructions regarding that festival. Apparently, Saul used the occasion for a
meeting of important members of his government. David was obligated to be
there.
"If there is guilt in me, slay me yourself" (1 Samuel 20:8). David's word here
meant that if Jonathan knew of any sin, guilt, or fault whatever on David's
part that could possibly justify his execution, then David requests that
Jonathan himself slay David rather than turning him over to the king.
"For you brought your servant into a sacred covenant with you" (1 Samuel
20:8). Jonathan himself had taken the lead in forming that sacred covenant
with David.
"Who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?" (1 Samuel 20:10). The
private meeting between David and Jonathan here was possible only because
Saul had not yet returned to his court from Ramah. The problem David
mentioned here was simply that of how the result of the proposed test of Saul's
attitude could be communicated to David when Saul got back in town.
Jonathan had the answer; and made an immediate response.
"Come let us go out into the field. And so they both went out into the field." (1
Samuel 20:11). Critics affirm here that, "Jonathan's proposition that they
should go out into the field where they would be free from observation
contradicts the intent of the main narrative, namely, that it would be
dangerous for them to be seen together going into the field."[5] This is totally
in error. The author of it simply forgot, or never did understand, that Saul was
not in town when this interview occurred. He had not yet recovered his clothes
and returned from Ramah!
As Willis noted, "These events (of 1 Samuel 19-20) transpired over a relatively
brief period, following the ostensible reconciliation between Saul and David in
1 Samuel 19:7."[6] This explains why Jonathan was slow to believe that David
was in any danger. There was also another factor in Jonathan's incredulity
regarding his father. "Filial attachment naturally blinded the prince to defects
in the parental character."[7] "He also believed that his father would honor
his oath that David should not be put to death."[8]
This trip of David to Saul's court in Gibeah was exceedingly dangerous; but in
the circumstances it was absolutely necessary. "Saul's casting his spear at
David (19:10) was during a state of madness in which Saul was not master of
himself; and it could not be inferred with certainty that Saul would still plot
against David's life."[9]
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:4. Jonathan’s answer supposes that he gives credence
40

41. 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
( 1 Samuel 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 Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15. As a
joyful festival it was connected with a cheerful meal. To this refers Saul’s
conjecture ( 1 Samuel 20:26) that David was absent on account of levitical
uncleanness. And I must sit at table with the King. That Isaiah, 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 Isaiah, “I will
certainly sit.” As in 1 Samuel 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 Isaiah, from the present
day. This supposes that the festival was prolonged by a meal the day after new
moon.—Comp. 1 Samuel 20:12; 1 Samuel 20:27; 1 Samuel 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 Samuel19, and is
taken from another source. But there is no contradiction if we remember that
Saul acted (according to 1 Samuel 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.
unknown author1 Sam. 14:1-15,27-30,43; 23:16-18.
While these two men had certain natural qualities of heart which commended
each to the other's love, the great bond of union was the faith and devotion of
each to God. Some one has said that those who would be the best friends need
a third object in which both are interested, and that then, like the radii of a
circle, the nearer they come to this center the nearer they approach to one
another. So with these men: their loyalty to God and to the principles of truth
and righteousness exemplified in God, was the strong bond of their friendship
which hindered the diversity of their earthly interests from alienating their
affections.
41

42. Selfish love may indeed admire that which is brilliant, that which is good, that
which is noble, that which is generous; but not being equally noble and
generous, it will be sure at some time to be assaulted with the temptation to
abandon the friendship where it believes it could better serve its own interests.
Jonathan's love was not of this selfish kind, consequently it was
unchangeable--indeed, grew the firmer and the stronger in proportion as it
triumphed over the propositions of any selfish suggestions. In this respect it
well represents the love of our Lord Jesus for his people. As Jonathan loved
David at the cost of his own position, our Lord Jesus left the glory which he
had with the Father that he might become the Redeemer of his people, to
whom he declares, "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you."
"One there is above all others
Well deserves the name of friend;
His is love beyond a brother's,
Costly, free, and knows no end."
Quite probably, too, in their confidences, David had already told Jonathan of
his anointing, assuring him, however, that he would not consider this anointing
a proper excuse or ground for any interference with King Saul; that on the
contrary, as the Lord had sought him and anointed him, the Lord himself was
able in his own due time and in his own way to instal him in authority and
power without his stretching forth his hand to do injury to one who already
had been anointed of the Lord to this office of king.
In a word there are two planes of friendship--a natural plane, on which men of
like natural qualities would be drawn together; and a spiritual plane, on which
those unlike in natural qualities, but alike in spiritual hopes, aims and
ambitions, are drawn still more closely together by the new tie, the new love,
which binds not their flesh but their hearts in Christian love and unity.
Rev. Alex. Whyte remarks, "Jonathan was the eldest son of Saul; and he was
thus the heir-apparent to the throne of Israel. Handsome and high-mettled, full
of nerve and full of heart, Jonathan was the pride of the army and the darling
of the common people. His comrades, for his beauty of person and swiftness of
foot, were wont to call him The Gazelle. But for his father's great and
disastrous transgressions, Jonathan might soon have [R5664 : page 107] been
the second king of Israel, second in succession to Saul, but second to no king
that ever sat on a throne in those great qualities of mind, heart and character
that give stability to a throne and add lustre to a crown."
Well was it written by one of the ancients, "Life hath no blessing like an
earnest friend"; and a poet has written:
"Life offers no joy like a friend;
Fulfilment and prophecy blend
42

43. In the throb of a heart with our own--
A heart where we know and are known."
5 So David said, "Look, tomorrow is the New Moon
festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king;
but let me go and hide in the field until the evening
of the day after tomorrow.
These two needed to discover the facts and so they had options open to them to
stay or flee. Secrecy in such matters are vital. Lack of secrecy can be very
costly. In fall of 1941 a Japanese ship arrived at Honolulu. Four of the crew
members were Japanese spies checking to see if the plan they had for attacking
Pearl Harbor would work. No one was suspicious so they took plenty of
pictures. They returned and reported that the plan was sure to work, and so
on Dec. 7, 1941 they put it to the test and it worked. Eight big battleships and
three cruisers were destroyed; one hundred and eighty eight planes were wiped
out and 2400 men killed. It paralyzed American forces in the Pacific for a
year. Investigations were launched to figure out how they did it. What they
discovered was shocking. In 1932 U. S. Admiral Harry Yarnell decided to
demonstrate the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor by slipping two aircraft carriers
in from the North East. He launched 152 aircraft which theoretically could
have destroyed the ships and planes of the U. S. Japanese officers in Honolulu
read reports of the exercise and sent them to Japan. These reports became the
basis for their master plan. Due to lack of secrecy we showed them just how to
do it so it could succeed.
BARNES, "The new moon, or beginning of each month, was celebrated with
especial sacrifices and blowing of trumpets (marginal references.) The feast
was kept with great solemnity as “a day of gladness,” and we may presume
that the “peace offerings” offered on the occasion furnished the tables of
those that offered.
CLARKE, "To-morrow is the new moon - The months of the Hebrews were
lunar months, and they reckoned from new moon to new moon. And as
their other feasts, particularly the passover, were reckoned according to
this, they were very scrupulous in observing the first appearance of each
new moon. On these new moons they offered sacrifices, and had a feast; as
43

44. we learn from Num_10:10; Num_28:11. And we may suppose that the
families, on such occasions, sacrificed and feasted together. To this David
seems to refer; but the gathering together all the families of a whole tribe
seems to have taken place only once in the year. There is a yearly sacrifice
there for all the family, 1Sa_20:6.
GILL, "And David said unto Jonathan,.... Moved that the following method
might be taken as a trial of the disposition of Saul's mind towards David:
behold, tomorrow is the new moon; the first day of the month, which was
kept solemnly with burnt offerings and peace offerings, see Num_10:10.
Some say (r) this feast was not kept for the new moon, but because it was
the day of the feast of trumpets or the first day of the new year, which fell
together on that day; the calends, or first day of the month, was with the
Heathens sacred to deity (s), in imitation of the Jews:
and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat; it had been usual for him at
such a time to sit at table with the king; next to him, as Jarchi interprets it,
either as his son-in-law, or as one of his princes; the custom being for the
king, and his family and nobles, to eat together on that day upon the peace
offerings; and it was the duty of David to attend at that time, and it might be
expected he would:
but let me go; he asked leave of Jonathan, who had power in his father's
absence to grant it, he not being yet returned from Naioth:
that I may hide myself in the fields, unto the third day at even; or until the
time of the evening of the third day, as the Targum, which was the evening
of the second day of the month; for that was the third from that evening they
were discoursing together, as Ben Gersom observes; the fields he proposed
to hide himself in were near to Gibeah, and he doubtless meant some cave
in those fields, where he might be, and not be seen by men; though it cannot
be thought that he remained, or proposed to remain, in such a place during
that time, where he would be in want of food, but that he would abide
incognito among his friends somewhere or another, until the festival was
over.
HENRY, ". 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
44

45. 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 (1Sa_
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, 1Sa_20:7.
JAMISON, "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.
COKE, "1 Samuel 20:5. To-morrow is the new moon— Every new moon they
offered sacrifices, which were accompanied with a solemn feast. Numbers
10:10; Numbers 28:11. David being one of the king's family, by marrying his
daughter, used to eat with him at these festival times. He thought that,
notwithstanding what had passed, Saul possibly might be conciliated
towards him by the Spirit of God coming upon him at Naioth, and that this
might be a favourable opportunity of discovering his disposition. "Instead
therefore (says he to Jonathan) of imprudently exposing myself to new
dangers, I will absent myself till the third day at even, and so give you an
opportunity of observing Saul's mind."
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:5-7
Tomorrow is the new moon. The first day of the new moon was a joyful
festival, its appearance being greeted with the sounding of trumpets, and
celebrated by a burnt offering and a sin offering. It was, moreover, kept by
Saul as a family festival, at which David, as his son-in-law, was expected to
be present. As, moreover, David was to hide unto the third day at even,
counting from the time when he was arranging his plans with Jonathan, it is
plain that it was the rule to prolong the feasting unto the second day. When
then Jonathan, convinced by David’s pleading, had consented to aid him in
his own way, they arrange that he shall absent himself from this festival,
and remain during it hidden out of sight. In case Saul missed him and asked
the reason of his absence, Jonathan was to offer as an excuse for him that
45

46. he had earnestly requested leave to pay a hurried visit to Bethlehem, in
order to be present at an annual festival: and if Saul took the excuse in good
part it would be a sign that he had no malicious purposes towards David,
whereas if he fell into a rage it would be a proof of a settled evil design. A
yearly sacrifice for all the family. For all the mishpachah, i.e. not for all
Jesse’s household, but for all that subdivision of the tribe of Judah to which
Jesse belonged; for a tribe was divided into families, and these again into
fathers’ houses (Jos_7:16, Jos_7:17). The occasion would thus be a grand
one. In 1Sa_16:2 we have an instance of a special sacrifice at Bethlehem, but
this feast of the mishpachah was held every year; and evidently before the
temple was built at Jerusalem these local sacrifices were the rule. We may
well believe that there was such a festival, and that the fictitious part of
Jonathan’s story was that David had been summoned to it.
ELLICOTT, " (5) The new moon.—On the religious ceremonies connected
with the day of the new moon at the beginning of each month, see the
Mosaic enactments in Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15.
At the court of Saul the feast seems to have been carefully observed,
doubtless with the blast of trumpets, and with solemn burnt offerings and
sin offerings, for we notice in this narrative that the plea of possible
ceremonial uncleanness was at once accepted as an excuse for absence. (See
1 Samuel 20:26.)
The sacrificial and ceremonial rites were accompanied by a state and family
banquet, at which David, as the king’s son-in-law, and also as holding a high
post in the royal army, was expected to be present.
Jonathan persisted in looking upon his father’s later designs against the life
of David as simply frenzied acts, incident upon his distressing malady, and
evidently believed that after his strange seizure at Ramah he would return,
and treat David with the confidence of old days when he met him at the feast
of the new moon. David, however, believed otherwise, and was convinced,
to use his own expressive words, that there was but a step between him and
death. He would not trust himself, therefore, to Saul’s hands until his friend
had made the experiment he suggested.
HAWKER, "Verses 5-7
(5) And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I
should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide
myself in the field unto the third day at even. (6) If thy father at all miss me,
46

47. 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. (7) If he say
thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be
sure that evil is determined by him.
The feast of the new moon was a solemn ordinance in the church, and
observed in Israel with great solemnity. In pious families, it should seem by
what is said of Jesse's household, these services were much attended to.
Job's was of this kind. And was it not with an eye to Jesus, as a feast upon a
sacrifice? The sacrifice was to be once offered. But the precious effects of it
were to be continually eyed in solemn remembrance. Such is the ordinance
of the Lord's supper now. See Job 1:5.
MORGAN, “David asks Jonathan to allow him to leave, and to stand in his
place so that he could see for himself. Here is love's second step: We must take
the other person's journey and see life from his perspective. David would
remove himself from the scene and have Jonathan take his place; then his
friend could see things from his viewpoint -- a much better solution than
merely arguing conclusions. At times I find that this is the only way to break
through an impasse in relationships. Have them exchange places and try to see
things from each other's perspective. When Peter discovered that the gospel
had gone out to the Gentiles and he actually sat down and ate in a tanner's
house, he didn't argue conclusions when he reported back to his brothers in
Jerusalem. What he did instead was report on the visions he had, how he had
preached at this man's house and before he had finished his listeners began
speaking in tongues. What would his brothers have done had they been in his
place? Before arguing conclusions, it is a loving thing to allow others to tell
their stories.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:5-7
‘And David said to Jonathan, “Look, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should
not fail to sit with the king at meat, but let me go, that I may hide myself in the
countryside until the third day in the 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 say thus, ‘It is
well,’ your servant will have peace, but if he is angry, then know that evil is
determined by him.”
David then explained to him his dilemma. On the morrow it was the new moon
festival. The new moon festival was a time for offering burnt offerings and
sacrifices (and for partaking of some of them) and for the blowing of ram’s
47

48. horns (Numbers 28:11-15; Numbers 10:10). It was a time of celebration of
YHWH’s goodness, and was a special sabbath (Psalms 81:3). It was also
seemingly a time for the most important men in the kingdom to express their
loyalty to the king by their presence, although in this case it might be that it
was a special new moon, such as one when it occurred on the day following the
Sabbath, or at the new year. At that festival all courtiers and commanders
were seemingly expected to attend, and not to do so without reasonable excuse
would therefore be seen an insult to the king and to YHWH. What David
certainly did not want to do at this stage was cause an irrevocable break if it
was not necessary. He was no doubt still hoping that what Saul was doing was
simply a phase of his illness and would pass.
In the affairs of kingdoms such situations often arise when men with whom the
king is displeased find themselves in a position where tradition demands that
they present themselves before him on some important occasion. Sometimes
they simply solve the problem by means of the power of the forces that
accompany them. At others they have to find reasonable grounds for
exempting themselves.
David chose the latter course. What he required from Jonathan, therefore, was
his royal authority to absent himself from the meal in order that he might
attend at his family’s yearly sacrifice. Then if Saul asked why he was not there,
Jonathan could explain, and there would be no insult because it would be an
important family occasion, and he would have received royal permission to be
absent, and what was more he would be attending a like festival in praise of
YHWH. Thus he would not be failing in his religious duty.
Furthermore his thought was that Jonathan would then be able to discern
from his father’s reaction what his intentions had been. If Saul was quite
content with the idea of his absence and was calm about it, it would indicate
that he had responded to what had happened to him at Naioth and was now
reconciled in his heart towards David. On the other hand, if he was angry it
would indicate that he still had designs on David’s life, for it would
demonstrate that he had been planning to move against David at the feast.
Meanwhile David would hide himself in the countryside for three days and
await results. ‘Hide in the countryside’ may well have been intended to include
attendance at Bethlehem for the family sacrifice, for Bethlehem was away from
the centres of activity and could be said to be ‘in the countryside’. It did not
mean that David’s excuse was a lie. Indeed such a lie would have been foolish,
for it would have been uncovered later.
We should not underrate the importance of the new moon in Israel, and indeed
in the ancient world. The new moon was the means by which time was
48

49. determined. It determined when the ‘months’ of the year began and ended. Its
arrival was therefore carefully observed. And it may well be that this
particular new moon was that which commenced the seventh month, and
therefore of special importance (Leviticus 23:24). The two day feast may well
have been simply in order to ensure that in case there was an error in
determining when the new moon took place the correct day was always
celebrated.
6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, 'David
earnestly asked my permission to hurry to
Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual
sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.'
Here we go again-a plot to deceive Saul with an outright lie. David is going to
hide in the field but tells Jonathan to lie for him and say he is in Bethlehem.
David’s relationship to Saul is one of constant deception. Each is trying to
outwit the other by deceptive strategy. There is no way David could keep one
step ahead of Saul without deception.
GILL, "If thy father at all miss me,.... Or diligently inquires after me:
then say, David earnestly asked leave of me, that he might run to Bethlehem
his city: the place of his birth, called the city of David, where he was born
and had lived, Luk_2:4, which was not far from Gibeah, and whither he
could soon run; and which shows the haste he proposed to make, and his
eager desire to be there, and which also is signified by his earnest and
importunate request; for all this might be true, and no lie of David, framed
for an excuse; and after he had hid himself some time in the field, until it
was evening, he might go to Bethlehem, and return soon enough to meet
Jonathan in the field at the time fixed by them on the third day:
for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family; it was customary for
the family of Jesse one day in a year, and as it should seem on a first day of
the month, and perhaps the first day of the first month, or New Year's Day,
to have an anniversary feast by way of gratitude and thankfulness for the
mercies of the year past, and for the continuance of them for time to come;
in which the family rejoiced together at the great goodness of God unto
them, 1Sa_9:12.
49

50. HENRY, "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, 1Sa_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.
K&D, "1Sa_20:6
“If thy father should miss me, then say, David hath asked permission of
me to hasten to Bethlehem, his native town; for there is a yearly sacrifice
for the whole family there.” This ground of excuse shows that families and
households were accustomed to keep united sacrificial feasts once a year.
According to the law in Deu_12:5., they ought to have been kept at the
tabernacle; but at this time, when the central sanctuary had fallen into
disuse, they were held in different places, wherever there were altars of
Jehovah - as, for example, at Bethlehem (cf. 1Sa_16:2.). We see from these
words that David did not look upon prevarication as a sin.
There are crooks for hire who get caught for a price. They steal without worry
for they know they will be caught. The people at THEFT specialize in crooks.
A thief is hired and spends a few days blending into the regular work force,
and then he is caught stealing. With a great deal of shouting and screaming he
gets fired and the other employees get the message. THEFT stands for The
honest employees fooling thieves. Deception like this preserves good
employees.
Back when John Huss was popular in Bohemia and old man Ned Truman
came to Bohemia from England. He was a follower of Wyclif. His son had
gone off to Bohemia and had been captured by priests in a monastery who
used him as a slave. Ned found it and settled nearby. He was friendly to all
the monks that came by his place and he began to give them alms. He
befriended several and they learned he was a retired stone mason. They
always had work for a stone mason and so they invited him to go on a tour of
the place. He offered his services free of charge and soon was free to come
anytime he wanted. After several visits he discovered his son. He was so thin
and weak and his mind was distorted. Ned had to be cautious, but one day he
got his son alone and began to ask questions. His son was in a state of amnesia,
but slowly Ned began to awaken his mind. He labored for months to restore
his mind, but could think of no way of helping him to escape. Until the death
of John Huss and the riots that came after against the monastery. What a
50

51. blessing for his plan to escape. The masses came and the monks fled to the
chapel for protection. Ned got his son out of a window and to his home. The
death of Huss led to a great victory for this family. Who would say it was
wrong for Ned to deceive the monks in order to rescue his son.
LYING
This complex issue is like that of killing. We all agree it is bad and wrong, and
yet there is times when it is necessary and right. If killing can go from a
terrible evil to being a justified good on the basis of self-defense, why cannot
lying also be changed from an evil to a good if done in self-defense? If taking a
life can change in its character from evil to good, then so can lying, which is
normally evil, be changed by circumstances to be a virtue in that it prevents
evil from winning.
Sophocles, “Honorable it no wise is to speak lies; though when the truth brings
a man dire destruction, tis pardonable to say even what is not honorable.”
Violence is bad, but it is paradoxical, for if someone is beating an innocent
person he can only be stopped by beating him. The very evil he inflicts is the
evil he must suffer to be stopped. The gangster who shoots people is usually
stopped from this evil by being shot, but the one who shoots him is not evil but
good. For he has stopped his evil by doing the very thing that he was doing.
That which is usually evil is no longer evil when it is used to prevent evil from
succeeding. You may have to lie to prevent a liar from success. The principle
is that what is usually wrong can be justified if it is used against those who are
doing evil. In other words, you can fight fire with fire.
The ability to deceive the enemy is one of the highest virtues in warfare. Dr. R.
V. Jones loved practical jokes and a good hoax, but the best he ever came up
with was when he discovered how the German bombers were finding their
targets in England. They were following a radio beam until it crossed another
one, and where they crossed was their target. He persuaded Winston
Churchill to send up planes to check out his theory, and sure enough he was
right. By clever duplication of one of the radio beams he helped the British to
deceive the Germans into dropping their bombs in the wrong places. Churchill
describes with delight how one of his officers reported 150 heavy bombs being
dropped in a field ten miles from any town. The Germans eventually learned
what was happening and developed a new kind of beam, but Jones and his
colleagues learned how to deflect this one as well. This battle of the beam
played a major role in the war and helped Britain survive. Would anyone say
it was wrong to deceive the Germans? Jones spent a great deal of his life
trying to deceive the Germans and he was a hero for it.
MACLAREN “Secure of Jonathan's help, David proposed the stratagem for
51

52. 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.
LIES AND DECEPTION
During World War II the Germans occupied Poland but one town they did not
invade. It was Rozwadow. Two Polish doctors had sent blood samples to a
German lab and the results were typhus. A typhus epidemic could be
devastating to the German army and so they stayed away from this whole area.
The two doctors kept sending samples they had doctored up to fake typhus and
so in 6 years the Germans kill one fifth of the Poles and deported thousands,
but this area was spared because of the deception of these two doctors. They
were heroes for their deceiving of the enemy.
ELLICOTT, " (6) A yearly sacrifice.—The Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 12:5
and following verses) strictly required these great sacrificial feasts to be kept at
the Tabernacle, “unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of
all your tribes;” but ever since the destruction of the Tabernacle of Shiloh
there had been no central sanctuary, and these solemn feasts had been held,
most probably, in tribal centres. “In the then disorganised 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 (Mosaic) prescriptions concerning the unity of Divine
worship.”—O. von Gerlach, in Lange. It is highly probable that the festival in
question was at this time being held at Bethlehem. It is, however, clear that
David did not purpose being present at it, and therefore the excuse was a
feigned one. The morality of this request of David is by no means sanctioned
by the compiler of the history; he simply relates the story.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel
20:5, is to hide in the field till the evening of the third day, his excuse for
52

53. 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. 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 1:1.,—(‫ל‬ ַ‫א‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫נ‬ 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.
7 If he says, 'Very well,' then your servant is
safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure
that he is determined to harm me.
By Saul’s reaction they will know what his plans are. Saul was obviously
living a life of constant lies so that David could never know whether he was
friendly or plotting to kill him. It is not wrong to deceive a man of Saul’s
nature, for it is a matter of life and death to outwit a deranged mind. If you do
not outwit the fox you will be the victim.
Emotions tell you where a man really is. He can say what he pleases. But if he
gets angry you know how he really feels. A bad tempter gives you away every
time. A man who does not control his emotions is at the mercy of others. Saul
was suffering as a direct result of his sinful attitude. His evil heart was
impatient and he suffered as a result.
GILL, "If he say thus, it is well,.... It is very well, it is very good and right in
him to do so:
thy servant shall have peace; it will be a token that the wrath of the king was
53

54. removed, and that his mind was well disposed towards David, and things
had taken an happy turn, and would issue in his peace and prosperity:
but if he be very wroth; with Jonathan for giving leave, and with David for
going away:
then be sure that evil is determined by him; that he has a settled obstinate
malice in his heart, which is become implacable and inveterate, and
confirmed in him; and that it is a determined point with him to slay David if
possible, which he hoped to have an opportunity of doing at that time in
which he was disappointed, and caused such wrath in him.
K&D, "1Sa_20:7
“If thy father says, It is well, there is peace to thy servant (i.e., he
cherishes no murderous thoughts against me); but if he be very wroth,
know that evil is determined by him.” ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ָ‫,כּ‬ to be completed; hence to be
firmly and unalterably determined (cf. 1Sa_25:17; Est_7:7). Seb. Schmidt
infers from the closing words that the fact was certain enough to David, but
not to Jonathan. Thenius, on the other hand, observes much more correctly,
that “it is perfectly obvious from this that David was not quite clear as to
Saul's intentions,” though he upsets his own previous assertion, that after
what David had gone through, he could never think of sitting again at the
king's table as he had done before.
WHEDON, " 6. David earnestly asked leave of me — The whole narrative
assumes that the king’s son had authority to grant such leave of absence.
A yearly sacrifice there for all the family — Jesse was now a very old man, (1
Samuel 17:12,) and once a year, at the time of some set sacrifice for all the
people, he had his children and his children’s children come together at his
own city for the purpose of a great sacrifice and festival. It is probable that
such family gatherings were not uncommon things in Israel. At this time,
however, David hid himself in a field near Gibeah, and did not meet with his
father’s family.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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 Isaiah, 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. ‫ָח‬‫ל‬ָ‫כּ‬ = “to be finished, settled,” “firmiter decretum
est” (S. Schmid). The “evil” is not “malice,” and its development to the highest
54

55. point (Vulg.), but the danger to David, Saul’s murder scheme, as appears from
the phrase “by him.”
8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you
have brought him into a covenant with you before
the LORD . If I am guilty, then kill me yourself!
Why hand me over to your father?"
The general meaning of a covenant is that which binds two parties. It is
mutual agreement for the benefit of both parties. David is asking for help
from Jonathan, for God uses means, and men are the primary means. 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.
CLARKE, "If there be in me iniquity - If thou seest that I am plotting
either against the state, or the life of thy father, then slay me thyself.
GILL, "Therefore thou shall deal kindly with thy servant,.... By informing
him how his father's mind stood affected to him, that he might conduct
himself accordingly, either by appearing at court, or by providing for his
safety by flight:
for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord with thee; a
covenant of friendship between Jonathan and David, of which Jonathan was
the first mover, and so is said to bring or persuade him into it; called the
covenant of the Lord, because made in his name and fear, and before him as
a witness of it; and this David pleads as an argument with Jonathan, to deal
kindly and faithfully by him in the present case:
notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself: or pass sentence
upon him to be slain; which, if guilty, he might have power to do in his
father's absence, and which David desires might be done, notwithstanding
the covenant of friendship between them, should he appear to deserve it by
any action of his, of which he was not conscious; this expresses the strong
sense he had of his own integrity, and served to confirm Jonathan in his
opinion of it:
for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? deliver him up into his hands
55

56. to be put to a cruel death by him, or give him the trouble of doing it, when he
might as well dispatch him at once.
HENRY, " The arguments he used with Jonathan to persuade him to do
this kindness for him were very pressing, 1Sa_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.
K&D, "1Sa_20:8
David made sure that Jonathan would grant this request on account of his
friendship, as he had brought him into a covenant of Jehovah with himself.
David calls the covenant of friendship with Jonathan (1Sa_18:3) a covenant
of Jehovah, because he had made it with a solemn invocation of Jehovah.
But in order to make quite sure of the fulfilment of his request on the part of
Jonathan, David added, “But if there is a fault in me, do thou kill me (‫ה‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫א‬
used to strengthen the suffix); for why wilt thou bring me to thy father?”
sc., that he may put me to death.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:8
Thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of Jehovah with thee. As the
friendship between Jonathan and David had been cemented by the
invocation of the name of Jehovah, it was one firm and assured, and David
might look not merely for one act of kindness, but for constant truth and
help. It was, moreover, Jonathan’s own doing; and yet, if there be in me,
David says, iniquity, i.e. treason against Saul, if I have not been a faithful
and true servant to him, but, on the contrary, have plotted evil against him,
or now entertain any evil designs, then let the covenant be abrogated. David
refuses to shelter himself under it if he has incurred guilt, and only asks
that Jonathan, by the authority which he exercised as the king’s son, should
himself put him to death, and not deliver him up to Saul
MACLAREN, “David's words in verse 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
56

57. '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'?
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:8. Thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant — In
giving me timely notice, and a true account of Saul’s disposition and intention
toward me. A covenant of the Lord — That is, a solemn covenant, not lightly
undertaken, but seriously entered into, in the name and fear of God, and in his
presence, calling him to be the witness of our sincerity therein, and the avenger
of perfidiousness in him that breaks it. Slay me — I am contented thou
shouldest kill me. For why — Why shouldest thou betray me to thy father, by
concealing his evil intentions from me?
ELLICOTT, " (8) A covenant of the Lord with thee.—It may at first sight
seem strange that we have these last meetings of David and Jonathan told us in
such detail—the speaker’s very words quoted, and so many apparently trivial
circumstances related.
The question, too, might be asked: Whence did the compiler of the book derive
his intimate acquaintance with what took place at these meetings, when David
was alone with Jonathan? But the difficulties are only surface ones, for we
must never forget how intensely interesting to the chosen people were all the
circumstances connected with their loved king’s life—never lose sight of the
deathless interest with which they would hear and read the particulars of
David’s rise through great suffering and long trial to the throne; and this
period here related in such detail was the turning-point of a grand career.
From this moment, David’s way diverged from the every-day life of ordinary
duty and prosperity, and became, during a long and weary period, for him the
way of almost uninterrupted suffering. The way of suffering and of trial is in
all ages the royal road to true greatness. As to the source whence the compiler
of the book derived his knowledge of what passed at these last meetings of the
two friends, Ewald suggests that when in after years David drew to his Court
the posterity of Jonathan, he often told them himself of these last events before
their separation (events with which no one but the two friends could be
acquainted).
Slay me thyself.—“This supposes that Jonathan had the right to inflict capital
punishment for crimes against his father as king.”—Lange. This was David’s
57

58. last earnest request to the prince. If Jonathan felt there was any truth in the
charges brought against him by Saul—if he deemed his friend a traitor to the
reigning dynasty—let him slay the betrayer himself there and then.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:8. And show mercy to thy servant,—this refers not
merely to the request of 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 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.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:8
“Therefore act in covenant love (chesed) with your servant, for you have
brought your servant into a covenant of YHWH with you, but if there be in me
iniquity, kill me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?”
David then deliberately submitted himself to royal authority. He called on
Jonathan, who has brought him into covenant with him, to act with covenant
love towards him by being his judge in this case,. By this he emphasised the
distinction in their positions. He acknowledged that he was in service to the
royal household, and especially to Jonathan because Jonathan had entered into
a solemn covenant of YHWH with him. Thus if he knew of any just cause
against David let him act in accordance with their covenant and arrange for
his execution. He was prepared to submit himself to Jonathan’s judgment, and
die at Jonathan’s hands. If he really was guilty then it was unnecessary for
Saul to be involved, for as the firstborn son of the royal household Jonathan
had an equal right and responsibility to act as his judge. Let Jonathan then
make his own decision about it. By citing this the writer is making David’s
innocence absolutely clear. (It was not David’s fault what future YHWH had
in store for him. All he could do was not make any move that suggested that he
was aiming at the throne).
58

59. 9 "Never!" Jonathan said. "If I had the least inkling
that my father was determined to harm you,
wouldn't I tell you?"
GILL, "And Jonathan said, far be it from thee,.... To entertain such a
thought of me, or to have the least suspicion of me, that I should conceal my
father's ill intentions against thee, if known to me:
for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon
thee, then would I not tell it thee? certainly I would; canst thou doubt of my
kindness and fidelity? surely thou hast no reason, when such a covenant of
friendship subsists between us, and there has not been the least breach of it
on either side.
HENRY, "Here, I. Jonathan protests his fidelity to David in his distress.
Notwithstanding the strong confidence David had in Jonathan, yet, because
he might have some reason to fear that his father's influence, and his own
interest, should make him warp, or grow cool towards him, Jonathan
thought it requisite solemnly to renew the professions of his friendship to
him (1Sa_20:9): “Far be it from thee to think that I suspect thee of any
crime for which I should either slay thee myself or deliver thee to my father;
no, if thou hast any jealousy of that, Come let us go into the field (1Sa_
20:11), and talk it over more fully.” He did not challenge him to the field to
fight him for an affront, but to fix him in his friendship. He faithfully
promised him that he would let him know how, upon trial, he found his
father affected towards him, and would make the matter neither better nor
worse than it was.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:9
Far be it, the word rendered God forbid in 1Sa_20:2. It indignantly rejects
the idea of David having committed any crime. The rest of the verse is an
incomplete sentence: "If I knew certainly that evil were determined by my
father to come upon thee, and did not tell thee—" These broken sentences
have great force in the original, as signs of intense feeling (comp. Luk_
19:42). We must complete the sentence mentally in some such way as the
Syriac: "then Jehovah do so to me, and more also."
K&D, "1Sa_20:9
Jonathan replied, “This be far from thee!” sc., that I should kill thee, or
deliver thee up to my father. ‫ה‬ ָ‫יל‬ ִ‫ל‬ ָ‫ח‬ points back to what precedes, as in 1Sa_
59

60. 20:2. “But (‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ after a previous negative assertion) if I certainly discover
that evil is determined by my father to come 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 the formula of an oath is to be supplied in
thought. This view is apparently a more correct one, on account of the cop. ‫ו‬
before ‫ֹא‬‫,ל‬ than to take the last clause as a question, “Shall I not tell it thee?”
BENSON 9-13, "1 Samuel 20:9-13. Jonathan said, Far be it from thee — Or, rather, Far
be this away; for Jonathan is speaking of himself in this thing. Then said David, Who
shall tell me? — Who shall bring me advice how matters stand? They went out both into
the field — To take their measures about this matter. Jonathan said, O Lord God of
Israel — Do thou hear and judge between us. These first words of the sentence seem to
be an exclamation, or an abrupt speech, not usual in great passions, and the rest are as
if he had said, Shall I, who love thee so much, be thought capable of breaking my word
with thee? In all these verses the words are broken, concise, and interrupted: as the
words of lovers are wont to be, especially when they are disturbed. But there are a
tenderness and sincerity in this exclamation of Jonathan which are scarcely to be
equalled. If there be good toward thee — I will show it thee, that thou mayest be easy.
If it please my father to do thee evil — I will send thee away, that thou mayest be safe.
Thus he would help to deliver him from evil if it were real, and from the fear of evil if it
were but imaginary. The Lord do so and much more to Jonathan — If I speak deceitfully,
or break my word with my friend: he expresseth himself thus solemnly that David might
be fully assured of his sincerity. And thus God has confirmed his promises to us, that we
might have strong consolation, Hebrews 6:17-18. The Lord be with thee — And protect
and prosper thee. Thus, to his protestations, Jonathan adds his hearty prayers for David.
As he hath been with my father — Formerly, though now he be withdrawn. This
intimates his belief that David would be in his father’s place, and his desire that he
might prosper in it better than his father now did.
ELLICOTT, "(9) Far be it from thee.—Vulg., absit hoc a te. This strong expression bears
emphatic testimony to Jonathan’s implicit belief in his loved friend’s stainless loyalty.
He indignantly refuses to take his life, or even to allow that life to be touched by his
father. The sentences here are broken ones; the next one following is left, in the
Hebrew, incomplete. They betoken the agitation and deep feeling of the chivalrous,
indignant speaker.
HAWKER, "Verses 9-17
(9) ¶ And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee: for if I knew certainly that evil
were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee?
(10) Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father
answer thee roughly? (11) And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go
out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field. (12) And
Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my
father about tomorrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good
60

61. toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee; (13) The LORD
do so and much more to Jonathan: 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 be with thee, as he hath been with my father. (14) And thou shalt
not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not: (15)
But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house forever: no, not
when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David everyone from the face of
the earth. (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. (17) And
Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him
as he loved his own soul.
Nothing can be more engaging, to interest the Reader in behalf of Jonathan,
than what is here related of him. Though it should seem, he knew that David
would be his father's successor in the kingdom; yet there is no jealousy on his
part. His love for David threw all other considerations to the ground. He only
desired that David would show kindness to his house. And amidst all the
unpromising circumstances about David, his faith seemed now to be getting up
again. But here, my soul, let Jonathan teach thee another lesson. Did he look
forward to the period of David's exaltation, amidst all the obstacles which
seemed at this time to quench the hopes of it, and cause David to promise
mercy to his family, when things were so discouraging; and wilt thou not
depend upon the promises of thy Jesus, who is purposely exalted at the right
hand of power, to prepare sure happiness for all his people? Shall Jonathan's
faith in David's prospects of preferment, be so sanguine as to take an oath
from him, for a blessing in it; and wilt thou doubt the word, the promise, the
oath of thy God and Father in Christ Jesus? Oh! for faith to believe the record
which God hath given of his dear Son. 1 John 5:11.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 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. (‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ is particle of asseveration=yea, truly.) If
I know certainly that * * * * that Isaiah, if, from your statement ( 1 Samuel
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 sentence[FN45] [as in
Eng. A. V.]
61

62. 10 David asked, "Who will tell me if your father
answers you harshly?"
David needed assurance that only a good friend could give, and Jonathan was
that friend. David was in a helpless mood where he could not see one step
ahead of him because of the clouds of gloom. He felt so alone, but Jonathan
was there to comfort and give him guidance.
CLARKE, "Who shall tell me? - Who shall give me the necessary
information? What means wilt thou use to convey this intelligence to me?
GILL, "Then said David to Jonathan, who shall tell me?.... The disposition
of Saul's mind towards him, whether he gave a kind answer to the report of
Jonathan concerning him:
or what if thy father answer thee roughly? or hard words, as the Targum,
whether he answers in a kind, loving, and smooth manner, or whether in a
rough and angry one: the question is here, how he should be informed of
this, since especially, if in the latter, it would not be safe for Jonathan to
come himself to him, nor could he well trust the message with any other.
Abarbinel thinks, that the first of these expressions is by way of question,
who should declare to him his father's will and intention, whether good or
bad: and the latter by way of outcry, woe unto me, if thy father should
answer thee roughly; I greatly fear he will chide thee for my sake; my heart
will be filled with sorrow if thou shouldest suffer reproach and rebuke on
my account.
K&D, "1Sa_20:10
To this friendly assurance David replied, “Who will tell me?” sc., how thy
father expresses himself concerning me; “or what will thy father answer
thee roughly?” sc., if thou shouldst attempt to do it thyself. This is the
correct explanation given by De Wette and Maurer. Gesenius and Thenius,
on the contrary, take ‫א‬ in the sense of “if perchance.” But this is evidently
incorrect; for even though there are certain passages in which ‫א‬ may be so
rendered, it is only where some other case is supposed, and therefore the
meaning or still lies at the foundation. These questions of David were
suggested by a correct estimate of the circumstances, namely, that Saul's
suspicions would leave him to the conclusion that there was some
62

63. understanding between Jonathan and David, and that he would take steps
in consequence to prevent Jonathan from making David acquainted with
the result of his conversation with Saul.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:10
Who shall tell me? or what if, etc. The if is an insertion of the A.V. Really
David’s question is very involved and ungrammatical, as was natural in his
excited state. It may be translated, "Who will tell me (or, how shall I know)
what rough answer thy father will give thee?" But some Jewish authorities
render, "Who will tell me if so be that thy father give thee a rough answer?"
MORGAN “David pleads with Jonathan to be faithful to the covenant he had
made with him. "You brought me into a covenant of life," he says, in effect,
"why would you bring me to your father for death? If I have sinned, kill me
yourself!" David is testing the waters to make sure his friend is loyal. He is a
master at eliciting the truth from others. He thinks Jonathan is either woefully
naive or that he is a spy. His statement evokes the same emotional response in
Jonathan as his original statement at the beginning of the chapter: "Far from
it, you shall not die!" It is impossible for Jonathan to consider killing David.
His statement reassures his friend of his loyalty. He is not a spy, but a faithful
revealer of the truth.
But David presses the issue. He knows what the outcome is going to be, and he
wants to make sure Jonathan is prepared for the worst. So he asks, "Who will
tell me if you father answers you harshly? What will you do when your father
turns on you?" Now the truth is beginning to hit home for Jonathan. He
escorts David into the privacy of the field where they can make their plans
without fear of being overheard.
ELLICOTT, " (10) Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee
roughly?—The language in the original is here very abrupt and involved.
Evidently the very words uttered in the memorable scene by the excited and
sorrowful friends are remembered and reported.
The “if” supplied in the English Version probably is nearest the meaning
intended to be conveyed by the broken, agitated words. Another rendering is,
“If thy father shall answer thee harshly, who will declare it to me?”
“These questions of David were suggested by a correct estimate of the
circumstances—namely, that Saul’s suspicions would lead him to the
conclusion that there was some understanding between Jonathan and David,
and that he would take steps, in consequence, to prevent Jonathan from
63

64. making David acquainted with the result of his conversation with Saul.”—
Keil.
In the next verse Jonathan leads David into a solitary spot—“the field”—
where, before saying their last words together, they might agree upon some
secret sign by means of which Saul’s real mind towards David might be
communicated, if necessary, by Jonathan to his friend.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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” (‫ח‬ָ‫מ‬ ‫אוֹ‬ = 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 ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ [“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 1 Samuel 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 Isaiah, 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 ( 1 Samuel 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 ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ָ‫,)ﬠ‬ 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
64

65. understood of threats against David (Böttcher), but of harsh language towards
Jonathan ( 1 Samuel 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.] 1 Samuel 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. 1 Samuel 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 1
Samuel 20:42] renewed with David (Grot.: “they used to swear in the open
air”) is less probable.
PETT, "Verses 10-23
Jonathan Explains His Plan For Letting David Know What The Situation Is,
And Renews Their Firm Covenant (1 Samuel 20:10-24 a).
In response to David’s request Jonathan now outlined his plan for keeping
David informed of whatever decision Saul showed himself to have come to, and
at the same time renewed and expanded his covenant with David. He was now
aware in his heart that the throne was not for him, and that YHWH eventually
intended that David would sit on the throne of Israel. Indeed we have to
consider it a good possibility that David had confided to him what Samuel had
done in anointing him at Bethlehem. And Jonathan was seemingly quite
satisfied with the situation. Unlike his father he had no overweening ambition.
Analysis.
a Then said David to Jonathan, “Who will tell me if perhaps your father
answers you roughly?” And Jonathan said to David, “Come, and let us go out
into the countryside. And they both went out to the countryside” (1 Samuel
65

66. 20:10-11).
b And Jonathan said to David, “YHWH, the God of Israel, be witness. When I
have sounded out my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day,
behold, if there be good toward David, will I not then send to you, and disclose
it to you? YHWH do so to Jonathan, and more also, should it please my father
to do you evil, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go
in peace. And YHWH be with you, as he has been with my father” (1 Samuel
20:12-13).
c “And you shall not only, while yet I live, show me the lovingkindness of
YHWH, that I die not, but also you shall not cut off your kindness from my
house for ever, no, not when YHWH has cut off the enemies of David every one
from the face of the earth” (1 Samuel 20:14).
d So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “And YHWH
will require it at the hand of David’s enemies” (1 Samuel 20:16).
c And Jonathan made David swear again, for the love that he had to him, for
he loved him as he loved his own soul (1 Samuel 20:17).
b Then Jonathan said to him, “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be
missed, because your seat will be empty. And when you have stayed three days,
you shall go down quickly, and come to the place where you hid yourself when
the business was in hand, and shall remain by the stone Ezel. And I will shoot
three arrows on its side, as though I shot at a mark. And, see, I will send the
lad, saying, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to the lad,
‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you, take them, and come, for there is
peace to you and no hurt, as YHWH lives. But if I say thus to the boy, ‘Look,
the arrows are beyond you’, go your way, for YHWH has sent you away. And
as touching the matter which you and I have spoken of, behold, YHWH is
between you and me for ever” (1 Samuel 20:18-23).
a So David hid himself in the countryside (1 Samuel 20:24 a).
Note than in ‘a’ they go out into the countryside, and in the parallel David
hides himself in the countryside. In ‘b’ Jonathan speaks of the two day feast
that is coming, and promises to connect with David on the third day in order to
reveal the result of his testing out of Saul, and ends with a request that YHWH
be with David as He has been with his father, and in the parallel he refers to
66

67. the feast and to the three days, and explains how he will convey the
information in such a way that no one will be suspicious, and ends with a
request that YHWH will YHWH will be between them both for ever. In ‘c’
Jonathan asks that David will show him the lovingkindness of YHWH and will
make a covenant with him, and in the parallel he makes David swear to that
covenant again and it is because of his true love for David. Central in ‘d’ is the
solemn nature of that covenant.
1 Samuel 20:10
‘Then David said to Jonathan, “Who will tell me if perhaps your father
answers you roughly?”
David now raised the question as to how, if Saul’s verdict went against him, he
was to obtain the information. Clearly he could not approach Jonathan openly
because too many people would know about it, and it would be dangerous.
And in view of what Saul knew about their friendship it was always likely that
Jonathan’s movements would be watched. Who then would come and give him
the information?
11 "Come," Jonathan said, "let's go out into the
field." So they went there together.
A subtle change has taken place which can be clearly seen in verses 18-23.
Jonathan has taken the lead in this whole matter. At first, it was all David’s
initiative. David fled from Ramah and sought out Jonathan. Jonathan is
reluctant to believe what David is telling him about his father. Then, seeing
how serious David is about this matter, he agrees to help him however David
thinks is best. David proposes a plan that will reveal Saul’s plans with respect
to David. Then, in verse 11, Jonathan takes David out into the open field where
they continue their conversation. I would argue that from this point on in our
text, Jonathan has taken charge. He is no longer a reluctant hearer or a
compliant assistant to David; he is the leader.3 AUTHOR UNKNOWN
GILL, "And Jonathan said unto David, come, and let us go out into the field,....
That they might more fully, and freely, and familiarly talk of this affair
between them, without any danger of being overheard by the servants of
Saul, as they were in his palace, where they now were:
67

68. and they went out both of them into the field; which belonged to Gibeah.
JAMISON, "1Sa_20:11-23. Their covenant renewed by oath.
Jonathan said to David, Come, let us go into the field — The private
dialogue, which is here detailed at full length, presents a most beautiful
exhibition of these two amiable and noble-minded friends. Jonathan was
led, in the circumstances, to be the chief speaker. The strength of his
attachment, his pure disinterestedness, his warm piety, his invocation to
God (consisting of a prayer and a solemn oath combined), the calm and full
expression he gave of his conviction that his own family were, by the divine
will, to be disinherited, and David elevated to the possession of the throne,
the covenant entered into with David on behalf of his descendants, and the
imprecation (1Sa_20:16) denounced on any of them who should violate his
part of the conditions, the reiteration of this covenant on both sides (1Sa_
20:17) to make it indissoluble - all this indicates such a power of mutual
affection, such magnetic attractiveness in the character of David, such
susceptibility and elevation of feeling in the heart of Jonathan, that this
interview for dramatic interest and moral beauty stands unrivalled in the
records of human friendship.
K&D, "1Sa_20:11
Before replying to these questions, Jonathan asked David to go with him
to the field, that they might there fix upon the sign by which he would let
him know, in a way in which no one could suspect, what was the state of his
father's mind.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:11-13
Let us go out into the field. David’s question had shown Jonathan that there
were grave difficulties in their way, and so he proposes that they should
walk into the country, to be able to talk with one another more freely, and
concert measures for the future. And there Jonathan binds himself with a
solemn oath, if Saul’s intentions be good, to send a trusty messenger to
inform David, but if there be danger, then to come and tell David himself. O
Lord God. With a few MSS. we must supply the usual formula of an oath:
"As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth." About tomorrow any time, or the
third day. This cumbrous translation arose out of the mistaken idea that the
word rendered tomorrow could only be used in that limited sense. Strictly it
signifies the morning, and is applicable to any morrow. Jonathan fixes one
time, and one only, and the passage should be rendered, "By this time on
the third morrow." The meeting was to be on the morrow after the second
day of the festival, and so on the third morrow after the conversation. The
whole may be translated, "As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth, when by this
time on the third morrow I have searched my father, and, behold, there be
good for David, if then I send not to thee, and uncover thy ear, Jehovah do
so and much more to Jonathan." The alternative case is then put, and if the
news be evil, Jonathan undertakes himself to be the messenger, and David
68

69. is to provide for his safety by flight. The concluding prayer that Jehovah
might be with David as he had been with Saul contains the same
presentiment of David attaining to great power and dignity which is more
directly expressed in the following verses.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:11
‘And Jonathan said to David, “Come, and let us go out into the countryside.”
And they both went out to the countryside.’
Jonathan then suggested that they leave the town and go out into the
countryside. He was concerned that nothing that they discussed might be
overheard. And once there he would show David what he intended to do. So
that is what they both did.
12 Then Jonathan said to David: "By the LORD , the
God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by
this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably
disposed toward you, will I not send you word and
let you know?
David needed special assurance and Jonathan gave it to him. He uses strong
language for David needed strong assurance. It was no ordinary situation, but
one of life and death. Living in constant uncertainty is hard to endure and
leads to depression.
MORGAN, “This is what David and Jonathan are doing now as we begin
Scene II. In each of the three movements here, an element of uncertainty is
carefully plotted out and then juxtaposed with what is certain. In the first
movement it is the intentions of Saul that are uncertain; in the second, life
itself; and in the third, David's destiny. But in the midst of life's greatest
uncertainties, David finds there are two things he can count on: Jonathan's
love and God's faithfulness. In the face of Saul's death threats, these virtues
are put through the fire and found to be pure, steadfast, and eternal. It is this
69

70. precious love that anchors David's soul.
HENRY, "“If there be good towards thee, I will show it thee, that thou
mayest be easy (1Sa_20:12), if evil, I will send thee away, that thou mayest
be safe” (1Sa_20:13); and thus he would help to deliver him from the evil if
it were real and from the fear of evil if it were but imaginary. For the
confirmation of his promise he appeals to God, 1. As a witness (1Sa_20:12):
“O Lord God of Israel, thou knowest I mean sincerely, and think as I speak.”
The strength of his passion made the manner of his speaking concise and
abrupt. 2. As a judge: “The Lord do so and much more to Jonathan (1Sa_
20:13), if I speak deceitfully, or break my word with my friend.” He
expressed himself thus solemnly that David might be abundantly assured of
his sincerity. And thus God has confirmed his promises to us, that we might
have strong consolation, Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18. Jonathan adds to his
protestations his hearty prayers: “The Lord be with thee, to protect and
prosper thee, as he has been formerly with my father, though now he has
withdrawn.” Thus he imitates his belief that David would be in his father's
place, and his good wishes that he might prosper in it better than his father
now did.
CLARKE, "Jonathan said - O Lord God of Israel - There is, most evidently,
something wanting in this verse. The Septuagint has, The Lord God of Israel
doth Know. The Syriac and Arabic, The Lord God of Israel is Witness. Either
of these makes a good sense. But two of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS. supply the
word ‫חי‬ chai, “liveth;” and the text reads thus, As the Lord God of Israel
Liveth, when I have sounded my father - if there be good, and I then send
not unto thee, and show it thee, the Lord do so and much more to Jonathan.
This makes a still better sense.
GILL, "And Jonathan said unto David, O Lord God of Israel,.... Or by the
Lord God of Israel, I swear unto thee; for this is the form of the oath, as
Jarchi and Kimchi observe:
when I have sounded my father about tomorrow any time, or the third day;
searched, inquired, and found out how his disposition is:
and, behold, if there be good toward David; if he is well disposed to him, as
may appear by speaking respectfully of him, or kindly inquiring after him,
and by being satisfied with the account given him:
and I then send not unto thee, and show it thee; then let the vengeance of
God fall upon me in some remarkable manner or another, as follows; or
"shall I not then send unto thee, and show it thee" (t)? certainly I will; that
is, I will send a messenger to thee to acquaint thee with it, who shall tell it,
and cause thee to hear it, as from myself.
K&D, "1Sa_20:12-15
70

71. 1Sa_20:12 and 1Sa_20:13 are connected. Jonathan commences with a
solemn invocation of God: “Jehovah, God of Israel!” and thus introduces his
oath. We have neither to supply “Jehovah is witness,” nor “as truly as
Jehovah liveth,” as some have suggested. “When I inquire of my father
about this time to-morrow, the day after to-morrow (a concise mode of
saying 'to-morrow or the day after'), and behold it is (stands) well for
David, and then I do not send to thee and make it known to thee, Jehovah
shall do so to Jonathan,” etc. (“The Lord do so,” etc., the ordinary formula
used in an oath: see 1Sa_14:44). The other case is then added without an
adversative particle: “If it should please my father evil against thee (lit. as
regards evil), “I will make it known to thee, and let thee go, that thou
mayest go in peace; and Jehovah be with thee, as He has been with my
father.” In this wish there is expressed the presentiment that David would
one day occupy that place in Israel which Saul occupied then, i.e., the
throne. - In 1Sa_20:14 and 1Sa_20:15 the Masoretic text gives no
appropriate meaning. Luther's rendering, in which he follows the Rabbins
and takes the first ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫ו‬ (1Sa_20:14) by itself, and then completes the
sentence from the context (“but if I do it not, show me no mercy, because I
live, not even if I die”), contains indeed a certain permissible sense when
considered in itself; but it is hardly reconcilable with what follows, “and do
not tear away thy compassion for ever from my house.” The request that
he would show no compassion to him (Jonathan) even if he died, and yet
would not withdraw his compassion from his house for ever, contains an
antithesis which would have been expressed most clearly and
unambiguously in the words 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 of Jehovah to me, that I do not, and thou withdrawest
not thy love from my house for ever.” There is really no other course open
than to follow the Syriac and Arabic, as Maurer, Thenius, and Ewald have
done, and change the ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫ו‬ in the first two clauses in 1Sa_20:14 into ‫לוּ‬ ְ‫ו‬ or ‫א‬ ֻ‫ל‬ ְ‫,ו‬
according to the analogy of the form ‫לוּא‬ (1Sa_14:30), and to render the
passage thus: “And mayest thou, if I still live, mayest thou show to me the
favour of the Lord, and not if I do, not withdraw thy favour from my house
for ever, not even (‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫)ו‬ when Jehovah shall cut off the enemies of David,
every one from the face of the earth!” “The favour of Jehovah” is favour
such as Jehovah shall cut off,” etc., shows very clearly Jonathan's conviction
that Jehovah would give to David a victory over all his enemies.
ELLICOTT, " (12) O Lord God of Israel.—Now that the two friends have
come to a remote solitary spot, Jonathan prefaces his reply to David’s piteous
request by a very solemn invocation of that God they both loved so well. The
vocative, however, “O Lord God,” &c., of the English Version has been
generally looked upon as an impossible rendering—“there being no analogy
for such a mode of address”—Lange.
71

72. The versions avoid it by supplying different words. So the Syriac and Arabic
render “The Lord of Israel is my witness”; the LXX., “The Lord God of Israel
knows.” Others have supplied a word which they find in two Hebrew MSS.,
“As the Lord God of Israel liveth.” The meaning, however, is perfectly clear.
Or the third day.—This statement of time on the part of Jonathan evidently
assumes that the festival was continued the day after the “new moon” by a
royal banquet. The time is thus reckoned: the present day; the morrow, which
was the new moon festival; and the day after, which would reckon as the third
day.
Behold, if there be good toward David.—In the event of the news being good—
that is, if Saul, contrary to David’s expectation, spoke kindly of him—then
Jonathan would send to him a special messenger; if, on the other hand, the
king displayed enmity, in that case Jonathan would come himself and see
David (for the last time). This sad message should be brought by no messenger.
COFFMAN, "DAVID AND JONATHAN REAFFIRM THEIR COVENANT
"And Jonathan said to David, "The Lord, the God of Israel, be witness! When
I have sounded my father, about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold,
if he is well disposed toward David, shall I not then send and disclose it to you?
But should it please my father to do you harm, the Lord do so to Jonathan and
more also, if I do not disclose it to you and send you away, that you may go in
safety. May the Lord be with you, as he has been with my father. If I am still
alive, show me the loyal love of the Lord, that I may not die. And do not cut off
your loyalty to my house forever. When the Lord cuts off every one of the
enemies of David from the face of the earth, let not the name of Jonathan be
cut off from the house of David. And may the Lord take vengeance on David's
enemies." And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he
loved him as he loved his own soul."
It appears that this appeal by Jonathan to David was made during their
journey together "into the field." There was a dreadful premonition on
Jonathan's part that Saul's enmity against David would terminate in Saul's
being "cut off from the face of the earth." Jonathan exacted from David a
solemn oath that, "after Jonathan's death," and after David's coming to the
throne, that David would remember the house of Jonathan with kindness.
David honored his promise here as revealed in 2 Samuel 21:17.
"If I am still alive, show me the loyal love of the Lord, that I may not die" (1
72

73. Samuel 20:16). In these words it is clear that Jonathan recognized the grave
danger to himself when God would take vengeance upon all of David's
enemies. Jonathan, through filial loyalty, would not desert his father even
when that inevitable day of reckoning would come.
COKE, :Verse 12-13
1 Samuel 20:12-13. Jonathan said unto David, O Lord God, &c.— Houbigant,
after the Syriac, renders these verses thus: Then Jonathan said unto David,
The Lord God of Israel is witness, that I will sound my father to-morrow, and
until the evening of the third day; and that if there be good towards David, I
will send unto thee, and inform thee; 1 Samuel 20:13. So may the Lord be
gracious to Jonathan! If my father is determined that thou shouldst perish, I
will shew that to thee, &c. It is plain, from the last words of the 13th verse, that
Jonathan was no stranger to the rejection of Saul, and to the divine
appointment of David to the crown. See ch. 1 Samuel 23:17.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:12-23 is essentially the full positive answer to David’s
question, which was meant in a negative sense. 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 20:13, for against this is the beginning of 1
Samuel 20:13 : “The Lord do so.”[FN46] 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 ‫י‬ַ‫ח‬ “after Cod. Kenn560,224margin,” 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
1 Samuel 20:12. ‫ר‬ָ‫ח‬ ָ‫מ‬ ‫ת‬ֵ‫ﬠ‬ָ‫כּ‬ = “to-morrow about this time,” as in 1 Kings 19:2; 1
Kings 20:6; 2 Kings 7:1; 2 Kings 7:18, and the full phrase in Joshua 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 ‫ת‬ֵ‫ﬠ‬ָ‫=,כּ‬ “the third day about this time.” This expression “to-morrow
or next day” refers to the statement of time in 1 Samuel 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,
73

74. 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 Isaiah, to reveal to him, inform him that Saul is favorably
disposed towards him, comp. 1 Samuel 22:8.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:12
‘And Jonathan said to David, YHWH, the God of Israel, be witness. When I have sounded
out my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if there be good
toward David, will I not then send to you, and disclose it to you?” ’
Once they were in the countryside Jonathan called on YHWH to witness the absolute
certainty of what he was saying, and he confirmed that if Saul’s disposition turned out
to be good he would immediately tell him of it.
13 But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the
LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do
not let you know and send you away safely. May the
LORD be with you as he has been with my father.
Jonathan is saying may I be cursed if I do not keep my end of the bargain. It is
like, “I cross my heart and hope to die, or, may God strike me dead if I lie.”
This is a very serious commitment, and I will not let you down.
CLARKE, "The Lord be with thee, as he hath been with my father - From
this, and other passages here it is evident that Jonathan knew that the Lord
had appointed David to the kingdom.
GILL, "The Lord do so and much more to Jonathan,.... Recompense evil
more than can be thought of and expressed, should he neglect to inform
David of the good disposition of Saul unto him:
but if it please my father to do thee evil; if he seems determined upon it to
take away thy life:
then I will show it thee; not by a messenger, by whom it would not be safe to
communicate it, lest by that means Saul would know where he was, and
74

75. come and slay him; but Jonathan would come himself, and acquaint him
with it:
and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace; give him leave, and advise
him to depart, and provide for his own safety, adding his blessing on him,
and prayer for him:
and the Lord be with thee, as he hath been with my father; in the beginning
of his reign, giving him counsel and advice in all things, and victory over his
enemies, succeeding and prospering him in whatsoever he engaged in; the
Targum is,"the Word of the Lord be for thy help, &c.''
Jonathan seemed to be fully apprized that David was to succeed in the
kingdom.
MACLAREN “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!
WHEDON, "13. The Lord be with thee, as he hath been with my father —
These words, according to Keil, express the presentiment in Jonathan’s soul
that David was yet to occupy the throne of Israel. This conviction is expressed
more clearly in the next two verses. We may believe that Saul had now fully
made up his mind that David was his rival for the throne; that he was the man
after God’s own heart of whom Samuel had told him; and perhaps the fact
that Samuel had anointed him at Beth-lehem was now generally known.
Jonathan’s entering, with all these facts before him, into a solemn covenant
with the house of David, and with no animosity, no jealousy, no harsh words,
but still loving his rival as his own soul, is the most marvellous instance of
human friendship and tenderness with which the records of our race acquaint
us.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:13 the apodosis: “so do the Lord to Jonathan,” etc. The
same formula in oaths in 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Kings 19:2.—The opposite case is
75

76. introduced with ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ without adversative particle: “(But) if it please my father to
do thee evil,” etc.[FN47] 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
1 Samuel 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 1
Samuel 20:14 : “And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the
kindness of the Lord, that I die not?” 1 Samuel 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.[FN48] 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.”[FN49] 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 Isaiah, 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 ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫כ‬ַ‫ה‬ ְֹ‫בּ‬ forms an assonance ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫כ‬ ַ‫:ת‬ “do not cut off … even
when the Lord shall cut off.” Jonathan clearly understands that enmity against
76

77. David is enmity against the Lord’s purpose and Acts, 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.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:13
“YHWH do so to Jonathan, and more also, should it please my father to do
you evil, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in
peace. And YHWH be with you, as he has been with my father.”
On the other hand if he discerned that his father planned evil towards David,
then he affirmed equally strongly that he would disclose it to David and send
him away that he might go in peace. Then he added words which were very
significant. It would seem clear from this that he recognised that David was
destined for higher things, for he adds, ‘YHWH be with you, as he has been
with my father.’ There is the underlying thought here that David was following
in Saul’s footsteps and would one day be king. It seems that Jonathan did not
have any particular desire to be king, and did not consider himself kingship
material (although he would have made a better king than most). He was quite
happy that his comrade-in-arms be king in his place.
14 But show me unfailing kindness like that of the
LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed,
Both of these friends were facing the fear of death. He knew that helping David
could lead to his own death from his father. He wants to live long as all do, and
to have protection for his family.
BARNES, "The general meaning is: Jonathan had a presentiment,
doubtless from God, that David would be established upon the throne. By
God’s mercy he had the comfort, which he well deserved, of knowing that
his own posterity would receive kindness at David’s hand (see the marginal
77

78. references).
CLARKE, "Show me the kindness of the Lord - When thou comest to the
kingdom, if I am alive, thou shalt show kindness to me, and thou shalt
continue that kindness to my family after me.
GILL, "And thou shalt not only, while yet I live, show me the kindness of the
Lord,.... Such kindness as is well pleasing in the sight of God, and imitate
what he shows to men, and which was covenanted, promised, and agreed to
in the presence of the Lord, when David and Jonathan entered into
covenant with each other; this Jonathan did not doubt of, and therefore did
not make this a request:
that I die not; he had no fear nor dread on his mind, should David come to
the throne while he was alive, that he would take away his life; which was
usually done by tyrants and usurpers, when there were any that had a fairer
title, and better claim to the throne than they.
HENRY, "He provides for the entail of the covenant of friendship with
David upon his posterity, 1Sa_20:14-16. He engages David to be a
friend to his family when he was gone (1Sa_20:15): Thou shalt promise
that thou wilt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever. This he
spoke from a natural affection he had to his children, whom he desired
it might go well with after his decease, and for whose future welfare he
desired to improve his present interest. It also intimates his firm belief
of David's advancement, and that it would be in the power of his hand
to do a kindness or unkindness to his seed; for, in process of time, the
Lord would cut off his enemies, Saul himself was not expected; then
“Do not thou cut off thy kindness from my house, nor revenge my
father's wrongs upon my children.” The house of David must likewise
be bound to the house of Jonathan from generation to generation; he
made a covenant (1Sa_20:16) with the house of David. Note, True
friends cannot but covet to transmit to theirs after them their mutual
affections. Thy own friend, and thy father's friend, forsake not. This
kindness, 1. He calls the kindness of the Lord, because it is such
kindness as God shows to those he takes into covenant with himself; for
he is a God to them and to their seed; they are beloved for the fathers'
sakes.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:14, 1Sa_20:15
The construction of this passage is very difficult if we retain the three
negatives of the Masoretic text; but most commentators, following the
reading of the Syriac as regards at least one of them, consider that the
Masorites have been mistaken in the vowels which they have attached to the
consonants (see on 1Sa_1:7). Read with other vowels, two of these negatives
become interjections of desire—O that; and the whole may be translated,
"And O that, while I still live, yea, O that thou wouldst show me the kindness
78

79. of Jehovah,—i.e. great unfailing kindness, such as was that of Jehovah to
Israel,—that I die not, nor shalt thou cut off thy kindness from my house
forever." It was the sanguinary custom in the East on a change of dynasty to
put all the seed royal to death. As then Jonathan foresaw that it was
Jehovah’s will to transfer the kingdom to David, he binds him by the
memory of his own true love to him to show mercy to his race.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:14. And thou shalt show me the kindness of the
Lord — That kindness to which thou hast engaged thyself, in the covenant
sworn between thee and me in God’s presence. The words in the Hebrew run
plainly thus: And wilt thou not, if I be then alive, (namely, when God had
advanced David to the throne as he had done Saul,) wilt thou not show me the
loving-kindness of the Lord? He made no doubt, but rather strongly affirmed
his belief of it. That I die not — That thou do not kill me or mine, as princes of
another line used to kill the nearest relations of the former line, from whom the
kingdom was translated to them.
COKE, "1 Samuel 20:14. And thou shalt not only while yet I live— "But thou,
if I shall then survive, [i.e. when the Lord is with thee, and thou art made
king,] shalt perform towards me the same kindness—which the Lord hath
shewn thee; 1 Samuel 20:15. But if I die, thou shalt not withdraw thy kindness
from my house for ever: no, not when, &c." Houbigant:—who observes, that
the plain meaning of the passage is, "If I live when thou art king, thou shalt
spare me; if I die, thou shalt spare my family." Thus making with David, not a
personal covenant only, but one which reached to their posterity.
ELLICOTT, " (14) And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the
kindness of the Lord, that I die not.—The Hebrew of this and the next verse is
again very confused, abrupt, and ungrammatical, but this is evidently to be
attributed to the violent emotion of the speaker. We have, doubtless (as above
suggested). David’s own report of what took place, and the words of his dead
friend had, no doubt, impressed themselves with a sad accuracy on his heart.
The Syriac and Arabic renderings have been followed by Maurer, Ewald, Keil,
Lange, and others, who change v’lo (“and not”) in the first two clauses of 1
Samuel 20:14, into the interjection v’lu (and “O that,” or “would that”). They
render them, “And mayest thou, if I still live, show to me the favour of the
Lord, and if I die, not withdraw thy favour from my house for ever, not even
when Jehovah shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the
earth.”
The last words, “when Jehovah shall cut off,” tells us with striking clearness
how thoroughly convinced was Jonathan that in the end David’s cause, as the
cause of their God, would surely triumph. Mournfully he looked on to his
father’s downfall and his own (Jonathan’s) premature death; and in full view
79

80. of this he bespoke the interest of his friend—though his friend would probably
in a few hours become an exile and outlaw—on behalf of his own (Jonathan’s)
children, who would, he foresaw, before many years had expired, be landless,
homeless orphans.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:14-15
“And you shall not only, while yet I live, show me the lovingkindness of
YHWH, that I die not, but also you shall not cut off your kindness from my
house for ever, no, not when YHWH has cut off the enemies of David every one
from the face of the earth.”
One thing only he asked, and that was that, once YHWH had once for all
removed all David’s enemies, David would himself show to him the
lovingkindness of YHWH and guarantee his life (it was quite normal for men
who took over a kingship to kill off all the close relatives of the previous king,
especially the heir apparent), and also that he would guarantee that mercy for
all who were descended from, or close relations of, Jonathan.
15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my
family-not even when the LORD has cut off every
one of David's enemies from the face of the earth."
Jonathan sees a bright future for David and longs for him to show mercy to his
family, which in many cases those who are part of the royal family are cut off
and killed by the new king who wants no competition or interference. He urges
him not to follow the way of the world in this matter. He is choosing sides here
and goes with David as the future hope.
GILL, "But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for
ever,.... His family should partake of it as well as himself:
no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David, everyone from the
face of the earth; Saul and his sons, and everyone that should oppose his settlement in
the kingdom: Jonathan's meaning is, that the covenant between them should not be only
between them personally, but include their posterity, as follows.
80

81. BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:15. Thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my
house — The covenant they had made was not merely personal, but reached to
their posterity, and was to be kept even when David should have the greatest
power, and there were none to oppose his will. These verses seem strongly to
indicate that Jonathan knew of David’s being anointed to the kingdom! How
unspeakable a generosity is here shown by Jonathan to stipulate for his own
life, and the lives of his posterity, with that man whose life, humanly speaking,
was now in his power!
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of
David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies
to account."
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:16-17. So Jonathan made a covenant — The covenant
which before was personal, he now extends to the whole house of David,
expecting a reciprocal enlargement of it on David’s side, which doubtless he
obtained. At the hand of David’s enemies — If either I, or any of my house,
shall prove enemies to David or to his house, let the Lord, the witness of this
covenant, severely punish the violators of it. Jonathan caused David to swear
again — Hebrew, and Jonathan added or proceeded to swear; that is, having
himself sworn to David, or adjured David, in the foregoing verse, he here
requires David’s oath to him, by way of restipulation or confirmation. For he
loved him, &c. — The greatness of his love to him induced him to use every
means in his power to secure David’s friendship to himself and his posterity,
and to ensure the inviolable observance of this covenant through all their
generations.
GILL, "So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David,.... Not with
David himself only, which was now renewed, but with his family also:
saying, let the Lord even require it at the hand of David's enemies; take
vengeance on Jonathan, or on any of his posterity, should they break this
covenant, by showing themselves enemies to David, and his crown; and, on
the other hand, also on David, and his posterity, should they not show
kindness to Jonathan and his seed, according to the tenor of this covenant.
HENRY, "The house of David must likewise be bound to the house of
Jonathan from generation to generation; he made a covenant (1Sa_20:16)
81

82. with the house of David. Note, True friends cannot but covet to transmit to
theirs after them their mutual affections. Thy own friend, and thy father's
friend, forsake not. This kindness, 1. He calls the kindness of the Lord,
because it is such kindness as God shows to those he takes into covenant
with himself; for he is a God to them and to their seed; they are beloved for
the fathers' sakes. 2. He secures it by an imprecation (1Sa_20:16): The Lord
require it at the hand of David's seed (for of David himself he had no
suspicion) if they prove so far David's enemies as to deal wrongfully with
the posterity of Jonathan, David's friend. He feared lest David, or some of
his, should hereafter be tempted, for the clearing and confirming of their
title to the throne, to do by his seed as Abimelech had done by the sons of
Gideon (Jdg_9:5), and this he would effectually prevent; but the reason
given (1Sa_20:17) why Jonathan was so earnest to have the friendship
entailed is purely generous, and has nothing of self in it; it was because he
loved him as he loved his own soul, and therefore desired that he and his
might be beloved by him. David, though now in disgrace at court and in
distress, was as amiable in the eyes of Jonathan as ever he had been, and he
loved him never the less for his father's hating him, so pure were the
principles on which his friendship was built. Having himself sworn to
David, he caused David to swear to him, and (as we read it) to swear again,
which David consented to (for he that bears an honest mind does not startle
at assurances), to swear by his love to him, which he looked upon as a
sacred thing. Jonathan's heart was so much upon it that, when they parted
this time, he concluded with a solemn appeal to God: The Lord be between
me and thee for ever (1Sa_20:23), that is, “God himself be judge between us
and our families for ever, if on either side this league of friendship be
violated.” It was in remembrance of this covenant that David was kind to
Mephibosheth, 2Sa_9:7; 2Sa_21:7. It will be a kindness to ourselves and
ours to secure an interest in those whom God favours and to make his
friends ours.
K&D, "1Sa_20:16
Thus Jonathan concluded a covenant with the house of David, namely, by
bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever. The word ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫בּ‬
must be supplied in thought to ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ ְ‫כ‬ִ‫,י‬ as in 1Sa_22:8 and 2Ch_7:18. “And
Jehovah required it (what Jonathan had predicted) at the hand of David's
enemies.” Understood in this manner, the second clause contains a remark
of the historian himself, namely, that Jonathan's words were really fulfilled
in due time. The traditional rendering of ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫קּ‬ ִ‫וּב‬ as a relative preterite, with
‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫א‬ understood, “and said, Let Jehovah take vengeance,” is not only
precluded by the harshness of the introduction of the word “saying,” but
still more by the fact, that if ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫א‬ (saying) is introduced between the copula
vav and the verb ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫קּ‬ ִ‫,בּ‬ the perfect cannot stand for the optative ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫קּ‬ ִ‫,בּ‬ as in
Jos_22:23.
82

83. PULPIT, "1Sa_20:16
This verse also is very difficult, hut it is probably to be taken as an insertion
of the narrator: "So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David"—
that is, so as to bind his descendants—"saying, Let Jehovah require it at the
hand of David’s enemies." These last words probably are a euphemism, and
mean David himself. So Rashi explains the words. The courtesy of an
Oriental forbade his saying, May Jehovah punish David for it, but he prays
that God would requite it on some one. But if the Divine anger visits even
David’s enemies for it, how much more the guilty perjurer himself.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:16 is a remark of the narrator1) on this covenant
between Jonathan and David, and2) 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 ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ supply ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫:בּ‬ comp. 1 Samuel
22:8; Joshua 6:1; Judges 19:30; 2 Chronicles 7:18 [ 1 Kings 8:9. The examples from
Joshua, and Judges present omissions of other words.—Tr.]—The second part of the
verse (‫שׁ‬ ִ‫קּ‬ ֵ‫)וּב‬ 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 Isaiah, 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” (‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫א‬ between ‫וּ‬ and ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫קּ‬ ֵ‫,)ב‬ 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” (‫ַד‬‫י‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫קּ‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ =“take vengeance, punish,” with the word
“blood,” 2 Samuel 4:11, without it here and Joshua 22:23.
17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of
love for him, because he loved him as he loved
himself.
83

84. GILL, "And Jonathan caused David to swear again,.... Or Jonathan added to
make David swears (u); having sworn himself to make a covenant of
friendship with David and his family, he moved and insisted on it, that
David should swear to keep covenant with him, and his family:
because he loved him; it was not so much for the good and safety of his
offspring that he made this motion, and was so desirous of renewing and
enlarging his covenant with David, as it was his strong love and affection for
him; being on that account desirous that there might be the strictest
friendship imaginable retained between the two families; or he made him
swear by his love to him, as some understand it, which is not so likely; the
former sense is better, for he himself sware by the Lord, 1Sa_20:12,
for he loved him as his own soul; or "with the love of his soul" (w); with the
most cordial affection, with a truly hearty and sincere love, see 1Sa_18:1.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:17
Jonathan caused David to swear again. So strong was his conviction in
David’s future kingdom, and his wish that there should be an unbroken
bond of love between the two families, that he makes David solemnly repeat
his promise. The Septuagint and Vulgate, by altering the vowels, read, "And
Jonathan sware again to David." At first sight this interpretation seems
most in accordance with the reason given for the renewal of the oath,
namely, Jonathan’s own love; but the Masoretic text agrees better with what
has gone before, and with his wish that their covenant under no change of
circumstances should be broken.
MORGAN, “David forces Jonathan to plot out every move of the game right to
the very end. Jonathan at last comes to the realization that his loyalty to David
may very well cost him his life, so he makes provision by making what is
essentially his last will and testament. Now he needs David to show him loyal-
love in return by caring for his household. Even in the midst of the ultimate
uncertainty, death itself, love does not fail. It does not hold back the truth, and
it does not hold back commitment; rather it is embraced, enhanced and
established. Jonathan solicits David's loyal-love, asking him not to "cut off" his
faithfulness when the LORD "cuts off" his enemies ("cut" is also the word
used for establishing a covenant, verse 16.) The vow is sealed in pathos and
deep emotion. Jonathan loves David as his own soul.
There is a school of thought that says this text and a text at the end of 2 Samuel
1:26 gives evidence that Jonathan and David's relationship was homosexual in
nature. I dislike commenting on this, but I have to say that I think that is the
grid of those who would seek to denigrate the holy love of these men and
advance their own agenda in the process. Clearly, the context of this chapter is
death. Anyone who has experienced the loss of loved ones, as I have, knows
84

85. that this love, which springs from the context of imminent death, transcends
sexual love. While the Scriptures are very frank and open about the fact that
David had sexual flirtations, the love that this chapter is speaking of is holy
love.
Here is NT love in the OT, for it is loving another as one’s self.
MORGAN
Summary Reflections On Jonathan's Love
1. It is Teachable: "Far from it, you shall not die!"
Jonathan feels free to express his feelings, but he is not bound by them.
Initially, he does not see what David sees, but he is willing to listen and learn
because he loves his friend. The first thing we need when we are hurting is
someone who is willing to listen to our point of view.
2. It is Available: "Whatever your soul says, thus I shall do for you."
Love makes itself available to serve others. It is Jonathan's love for David that
enables him to go into hiding, thus allowing Jonathan to sit at his place and
view life from his perspective. We should not try to change others. Love listens
to their story and takes their journey with them. It is this kind of love that
knits us together in the Body of Christ.
3. It is Truthful: "The LORD, the God of Israel, be witness...shall I
not...make it known to you?"
Love does not hold back the truth. It does not cover over evil -- that is not
love -- but rather exposes it.
4. It is Unconditional in its Commitment:"If I am still alive..."
Love does not hold back from commitment. It is not blind. It counts the cost
and pays what is demanded. Here, Jonathan discovers that his love for David
may cost him his life, so he asks David not to withhold his loyal-love from his
household after he has gone. What is so powerful about Jonathan's love for
David that makes it transcend everything else in life? It is the fact that David
as the Messianic King was anointed with the Holy Spirit. His office raised the
love of these friends to a higher level. Jonathan saw not just David, but the
whole house of his friend up to the Messiah himself. In order to truly love,
people have to be challenged with a cause that is bigger than themselves. This
is why Jonathan lets go of everything in order to serve David.
5. It is Expressive: "Jonathan made David vow again because of his
love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own soul."
Once Jonathan knows that his days are numbered, he relishes the memories he
has of his friend. This is what happens when a sentence of death invades a
85

86. home. People start appreciating and loving one another, reliving the memories,
going through the photo albums.
It is fascinating to me that in the Jesus story, people fall in love with the new
David the same way they fell in love with the David of old. They gave up their
homes and their occupations to become part of something bigger than
themselves in the work of Christ's kingdom on earth. How hard Jesus had to
work to convince his disciples that he would die. Like Jonathan, they were a
bit naive. When they finally grasped it as the New Covenant was enacted in
that Upper Room, they gave free rein to their deep emotions of love. Peter took
on the role of Jonathan, protesting, "I'm willing to die for you. I'll take your
place." But the gospel story takes a different turn. This new David will not
permit Jonathan to die for him. He becomes our Jonathan and dies for us,
taking our place so that we could have his stage! So moved were the disciples
by this expression of divine love that they in turn began to give up their lives
for the sake of others. And this story lives on down through the generations.
ELLICOTT, "(17) And Jonathan caused David to swear again.—Throughout
this touching interview it is the prince who appears as the suppliant for the
outlaw’s ruture kind offices. Jonathan—looking forward with absolute
certainty to the day when his persecuted friend would be on the throne, and he
in his grave—dreaded for his own fatherless children the fate which too
probably awaited them, it having been in all ages a common custom in the
East, when the dynasty was violently changed, to put to death the children and
near relations of the former king.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again.
According to the connection this does not refer to what follows from 1 Samuel
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 ( 1 Samuel 20:14-15). The “again” refers to 1 Samuel
20:12. He adjured him “by his love to him;” that Isaiah, 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 Isaiah, he loves his friend as himself. The “soul” is the
centre of the inner life and of the whole personality. Comp. 1 Samuel 18:1-3.
86

87. PETT, "1 Samuel 20:17
‘And Jonathan made David swear again, for the love that he had to him, for he
loved him as he loved his own soul.’
Thus did the heir apparent to the throne of Israel willingly yield his throne to
David by covenant, because of the great love that he had for him, requiring
only that he in return Jonathan honour himself and his descendants. It is
apparent from this that Jonathan now recognised the seriousness of the
situation and realised that they must soon part.
NISBET, "‘MY FAMILIAR FRIEND’
‘He loved David as his own soul.’
1 Samuel 20:17
With a feeling of relief we turn to the main line of thought in the Lesson, David
and Jonathan. ‘Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the
field.’ This was characteristic of him. He loved the open air and field sports. He
delighted in archery. He had a passion for adventure, and was never so happy
as when away from the court engaged in some perilous raid upon the
Philistines. Jonathan felt more at home in the field than in the house. It has
been said with truth that no heart is utterly base which retains a love for the
pure country. The free and fearless nature of Jonathan turned instinctively to
the field as the sailor turns to the sea.
As the two friends talk together we may study Jonathan’s character.
I mention four traits—his frankness, his trustfulness, his affection, his piety.
I. Although he fell in with the scheme which David devised to deceive the king,
yet such plotting was foreign to his disposition.—‘If I knew certainly that evil
were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would I not tell thee?’
He appeals to his own reputation for honesty. Every one feels an affection for
the frank, outspoken man. It is the schemer who rouses our suspicions and
puts us on our guard.
87

88. II. With this frankness we notice in Jonathan a fine trustfulness.—He believed
in David, he tried hard to believe in Saul. ‘My father will do nothing, either
great or small, but that he will show it me.’ Do not cherish the opposite spirit.
Do not harbour mistrust. The fact is that the confiding nature sees the best side
of any character, because that side is opened to him. The man who changed his
house every rent-day because he could never find neighbours that agreed with
him, discovered at last that our neighbours are what we make them. The man
who trusts no one is the man whom no one trusts. Christ knew what was in
man, and yet He revealed to man better things in human nature than Pilate or
Herod dreamed of. Trust others and you make them respect themselves. Treat
every man as a thief, and your road through life shall be like that which went
down from Jerusalem to Jericho, only without the good Samaritan.
III. The next trait in Jonathan to be noted is his affection.—Dean Stanley says
of the friendship of Jonathan and David that it is ‘the first Biblical instance of
such a dear companionship as was common in Greece, and has been since in
Christendom imitated, but never surpassed, in modern works of fiction.’ It is
the love of Jonathan that is most emphasised. ‘The soul of Jonathan was knit
with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.’ Springing up
when first the two met, and continuing unbroken during David’s disfavour
with Saul, it never ceased. On the death of the gallant young prince, David
cried, ‘I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou
been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful.’ To the end of his own life David
cared for and cherished Jonathan’s family. The nobleness of this friendship on
the part of Saul’s son lies in the fact that David supplanted him in his royal
succession. He is the finest illustration of human magnanimity. Christ Himself,
in His self-forgetting love for us, is foreshadowed by Jonathan.
IV. So, last of all, we mention his piety.—It was with a patriot’s prayer to the
‘Lord God of Israel’ that Jonathan vowed to be true to the persecuted hero,
and with words of solemn farewell that he covenanted with him. ‘The Lord be
with thee as He hath been with my father.’ A deep substratum of genuine piety
underlies all Jonathan’s actions. It is love of God that makes him love his
country and run desperate odds to rescue it from the Philistines, and love
David and stand between him and the misguided king’s frenzied anger, yes,
and love even Saul also. This was hardest of all. It was easy for a soldier to
fight like a hero for his country. It was easy to such a heart as that of Jonathan
to beat true to such a heart as that of David. But we have not perhaps done
justice to the love of the son for his father, always present at table, always his
companion, regardless of bitter taunts and flashing javelins. So has God loved
us. ‘Even when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’
Illustrations
88

89. (1) ‘I had a friend that loved me;
I was his soul: he lived not but in me.
We were so closed within each other’s breasts,
The rivets were not found that joined us first,
That do not reach us yet: we were so mixed,
As meeting streams; but to ourselves were lost.
We were one mass: we could not give or take
But from the same; for he was I, I he.
Return my better half, and give me all myself,
For thou art all.
If I have any joy when thou art absent,
I grudge it to myself: methinks I rob
Thee of thy part.’
(2) ‘How enduring Jonathan’s friendship was. It lasted through storm and
strain right to the end. Can you recall any great instances of broken
friendship? There are not a few narrated in our histories. There is that
between Pope Innocent the Third and Otho, for instance; the imperial crown
was on the head of Otho, and almost from that moment the Emperor and the
Pope were implacable enemies’ (Milman, V, 234). And there was that between
Queen Elizabeth and Essex, that ended, for the gay Earl, upon the block. But
the friendship of Jonathan and David never broke. No jeopardy, no change of
89

90. place or circumstance impaired it.’
‘God keeps a niche
In heaven to hold our idols! and albeit
He break them to our faces, and denied
That our close kisses should impair their white,
I know we shall behold them raised, complete—
The dust shook from their beauty—glorified,
New Memnons singing in the great God-Light.’
(3) ‘In his great essay, Lord Bacon shows that nothing can ever take the place
of friendship. Men so need the offices of a friend that at every risk they will
have one. It is often perilous, Bacon points out, for those in exalted station to
have friends, for the disclosure of the heart (which is of the essence of
friendship) may afford subtle temptations to betrayal; yet recognising that,
and furthermore possessing every good thing that the world could give, men
have not been able to do without a friend. The principal offices of friendship,
Bacon continues, are three. It eases the heart, affording it an outlet without
which it is not like to prosper. It illuminates the mind, for, as iron sharpeneth
iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend (Proverbs 27:17). And
a friend does for us in many instances, and in ways that occasion no offence,
what we cannot do for ourselves. All this is true of that immortal friendship
which forms the subject of our present lesson. It was an infinite solace to the
heart of David. It helped him to be a poet and a king. And in times of peril it
afforded him that succour without which his life would have been forfeit.’
18 Then Jonathan said to David: "Tomorrow is the
New Moon festival. You will be missed, because
your seat will be empty.
90

91. He will be missed by Jonathan, but not by Saul, for he wants him present so he
can not miss him this time with his spear. He would be missed only because he
did not want to miss him.
BENSON. "1 Samuel 20:19. When thou hast stayed three days, &c. — This is
commonly interpreted of his staying so long with his kindred at Bethlehem. In
the Hebrew the words are, Thou shalt three times go down to a very low place;
and the meaning seems to be, that if Jonathan did not come to the place
appointed the first day, David should take it for granted that he had no
information of importance to communicate, and should come again the second
day; and if Jonathan brought him no intelligence then, he should come on the
third. Houbigant interprets the words, “But on the third day thou shalt come
quickly to that place, in which thou shalt hide thyself on the feast-day.” When
the business was in hand — When this same business which they were now
treating about was in agitation formerly; namely, to discover Saul’s mind and
purpose toward David, 1 Samuel 19:2-3. By the stone Ezel — A stone probably
erected to direct travellers in the way: he was to hide himself in some cave or
other convenient place near it.
GILL, "Then Jonathan said to David, tomorrow is the new moon,.... The
first day of the month, as David had before observed, 1Sa_20:5,
and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat will be empty; or be inquired
after, because not in his usual place at mealtime.
K&D, "1Sa_20:18-19
He then discussed the sign with him for letting him know about his
father's state of mind: “To-morrow is new moon, and thou wilt be missed,
for thy seat will be empty,” sc., at Saul's table (see at 1Sa_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” for the verb ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫לּ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ cannot
be sustained by parallel passages, but is fully established, partly by ‫ית‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫שּׁ‬ ַ‫,ה‬
the third day, and partly by the Arabic usage (vid., Ges. Thes. s. v.). ‫ד‬ֹ‫א‬ ְ‫מ‬ after
‫ד‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ֵ‫,תּ‬ lit., “go violently down,” is more striking still. Nevertheless the
correctness of the text is not to be called in question, since ָ‫תּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫לּ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ is
sustained by τρισσεύσει in the Septuagint, and ‫ד‬ֹ‫א‬ ְ‫מ‬ ‫ד‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ֵ‫תּ‬ by descende ergo
festinus in the Vulgate, and also by the rendering in the Chaldee, Arabic,
and Syriac versions, “and on the third day thou wilt be missed still more,”
91

92. which is evidently merely a conjecture founded upon the context. The
meaning of ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ע‬ ַ‫מּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ is doubtful. Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer render
it “on the day of the deed,” and understand it as referring to Saul's deed
mentioned in 1Sa_19:2, viz., his design of killing David; others render it “on
the day of business,” i.e., the working day (Luther, after the lxx and
Vulgate), but this is not so good a rendering. The best is probably that of
Thenius, “on the day of the business” (which is known to thee). Nothing
further can be said concerning the stone Ezel than that Ezel is a proper
name.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:18, 1Sa_20:19
Jonathan now arranges his plan for communicating the result to David. For
when thou hast stayed three days, at which all the versions stumble, a slight
alteration gives the right sense: "And on the third day." David on the third
day was to go down quickly—Hebrew, "greatly, i.e. he was to go a long way
down into the valley. The rendering quickly is taken from the Vulgate, but
makes no sense. It did not matter whether David went fast or slow, as he
was to hide there for some time, but it was important that David should be
far away, so that no prying eye might chance to catch sight of him. When the
business was in hand. Literally, "the day of the business," probably that
narrated in 1Sa_19:2-7. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Chaldee all
understand "a working day," in opposition to a feast day; but "where thou
didst hide thyself on a week day" gives no intelligible meaning. By the stone
Ezel. As the name Ezel is formed from a verb signifying to go, some
understand by it a road stone, a stone to mark the way.
HENRY 18-22, " He settles the method of intelligence, and by what signs
and tokens he would give him notice how his father stood affected towards
him. David would be missed the first day, or at least the second day, of the
new moon, and would be enquired after, 1Sa_20:18. On the third day, by
which time he would have returned from Bethlehem, he must be at such a
place (1Sa_20:19), and Jonathan would come towards that place with his
bow and arrows to shoot for diversion (1Sa_20:20), would send his lad to
fetch his arrows, and, if they were shot short of the lad, David must take it
for a signal of safety, and not be afraid to show his head (1Sa_20:21); but, if
he shot beyond the lad, it was a signal of danger, and he must shift for his
safety, 1Sa_20:22. This expedient he fixed lest he should not have the
opportunity, which yet it proved he had, of talking with David, and making
the report by word of mouth.
COFFMAN, "JONATHAN REVEALS THE SIGN THAT WILL ALERT
DAVID
"Then Jonathan said to him, "Tomorrow is the new moon; and you will be
92

93. missed, because your seat will be empty. And on the third day you will be
greatly missed; then go to the place where you hid yourself when the matter
was in hand, and remain beside yonder stone heap. And I will shoot three
arrows to the side of it, as though I shot at a mark. And behold, I will send the
lad, saying, `Look, the arrows are on this side of you, take them,' then you are
to come, for, as the Lord lives, it is safe for you and there is no danger. But if
50say to the youth, `Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then go, for the Lord
has sent you away. And as for the matter of which you and I have spoken,
behold, the Lord is between you and me forever."
There is nothing here that demands any special comment. The signal by which
David would know whether or not he was an outlaw condemned to flee from
the wrath of the king, or if a reconciliation could be brought about - that signal
was clear enough. It would turn upon Jonathan's words to the lad who would
be assigned to chase his arrows.
"On the third day" (1 Samuel 20:19). This refers to the third day of the feast.
The first day of the feast, David would be missed; but the real test would come
if he missed the second day of the feast. The feast was apparently a night
affair, because it was "in the morning" (1 Samuel 20:35) of that third day
(following the second of the feast) that Jonathan would give the pre-arranged
signal to David.
"Go to the place where you hid yourself when the matter was in hand" (1
Samuel 20:19). This is a reference to that occasion when Jonathan had
successfully arranged a reconciliation.
"Remain beside yonder stone heap" (1 Samuel 20:19). F. C. Cook wrote that,
"This hiding place was either a natural cavernous rock, or some ruin of an
ancient building, especially suited for a hiding place."[10]
HWKER, "Verses 18-24
(18) Then Jonathan said to David, Tomorrow is the new moon: and thou shalt
be missed, because thy seat will be empty. (19) And when thou hast stayed
three days, then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou
didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and shalt remain by the stone
Ezel. (20) And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot at
a mark. (21) And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find 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; as the LORD
liveth. (22) But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows are
beyond thee; go thy way: for the LORD hath sent thee away. (23) And as
touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of, behold, the LORD be
between thee and me forever. (24) ¶ So David hid himself in the field: and
when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
93

94. If the Reader recollects, our dear Lord did not go up publicly to the feast, but
after his brethren were gone, he then made a private visit there. John 7:1-10.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:18
‘Then Jonathan said to him, “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be
missed, because your seat will be empty.”
Having confirmed the covenant between them Jonathan now went into the
details of what was to happen in the next three days. Again we have it
confirmed that David would be expected to take his place at the coming new
moon celebration. And he would be missed, because his seat would be empty.
Precedents as to who sat where were clearly firmly set at such festivals, and
David, as the king’s son-in-law, would have a place set near the king.
19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to
the place where you hid when this trouble began,
and wait by the stone Ezel.
BARNES, "The stone Ezel - It is not mentioned elsewhere, except possibly
in 1Sa_20:41, where see the note.
GILL, "And when thou hast stayed three days,.... From court, either at
Bethlehem, which seems most probable, or in some other place incognito;
however, not in the field he proposed to hide himself in, where he could not
continue so long for want of food:
then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou didst
hide thyself; which makes it clear that he did not continue there during that
time, but went elsewhere; from whence he was to come in haste at the
expiration of three days, to the place he first hid himself in, and which was
fixed upon to meet at:
when the business was in hand; when the affair was discoursed of, about
getting knowledge how Saul was affected to David, and of informing him of
it; or "on the day of work" (x); or business, on a working day, as the
Septuagint; and so the Targum, on a common day; when, as the Vulgate
Latin, it was lawful to work on it; and such was the day when Jonathan and
94

95. David conversed together about the above affair; it being the day before the
new moon, or first day of the month, on which day they used not to work:
Some render it, "thou shalt three times go down" (y) to that place; and the
sense is, that he should come on the morrow, and if he found not Jonathan
there, he might conclude that as yet he knew nothing of his father's mind,
and therefore should come the day following that; and if he found him not
then, to come on the third day, that so he might be on the spot, let him come
on which day he would:
and shalt remain by the stone Ezel; which, because it signifies "going", the
Jewish commentators generally understand it as a sign to direct travellers
which way to go; but one would think this should be an improper place for
David to be near, since it must be where two or more ways met, and so a
public frequented place; others think therefore it had its name from David
and Jonathan often going thither, to discourse with each other; the
Septuagint calls it Ergab; and so the place where Jonathan, the son of Saul,
exercised himself by shooting darts, is called by Jerom (z); it is said by
Josephus (a) to be an hundred fifty furlongs (about nineteen miles), from
Jerusalem, and from Jordan sixty, (about eight miles).
JAMISON, "when thou hast stayed three days — either with your family at
Beth-lehem, or wherever you find it convenient.
come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in
hand — Hebrew, “in the day,” or “time of the business,” when the same
matter was under inquiry formerly (1Sa_19:22).
remain by the stone Ezel — Hebrew, “the stone of the way”; a sort of
milestone which directed travelers. He was to conceal himself in some cave
or hiding-place near that spot.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:19. When thou hast stayed three days, &c. — This is
commonly interpreted of his staying so long with his kindred at Bethlehem. In
the Hebrew the words are, Thou shalt three times go down to a very low place;
and the meaning seems to be, that if Jonathan did not come to the place
appointed the first day, David should take it for granted that he had no
information of importance to communicate, and should come again the second
day; and if Jonathan brought him no intelligence then, he should come on the
third. Houbigant interprets the words, “But on the third day thou shalt come
quickly to that place, in which thou shalt hide thyself on the feast-day.” When
the business was in hand — When this same business which they were now
treating about was in agitation formerly; namely, to discover Saul’s mind and
purpose toward David, 1 Samuel 19:2-3. By the stone Ezel — A stone probably
erected to direct travellers in the way: he was to hide himself in some cave or
other convenient place near it.
WHEDON, " 19. When the business was in hand — Margin, in the day of the business.
Referring to the circumstance of Jonathan’s previous intercession for David, (1 Samuel
95

96. 19:3,) that business or affair so similar to the one now in hand. Ewald thinks the affair
here referred to was Saul’s personal attempt to take David’s life, and that “a sort of filial
reverence here induces Jonathan to call that day simply the day of the affair, to avoid
having to give that affair its right name.”
Ezel — The name of a stone near Gibeah well known to Jonathan and David, but now
unknown.
COKE, "1 Samuel 20:19. And when thou hast stayed three days, &c.— But on the third
day thou shalt come quickly to that place, in which thou shalt hide thyself on the feast
day; and thou shalt sit by the stone Ezel: Houbigant. Ezel is supposed to have been a
stone erected to shew men the road, for the word signifies going or travelling. The
Syriac and Greek render it, by this stone.
ELLICOTT, " (19) Go down quickly.—“Quickly” represents, but not faithfully, the Hebrew
m’od. “Quickly” comes from the Vulg., descende ergo festinus. The literal rendering of
m’od is “greatly,” and probably Dean Payne Smith’s rendering, “and on the third day go
a long way (greatly) down into the valley,” represents the meaning of the original,
which has been a general stumbling-block with the versions. The Chaldee, Arabic, and
Syriac here interpret rather than translate, “on the third day thou will be missed the
more.” “It did not matter,” writes the Dean, “whether David went fast or slow, as he
was to hide there some time, but it was important that David should be far away, so
that no prying eye might chance to catch sight of him.”
When the business was in hand.—The expression, b’yom hammaăseh, rendered in our
version by “when the business was in hand,” is one hard to understand. Perhaps the
best translation is that adopted by Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer, who render it quite
literally “on the day of the deed,” and understand by “deed” King Saul’s design of killing
David (see 1 Samuel 19:2).
By the stone Ezel.—This stone, or cairn, or possibly ruin, is mentioned nowhere else.
Some have supposed it to have been a road-stone, or stone guide-post. The following
ingenious conjecture is hazarded in the Speaker’s Commentary:—“The LXX. here, and
again in 1 Samuel 20:41 (where the spot, but not the stone, is spoken of), 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.” Ewald, slightly changing the text,
understands the word as signifying “the lonely waste.”
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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” ( ָ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַשׁ‬‫לּ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫,)ו‬ 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” ( 1 Kings 18:34), and render “a third time
96

97. come down.” The first time of his going down was in 1 Samuel 19:2, our present
narrative gives the second time, and 1 Samuel 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 ‫ית‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫,וּשׁ‬ which agrees
with 1 Samuel 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” (‫ר‬ֹ‫א‬ ְ‫.)מ‬ The Vulg. has “descend quickly.”
From the difficulty of the reading some substitute “thou wilt be missed” (‫ד‬ֵ‫ק‬ָ‫פּ‬ ִ‫,תּ‬ 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 ‫ד‬ֹ‫א‬ ְ‫מ‬ (“very”) we should read ‫ד‬ֵ‫,מוֹﬠ‬ “appointed place of
meeting,” comp. Joshua 8:14. It would be an Acc. of place as in 1 Samuel 20:11; see
the similar expression in verse35, 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 1 Samuel 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
1 Samuel 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”
( 1 Samuel 19:2-3) attenuates the meaning of the Heb. word (‫ה‬ ֶ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ﬠ‬ ַ‫,)מּ‬ 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 ( 1 Samuel 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, ‫ָז‬‫לּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫גּב‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫א‬ָ‫,ה‬ “by
that stone-heap.” So Then, and Ew, except that the latter reads ‫ֵל‬‫ז‬ ָ‫א‬ָ‫,ה‬ “the lonely
waste.” There Isaiah, however, no need for change of text; ‫ן‬ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ‫א‬ is a hollow rock as a
hiding-place, and Ezel is a proper name.) [On the reading see “Text. and Gram.”—
Tr.].
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:19-22
97

98. “And when you have stayed three days, you shall go down quickly, and come to the
place where you hid yourself when the business was in hand, and shall remain by the
stone Ezel. And I will shoot three arrows on its side, as though I shot at a mark. And,
see, I will send the lad, saying, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to the lad, ‘Look, the arrows
are on this side of you, take them, and come, for there is peace to you and no hurt, as
YHWH lives. But if I say thus to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you’, go your way,
for YHWH has sent you away.”
Jonathan then explained what David was to do in order to receive his prearranged
signal. He was to come to the place where he had hidden himself when ‘the business
was in hand’ (possibly the incident in 1 Samuel 19:1-7), and take up his place by the
stone Ezel. And then he, Jonathan, would come there with a lad to practise archery. This
would allay any suspicion that Jonathan had come out on some secret assignment. On
arrival there he would shoot three arrows at the side of the stone, as though shooting at
a mark. Then he would send the lad to find the arrows, and if he called out ‘the arrows
are on this side’ David could take that as a signal that all was well and that he was in no
danger. But if he yelled, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you’ then that would be a signal
for David to flee for his life. It would indicate that there was danger and that YHWH had
thus sent him away. Note the regular assumption, common in the former prophets
(Joshua-Kings), that whatever happened was due to the activity of YHWH.
“The stone Ezel.” This means literally, ‘the stone of departure’. Out of sentimentality
Jonathan may well have chosen to pass on his message at this stone for that very
reason. The name presumably commemorated some well known ‘departure’ in the
past. Others, however, consider that it was named Ezel because of this incident.
The shooting of arrows symbolically may well have had an important and recognised
significance in Israel, possibly signifying the certainty of final triumph, or as an
indication of certain judgment on the enemy (Deuteronomy 32:23). We can compare
how Elisha arranged for Joash to shoot an arrow as an acted out prophecy of coming
victory for him and coming judgment on his enemies (2 Kings 13:14-19). Thus in this
case arrows that went their full length indicated judgment determined on David,
whereas arrows that fell short indicated that judgment like that would not reach David.
20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as
though I were shooting at a target.
It is deception by pretending to do one thing but
really doing something else not visible, but secret.
98

99. CLARKE, "I will shoot three arrows - Jonathan intended that David
should stay at the stone Ezel, where probably there was some kind of cave,
or hiding place; that, to prevent all suspicion, he would not go to him
himself, but take his servant into the fields, and pretend to be exercising
himself in archery; that he would shoot three arrows, the better to cover his
design; and that, if he should say to his servant, who went to bring back the
arrows, “The arrows are on this side of thee,” this should be a sign to David
that he might safely return to court, no evil being designed; but if he should
say, “The arrows are beyond thee,” then David should escape for his life,
Saul having determined his destruction.
GILL, "And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof,.... On the side of
the stone Ezel; three are pitched upon, according to the number of the days
David was missing:
as though I shot at a mark; as if he made the stone the mark he shot at; so
that his shooting would not be taken notice of.
K&D, "1Sa_20:20
“And I will shoot off three arrows to the side of it (the stone Ezek), to
shoot for me at the mark,” i.e., as if shooting at the mark. The article
attached to ‫ים‬ ִ‫צּ‬ ִ‫ח‬ ַ‫ה‬ is either to be explained as denoting that the historian
assumed the thing as already well known, or on the supposition that
Jonathan went to the field armed, and when giving the sign pointed to the
arrows in his quiver. In the word ‫ה‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ִ‫צ‬ the Raphe indicates that the suffix of ‫־‬
ָ‫ה‬ is not a mere toneless ‫,ה‬ although it has no mappik, having given up its
strong breathing on account of the harsh ‫צ‬ sound.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:20-23
The two friends now agree upon the sign. Jonathan was to shoot three
arrows at this stone, Ezel, as his mark, and was then to send his servant to
gather them up. When he bad gone some distance Jonathan was to shout to
him, loud enough for David to hear. If Jonathan said that the arrows were
on that side the mark, i.e. between it and Jonathan, David was to come forth
boldly, as all was well. But if Jonathan said that the arrows were further on,
then David must understand that he was to seek safety in flight. For there is
peace to thee, and no hurt, the Hebrew has "there is peace to thee, and it is
nothing," a simpler and more idiomatic rendering. As touching the matter,
etc. Rather, "As for the word that we have spoken, I and thou, behold,
Jehovah is between me and thee forever." The word was the bond and
99

100. covenant by which they had pledged their truth to one another. Though
separated, their love was to continue, and Jehovah was to be their eternal
centre of union, and the witness to their covenant.
ELLICOTT, " (20) I will shoot three arrows.—The two friends agree on a
sign. It was a very simple one, and seems to speak of very early primitive
times. Jonathan slightly varies from his original purpose. In 1 Samuel 20:12
it seems as though he meant to have sent a special messenger had the news
been good, but now the arrangement is that in either event he should come
himself out from the city into the solitary valley where it was agreed David
should remain in hiding by the stone “Ezel.” Dean Payne Smith rather
strangely conceives that the arrows of the “sign” were to be aimed at the
stone Ezel, but the description points to the “mark” as situated on the side
of “Ezel,” in or behind which David was to be concealed.
The prince agreed that after the feast he would leave the city, as though
about to practise shooting at a mark, and that he would bring with him a
servant—probably-one of his young armour-bearers—when, at the spot
agreed upon in the neighbourhood of David’s place of concealment near
Ezel, he would post his servant in his place as marker, and then would
shoot. After shooting, he would call out to his attendant, “the arrows are on
this side of thee” (that is, between the mark and Jonathan himself), then
David would know all was well; but if he cried “the arrows are beyond thee,”
that is, on the further side of the mark, David would understand that all was
over, and that he must fly. Jonathan evidently took these precautions not
knowing whether or no he would be accompanied by friends of his father
from the city, in which case the “sign” agreed upon would be sufficient to
tell David what had happened at the feast. As it turned out, Jonathan was
able to escape observation, and to go alone with his servant to the place of
meeting. He used the sign to attract his friend’s attention, and then followed
the last sorrowful parting, told in 1 Samuel 20:41-42.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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 up[FN50]
from the place where they fell, whether in front of or behind the mark.
(Böttcher: In ָ‫צדּ‬ 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. ‫ן‬ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ‫,א‬ so that ָ‫דּ‬ ִ‫צ‬ = juxta eam, at its
(the stone’s) side (so render Vulg, De Wette, and even Luther), expresses a definite mark.)
100

101. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, 'Go, find the
arrows.' If I say to him, 'Look, the arrows are on
this side of you; bring them here,' then come,
because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe;
there is no danger.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:21-23. I will send a lad, &c. — I will send him before I
shoot, to find and take up the arrows which I shall shoot: and I shall shoot
them either short of him or beyond him, as I shall see occasion. If I say, Behold
the arrows are beyond thee — This signal seems to have been agreed on
between them, in case Jonathan was so watched and followed, as not to have
an opportunity of communing with David by word of mouth. The Lord be
between thee and me — As a witness and a judge, and between our families for
ever, if on either side this league of friendship be violated.
GILL, "And, behold, I will send a lad,.... That attended on him, and carried
his bow and arrows, and fetched his arrows when he had shot them:
saying, go, find out the arrows; where they are fallen, and return them:
if I expressly say unto the lad, behold, the arrows are on this side of thee,
take them; on one side of him, whether the one or the other, which he would
bid him take up, and bring them to him:
then come thou; David, out of the place where he hid himself:
for there is peace to thee, and no hurt, as the Lord liveth; he might appear,
and not be afraid of being seen by any, since by this sign he might be assured
that Saul was well affected to him, and would show him favour, and do him
no injury; and that he might promise himself prosperity and safety, and be
assured of it for the present.
K&D, "1Sa_20:21
“And, behold (‫ֵה‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫,ה‬ directing attention to what follows as the main point), I
will send the boy (saying), Go, get the arrows. If I shall say to the boy,
Behold, the arrows are from thee hitherwards, fetch them; then come, for
peace is to thee, and it is nothing, as truly as Jehovah liveth.”
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:21. The agreement as to the sign, whereby David was
101

102. 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. 1 Samuel 11:7; Isaiah 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 ( 1 Samuel 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 Isaiah, commands thee to go away.
22 But if I say to the boy, 'Look, the arrows are
beyond you,' then you must go, because the LORD
has sent you away.
GILL, "But if I say thus unto the young man, behold, the arrows are beyond
thee,.... Being shot to a greater distance than where the young man was:
go thy way, for the Lord hath sent thee away; then he was to depart directly,
without staying to have any conversation with Jonathan, which would not
be safe for either of them, and so make the best of his way into the country,
and escape for his life; for so it was ordered by the providence of God, that
he must not stay, but be gone immediately: the signals were these, that if
things were favourable, then he would shoot his arrows on one side of the
lad, and David might come out and show himself at once; but if not, he
would shoot them beyond him, by which he might know that he must flee
for his life.
23 And about the matter you and I discussed-
remember, the LORD is witness between you and
me forever."
102

103. GILL, "And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of,....
The covenant they had made between them and their families:
behold, the Lord be between me and thee for ever: as a witness of the
covenant, and a revenger of those that should break it; so the
Targum,"behold, the Word of the Lord be between me and thee a
witness for ever.''
HENRY, "The Lord be between me and thee for ever (1Sa_20:23), that
is, “God himself be judge between us and our families for ever, if on
either side this league of friendship be violated.” It was in
remembrance of this covenant that David was kind to Mephibosheth,
2Sa_9:7; 2Sa_21:7. It will be a kindness to ourselves and ours to
secure an interest in those whom God favours and to make his friends
ours.
JAMISON, "as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of —
The plan being concerted, the friends separated for a time, and the amiable
character of Jonathan again peers out in his parting allusion to their
covenant of friendship.
K&D, "1Sa_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 Lord is between
me and thee for ever,” namely, a witness and judge in case one of us two
should break the covenant (vid., Gen_31:48-49). This is implied in the
words, without there being any necessity to assume that ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ had dropped out
of the text. “The word” refers not merely to the sign agreed upon, but to the
whole matter, including the renewal of the bond of friendship.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:23. And the word that we have spoken, that Isaiah,
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. Genesis 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.
103

104. 24 So David hid in the field, and when the New Moon
festival came, the king sat down to eat.
Hiding has been done by many godly people, for it is presumption to think you
can just always confront evil power and demand they shape up and do right.
You need to stay out of the way of a madman out to kill you.
GILL, "So David hid himself in the field,.... Not directly, but at the time
appointed; for he went to Bethlehem, and returned from thence before that
time:
and when the new moon was come; the first clay of the month, which was a
solemn festival:
the king sat him down to eat meat; Saul sat down at his table to eat of the
provisions that were set upon it; which it is very probable were the peace
offerings for that day, which he, his family, and nobles, feasted on together;
it is in the Hebrew, "he sat down at the bread" (b), which is put for all the
food on the table, and the provisions of it.
HENRY, "David is missed from the feast on the first day, but nothing is
said of him. The king sat upon his seat, to feast upon the peace-offerings as
at other times (1Sa_20:25), and yet had his heart as full of envy and malice
against David as it could hold. He should first have been reconciled to him,
and then have come and offered his gift; but, instead of that, he hoped, at
this feast, to drink the blood of David. What an abomination was that
sacrifice which was brought with such a wicked mind as this! Pro_21:27.
When the king came to take his seat Jonathan arose, in reverence to him
both as a father and as his sovereign; every one knew his place, but David's
was empty. It did not use to be so. None more content than he in attending
holy duties; nor had he been absent now but that he must have come at the
peril of his life; self-preservation obliged him to withdraw. In imminent
peril present opportunities may be waived, nay, we ought not to throw
ourselves into the mouth of danger. Christ himself absconded often, till he
knew that his hour had come. But that day Saul took no notice that he
missed David, but said within himself, “Surely he is not clean, 1Sa_20:26.
Some ceremonial pollution has befallen him, which forbids him to eat of the
holy things till he has washed his clothes, and bathed his flesh in water,
and been unclean until the evening.” Saul knew what conscience David
made of the law, and that he would rather keep away from the holy feast
104

105. than come in his uncleanness. Blessed be God, no uncleanness is now a
restraint upon us, but what we may by faith and repentance be washed from
in the fountain opened, Psa_26:6.
K&D, "1Sa_20:24-25
On the new moon's day Saul sat at table, and as always, at his seat by the
wall, i.e., at the top, just as, in eastern lands at the present day, the place of
honour is the seat in the corner (see Harmar Beobachtungen ii. pp. 66ff.).
“And Jonathan rose up, and Abner seated himself by the side of Saul, and
David's place remained empty.” The difficult passage, “And Jonathan rose
up,” etc., can hardly be understood in any other way than as signifying that,
when Abner entered, Jonathan rose from his seat by the side of Saul, and
gave up the place to Abner, in which case all that is wanting is an account of
the place to which Jonathan moved. Every other attempted explanation is
exposed to much graver difficulties. The suggestion made by Gesenius, that
the cop. ‫ו‬ should be supplied before ‫ֵר‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ַ‫,א‬ and ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ֵשׁ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ referred to Jonathan
(“and Jonathan rose up and sat down, and Abner [sat down] by the side of
Saul”), as in the Syriac, is open to this objection, that in addition to the
necessity of supplying ‫,ו‬ it is impossible to see why Jonathan should have
risen up for the purpose of sitting down again. The rendering “and
Jonathan came,” which is the one adopted by Maurer and De Wette, cannot
be philologically sustained; inasmuch as, although ‫קוּם‬ is used to signify rise
up, in the sense of the occurrence of important events, or the appearance of
celebrated of persons, it never means simply “to come.” And lastly, the
conjecture of Thenius, that ‫ם‬ ָ‫ָק‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ should be altered into ‫ם‬ ֵ‫דּ‬ ַ‫ק‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬, according to
the senseless rendering of the lxx, προέφθασε τὸν Ἰονάθαν, is overthrown by
the fact, that whilst ‫ם‬ ֵ‫דּ‬ ִ‫ק‬ does indeed mean to anticipate or come to meet, it
never means to sit in front of, i.e., opposite to a person.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:24-26
The king sat him down to eat meat. Hebrew, "the king sat down at the bread
to eat." On sitting at table see 1Sa_16:11. And Jonathan arose. When the king
had taken his usual place, that of honour, next the wall, and therefore
farthest from the door, Jonathan arose and took his place on one side of the
king, while Abner sat on the other. David’s place below them was left empty.
The omission of the statement that Jonathan sat down makes the passage
obscure, and the versions bungle in rendering it, but there can be little
doubt that these words ought to be supplied. He is not clean. Saul supposed
that some ceremonial defilement (see Le 1Sa_15:2-16) had befallen David,
and as the new moon was a religious festival, this would necessarily prevent
his attendance.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:24-26. David hid himself in the field — Namely, at the
time appointed: for it seems probable that he went first to Beth-lehem, and
105

106. thence returned to the field, when the occasion required. Jonathan arose — He
rose from his seat where he had sat next the king, and stood up at Abner’s
coming, to do honour to him, who was his father’s cousin, and the general of
the army. Something hath befallen him — Some accident, which has rendered
him unclean, and so unfit to partake of this feast, which consisted in part of the
remainders of the peace-offerings, according to the law; (Leviticus 7:20;) unfit
also to come into any company, much more, into the king’s company, lest he
should pollute them also.
LANGE, " 1 Samuel 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 [‫ל‬ַ‫,ﬠ‬ Eng. A. V.
omits the prep.] is to be retained against the marginal reading (Qeri) “to;” “he
who sits at table is elevated, comp. Proverbs 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 Isaiah, as formerly, as usually, comp. iii4;
Numbers 24:1. Vulg. secundum consuetudinem. The word “arose” presents
serious difficulties. It is proposed to adopt the Sept. κὰι προ έφθασε τὸν
’Ιωνάθαν (‫ם‬ ֵ‫דּ‬ַ‫ק‬ְ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ for ‫ם‬ָ‫ָקּ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬), 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 Isaiah, 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 ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ֵשׁ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ with ‫ם‬ָ‫ָק‬‫י‬ַ‫ו‬, and putting ְ‫ו‬ before ‫ֵר‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ַ‫.)א‬ 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.
‫ב‬ ֶ‫ַיּשׁ‬‫ו‬), written defectively) as in 2 Chronicles 10:2 (Ges. § 69, 3 R7), and
106

107. 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 Isaiah, in the place left vacant by David’s absence,[FN51] 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 1 Samuel 20:34.
[Kitto suggests as the explanation of Saul’s expecting David, that he supposed
David would infer from the occurrence at Naioth 1 Samuel 19:24, that Saul’s
mood was changed, and there was no longer danger.—Tr.].
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:24
‘So David hid himself in the countryside.’
This does not necessarily mean that he did not attend at his family’s
celebrations in Bethlehem. It may simply indicate that he kept out of the way
of the large cities, and especially of Gibeah, thus remaining out of public view.
He would know that he was safe while the feast at Gibeah was in progress. Or
it may simply be indicating what he did after he had been to Bethlehem and
the sacrifices were over.
Verses 24-34
Jonathan And Saul Fall Out Over David At The New Moon Festival
(20:24b-34).
Every ‘day of the new moon’, which indicated the commencement of another
‘month’, and thus regulated the seasons and the days of the religious feasts,
was treated specially, with the offering of offerings and sacrifices and the
blowing of ram’s horns. And some new moon days would be even more special,
such as those that fell on a Sabbath, or the day following the Sabbath, those
that began the New Year, and those on which there were other special festivals.
Thus this special gathering may not have occurred on every ‘day of the new
moon’. But it is clear that on this particular day attendance was certainly
expected by all courtiers and commanders, and places were set for those who
should attend.
It was apparently a two day feast. This may have been so that if an error had
been made about the correct date of the new moon it would ensure that the day
was still properly celebrated by observing it on the next day (This certainly
happened in later centuries). On the first day of the feast Saul was able to
excuse David’s absence (he was probably not the only one absent) on the
grounds of some temporary ceremonial ‘uncleanness’ which kept him at home
107

108. ‘until the evening’. But when he was not present on the second day it
necessarily raised the question as to why he was not there. And when Jonathan
admitted that he had given David permission to go to his family in Bethlehem
to feast at the family sacrifices Saul was furious. The result was that he berated
Jonathan severely and in the end threw his spear at him, and the final
consequence was that Jonathan realised that David had been right after all.
Analysis.
a And when the new moon was come, the king sat himself down to eat food.
And the king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall, and
Jonathan stood up (arose), and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was
empty (1 Samuel 20:24-25).
b Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something
has befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean” (1 Samuel 20:26).
c And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the
second day, that David’s place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son,
“Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor
today?” (1 Samuel 20:27).
d And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to
Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in
the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have
found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.’
That is why he is not come to the king’s table” (1 Samuel 20:28).
c Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You
son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not 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 ground, you will not be established,
nor your kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall
surely die” (1 Samuel 20:30-31).
b And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “For what reason
should he be put to death? What has he done?” And Saul cast his spear at him
to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew that it was determined by his
father to put David to death (1 Samuel 20:32-33).
a 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 behaved
shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame’) (1 Samuel 20:34).
Note first the inclusio in that in 1 Samuel 20:25 we find ‘and Jonathan arose’
and in verse 34 we again have ‘and Jonathan arose’, which forms a parallel
108

109. between the two verses. In ‘b’ Saul is disturbed over David’s absence because
he intends ill towards him and has been thwarted, and in the parallel he hurls
his spear at Jonathan for the same reason. In ‘c’ he asks Jonathan why David
has not come to the feast and in the parallel he commands Jonathan in anger to
go and fetch David to the feast. Central in ‘d’ is given the reason why David
has not come to the king’s table.
1 Samuel 20:24-25 (24b-25. e-Sword Note: For commentary on 1 Samuel 20:24
a, see the end of the commentary for 1 Samuel 20:23).
‘And when the new moon was come, the king sat himself down to eat food. And
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.’
When the day of the new moon came (commencing at twilight) the king sat
down to eat. The seat by the wall would be the central seat reserved for the
king, with his back to the wall and probably facing the entranceway. The
mention of Jonathan ‘arising’ forms an inclusio with 1 Samuel 20:34. There
are a number of possibilities as to its significance:
1). That Jonathan arose in order to demonstrate courtesy towards Abner, and
in order to welcome him.
2). That Jonathan arose in order to give way to Abner, possibly because he was
unhappy with what he saw in his father’s behaviour and wanted an excuse not
to sit by him.
3). That Saul asked Jonathan to give way for Abner because he wanted to
discuss with Abner plans for David’s arrest as soon as he arrived.
4). That we translate, ‘and Jonathan arose and sat down, and Abner (also sat
down), by Saul’s side’. This would tie in with 1).
In deciding which option to take we might feel that we would expect Jonathan
to sit at Saul’s right, and Abner, as commander-in-chief, at his left. This would
favour 1). and 4). On the other hand the fact that Saul later hurled his spear at
Jonathan does suggest that Jonathan had moved seats (although, of course, the
spear hurling occurred on the second day which points to a more permanent
change of seats, something which may well have annoyed Saul). This would
favour 2). and 3).
The mention of the fact that David’s place was empty heightens the tension and
prepares us for what is coming.
109

110. 25 He sat in his customary place by the wall,
opposite Jonathan, and Abner sat next to Saul,
but David's place was empty.
His seat was empty and yet he was the center of attention, and all eyes were on
that empty chair. Here is the power of absence.
CLARKE, "The king sat upon his seat - It seems that there was one table for
Saul, Jonathan, David, and Abner; Saul having the chief seat, that next to the wall. As
only four sat at this table, the absence of any one would soon be noticed.
GILL, "And the king sat upon his seat as at other times,.... Upon the seat he
usually sat on:
even upon a seat by the wall; on a couch by the side of the wall; or, as Jarchi and R.
Isaiah say, at the head of the couch by the wall, which was the most honourable place;
and Kimchi observes, it was the custom in those days to eat meat sitting on beds or
couches, see 1Sa_28:23,
and Jonathan arose; either in reverence to his father, when he came in and took his
seat, or in respect to Abner upon his coming in, being the son of Saul's uncle, and
general of the army; for though he arose, he did not depart, it is plain he sat down again,
1Sa_20:34. Kimchi thinks, that after Jonathan had sat down at the side of his father, he
arose and placed Abner there, because he would not be near his father, that if he should
be wroth with him on account of David, he might not be near him to smite him:
and Abner sat by Saul's side; according to Josephus (c) Jonathan sat at his right
hand and Abner on the left, and it was usual for the master, or principal person, to sit in
the middle; so Dido in Virgil (d). Abarbinel places them thus, Saul was at the head of the
table, and David was used to sit by him, and Jonathan by David, and Abner by Jonathan;
and now the king sat in his place, and Jonathan in his place, and Abner after him; and
David's place being empty, Jonathan was left next to his father, without any between;
wherefore he now arose from his place, and Abner sat on that side where Saul was, so
that Abner was between Jonathan and Saul:
and David's place was empty; where he used to sit at table, he not being there, and
no one taking it.
JAMISON, "the king sat upon his seat, as at other times ... by the wall —
110

111. The left-hand corner at the upper end of a room was and still is in the East, the most
honorable 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 them according to their respective
gradations of rank.
Jonathan arose — either as a mark of respect on the entrance of the king, or in
conformity with the usual Oriental custom for a son to stand in presence of his father.
HAWKER, "Verses 25-34
(25) And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the
wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul's side, and David's place was
empty. (26) Nevertheless Saul spake not anything that day: for he thought,
Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean. (27) And it
came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that
David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore
cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor today? (28) And
Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to
Bethlehem: (29) And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a
sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and
now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see
my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table. (30) Then Saul's
anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the
perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of
Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's
nakedness? (31) For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou
shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him
unto me, for he shall surely die. (32) And Jonathan answered Saul his father,
and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? (33) And
Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was
determined of his father to slay David. (34) So 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.
It should seem, that the plan between David and Jonathan for the discovery of
the real intention of Saul, was of the Lord. For, humanly speaking, had David
sat in his usual place, before Saul, he could not have escaped with his life, when
Jonathan's life became so endangered, only from Saul's disappointment. How
profitable is it to remark the watchful eye of the Lord over his people! Reader!
depend upon it, there are a thousand escapes of this kind, more or less, in the
lives of God's children, and of which they are altogether unconscious. When
we come to look over the battlements of heaven, and see all the way which the
Lord our God hath led us through the wilderness, what songs of praise will
111

112. burst forth in the view of deliverances? See that sweet promise: Isaiah 42:16.
HENRY, "David is missed from the feast on the first day, but nothing is said of him.
The king sat upon his seat, to feast upon the peace-offerings as at other times (1Sa_
20:25), and yet had his heart as full of envy and malice against David as it could hold. He
should first have been reconciled to him, and then have come and offered his gift; but,
instead of that, he hoped, at this feast, to drink the blood of David. What an abomination
was that sacrifice which was brought with such a wicked mind as this! Pro_21:27. When
the king came to take his seat Jonathan arose, in reverence to him both as a father and
as his sovereign; every one knew his place, but David's was empty. It did not use to be so.
None more content than he in attending holy duties; nor had he been absent now but
that he must have come at the peril of his life; self-preservation obliged him to withdraw.
In imminent peril present opportunities may be waived, nay, we ought not to throw
ourselves into the mouth of danger. Christ himself absconded often, till he knew that his
hour had come. But that day Saul took no notice that he missed David, but said within
himself, “Surely he is not clean, 1Sa_20:26. Some ceremonial pollution has befallen him,
which forbids him to eat of the holy things till he has washed his clothes, and bathed his
flesh in water, and been unclean until the evening.” Saul knew what conscience David
made of the law, and that he would rather keep away from the holy feast than come in
his uncleanness. Blessed be God, no uncleanness is now a restraint upon us, but what we
may by faith and repentance be washed from in the fountain opened, Psa_26:6.
COKE, "1 Samuel 20:25. And the king sat upon his seat— The Hebrews, as well as the
Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, and the first people of Italy, sat at table. See Genesis
37:25; Genesis 43:33. Proverbs 23:1. It appears however, that, after Saul's time, they
began to eat seated upon beds at low tables. Since that epocha, we find divers examples
of it in Scripture: though other instances give room to think that the women often
continued to be seated upon seats. Saul sat against the wall, which was the place of
honour, at a table made in the form of a C, which was to be placed so that the convexity
of the circle was next to the wall, and the concavity opposite to the door for the
convenience of serving. And Jonathan arose: Houbigant reads, after the Syriac, And
Jonathan arose and sat down; but Abner sat by the king's side; observing, that it is
extraordinary to find Jonathan, the king's son, standing, and Abner, his general, sitting.
ELLICOTT, "(25) David’s place was empty.—All took place as the two friends
had calculated. Saul’s seat was by the wall—then, as now, in the East the
highest place of honour was opposite the door. The exact meaning of the
phrase, “and Jonathan arose,” has been disputed. The LXX. translate here
from a different text thus: “He (Saul) went before Jonathan.” Keil speaks of
this, however, as “the senseless rendering of the Greek Version.” The sense in
which this difficult passage is understood by Abarbanel and Rashi seems on
the whole the best. Understanding that Jonathan had already seated himself
after Saul, and that David’s absence was observed, “he (Jonathan) arose and
seated Abner at Saul’s side,” that is, in the place left vacant by David’s
absence, in order that the seat next to Saul might not be empty, he himself
having taken the seat on the other side of Saul. This rendering considers
112

113. vayêshev as causative, a verb in the Hipnil conjugation, written defectively, as
in 2 Chronicles 10:2; so Lange, who also quotes Kitto as suggesting an
explanation of Saul’s expecting David’s presence at all at the new moon feast.
David, after the strange events at Naioth by Ramah, would suppose (so the
king thought) that Saul’s feelings towards him had undergone a complete
change, and that now, after the ecstasy into which Saul had fallen, he would be
once more friendly with him as aforetime.
26 Saul said nothing that day, for he thought,
"Something must have happened to David to make
him ceremonially unclean-surely he is unclean."
BARNES, "He is not clean - The new moon being a religious feast, and the
meat to be eaten being peace-offerings, no one could assist at the feast who
had any ceremonial uncleanness upon him (marginal references).
GILL, "Nevertheless, Saul spake not anything that day,.... About David's
absence, took no notice of it, said nothing about it:
for he thought something had befallen him; some impurity, some nocturnal
pollution, see Lev_15:16,
he is not clean, surely he is not clean; which he repeated in his mind for the
confirmation of it, and in contempt, and to the reproach of David; and in
this way he accounted for his absence the first day, and so was easy, it not
being lawful and fitting for an unclean person in a ceremonial sense to eat
of the peace offerings, which Saul and his family were now partaking of.
JAMISON, "he is not clean — No notice was taken of David’s absence, as he
might be laboring under some ceremonial defilement.
K&D, "1Sa_20:26
On this (first) day Saul said nothing, sc., about David's absenting himself,
“for he thought there has (something) happened to him, that he is not
clean; surely (‫י‬ ִ‫)כּ‬ he is not clean” (vid., Lev_15:16.; Deu_23:11).
113

114. COFFMAN, "Verse 26
SAUL DEMANDS A REASON FOR DAVID'S ABSENCE
"Yet Saul did not say anything that day; for he thought, "Something has
befallen him; he is not clean, surely he is not clean. But on the second day, the
morrow after the new moon, David's place was empty, and Saul said to
Jonathan his son. "Why has not the son of Jesse come to the meal, either
yesterday or today"? Jonathan answered Saul, "David earnestly asked leave of
me to go to Bethlehem; he said, `Let me go; for our family holds a sacrifice in
the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have
found favor in your eyes, let me go away, and see my brothers.' For this reason
he has not come to the king's table."
Saul had, at this time, become very suspicious and critical of his son Jonathan,
especially regarding his friendship for David. One may wonder if some tattle
tale at Saul's court, who perhaps had seen David and Jonathan together "in
the field," had told Saul of it. At any rate, Saul demanded from Jonathan a
reason for David's absence.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:26
‘Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has
befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean.” ’
But Saul’s reaction to the fact that David’s place was empty was at first simply that
because (no doubt like some others) David was ritually ‘unclean’ he had been unable to
attend. The ritual uncleanness would last until the evening. Such ritual uncleanness
could arise through a variety of reasons, and would be quite common.
27 But the next day, the second day of the month,
David's place was empty again. Then Saul said to his
son Jonathan, "Why hasn't the son of Jesse come to
the meal, either yesterday or today?"
114

115. But why would David’s absence be such a big deal to Saul? I take it that
David has not eaten many meals at Saul’s table recently. Twice already, Saul
has attempted to kill David with his spear while he was in his house. David fled
from Saul’s household and even from his own house, ending up in Ramah with
Samuel. For some period of time, David has been absent. This festive meal
must be something like Christmas is for us, a family time when family
members are expected to be present . It does not matter that David has his own
family, and they might want him to be with them. Saul expects David to be
with him, which provides him another opportunity to finish him off. If David
does not attend this meal, Saul has no idea when his next opportunity to kill
him might come. David’s absence is therefore to be a test of Saul’s intentions
toward him.
GILL, "And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the
month,.... The Targum is,"and it was on the day after it, which was the intercalation of
the second month;''when the beginning of the month was judged of by the appearance of
the moon, and there was a difficulty about that, what day it appeared on, two days were
kept for it; and Abarbinel (e) is clear for it, that two days were kept in this month; but if
this was not the case, since the remainder of peace offerings might be eaten the next day,
Lev_7:16. Saul and his guests might meet on the second day for that purpose:
that David's place was empty: on that day also:
and Saul said to Jonathan his son; who he knew was David's friend and confident,
and could give the best account of him:
wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor today;
he accounted for his not coming yesterday, because he supposed he might be under
some ceremonial uncleanness; but then that only lasted to the evening of that day; but
not coming the second day when he was clean, he inquires after him; and not owning
him for his son-in-law, by way of contempt, and to lessen him in the esteem of all at
table, he calls him the son of Jesse.
HENRY, "He is enquired for the second day, 1Sa_20:27. Saul asked Jonathan, who
he knew was his confidant, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat? He was his
own son by marriage, but he calls him in disdain, the son of Jesse. He asks for him as if
he were not pleased that he should be absent from a religious feast; and so it should be
example to masters of families to see to it that those under their charge be not absent
from the worship of God, either in public or in the family. It is a bad thing for us, except
in case of necessity, to omit an opportunity of statedly attending on God in solemn
ordinances. Thomas lost a sight of Christ by being once absent from a meeting of the
115

116. disciples. But that which displeased Saul was that hereby he missed the opportunity he
expected of doing David a mischief.
JAMISON, "on the morrow, which was the second day of the month — The
time of the moon’s appearance being uncertain - whether at midday, in the evening, or at
midnight, the festival was extended over two days. Custom, not the law, had introduced
this.
Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse —
The question was asked, as it were, casually, and with as great an air of indifference as he
could assume. And Jonathan having replied that David had asked and obtained his
permission to attend a family anniversary at Beth-lehem [Act_20:28, Act_20:29], the
pent-up passions of the king burst out in a most violent storm of rage and invective
against his son.
K&D, "1Sa_20:27-29
But on the second day, the day after the new moon (lit., the morrow after the new
moon, the second day: ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ֵ‫שּׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ is a nominative, and to be joined to ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬, and not a genitive
belonging to ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫ח‬ ַ‫,)ה‬ when David was absent from table again, Saul said to Jonathan,
“Why is the son of Jesse not come to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day?” Whereupon
Jonathan answered, as arranged with David (compare 1Sa_20:28 and 1Sa_20:29 with
1Sa_20:6). “And my brother, he hath commanded me,” i.e., ordered me to come. ‫ָה‬‫וּ‬ ִ‫צ‬ as
in Exo_6:13, and ‫י‬ ִ‫ח‬ ָ‫,א‬ the elder brother, who was then at the head of the family, and
arranged the sacrificial meal.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:27-29
On the morrow, which was the second day of the month. Hebrew, "on the
morrow of the new moon, the second day." David’s absence on the second day made Saul
aware that it was no accident, and he demands of Jonathan the reason; whereupon he
gives the excuse previously arranged, adding that it was David’s brother who had
required his attendance. The Septuagint has brothers, being offended at the singular,
because Jesse was still alive. But as the festival was not confined to Jesse’s household,
his brother might very properly be the convener, without usurping his father’s place. Let
me get away. Literally, "let me escape," "let me get off," a light, half jocose way of
speaking adopted by Jonathan, as if the matter were a mere trifle.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:27-28. Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse? — So
he calls him in contempt and scorn, to mark the meanness of his original, and
as not deigning to call him by his proper name. Neither yesterday nor to-
day — For the uncleanness that came by some accident usually lasted but for
one day. David earnestly asked leave of me — Which he, being next to the
king, it is likely, had power to grant, as appears from Saul’s demanding of him
what was become of David.
116

117. LANGE, "1 Samuel 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
(‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ ֵ‫שּׁ‬ַ‫ה‬ is Nom. with ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬, not Gen. after ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֹ‫ח‬ַ‫)ה‬ 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 1
Samuel 20:6, only adding that David was called to Bethlehem by his brother.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:27
‘And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the
second day, that David’s place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son,
“Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor
today?” ’
However, when David’s place was still empty on the second day Saul turned to
Jonathan and asked him if he could explain David’s absence on both days.
Note Saul’s contempt for David, referring to him simply as ‘the son of Jesse’
(compare Isaiah 7:4-5 of ‘the son of Remaliah’).
28 Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me
for permission to go to Bethlehem.
GILL, "And Jonathan answered Saul,.... In reply to Saul's question, and to excuse
David, he said:
David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; his own city, his native
place, where his family lived, whom he was desirous to see, and yet chose not to go
without asking leave; and as Saul was not at home, he asked leave of Jonathan, who was
next to him, and acted for him; and he was very pressing and importunate in his suit,
and therefore Jonathan could not well deny him it; and he hoped this would ben
sufficient excuse for his absence, especially when what follows should be observed/
HENRY, " Jonathan makes his excuse, 1Sa_20:28, 1Sa_20:29. 1. That he was absent
117

118. upon a good occasion, keeping the feast in another place, though not here, sent for by his
elder brother, who was now more respectful to him than he had been (1Sa_17:28), and
that he had gone to pay his respects to his relations, for the keeping up of brotherly love;
and no master would deny a servant liberty to do that in due time. He pleads, 2. That he
did not go without leave humbly asked and obtained from Jonathan, who, as his
superior officer, was proper to be applied to for it. Thus he represents David as not
wanting in any instance of respect and duty to the government.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:29-30. My brother, he hath commanded me to be
there — The eldest brother, it seems, was wont to let all the rest know that
their company was expected. Thou son of the perverse, rebellious woman —
Or rather, according to the Hebrew, Thou son of perverse rebellion; that is, a
very perverse rebel. Thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own
confusion — Made him thy friend to thy utter undoing and disgrace. For men
will conclude that thou hast no royal blood in thy veins, that thou canst so
tamely give up thy crown to so contemptible a person. The confusion of thy
mother’s nakedness — To the reproach of her having children, as if she were
an adulteress, and thou and the rest base-born, and none of you worthy to
inherit the kingdom: or rather, he thus asperses Jonathan’s very birth, as if so
degenerate a son could not be his, but must be the offspring of his mother’s
guilt, the issue of a criminal commerce with some other man.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:28
‘And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to
Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in
the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have
found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.’
That is why he is not come to the king’s table.”
Jonathan then gave the explanation that David and he had agreed on. He
informed Saul that David had sought his royal permission to absent himself
from the new moon celebration because he had been required by his elder
brother to go to the family sacrifice in Bethlehem, and wanted to go and see his
brothers, and Jonathan had agreed to it. That was why David was not at the
king’s table. There may well have been that about Jonathan’s attitude
(compare how he had moved seats) which made clear to Saul his disapproval of
what he saw that Saul was now planning, and even if not such a disapproval
may well have been read in by a paranoid Saul.
New moon celebrations would, of course, have been going on all around the
country. However, Saul would no doubt have considered that his own
118

119. requirement for David’s presence, even if not openly expressed, should take
precedence over any requirement coming from David’s elder brother. (The
fact that it came from David’s elder brother suggests that Jesse, David’s father,
was quite ill. We know from 22:3 that he was still alive). It is clear why he saw
the excuse for what it was, an attempt to forestall him. With his suspicious
mind he would not realise that it was not until the events at the actual meal
that Jonathan had become suspicious of his intentions, and that that was why
he had moved seats. He would think that Jonathan had known about his plans
beforehand.
29 He said, 'Let me go, because our family is
observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has
ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your
eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is
why he has not come to the king's table."
Jonathan embellishes the lie even more with the brother ordering David to be
there. It is a bald face lie for the sake of a friend. Friends will lie for each other
to protect them.
CLARKE, "Our family hath a sacrifice - Such sacrifices were undoubtedly
festal ones; the beasts slain for the occasion were first offered to God, and
their blood poured out before him; afterwards all that were bidden to the
feast ate of the flesh. This was a family entertainment, at the
commencement of which God was peculiarly honored.
GILL, "And he said, let me go, I pray thee, for our family hath a sacrifice in
the city,.... In the city of Bethlehem where they lived, a peace offering on
account of the new moon, and as an anniversary thanksgiving for the
mercies of the year, 1Sa_20:6; and seeing, though he was not at the feast in
one place, he observed it in another, his absence at court was the more
excusable; and the rather, since it was kept by him with his own family, in
his own city: besides, it is added:
and my brother he hath commanded me to be there; his elder brother Eliab,
whose commands, as a younger brother, he judged he ought to obey; it is
probable his father was now dead, since no mention is made of him, and his
119

120. elder brother took upon him the command of the family:
and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee,
see my brethren: he should take it as a favour to have leave to depart, and be
free for the present from waiting upon the king at court, and so have an
opportunity of seeing his brethren, for which he had a great desire; having
not seen them a long time, not even since he saw them in the camp, when he
slew Goliath:
therefore he cometh not to the king's table: this was the reason of it, at least
one reason of it, and Jonathan was not obliged to tell the whole.
ELLICOTT, " (29) Our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he
hath commanded me.—Jonathan answers the king’s question in the way
previously agreed upon between him and David. He quotes the excuse in
David’s own words.
The LXX., instead of “my brother,” has “my brothers.” It thus alters the
original, not understanding the singular “brother,” Jesse, their father,
being still alive. The brothers collectively might, the LXX. seemed to think,
have bidden David to the family sacrificial feast. Dean Payne Smith suggests
that as the ceremony was not a private family gathering, but one shared in
by the district, the “brother” (probably the eldest), likely enough, was the
convener of the absent member of the house of Jesse.
LANGE, " 1 Samuel 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” (‫ה‬ָ‫ט‬ְ‫ל‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ִ‫.)א‬ Comp. the “run” in 1 Samuel
20:6 (Bunsen).
[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 1 Samuel 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.
120

121. 30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to
him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!
Don't I know that you have sided with the son of
Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the
mother who bore you?
DAVID ROPER “The English translation does not quite bring out the force of
the Hebrew statement here. Saul is actually casting doubt on the virtue of
Jonathan's mother, saying "You're an illegitimate child and no son of mine!
Because if you were my son, you wouldn't behave this way. And the very fact
that you are behaving this way indicates that I'm not your father." So
Jonathan's friendship with David has come to the place where he has to choose
against his own father. He didn't want that; he respected and honored his
father -- not only as his father but also as his king. He didn't want any
alienation. But he knew that his father was acting out of the will of God, that
God had no plans for Saul to continue his reign, nor for him to inherit the
throne. Jonathan knew that. The issue now was whether or not he would fulfill
God's plan in David's life, no matter what it cost him. It cost him the throne, it
cost him his relationship with his father, it cost him ridicule before the court.
But Jonathan was willing to do it.
Even a good liar cannot always deceive a deceiver like Saul. Saul turns on his
own son for being a loyal friend. Your own family can turn on you when you
do what you are convinced is the will of God. He slanders his own wife, and
the only good thing about Saul is that he makes it easy to discern between the
good and the bad guys.
BARNES, "The greatest insult and most stinging reproach that can be cast
upon an Oriental is to reproach his parents or ancestors (see Job_30:8).
Saul means to intimate that Jonathan was stubborn from his mother’s
womb.
CLARKE, "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman - This clause is
121

122. variously translated and understood. The Hebrew might be translated, Son
of an unjust rebellion; that is, “Thou art a rebel against thy own father.” The
Vulgate, Fili mulieris virum ultro rapientis; “Son of the woman who, of her
own accord, forces the man.” The Septuagint is equally curious, Υἱε κορασιων
αυτομολουντων; “Son of the damsels who came of their own accord.” Were
these the meaning of the Hebrew, then the bitter reflection must refer to
some secret transaction between Saul and Jonathan’s mother; which
certainly reflects more dishonor on himself than on his brave son. Most
sarcasms bear as hard upon the speaker, as they do on him against whom
they are spoken. Abusive language always argues a mean, weak, and
malevolent heart.
GILL, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan,.... For giving David
leave to go, and for excusing him in this manner:
and he said unto him, thou son of the perverse and rebellious woman; most
of the Jewish commentators supply it as we do, but the supplement of
woman may as well be left out, and be read, "thou son of perverse rebellion"
(f); thou perverse and rebellious wretch, perverse in thy temper, and
rebellious in thy conduct; for the design of the expression is not to reproach
his mother, for which there seems no provocation, but Jonathan only; and
the next clause confirms it, which expresses a concern for his mother's
honour and credit; the Targum is,"an obstinate son, whose rebellion is
hard,''or intolerable; according to which, Abarbinel says, it may refer to
David:
do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion,
and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? The above writer
observes, that he does not say to his own confusion, because David would
not reign in his lifetime, only after his death, but to the shame of Jonathan
and his mother; to Jonathan's shame, who would be reckoned by men an
arrant fool, to be so friendly to a rival, and who in all probability would
jostle him out of the throne; and what would men say of him? that either he
was not fit to reign, or had no right to the throne, that a son-in-law took
place before him; and that his mother had played the whore, and he was no
son of Saul, having nothing of his genius, temper, and disposition in him, as
appeared by loving such his father hated; and besides, his mother would not
have the honour she expected, to be the mother of a king.
HENRY, "Saul hereupon breaks out into a most extravagant passion, and
rages like a lion disappointed of his prey. David was out of his reach, but he
falls upon Jonathan for his sake (1Sa_20:30, 1Sa_20:31), gives him base
language, not fit for a gentleman, a prince, to give to any man, especially his
own son, heir apparent to his crown, a son that served him, the greatest stay
and ornament of his family, before a great deal of company, at a feast, when
all should be in good humour, at a sacred feast, by which all irregular
passions should be mortified and subdued; yet he does in effect call him, 1.
A bastard: Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman; that is, according to
122

123. the foolish filthy language of men's brutish passion now a day, “Thou son of
a whore.” He tells him he was born to the confusion of his mother, that is,
he had given the world cause to suspect that he was not the legitimate son of
Saul, because he loved him whom Saul hated and supported him who would
be the destruction of their family. 2. A traitor: Thou son of a perverse
rebellion (so the word is), that is, “thou perverse rebel.” At other times he
reckoned no counsellor or commander that he had more trusty and well-
beloved than Jonathan; yet now in this passion he represents him as
dangerous to his crown and life. 3. A fool: Thou hast chosen the son of Jesse
for thy friend to thy own confusion, for while he lives thou shalt never be
established. Jonathan indeed did wisely and well for himself and family to
secure an interest in David, whom Heaven had destined to the throne, yet,
for this, he is branded as most impolitic. It is good taking God's people for
our people and going with those that have him with them. It will prove to
our advantage at last, however for the present it may be thought a
disparagement, and a prejudice to our secular interest. It is probable Saul
knew that David was anointed to the kingdom by the same hand that
anointed him, and then not Jonathan, but himself, was the fool, to think to
defeat the counsels of God. Yet nothing will serve him but David must die,
and Jonathan must fetch him to execution. See how ill Saul's passion looks,
and let it warn us against the indulgence of any thing like it in ourselves.
Anger is madness, and he that hates his brother is a murderer.
JAMISON, "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman — This is a
striking Oriental form of abuse. Saul was not angry with his wife; it was the
son alone, upon whom he meant, by this style of address, to discharge his
resentment. The principle on which it is founded seems to be, that to a
genuine filial instinct it is a more inexpiable offense to hear the name or
character of a parent traduced, than any personal reproach. This was,
undoubtedly, one cause of “the fierce anger” in which the high-minded
prince left the table without tasting a morsel.
K&D, "1Sa_20:30-31
Saul was greatly enraged at this, and said to Jonathan, “Son of a perverse
woman (‫ַת‬‫ו‬ֲ‫ע‬ַ‫נ‬ is a participle, Niph. fem. from ‫ָה‬‫ו‬ָ‫)ע‬ of rebellion,” - i.e., son of a
perverse and rebellious woman (an insult offered to the mother, and
therefore so much the greater to the son), hence the meaning really is,
“Thou perverse, rebellious fellow,” - “do I not know that thou hast chosen
the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and to the shame of thy mother's
nakedness?” ‫ר‬ ַ‫ח‬ ָ‫,בּ‬ to choose a person 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 as the 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 his death from his son. “Now send and fetch him to
me, for he is a child of death,” i.e., he has deserved to die, and shall be put to
123

124. death.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:30, 1Sa_20:31
Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman. Literally, "thou son of one
perverse in rebellion." In the East it is the greatest possible insult to a man
to call his mother names; but the word rendered perverse, instead of being
a feminine adjective, is probably an abstract noun, and "son of perversity of
rebellion" would mean one who was thoroughly perverse in his resistance
to his father’s will. Unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness. I.e. thy
mother will feel ashamed and disgraced at having borne such a son. He shall
surely die. Hebrew, "he is a son of death," son, being constantly used in
Hebrew to express qualities, or, as here, the fate to which a man is destined.
ELLICOTT, " (30) Saul’s anger was kindled.—As David expected, his absence
kindled into a flame the anger of Saul. Probably he had determined at that
very feast, surrounded by his own devoted friends and members of his
family, to carry out his evil designs against David’s life.
Murder was, probably enough, one of the incidents arranged for at that
banquet, but the absence of the intended victim marred the plot; besides
which, the king, too, with the cunning which the partially insane so often
display, saw through the veil of the specious excuse that David too clearly
suspected his wicked design, and purposely stayed away; nay, more, that his
own son Jonathan, the heir of his kingdom, suspected him, and openly
sympathised with his friend David, for whose pointed absence he thus
publicly apologised.
Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman.—These words, spoken in
public, in any sense were a bitter insult to the prince. Another and better
rendering has, however, been suggested. The word naăvath, rendered
perverse, instead of being a feminine adjective, is probably an abstract
noun. The translation would then run, “Thou son of perversity of rebellion,”
a common Hebraism for “a man of perverse and refractory nature;” so
Clericus, Lange, and Payne Smith. This avoids the extreme improbability
that Saul insulted his own wife, Jonathan’s mother, which, as has been
observed, contradicts the Hebrew family spirit.
The confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.—This is far from insulting
Jonathan’s mother; it is simply an Oriental mode of saying, “she will feel
ashamed at having brought such a son into the world.”
124

125. WHEDON, " 30. Son of the perverse rebellious woman — On this passage the
versions vary, but ours conveys the meaning of the Hebrew. “There are some
traces of this form of abuse, in principle, among the least refined portion of our
own population; but in the East no man is too high or too refined to be above
it. Even a son will abuse his brother by casting contumely upon his mother,
regardless of the fact that she is also his own mother, and whom, as such, he
venerates and loves. The mother herself is not held to be affronted in such
cases, but the son who hears such words applied to her is insulted, and is
meant to be insulted, beyond expiation.” — Kitto.
COFFMAN, "Verse 30
SAUL VIOLENTLY ANGRY WITH DAVID AND JONATHAN
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You
son of a perverse and rebellious woman, do I not 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 upon the earth, neither you nor
your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and fetch him to me, for he
shall surely die." Then Jonathan answered Saul his father, "Why should he be
put to death? What has he done"? But Saul cast his spear at him to smite him;
so Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death. And
Jonathan rose 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 disgraced
him."
"You son of a perverse and rebellious woman" (1 Samuel 20:30) This vile slur
cast upon Jonathan was the ancient equivalent of the vulgar present-day
insult, "You son-of-a-bitch." "These words possibly meant that Jonathan was
born of a prostitute."[11] From the most ancient times, it has been customary
to revile a person by slandering or belittling his ancestors. It became perfectly
clear to all present, when Saul thus addressed Jonathan, that Saul would not
only kill David if possible, but anyone else who stood between him and the
achievement of his fiendish purpose.
"The shame of your mother's nakedness" (1 Samuel 20:30). In these words,
Saul recognized the prevalent Oriental custom of those times that gave all of a
deposed king's wives and concubines to his successor. Saul meant by this that
Jonathan's mother, "Would become the wife of the new king."[12] Second
Samuel has this statement from the prophet Nathan in his rebuke of David for
his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband:
"Thus saith the Lord ... I anointed you king ... I delivered you from Saul ... I
gave you your masters house ... and your master's wives into your bosom ..." (2
Samuel 12:8).
125

126. "Neither you nor your kingdom shall be established" (1 Samuel 20:31). From
this it is clear that Saul did not believe the word of the prophet Samuel who
had told him long previously that his kingdom would not continue. In this
unbelief of God's prophet, the sin of Saul was approaching its climax. He was
in this purpose the avowed enemy, not only of David, but of God Himself. He
would continue to be king, so he thought, in spite of the will of God; and here it
appears that he expected Jonathan to succeed him and continue his dynasty.
ROE, "Saul has seen right through Jonathan's deception and also through
David's deception. He has literally called Jonathan a bastard in front of the
whole court. He has greatly insulted him and caused him to "lose face," a
grievous humiliation in an Oriental culture. You would think that would
generate a deep resentment in Jonathan, but it does not. Jonathan is a very
godly man, and he loves his father. He loves him no matter what he is or what
he does. He accepts him and loves him as he is. We will see shortly that this has
a tremendous effect on David.
Do you see the tragedy here? When we left Chapter 19, harmony had been
restored between Saul, David and Jonathan. David was back in court and
everyone was honoring everyone. Now what do we have? Saul is angry with
both Jonathan and David, and he is not just angry, he is enraged. Who is
Jonathan angry with? His father, and he also is enraged. How about David?
He is angry with Saul and probably a little put out with Jonathan because he
didn't pull off this beautiful scheme. So now how does Saul feel toward David
in contrast to Chapter 19 when he welcomed him back into court? He is
hardened now. He is really hardened against David. This little trick to con Saul
into bringing David back into court has had exactly the opposite effect, and
Saul is now irrevocably committed to slaying David.
Contrary to how it may look, Saul is not a monster. Later on in his pursuit of
David, when David twice has an opportunity to kill him but does not, he
responds with great remorse and guilt. He confesses his wrong attitude, calls
David righteous, tells him he will be king of Israel and then goes on home.
Now, the remorse does not last because he is driven by his paranoia, but he is
not a monster.
What kind of a night do you think Saul had [quoting the first phrase of verse
35], "Now it came about in the morning?" He had just called his beloved son a
bastard in front of the whole court and had even tried to kill him. This was the
son whose love and acceptance he desperately needed because he had rejected
his God? He must have had one agonizing night of guilt and remorse and was
not about to put a tail on Jonathan. All he undoubtedly wanted was to regain
Jonathan's love and acceptance.
But what was Jonathan's attitude toward his father? He had just been publicly
dishonored, his beloved brother of the covenant dishonored and his mother
insulted with the worst of Oriental insults and all without reason? His attitude
was one of rebellion, but it was also one of suspicion. Twice Saul had used his
126

127. daughters to try to eliminate David. Why not his son? So Jonathan succumbs
to more deceit. He persuades David to hide in the field as he shoots arrows. If
he says to the lad with him, "Come here get the arrows in front of you," his
signal would mean, "Come back, David. There is safety for you." But if he
shoots his arrows past the lad and says, "Go get the arrows." That means,
"Go, David. Get out of town." This way he planned to fool the lad with him,
thinking he was Saul's informant. Since no one else would be in the field, they
would not have had to go through all this to hide their plot from anyone but
the little child. Jonathan's mind was so mixed up that he did not trust his
father nor did he have any concern for guilt or remorse his father might be
experiencing.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:30-31
‘Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You
son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not 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 ground, you will not be established,
nor your kingship. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall
surely die.” ’
As a result of Jonathan’s words Saul was so filled with rage that he turned on
his son. To insult a man’s mother in front of him was to have the intention of
paying him the greatest insult possible, but the words were intended to
describe Jonathan (as being what his mother was), not his mother. He was
describing him as going against nature and as rebelling against him. In a sense,
of course, both were true. He was supporting David against his father’s
perverseness, and he was going against Saul’s will. But he was doing it because
he wanted to do what was right. And taking up such a position often means
being seen as perverse and rebellious by a sinful world.
Furthermore Saul emphasised that he was bringing shame on himself by
favouring David, and shame on his mother’s sufferings when she bore him.
And in Saul’s eyes the reason that he was doing this was because by his actions
he was risking losing the kingship. For to Saul keeping hold of the kingship
was everything. Thus if losing the kingship would really have been a disgrace
and a shame then Saul was right. But he only felt like that because he had
become obsessed with his kingship. To him nothing else mattered. What he was
determined to do was show Samuel that he was wrong, and that he could hold
on to his kingship both for himself and his family. He was overlooking the fact
that it was he who had caused Jonathan to lose the kingship by his own
disobedience to YHWH (1 Samuel 13:13-14). To Jonathan, on the other hand,
there was no shame in what he was doing, for he was doing it for the right
127

128. reason, and that was because he considered that David would make the better
king. Thus far from bringing shame on his mother he was ennobling her,
because he was demonstrating that she had brought him up with the right
values. Saul, however, in his obsession with kingship, could not see that.
It was true, of course, that as long as David lived Jonathan would not be
established in his kingship, but Jonathan recognised that that was because
David was the chosen of YHWH, not because of any lack in himself. And
Jonathan had been big enough a man to recognise the fact and accept it. To
Saul, however, with his obsession with the kingship, no disaster could have
been greater. And so he demanded that Jonathan bring David to him that he
might die.
31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth,
neither you nor your kingdom will be established.
Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"
Saul is saying that you are betraying your own future for you will never be
king as long as David lives. Saul is right, but Jonathan knows this and accepts
it. Saul was determined that David would never be king, and death was the
only way to do this. But nothing could prevent the will of God. It is like the
story of the Methodist church in North Carolina who wanted to build on a
certain lot but the owner would not sell. They built on a less attractive place
that was really a poor location. Then a flood came and actually lifted the
church off its foundation and floated it away. People got ropes and tried to
stop it, but it floated to the open cite where they wanted it and settled down
there. The owner saw the handiwork of God and gave the land to the church.
God works in strange ways, but He gets His will done one way or the other.
GILL, "For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not
be established, nor thy kingdom,.... He would not, though heir to the crown,
be sure of it; it would be precarious to him, he would be in great danger of
being deprived of it on the death of his father; and therefore it would be his
highest wisdom to deliver David up to be slain, as it was his greatest folly to
protect him, and provide for his satiety:
128

129. wherefore now send and fetch him unto me; send to Bethlehem for him to
come to court directly:
for he shall surely die; or he is "the son of death" (g); guilty of death, as the
Targum, deserves to die, and Saul was determined upon his death if
possible.
WHEDON, "31. As long as the son of Jesse liveth… thou shalt not be
established — Here for the first time Saul reveals the reason of his wrath
towards David; for though the probability of David’s attaining the throne may
have been at other times talked over between himself and Jonathan, and
others, (see note on 1 Samuel 20:13,) yet he seems to have been careful hitherto
of expressing his own feelings on the subject.
COKE, "1 Samuel 20:31. As long as the son of Jesse liveth, &c.— But how did
Saul know, that, as long as the son of Jesse lived, Jonathan should not be
established, nor his kingdom? If it was all jealousy and surmise, his ordering
him to be brought to be put to death was unreasonable and wicked, and can be
justified upon no principles of justice and humanity. If Saul knew that as
himself was rejected, David was really anointed to succeed him by Samuel, at
God's command, his ordering him to be put to death was both impertinent and
wicked: for he knew that David had then as good a right to succeed him, in
preference to Jonathan, as he himself had of obtaining the throne in preference
to every other man of Israel; and, therefore, that he ought not to destroy the
man whom God had appointed to succeed him, and with all his endeavours
would not be able to do it if God had determined to make him captain over
Israel. So that in whatever view we consider this reply of Saul, fetch him,—for
he shall surely die, it will appear to be absolutely improper, and that it could
proceed from nothing but the incurable inveteracy of a disordered mind,
agitated by ambition, jealousy, and an implacable desire of revenge. He shall
surely die, is, in the Hebrew ‫בןאּמות‬ ‫הוא‬ ben muvet hu, he is the son of death; a
Hebrew form of speaking, which denotes either a man worthy of death, or
devoted to death.
ELLICOTT, " (31) Thou shalt not be established.—Here the king gives
expression to the thought which was ever torturing that poor diseased brain of
his—David, his own kind physician, his faithful soldier, and his son’s dearest
friend and loved companion, was plotting basely against that master for whom
he had done so much, and the son whom he loved so well.
Saul, in his blind fury, goes on to betray his fell purpose when he exclaims, “he
shall surely die.” His command, “Send and fetch him unto me,” tells us that the
murder had been pre-arranged to take place at the feast. Doubtless those
rough soldier chiefs sitting round the royal table would be ready at any
129

130. moment to carry into effect their master’s savage behest.
32 "Why should he be put to death? What has he
done?" Jonathan asked his father.
GILL, "And Jonathan answered Saul his, father, and said unto him,....
Making no answer to the charges of perverseness, rebellion, and folly
brought against himself, which he bore with patience, but could not bear to
hear his dear friend spoken against, and as worthy of death; and therefore
in answer to that says:
wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? has he attempted to take
away thy life? to deprive thee of thy crown? to settle himself upon the
throne? what overt act of treason has he been guilty of; that he should die?
on the contrary, has he not done many things worthy of immortal honour,
for the good of the nation, and the glory of thy reign? and if God has
determined the kingdom for him, and anointed him to it, what blame can be
laid upon him? nay, should he not be the rather respected and honoured?
HENRY, "Jonathan is sorely grieved and put into disorder by his
father's barbarous passion, and the more because he had hoped better
things, 1Sa_20:2. He was troubled for his father, that he should be such
a brute, troubled for his friend, whom he knew to be a friend of God,
that he should be so basely abused; he was grieved for David (1Sa_
20:34), and troubled for himself too, because his father had done him
shame, and, though most unjustly, yet he must submit to it. One would
pity Jonathan to see how he was put, 1. Into the peril of sin. Much ado
that wise and good man had to keep his temper, upon such a
provocation as this. His father's reflections upon himself made no
return to; it becomes inferiors to bear with meekness and silence the
contempts put upon them in wrath and passion. When thou art the
anvil lie thou still. But his dooming David to die he could not bear: to
that he replied with some heat (1Sa_20:32), Wherefore shall he be
slain? What has he done? Generous spirits can much more easily bear
to be abused themselves than to hear their friends abused.
K&D, "1Sa_20:32-34
When Jonathan replied, “My father, why shall he die? what has he
done?” Saul was so enraged that he hurled his javelin at Jonathan (cf. 1Sa_
18:11). Thus Jonathan saw that his father had firmly resolved to put David to
death, and rose up from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat that day;
for he was grieved concerning David, because his father had done him
130

131. shame. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ָ‫כּ‬ is a substantive in the sense of unalterable resolution, like the
verb in 1Sa_20:9. ‫י‬ ִ‫נ‬ ֵ‫שּׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֹ‫ח‬ ַ‫ם־ה‬ ‫י‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ on the second day of the new moon or
month.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:32-34
When Jonathan pleaded mildly for his friend, Saul did not east, but
"brandished" (see on 1Sa_18:11) his javelin at him, threatening to smite
him. This fierce behaviour of his father filled Jonathan also with anger, and
he arose, refused to partake of the meal, and went away in wrath. His
indignation was roused not merely at his father having thus brandished his
javelin in his face, for he was sitting close to Saul, but because he had cast
shameful aspersions upon David in saying that he was a rebel, and deserved
death.
ELLICOTT, "(32) And Jonathan answered.—Jonathan, remembering the
effect of his quiet, earnest remonstrance on a previous occasion, again tried
to deprecate his father’s unreasoning jealous anger, but this time to no
purpose. A paroxysm of madness seized Saul, and he grasped the long spear
leaning by his side, and with hate and fury in his eye raised the great war
weapon to strike down his son.
33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then
Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill
David.
If he is willing to kill me for standing up to David, then it seems logical to
conclude that he probably does want to kill David. Jonathan finally got the
point, but fortunately it was not in the heart or stomach. It was sad and he felt
bad, but he knew his dad was mad enough to kill David. He almost died for his
friend by going against his father.
GILL, "And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him,.... So provoked to wrath
was he by what he said. It seems by this that Saul always had a javelin or
spear in his hand, which is to be accounted for by the custom of those times;
in other countries, as well as in this, the kings used to carry spears in their
131

132. hands instead of sceptres, and which they used as such; so Justin (h),
speaking of the times of Romulus, says, that kings in those times had spears,
as an ensign of royalty, which the Greeks call sceptres; and so the Greeks
called sceptres spears (i):
whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David;
for since he attempted to smite him, his own son, for speaking on his behalf,
it might be well concluded, that such was his settled wrath and malice, that
he would if possible kill David, could he get him into his hands.
HENRY, "Into the peril of death. Saul was now so outrageous that he
threw his javelin at Jonathan, 1Sa_20:33. He seemed to be in great care
(1Sa_20:31) than Jonathan should be established in his kingdom, and yet
now he himself aims at his life. What fools, what savage beasts and worse
does anger make men! How necessary it is to put a hook in its nose and a
bridle in its jaws! Jonathan was fully satisfied that evil was determined
against David, which put him out of frame exceedingly: he rose from table,
thinking it high time when his life was struck at, and would eat no meat, for
they were not to eat of the holy things in their mourning. All the guests, we
may suppose, were discomposed, and the mirth of the feast was spoiled. He
that is cruel troubles his own flesh, Pro_11:17.
JAMISON, "Saul cast a javelin at him — This is a sad proof of the maniacal
frenzy into which the unhappy monarch was transported.
When Saul Slings His Spear, Jonathan Gets the Point
This is a sad chapter in the lives of Saul, Jonathan and David. It
becomes abundantly clear that Saul is intent on killing David, and that he will
even kill his own son if he gets in the way of Saul’s attempts. It is a significant
turning point in the relationship between David and Jonathan and between
David and Saul. It is the occasion for a confirmation of the covenant between
David and Jonathan and also for a very sad parting. Yet there are some bright
spots in this gloomy chapter, and some very important lessons for Christians
today to learn from these inspired words.
Saul's angry reaction betrayed his intention to kill David, and further
alienated his son. When Jonathan again tried to speak in David's defense, Saul
hurled his spear at Jonathan as well.
There is a warning in this. When you come to the defense of the righteous, the
same being thrown at them will begin to be thrown at you. The same
accusations, the same threatenings, will be directed towards you as well. Jesus
warned us,
John 15:19-20 “...Because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the
world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you,
132

133. ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also
persecute you..."
Whether you are standing by a righteous man or standing for a righteous
cause, the enemies of righteousness will immediately perceive you as a target as
well.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:33-34. Saul cast a javelin to smite him — Saul seemed
a moment before to be in great care, that Jonathan should be established in his
kingdom: and now he himself aims at his life! What fools, what worse than
savage beasts, does anger make men! Because — Or, and because, &c., for this
seems to be a second cause of his grief; his father had done him shame — That
is, had done shame, not to David, but Jonathan, by giving him such rough
words, and throwing a javelin at him. It may, however, be understood of his
father’s speaking so contemptuously of David.
WHEDON, "33. Jonathan knew that it was determined… to slay David — He
had before been disposed to attribute his father’s acts of violence towards
David to his madness, and the demon that at times possessed him; but now he
is convinced that David’s suspicions of his bloody design (1 Samuel 20:3) are
well founded, and he arose from the table in a wild tumult of passions, and the
next morning, true to his word, he went forth to bid David fly.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:33
‘And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew
that it was determined by his father to put David to death.’
This reply, to which he had no genuine answer, took Saul’s fury beyond
bounds, and raising the ceremonial javelin that he carried as an emblem of his
kingship, he hurled it at his son. As we have seen, Saul, as a result of his illness,
which kept on interfering with his rational thinking, had got into the habit of
expressing his fury precisely in this way when he was over-excited (1 Samuel
18:11; 1 Samuel 19:10), and he had, in fact, no doubt done it to a number of
people when they had annoyed him when he was in one of his bad periods. It
was not a genuine attempt to kill them, except perhaps in 1 Samuel 19:10, but
it did put the person in danger nonetheless. Rather it meant that they had to be
sharp in their reactions, which would be expected of courtiers in a military
court. And as a result of Saul’s response, Jonathan, who normally had a close
relationship with his father, knew, both from this act, and from Saul’s words,
that it really did mean that Saul was determined to kill David. Now he could be
in no doubt about it. It was clear that his father had gone beyond all reasoning.
133

134. Some have questioned whether Saul would have thrown his javelin at his own
son, but people who have Saul’s illness do tend to see enemies, especially, when
they displease them, in those closest to them, especially when they seem to be
acting against what they think is in their best interests. Thus in that moment he
saw Jonathan as the one who was trying to thwart him and demonstrated what
he thought by his action. For those who have experience of people with such an
illness this would come as no surprise at all.
34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on
that second day of the month he did not eat, because
he was grieved at his father's shameful treatment of
David.
It is not surprising that he would leave the table after dad tried to make him
one of the entrees by pinning him to the wall. There is a valid time to get angry
and leave the table. It kills your appetite when someone at the table is throwing
a spear at you.
CLARKE, "Jonathan arose - in fierce anger - We should probably
understand this rather of Jonathan’s grief than of his anger, the latter
clause explaining the former: for he was grieved for David. He was grieved
for his father - he was grieved for his friend.
GILL, "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger,.... Resenting his
father's attempt to smite him, and his resolution to slay David:
and did eat no meat the second day of the month; not then at that meal he
was just sat down to, nor at another time that day, his stomach was so full
through indignation at his father, and grief for his friend David; and
besides, being a mourner on the above accounts, he might not eat of the
sacrifices:
for he was grieved for David; that his death should be determined upon by
his father, and he in so much danger of it; as also that he himself must be
parted from and lose so dear a friend, which was one reason he ate no meat
134

135. that day: and another follows:
because his father had done him shame; the copulative "and" being
wanting; and this he did by calling him a perverse and rebellious son, and
representing him as an arrant fool, and particularly by casting a javelin at
him to smite him.
ELLICOTT, "(34) So Jonathan arose.—“In fierce anger,” so runs the too true
record. The son of Saul left the presence, and appeared no more at that fatal
feast. The hot anger was stirred up, first, no doubt, by the terrible insult
offered him, the prince and heir to the throne, before the assembled great
ones of Israel. The great spear uplifted to strike, following the harsh and
bitter words spoken, was an act not likely soon to be forgotten by the
spectators. And secondly, by the determined and relentless enmity of Saul
against David, of whose stainless integrity and perfect loyalty Jonathan was
firmly convinced. The bitter wrong done to David his friend no doubt
affected Jonathan most.
LANGE, " 1 Samuel 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,[FN54] because his father had done him shame [that Isaiah, 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?
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:34
‘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 behaved shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame’).’
The recognition of his father’s attitude filled him with anger, and as we have
seen he was not a man to be easily angered. Rising from the table he refused
any food, seeking to demonstrate by that fact that in his view there was at
present nothing to be thankful about. He was expressing as openly as he
dared his displeasure at what Saul was doing. For he was grieved for David,
and for the shameful way in which Saul was behaving towards him.
We note from all this the writer’s intention, both to emphasise David’s
innocence, and to emphasise the fact that YHWH had destined him for the
kingship. Although it was not yet openly known, he wanted his readers to
know continually that David was the Lord’s Anointed and was now the one
on whom was the Spirit of YHWH.
135

136. 35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for
his meeting with David. He had a small boy with
him,
GILL, "And it came to pass in the morning:,.... The next morning, the
morning of the third day of the month:
that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David; he
went to the place in the field, or near it, where David hid himself, and at the
time agreed between them; which, Abarbinel says, was the time the nobles
agreed on for walking, and motion, and for hunting, and casting of arrows,
so that Jonathan could go forth without suspicion:
and a little lad with him; to carry his bow and arrows, and fetch his arrows
when cast.
JAMISON, "Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed — or,
“at the place appointed.”
K&D, "The next morning Jonathan made David acquainted with what had
occurred, by means of the sign agreed upon with David. The account of this,
and of the meeting between Jonathan and David which followed, is given
very concisely, only the main points being touched upon. In the morning
(after what had occurred) Jonathan went to the field, ‫ד‬ ִ‫ו‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ ְ‫,ל‬ either “at
the time agreed upon with David,” or “to the meeting with David,” or
perhaps better still, “according to the appointment (agreement) with
David,” and a small boy with him.
PULPIT, "1Sa_20:35-38
The next morning Jonathan went out into the field, not at the time, but "to
the place" appointed, taking with him a little lad, as less likely to suspect a
reason. Having shot at the mark, he sends him to pick up the arrows, and as
he runs to do so he shoots one beyond him, and, calling aloud, gives David
the sign that there was no hope. To keep the boy’s attention engaged he
gives him hurried commands—Make speed, haste, stay not. Instead of the
arrows the written text has "Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrow," i.e. that
136

137. one especially which Jonathan had shot beyond him, and to which his rapid
commands referred.
HAWKER, "Verses 35-40
(35) ¶ And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the
field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. (36) And he
said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad
ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. (37) And when the lad was come to the
place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad,
and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee? (38) And Jonathan cried after the
lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the
arrows, and came to his master. (39) But the lad knew not anything: only
Jonathan and David knew the matter. (40) And Jonathan gave his artillery
unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.
I cannot help remarking on these verses, how many times the Lord makes
men, like this lad, the unconscious instruments of working after the counsel
of his will. What a glorious instance of this kind, is that of the Jews
crucifying the Lord Jesus. Him (saith Peter in his inspired Sermon) being
delivered, by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have
taken, and by wicked hands, have crucified and slain. Acts 2:23.
COFFMAN, "Verse 35
JONATHAN SIGNALS THE BAD NEWS TO DAVID
"In the morning Jonathan went out into the field to the appointment with
David, and with him a little lad. And he said to his lad, "Run and find the
arrows which I shoot." As the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. And
when the lad came to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot,
Jonathan called after the lad and said, "Is not the arrow beyond you"? And
Jonathan called after the lad, "Hurry, make haste, stay not." So Jonathan's
lad gathered up the arrows and came to his master. But the lad knew nothing;
only Jonathan and David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave his weapons to
the lad, and said to him, "Go and carry them to the city." And as soon as the
lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the
ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another and wept with
one another, until David recovered himself. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go
in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord,
saying, `The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants
and your descendants, forever.'" And he rose and departed; and Jonathan
went into the city."
This episode confirmed the status of David as an outlaw, to be hunted down
137

138. and destroyed like a ravenous beast, provided that Saul, with all of the
resources of the kingdom of Israel at his disposal, could successfully achieve it.
The rest of First Samuel is devoted to the record of how God protected and
preserved David from the myriad dangers that confronted him.
This final meeting of David and Jonathan is sad indeed.
"David rose from ... the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground" (1
Samuel 20:41). We cannot suppose that this final farewell of these two noble
men took place in the open field. After the lad had gone, Jonathan no doubt
went to the hiding place where he knew David was waiting; and there, in the
safe security of that hiding place, these tearful actions occurred. David's falling
upon his face and his repeated bowing down before Jonathan were David's
way of extending his thanks and honor to Jonathan for saving his life. In this,
he also honored Jonathan as the Crown Prince of Israel and the heir-apparent
of the throne.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:35-42. 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.
1 Samuel 20:35. The following morning Jonathan went to the field to meet
David at the appointed place (‫דּ׳‬ ‫ד‬ֵ‫מוֹﬠ‬ְ‫,)ל‬ 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.).
PETT, "Verses 35-42
Jonathan Bids Farewell To David (1 Samuel 20:35-42).
Recognising that there was now no alternative open to them Jonathan made his way to his
rendezvous with David at the time appointed, taking with him his bow and arrows, and a
young lad as his servant, in order to give the impression that he was simply going out for
some target practise. And there he bade farewell to David, with a reminder of the covenant
that was between them. It was the last time they would meet face to face.
Analysis.
a And it came about that in the morning Jonathan went out into the countryside at the time
appointed with David, and a little lad with him (1 Samuel 20:35).
b And he said to his lad, “Run, find now the arrows which I shoot.” And as the lad ran, he
shot an arrow beyond him. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which
Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, “Is not the arrow beyond you?”
(1 Samuel 20:36-37).
c And Jonathan cried after the lad, “Make speed, hurry, do not stop.” And Jonathan’s lad
138

139. gathered up the arrows, and came to his master (1 Samuel 20:38).
d But the lad did not know anything. Only Jonathan and David knew the matter (1 Samuel
20:39).
c And Jonathan gave his weapons to his lad, and said to him, “Go, carry them to the city.”
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on
his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times, and they kissed one another, and
wept one with another, until David exceeded (wept the more profusely) (1 Samuel
20:40-41).
b And Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the
name of YHWH, saying, “YHWH shall be between me and you, and between my seed and
your seed, for ever” (1 Samuel 20:42 a).
a And he arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city (1 Samuel 20:42 b).
Note that in ‘a’ Jonathan went into the countryside, and in the parallel he returned to the
city. In ‘b’ Jonathan indicates firmly by his arrows that David is to depart, and in the
parallel he tells him to go in peace. In ‘c’ the lad gathers up the arrows and comes to his
master, and in the parallel he takes his weapons into the city. Centrally in ‘d’ the lad knows
nothing about the matter. Only Jonathan and David knew.
1 Samuel 20:35
‘And it came about that in the morning Jonathan went out into the countryside at the time
appointed with David, and a little lad with him.’
At the time which Jonathan had appointed for his rendezvous with David he went out into
the countryside. He took with him his bow and arrows, and a servant lad to gather up the
arrows. He was seeking to give the impression that he was going out for target practise so
that no one would suspect his real motive.
36 and he said to the boy, "Run and find the arrows I
shoot." As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond
him.
GILL, "And he said unto his lad, run, find out now the arrows which I
shoot,.... He no doubt told him the mark which he should shoot at, the stone
Ezel, and bid him look out about that for them:
and as the lad ran; before he had got to the mark:
139

140. he shot an arrow beyond him: or it; beyond the lad, or beyond the mark he
shot at; purposely shooting with great strength, that he might exceed, and
thereby give notice to David how things stood, which was the sign agreed on.
JAMISON, "he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I
shoot — The direction given aloud to the attendant was the signal
preconcerted with David. It implied danger.
k&d, "1Sa_20:36
To the latter he said, namely as soon as they had come to the field, Run,
get the arrows which I shoot. The boy ran, and he shot off the arrows, “to go
out beyond him,” i.e., so that the arrows flew farther than the boy had run.
The form ‫י‬ ִ‫צ‬ ֵ‫ח‬ for ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ח‬ only occurs in connection with disjunctive accents;
beside the present chapter (1Sa_20:36, 1Sa_20:37, 1Sa_20:38, Chethibh) we
find it again in 2Ki_9:24. The singular is used here with indefinite
generality, as the historian did not consider it necessary to mention
expressly, after what he had previously written, that Jonathan shot off three
arrows one after another.
ELLICOTT, "(36) He shot an arrow beyond him.—This was the sign agreed
on if all was over for David at the court of Saul. Expositors are in a little
difficulty, though, here, as only one arrow is mentioned, whereas “three”
had to be shot according to the terms of the understanding. We cannot
imagine, as some have suggested, that “Jonathan shortened the affair, and
shot only once, considering that there was danger in delay,” and that every
moment was of consequence; had there been such need of haste, the parting
scene would have been cut even shorter. It is better, with Keil, to assume
that the “singular” here stands in an indefinite general way, the author not
thinking it needful, after what he had before said, to state that Jonathan
shot three arrows one after another.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 20:36. The narration is evidently abridged. Jonathan says to the
servant: Bring the arrows. This plural answers to the agreement in 1 Samuel 20:20 sq,
which seems to be contradicted by the following statement that Jonathan shot only one
arrow (‫י‬ ִ‫צ‬ ֵֽ‫ח‬ is ancient unshortened Sing. for later ‫ץ‬ֵ‫,ח‬ as in 1 Samuel 38-20:37 ; 2 Kings 9:24;
see Ew, § 186, 2 e). “To send it beyond him,” so that the arrow went further than the
servant had run.
37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathan's
arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him,
140

141. "Isn't the arrow beyond you?"
GILL, "And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which
Jonathan had shot,.... To the mark which he told him he should shoot at,
and whereabout he might expect to find the arrow:
Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, is not the arrow beyond thee? he
cried with a loud voice and said this, not so much that the lad might hear
him, but that David, who lay hid near the place, might hear him; so that if
they had no opportunity of seeing and conversing with each other through
any person going by at that time, David might know by this sign that evil was
determined against him, and must flee for his life; the Syriac and Vulgate
Latin versions read, "behold, the arrow is beyond thee"; so Noldius (k).
HENRY, "Here is, 1. Jonathan's faithful performance of his promise to give
David notice of the success of his dangerous experiment. He went at the
time and to the place appointed (1Sa_20:35), within sight of which he knew
David lay hid, sent his footboy to fetch his arrows, which he would shoot at
random (1Sa_20:36), and gave David the fatal signal by shooting an arrow
beyond the lad (1Sa_20:37): Is not the arrow beyond thee? That word
[beyond] David knew the meaning of better than the lad. Jonathan
dismissed the lad, who knew nothing of the matter, and, finding the coast
clear and no danger of a discovery, he presumed upon one minute's
personal conversation with David after he had bidden him flee for his life. 2.
The most sorrowful parting of these two friends, who, for aught that
appears, never came together again but once, and that was by stealth in a
wood, 1Sa_23:16. (1.) David addressed himself to Jonathan with the
reverence of a servant rather than the freedom of a friend: He fell on his
face to the ground, and bowed himself three times, as one deeply sensible of
his obligations to him for the good services he had done him.
HENRY, "1Sa_20:37-39
When the boy came to the place of the shot arrow (i.e., to the place to
which the arrow had flown), Jonathan called after him, “See, the arrow is
(lies) away from thee, farther off;” and again, “Quickly, haste, do not 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 Chethibh ‫י‬ ִ‫צ‬ ֵ‫ח‬ ַ‫ה‬ is evidently the
original reading, and the singular is to be understood as in 1Sa_20:37; the
Keri ‫ים‬ ִ‫צּ‬ ִ‫ח‬ ַ‫ה‬ is an emendation, according to the meaning of the words. The
writer here introduces the remark in 1Sa_20:39, that the boy knew nothing
of what had been arranged between Jonathan and David.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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
141

142. question instead of direct discourse (as in 1 Samuel 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 Isaiah, bringing the arrow.
While in 1 Samuel 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.”
38 Then he shouted, "Hurry! Go quickly! Don't
stop!" The boy picked up the arrow and returned to
his master.
There was a hidden message behind the external words and David got a
message that others would not get.
CLARKE, "Make speed, haste, stay not - Though these words appear to be
addressed to the lad, yet they were spoken to David, indicating that his life
was at stake, and only a prompt flight could save him.
GILL, "And Jonathan cried after the lad, make speed, haste, stay not,.... But
bring the arrows to him directly, that he might dismiss him; for, observing
that no man was passing by, he was desirous of embracing the opportunity
for a few minutes to have an interview with David alone before he fled:
and Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows; for though the textual reading is
singular, the marginal is plural, to show, as Kimchi observes, that he cast
three arrows, as he said he would, 1Sa_20:20;
and came to his master; with them.
ELLICOTT, "(38) Make speed, haste, stay not.—Although Jonathan, of
142

143. course, trusted to a certain extent the youth (probably an armour-bearer)
who was with him, still he hurried this attendant away, that he might not
see David, who was close by in hiding, and who, after the sign, would
presently appear in sight. The next clause (1 Samuel 20:39) expressly tells
us how this meeting was unknown and unwitnessed. The youth was sent to
the city that Jonathan might be alone once more with David.
39 (The boy knew nothing of all this; only Jonathan
and David knew.)
GILL, "But the lad knew not anything,.... What was meant by shooting the arrows,
and by shooting them beyond where he was, and by bidding him make haste to bring
them:
only Jonathan and David knew the matter; what was signified by them, those
being signs agreed upon between them.
40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and
said, "Go, carry them back to town."
CLARKE, "Jonathan gave his artillery - I believe this to be the only place
in our language where the word artillery is not applied to cannon or
ordnance. The original (‫כלי‬ keley) signifies simply instruments, and here
means the bow, quiver, and arrows.
GILL, "And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad,.... "His vessels" (l) or
instruments; his arms, as the Targum, his quiver, bow, and arrows:
and said unto him, go, carry them to the city; to Gibeah, to Jonathan's
house, or to his apartments at court there.
JAMISON, "Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad — that is, his missive
weapons. The French word artillerie, signifies “archery.” The term is still
143

144. used in England, in the designation of the “artillery company of London,”
the association of archers, though they have long disused bows and arrows.
Jonathan’s boy being dispatched out of the way, the friends enjoyed the
satisfaction of a final meeting.
K&D, "1Sa_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 converse with David for
a few seconds after his departure, and take leave of him unobserved.
41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the
south side of the stone and bowed down before
Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground.
Then they kissed each other and wept together-but
David wept the most.
BARNES, "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 Septuagint in both places has “argab,” a word meaning a “heap of
stones.” If this be 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.
Bowed himself three times - In token, doubtless, of his unshaken loyalty to
Jonathan as the son of his king, as well as his friend; and in
acknowledgment of Jonathan’s power to kill him if he saw fit. (Compare
Gen_33:3).
David exceeded - His affection for Jonathan, coupled with his sense of
Saul’s injustice and his own injured innocence, fully accounts for his strong
emotion.
CLARKE, "Until David exceeded - David’s distress must, in the nature of
things, be the greatest. Besides his friend Jonathan, whom he was now
about to lose for ever, he lost his wife, relatives, country; and, what was
most afflictive, the altars of his God, and the ordinances of religion.
Saul saw David’s growing popularity, and was convinced of his own
maladministration. He did not humble himself before God, and therefore
144

145. became a prey to envy, pride, jealousy, cruelty, and every other malevolent
temper. From him David had every thing to fear, and therefore he thought it
was safer to yield to the storm, than attempt to brave it; though he could
have even raised a very powerful party in Israel, had he used the means
which were so much in his power. But as he neither sought not affected the
kingdom, he left it to the providence of God to bring him in by such means,
at such a way, and in such a time, as was most suited to his godly wisdom.
He that believeth shall not make haste: God’s way and time are ever the
best; and he who, even in God’s way, runs before he is sent, runs at random;
runs without light, and without Divine strength.
Feeble, therefore, must be his own might, his own counsel, and his own
wisdom: though he encompass himself with his own sparks yet this hath he
at the Lord’s hand - he shalt lie down in sorrow.
GILL, "And as soon as the lad was gone,.... Which David could observe from
his lurking place:
David arose out of a place toward the south; to the south of the field in
which he was hid, or to the south of the stone Ezel, near which he was; and
so the Targum,"and David arose from the side of the stone Atha, which was
towards the south;''Jonathan shooting his arrows to the north of it, lest the
lad should have discovered David when he ran for them: and fell on his face
to the ground; in reverence of Jonathan, as the son of a king, and in respect
to him as his friend, who had so faithfully served him, and was so concerned
to save his life:
and bowed himself three times: this was before he fell prostrate on the
ground. Abarbinel observes, that bowing three; times was fit and proper to
be done to a king; once at the place from whence they first see him, the
second time in the middle of the way to him, and the third time when come
to him; but though this may have been a custom in more modern times, it is
a question whether it obtained so early; however it is certain bowing was as
ancient, and therefore Xenophon (z) is mistaken in ascribing it to Cyrus as
the first introducer of this custom; and be it that he was the first that began
it among the Persians, it was in use with others before, as this behaviour of
David shows:
and they kissed one another; as friends about to part:
and wept one with another: as not knowing whether they should ever see
each other's face any more:
until David exceeded; in weeping more than Jonathan; he having more to
part with, not only him his dear friend, but his wife and family, and other
dear friends and people of God, and especially the sanctuary and service of
God, which of all things lay nearest his heart, and most distressed him; see
1Sa_26:19; and many of his psalms on this occasion. Ben Gersom suggests
that he wept more than was meet, through too much fear of Saul; but that
seems not to be the case.
145

146. HENRY, "They took leave of each other with the greatest affection
imaginable, with kisses and tears; they wept on each other's neck till David
exceeded, 1Sa_20:41. The separation of two such faithful friends was
equally grievous to them both, but David's case was the more deplorable;
for, when Jonathan was returning to his family and friends, David was
leaving all his comforts, even those of God's sanctuary, and therefore his
grief exceeded Jonathan's, or perhaps it was because his temper was more
tender and his passions were stronger. (3.) They referred themselves to the
covenant of friendship that was between them, both of them comforting
themselves with this in this mournful separation: “We have sworn both of
us in the name of the Lord, for ourselves and our heirs, that we and they will
be faithful and kind to each other from generation to generation.” Thus,
while we are at home in the body and absent from the Lord, this is our
comfort, that he has made with us an everlasting covenant.
JAMISON, "Sa_20:41, 1Sa_20:42. Jonathan and David lovingly part.
David ... fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times — a token of
homage to the prince’s rank; but on a close approach, every other
consideration was sunk in the full flow of the purest brotherly affection.
K&D, "1Sa_20:41
When the boy had gone, David rose (from his hiding-place) from the
south side, fell down upon his face to the ground, and bowed three times
(before Jonathan); they then kissed each other, and wept for one another,
“till David wept strongly,” i.e., to such a degree that David wept very loud.
‫ֶב‬‫ג‬ֶ‫נּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫צ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ “from the side of the south,” which is the expression used to
describe David's hiding-place, according to its direction in relation to the
place where Jonathan was standing, has not been correctly rendered by any
of the early translators except Aquila and Jerome. In the Septuagint, the
Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic, the statement in 1Sa_20:19 is repeated,
simply because the translators could not see the force of ‫ֶב‬‫ג‬ֶ‫נּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫צ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ֵ‫,מ‬
although it is intelligible enough in relation to what follows, according to
which David fled from thence southwards to Nob.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:41. And fell on his face to the ground, &c. — After
three bows, he fell on his face; out of reverence to Jonathan, as the king’s son,
and in tenderness to him, as his most generous friend. They kissed one another,
and wept one with another — Nothing can be imagined more generous, and, at
the same time, more soft and moving, than this meeting of these two friends.
Jonathan seems, out of tenderness to David, to have suppressed some part of
his grief. But David, who reflected that he was now taking his last leave of a
friend who had often saved his life, and was now just come from speaking in
his favour, at the imminent hazard of his own life, could not restrain himself.
146

147. The thought of taking a farewell of so invaluable a friend, and, at the same
time, of leaving all his comforts, even those of God’s sanctuary, was so bitter,
that he could not bear it with moderation; and therefore is said to have
exceeded. Perhaps his temper was more tender, and his passions stronger, than
those of Jonathan; who, however, seems evidently to have done great violence
to his feelings, and to have had no little difficulty so to restrain his grief as not
to sink his friend too much, but to send him away with a calm confidence in
God, and religious tranquillity and peace of mind.
ROE, "Why do you think David wept so bitterly? For once in his life he had an
older brother who really loved him, who was committed to him and had put
him first, even before his own interests. He had clothed David in the clothes of
the crown prince and had made a covenant with him acknowledging he would
become king. David saw Jonathan as a man who was loyal when loyalty really
counted. But he knew Jonathan would stick by his father. Saul was fighting
YHWH and had trapped himself into a destructive situation from which there
was no escape. Jonathan would accompany his father down the path to
destruction hoping he might be able to help.
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:41
‘And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South,
and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times, and they
kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded (wept the
more profusely).’
Then as soon as the lad had gone, David came out from his hiding place and
expressed his love and respect for Jonathan by falling on his face to the ground
and bowing three times. Strictly speaking he would have knelt down and
bowed his head to the ground three times, a typical oriental greeting to a
superior. It should be noted that David never took advantage of their
friendship in such a way as to dishonour Jonathan. Then they kissed one
another in a comradely way, and both wept. And David wept the most
profusely. It was after all he who was leaving, never to return while Jonathan
was alive..
THE story of Amis and Amile, a mediaeval legend, translated by William
Morris (as well as by Walter Pater) from the Bibliotheca Elzeviriana, is very
quaint and engaging in its old-world extravagance and supernaturalism:
Amis and Amile were devoted friends, twins in resemblance and life. On
one occasion, having strayed apart, they ceased not to seek each other for
two whole years. And when at last they met "they lighted down from their
horses, and embraced and kissed each other, and gave thanks to God that
they were found. And they swore fealty and friendship and fellowship
147

148. perpetual, the one to the other, on the sword of Amile, wherein were
relics." Thence they went together to the court of " Charles, king of
France." Here soon after, Amis took Amile's place in a tournament, saved
his life from a traitor, and won for him the King's daughter to wife. But so
it happened that, not long after, he himself was stricken with leprosy and
brought to Amile's door. And when Amile and his royal bride knew who it
was they were sore grieved, and they brought him in and placed him on a
fair bed, and put all that they had at his service. And it came to pass one
night " when as Amis and Amile lay in one chamber without other
company, that God sent to Amis Raphael his angel, who said to him:
'Sleepest thou, Amis?' And he, [98] who deemed that Amile had called to
him, answered: ' I sleep not, fair sweet fellow.' Then the angel said to him: '
Thou hast answered well, for thou art the fellow of the citizens of heaven,
and thou hast followed after Job, and Thoby in patience. Now I am
Raphael, an angel of our Lord, and am come to tell thee of a medicine for
thine healing, whereas he hath heard thy prayers. Thou shalt tell to Amile
thy fellow, that he slay his two children and wash thee in their blood, and
thence thou shalt get the healing of thy body."'
Amis was shocked when he heard these words, and at first refused to
tell Amile; but the latter had also heard the angel's voice, and pressed
him to tell. Then, when he knew, he too was sorely grieved. But at last
he determined in his mind not even to spare his children for the sake of
his friend, and going secretly to their chamber he slew them, and
bringing some of their blood washed Amis-who immediately was
healed. He then arrayed Amis in his best clothes and, after going to the
church to give thanks, they met Amile's wife who (not knowing all)
rejoiced greatly too. But Amile, going apart again to the children's
chamber to weep over them, found them at play in bed, with only a
thread of crimson round their throats to mark what had been done!
The two knights fell afterwards and were killed in the same battle; " for
even as God had joined them together by good accord in their life [99]
days, so in their death they were not sundered." And a miracle was
added, for even when they were buried apart from each other the two
coffins leapt together in the night and were found side by side in the
morning.
Of this story Mr. Jacobs, in his introduction to William Morris' translation,
says: "Amis and Amil were the David and Jonathan, the Orestes and Pylades,
of the medieval world." There were some thirty other versions of the legend "
in almost all the tongues of Western and Northern Europe "-their " peerless
friendship " having given them a place among the mediaeval saints.
(See Old French Romances, trans. by William Morris, London, 1896.)
WILLIAM PENN ( b. 1644 ) the founder of Pennsylvania, and of Philadelphia,
"The city of brotherly love " was a great believer in friendship. He says in his
148

149. Fruits of Solitude: -
⦁ " A true friend unbosoms freely, advises justly, assists readily,
adventures boldly, takes all patiently, defends courageously, and
continues a friend unchangeably.... In short, choose a friend as thou
dost a wife, till death separate you. . . . Death cannot kill what never
dies. Nor can spirits ever be divided that love and live in the same
Divine Principle; the Root and Record of their friendship.... This is the
comfort of friends, that though they may be said to die, yet their
friendship and society are, in the best sense, ever present, because
immortal."
IT may be worth while here to insert two passages from Macaulay's History of
England. The first deals with the remarkable intimacy between the Young
Prince William of Orange and " a gentleman of his household " named
Bentinck. William's escape from a malignant attack of small-pox
" was attributed partly to his own singular equanimity, and partly to
the intrepid and indefatigable friendship of Bentinck. From the hands
of [139] Bentinck alone William took food and medicineby Bentinck
alone William was lifted from his bed and laid down in it. ' Whether
Bentinck slept or not while I was ill,' said William to Temple with great
tenderness, ' I know not. But this I know, that through sixteen days and
nights, I never once called for anything but that Bentinck was instantly
at my side.' Before the faithful servant had entirely performed this task,
he had himself caught the contagion." ( But he recovered. )
History of England, ch. vii.
The second passage describes the devotion of the Princess Anne (daughter of
James II and afterwards Queen Anne) to Lady Churchill-a devotion which had
considerable influence on the political situation.
" It is a common observation that differences of taste, understanding,
and disposition are no impediments to friendship, and that the closest
intimacies often exist between minds, each of which supplies what is
wanting in the other. Lady Churchill was loved and even worshipped
by Anne. The princess could not live apart from the object of her
romantic fondness. She married, and was a faithful and even an
affectionate wife; but Prince George, a dull man, whose chief pleasures
were derived from his dinner and his bottle, acquired over her no
intluence comparable to that exercised by her female friend, and soon
gave him [140] self up with stupid patience to the dominion of that
vehement and commanding spirit by which his wife was governed."
History of England, ch vii
THAT the tradition of Greek thought was not quite obliterated in England by
the Puritan movement is shown by the writings of Archbishop Potter, who
speaks with approval of friendship as followed among the Greeks, " not only in
private, but by the public allowance and encouragement of their laws; for they
149

150. thought there could be no means more effectual to excite their youth to noble
undertakings, nor any greater security to their commonwealths, than this
generous passion." He then quotes Athenaeus, saying that " free
commonwealths and all those states that consulted the advancement of their
own honor, seem to have been unanimous in establishing laws to encourage
and reward it." John Potter, Antiquities of Greece, 1698.
WHEDON, " 41. Out of a place toward the south — Or, more literally, from
the side of the south; that is, southwards from where Jonathan was standing.
Bowed himself three times — In token of his profound gratitude, obligation,
and reverence.
Until David exceeded — Surpassed Jonathan in the exhibition of his grief, and
wept aloud over his sorrows; for, says Bishop Patrick, he was now about to
become an exile from his friends, his wife, his kindred, the people of God, and
all the solemnities of sacred worship.
“This is the culminating point,” says Ewald, “in the mutual relations of the two
friends, who furnish the eternal type of the perfection of noble friendship. In
these last hours before their separation all the threads of their destinies,
henceforth so widely different, are secretly woven together. As Jonathan here
foresees, David afterwards obtains the kingdom; and, in accordance with his
oath to his friend, he afterwards, when a powerful king, always spares the
descendants of Jonathan, in grateful remembrance of his dearly loved friend,
and never loses an opportunity of showing them kindness. We may well believe
that when, in after years, David drew to his court the posterity of Jonathan, he
often told them himself of these last events before their separation, with which
no one but the two friends could be acquainted, and that our present narrative
springs ultimately from this source.”
ELLICOTT, " (41) David arose out of a place toward the south.—If the text be
correct here, which is very doubtful, we must understand these words as
signifying that as soon as David perceived that Jonathan was alone (as soon as
the lad was gone), he rose from the south side of the rock, where he had been
lying concealed. [The “arrow” sign would have been enough to have warned
David; and had he not seen that Jonathan was alone and waiting for him,
David would, from his place of hiding, have made his escape unseen.] The
Chaldee here reads, “from the stone of the sign (or the stone Atha) which is on
the south;” the LXX. (Vat. MS.), “from the Argab;” Alex. MS., “from sleep.”
The different versions, more or less, have repeated the statement in 1 Samuel
20:19, failing altogether to understand the two Hebrew words mêêtzel
150

151. hannegev, translated in our English Version, “out of a place toward the south.”
And fell on his face.—Josephus’ words, in his traditional account of the event,
explain David’s reason for this. “He did obeisance, and called him the saviour
of his life.”
Until David exceeded.—The expression is a strange one, and apparently
signifies either simply that while Jonathan wept bitterly at the parting, David
wept still more, or else that “David broke down,” that is, “was completely
mastered by his grief.”—Dean Payne Smith. The LXX. translators here are
quite unintelligible in their rendering, which represents David as weeping
“until a (or the) great consummation.”
HAWKER, "Verse 41-42
(41) And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the
south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and
they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. (42)
And 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. And he arose and departed: and
Jonathan went into the city.
The sweetest instruction from this parting interview, (for they knew not that
they should ever see one another again) is the recollection of that everlasting
covenant, in which all the people of God are included. That precious promise
made by Jehovah to the person of the Lord Jesus, the great Head of his people,
is of everlasting efficacy: As for me, saith the Lord, this is my covenant with
them: my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor
out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and
forever. Isaiah 59:21. This became the security in the parting of Jonathan and
David. And the same is the everlasting security of the faithful, in all the
separations made in life, or death, among the Lord's heritage. Children may
die; friends may forsake us, we may be bereaved of all earthly things we hold
dear; but, the Lord is the Rock of ages, and his mercy endureth forever.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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
151

152. afterward fled southward to Nob.[FN55] 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 ( ַ‫א‬ for ‫ד‬ַ‫:)ﬠ‬ “But David wept still more,” that Isaiah, than Jonathan. No
sense can be extracted from the reading of the Septuagint “unto a great consummation”
)ἔ‫ףץםפוכו‬ ‫שע‬‫לוד‬ ‫בע‬‫,כחע‬ according to Thenius from substitution of ‫ם‬ֹ‫תּ‬ for ‫ד‬ ִ‫ו‬ ָ‫,)דּ‬ 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.[FN56] We must render literally:
“David did greatly,”—namely, wept violently, aloud. For the construction comp. Joel
2:20-21; Psalm 126:2-3.
42 Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, for we have
sworn friendship with each other in the name of the
LORD , saying, 'The LORD is witness between you
and me, and between your descendants and my
descendants forever.' " Then David left, and
Jonathan went back to the town.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 20:42. Jonathan said, The Lord be between thee and me,
&c. — As much as to say, Fear not but I will faithfully keep my covenant with
thee; as I doubt not of thy perpetual steadfastness in it with me and my
posterity. And this must be our satisfaction in this sad separation. And he
arose and departed — That is, David left Jonathan, that he might avoid the
effects of Saul’s wrath, and escape immediate destruction; and Jonathan
returned to his family and friends. And it appears that these two friends never
met again on earth, except once, and that was by stealth in a wood, chap. 23.
16. But their spirits have long been united in the paradise of God, and they
shall spend an eternity together in their complete persons, in that world of love
and harmony where, the former things being passed away, friends united in
heart will be separated no more!
152

153. BARNES, "Jonathan went into the city - From which one may infer, what
the after history also indicates, that Jonathan’s filial duty and patriotism
prevented a complete rupture with his father. Jonathan’s conduct in this, as
in everything, was most admirable.
GILL, "And Jonathan said to David, go in peace,.... In peace of mind,
committing himself, his family, and affairs, to the providence of God, who
would take care of him, and keep him in safety from the evil designs of Saul;
and particularly he would have him be easy with respect to what had passed
between them two, not doubting but it would be faithfully observed on both
sides:
forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord: had made a
covenant with each other by an oath, in the name and presence of God as a
witness to it:
saying, the Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed
for ever; as a witness of the agreement between them, including them and
their offspring, and as a revenger of such that should break it. The Targum
is,"the Word of the Lord be between thee and me, &c."
and he arose and departed; that is, David arose from the ground, and took
his leave of Jonathan, and departed into the country for the safety of his
person and life:
and Jonathan went into the city; into the city of Gibeah, where Saul dwelt
and had his court.
JAMISON, "Jonathan said to David, Go in peace — The interview being a
stolen one, and every moment precious, it was kindness in Jonathan to
hasten his friend’s departure.
K&D, "1Sa_20:42
All that is given of the conversation between the two friends is the parting
word spoken by Jonathan to David: “Go in peace. What we two have sworn
in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and
between my seed and thy seed for ever:” sc., let it stand, or let us abide by it.
The clause contains an aposiopesis, which may be accounted for from
Jonathan's deep emotion, and in which the apodosis may be gathered from
the sense. For it is evident, from a comparison of 1Sa_20:23, that the
expression “for ever” must be understood as forming part of the oath. - 1Sa_
21:1. David then set out upon his journey, and Jonathan returned to the
town. This verse ought, strictly speaking, to form the conclusion of 1 Samuel
20.
(Note: In our English version it does; but in the Hebrew, which is
followed here, it forms the opening verse of 1Sa_21:1-15. In the
exposition of the following chapter it has been thought better to follow
153

154. the numbering of the verses in our version rather than that of the
original, although the latter is conformed to the Hebrew. - Tr.)
The subject to “arose” is David; not because Jonathan was the last one
spoken of (Thenius), but because the following words, “and Jonathan
came,” etc., are in evident antithesis to “he arose and went.”
SBC, "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.
ELLICOTT, " (42) Go in peace.—The abruptness of the closing words is most
natural, and accords with the evident deep emotion of the speaker. David’s
heart was too full to reply to his friend’s words; blinded with tears, he seems
to have hurried away speechless.
“We may indeed wonder at the delicacy of feeling and the gentleness of the
sentiments which these two men in those old rough times entertained for
one another. No ancient writer has set before us so noble an example of a
heartfelt, unselfish, and thoroughly human state of feeling, and none has
described friendship with such entire truth in all its relations, and with
such complete and profound knowledge of the human heart.”—Phillipson,
quoted by Payne Smith.
LANGE, "1 Samuel 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, and2)
conjuring him that the covenant of friendship be forever maintained. The apodosis is not
154

155. uttered; the aposiopesis accords with Jonathan’s deep emotion.— 1 Samuel 20:1 [in Eng. A.
V. 1 Samuel 20:42]. The concluding scene. David goes his way in flight; Jonathan returns in
the opposite direction to the city.
HAWKER, "Verse 42
REFLECTIONS
READER! there is so much loveliness in the character of Jonathan,
according as the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to present him before the
church, in his conduct towards David, that I think it is our duty, as well as
our privilege, to look at him with proper attention: and while we adore the
gracious God that made him so lovely, we should implore grace to imitate
his bright example. How beautiful he appears in this chapter, in his wisdom
of discovering the real state of his father's mind towards David, and in his
contrivance of communicating the same, unobserved, to the mind of David!
How very engaging he appears also, in his sympathizing with David on the
occasion, and mingling his tears with his, in the prospect of separation!
How lovely in his piety towards the Lord, in so cheerfully looking forward to
the sure succession of David to the kingdom, though to the exclusion of
himself and his own family, because the thing was of the Lord!
But, my soul, when thou host taken the fullest, and most leisurely survey of
the loveliness, and wisdom, and generosity of Jonathan, turn thy thoughts
to the contemplation of thy Jesus, in whom are hid all the treasures of
loveliness, wisdom, and knowledge; and behold that matchless superiority
in him to everything excellent. Jesus is, indeed, the altogether lovely, and
the chiefest among ten thousand. He is the wonderful Counsellor, for
guiding and instructing his people in wisdom and knowledge. And he is not
only the noblest of all possible examples of mercy, but mercy itself; even the
mercy promised. Yes! blessed Jesus, it is thy sweet and friendly office to
give us counsel in all seasons of perplexity; to impart to us the secrets of thy
Father's will, both in a way of providence and of grace: and thou dost indeed
sooth us in all our troubles. When on earth thou didst mingle thy tears with
the sorrows of thy distressed family. And now in glory, thou still retainest
the feelings of our human nature: and when we are driven out and forsaken
of all men, thou dost never leave us, nor forsake us. Oh! Precious Lord God!
when I think of thy matchless love, how infinite, how inexhaustible; that
even my ingratitude and forgetfulness of thee cannot wear out. Shall I not in
all seasons when viewing anything lovely in the creature, like this of
Jonathan, shall I not call to mind thy surpassing loveliness, in mercy, grace,
and favour to me, and to thy people? And shall I not, under the impression
of the vast superiority, point to Jesus, as the church of old, and say, this is
my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
155

156. NISBET, "THE BEST OF FRIENDS MUST PART
‘And 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 for ever,’ etc.
1 Samuel 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.
—Canon Jessop.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Dean Church, talking about Hurrell Froude and Newman, says that
“each had the capacity for whole-hearted friendship.” Probably that
capacity for friendship is a rarer possession than we think. But it belonged
pre-eminently to David and to Jonathan, and being found there in
connection with pure and noble natures, it has cast a glamour of undying
interest over the short story of their intercourse.’
156

157. (2) ‘The last interview between the two friends was most touching. By that
time Jonathan had come to a clear prevision that David was God’s
predestined king, and he loved him well enough to be content. Love could go
no further. We are reminded of the words of the Baptist, “He must increase,
I must decrease.” Only see to it that whenever you meet with your friends,
under whatsoever circumstances, you always strengthen them in God.
“Jonathan came to David there, and strengthened his hand in God.” All that
these words imply it is not easy to write; our hearts interpret the words, and
imagine the stream of holy encouragement that poured from that noble
spirit into the heart of his friend. He must be strong who would strengthen
another; he must have God, and be in God, who would easily give the
consolations of God to his brother; and we can easily understand how the
anguish of Jonathan’s soul, torn between filial devotion to his father and his
love to his friend, must have driven him back on those resources of the
Divine nature which are the only solace of men whose lives have been cast
in the same fiery crucible.’
(3) ‘In heaven’s vaults there are what are known as binary stars, each
probably a sun with its attendant train of worlds revolving around a
common centre, but blending their rays so that they reach the watcher’s eye
as one clear beam of light. So do twin souls find the centre of their orbit in
each other; and there is nothing in the annals of human affection nobler
than the bond of such a love between two pure, high-minded and noble men,
whose love passes that of women. Such love was celebrated in ancient
classic story, and has made the names of Damon and Pythias proverbial. It
has also enriched the literature of modern days in the love of a Hallam and a
Tennyson. But nowhere is it more fragrant than on the pages that contain
the memorials of the love of Jonathan and David.’
PETT, "1 Samuel 20:42 a
‘And Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn
both of us in the name of YHWH, saying, “YHWH shall be between me and
you, and between my seed and your seed, for ever.”
Then Jonathan said his farewell. ‘Go in peace’ was a typical Israelite
farewell. But poignancy was added to it by reminding David that there was
peace between them because of the covenant that they had with each other,
a peace made sure because they had sworn to each other in the name of
YHWH. And he called to mind their compact of permanent friendship, not
only between them, but between those who would follow them. David would
fulfil his part in this when he slew the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 Samuel
4:6-12) and took Mephibosheth under his wing (2 Samuel 9:7-8).
157

158. 1 Samuel 20:42 b
‘And he arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.’
Their farewells tearfully ended David arose and departed, from that time on
an outlaw through no fault of his own, and Jonathan returned to the city.
They would meet once more after this occasion, when Jonathan sought
David out to assure him of his continued support (1 Samuel 23:15-18).
Conclusion
We can see that this chapter is a significant turning point in terms of
David’s relationship with Saul and with Jonathan. Previously, David has fled
from Saul’s presence, but this has always been temporary. Now, it is
permanent. David will never again sit at Saul’s table, never again play his harp
to soothe the king’s troubled spirit, never again fight for Saul in the Israelite
army. David will become a fugitive who is constantly on the run from Saul who
seeks to kill him. Because of this, the fellowship David has been able to enjoy
with Jonathan will never be the same either. And so David and Jonathan say
their sad farewells in our text. They will meet again, but it will not be often, or
for long.
One word sums up what this chapter is all about, and that word is
covenant. David flees to Jonathan, at a very desperate moment in his life,
because they have a covenant relationship which assures David of Jonathan’s
love and support. This covenant of mutual love and good will is the reason
Jonathan takes David so seriously that he is willing to carry out David’s test. It
is also why Jonathan takes such elaborate security precautions (going out into
the field, communicating to David through a kind of signal). This covenant is
actually clarified and extended in our text. What was originally a covenant
between two men has now become a covenant between two families. What was
once a vague, general covenant made at a time when there was no animosity on
Saul’s part toward David, now is clarified to deal with Saul’s hostility and his
intent to do violence to David. The covenant between Jonathan and David is
also a good part of Saul’s anger toward both David and Jonathan. The
covenant that bound these two men and their families incited Saul’s wrath
toward David and his son Jonathan. Saul could not oppose one without also
opposing the other. .
This covenant between David and Jonathan is the basis and guiding
principle of the relationship between these two men. It gives both a sense of
security and expresses both men’s submission and servanthood to each other.
This is such an important matter that we should to pause to reflect on it. We
should first discuss this covenant as it bears upon our relationships with
others. We will then conclude by exploring the way in which a “covenant”
158

159. governs our relationship with God.
A Covenant Governs Our Relationship With Others
Even the land in which we live is governed on the basis of a covenant
which men made with one another. The Declaration of Independence was
penned, in part, because the people of this nation felt England had broken
their covenant with those they governed. Our Constitution is a kind of
covenant, which binds us together as a nation. Whether written or oral,
implied or stated, government is based upon a covenant made by men.
I believe marriage is one of the most important covenants a man can
make with a woman. It is still popular for some who live together without
being married to say: “We love each other, so we don’t need a piece of paper to
keep us together.” Our text makes it very clear that a covenant is the
outgrowth of love, an expression of love. David and Jonathan made a covenant
with each because they loved each other. In their minds, it would have been
inconceivable for them not to enter into a covenant. Why would two men, who
love each other as brothers, not be willing to make commitments that they vow
to keep forever?
A covenant is proof of love. A covenant is a mutually agreed upon
definition of how love will be reflected in a relationship. I think it is also safe to
say that a covenant relationship grows. As Saul’s jealousy of David becomes
apparent, both David and Jonathan modify (or clarify) their covenant to take
these new circumstances into account. But their commitments to each other do
not diminish because hard times come upon their relationship; hard times
prompt these two men to further commit themselves to each other.6 The same
thing applies to marriage vows. When a man and a woman come together to
become husband and wife, they express vows which are really the definition of
a covenant that is being made. This covenant is not to be broken. This
covenant is the foundation and mainstay when troubles come, even when love
seems to be lacking. A covenant gives stability to a marriage that romantic
feelings cannot provide, because they are not constant.
For all believers in Jesus Christ, there is not only a covenant between
the individual believer and Christ, there is also a covenant relationship
between all believers. We become a covenant community, bound together by a
covenant. Notice how the prophet Malachi rebukes the Israelites of old for
failing to keep their covenants:
10 “Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to
profane the covenant of our fathers? 11 “Judah has dealt
treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel
and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the
LORD which He loves, and has married the daughter of a
foreign god. 12 “As for the man who does this, may the LORD
cut off from the tents of Jacob everyone who awakes and
answers, or who presents an offering to the LORD of hosts. 13
“And this is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the
159

160. LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He
no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your
hand. 14 “Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD
has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth,
against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your
companion and your wife by covenant. 15 “But not one has done
so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do
while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then, to your
spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your
youth. 16 “For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of
Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the
LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal
treacherously” (Malachi 2:10-16, emphasis mine).
A Covenant Governs Our Relationship With God
What I have said about covenants governing the relationships men have
with one another is the outgrowth of a higher truth: God governs man’s
relationship with Him by means of a covenant. When God destroyed all
mankind, because of their sin, He established a covenant with Noah and his
descendants. When God entered into a relationship with Abram (soon to be
name Abraham), He did so by means of a covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant
(Genesis 12:1-3, etc.). When God delivered the nation Israel from the bondage
in Egypt, He entered into a new relationship with them, and this relationship
was governed by the Mosaic Covenant. God’s actions toward Israel in the Old
Testament can be seen as the outworking of this covenant. God acted in
accordance with His covenant.
All of God’s dealings with men can be seen as the outworking of His
covenant with them. But while God has always kept His covenant
commitments, man has consistently demonstrated that he is a covenant-
breaker. If our salvation depended upon our keeping of God’s covenants, we
would never be forgiven of our sins and enter into the Kingdom of God. God
knew that while men promised to keep His Mosaic Covenant, they would never
do it:
28 “And the LORD heard the voice of your words when you
spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard the voice of
the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They
have done well in all that they have spoken. 29 'Oh that they had
such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My
commandments always, that it may be well with them and with
their sons forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:28-29).
Later on in Israel’s history, when Joshua spoke his parting words to the
Israelites, they once again promised to keep this (Mosaic) covenant. Joshua
knew better:
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve
the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not
forgive your transgression or your sins. 20 “If you forsake the
160

161. LORD and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you
harm and consume you after He has done good to you.” 21 And
the people said to Joshua, “No, but we will serve the LORD.” 22
And Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against
yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the LORD, to
serve Him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.” 23 “Now
therefore, put away the foreign gods which are in your midst,
and incline your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel.” 24 And
the people said to Joshua, “We will serve the LORD our God
and we will obey His voice.” 25 So Joshua made a covenant with
the people that day, and made for them a statute and an
ordinance in Shechem (Joshua 24:19-25).
There was only one solution. There must be a salvation which did not
depend upon man’s perfection and performance. There must be a salvation
which depended upon God’s perfection and performance. And so it was in the
Old Testament that God began to speak of a “new covenant” He would make
with men which would result in eternal salvation:
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their
fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I
was a husband to them, “declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those
days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and
on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people. 34 “And they shall not teach again, each man
his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the
LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the
greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their
iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah
31:31-34).
This “new covenant” was brought about by the promised Messiah, the
Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He
broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is
given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the
same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup
which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood”
(Luke 22:19-20).
4 And such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5
Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as
coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who
also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives
life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones,
161

162. came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently
at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it
was, 8 how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more
with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory,
much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory on
account of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades
away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory
(2 Corinthians 3:4-11).
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things
to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this
creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but
through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats
and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have
been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much
more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason
He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death
has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that
were committed under the first covenant, those who have been
called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance
(Hebrews 9:11-15; see all of chapter 8 as well).
It all comes down to this. God has always dealt with men in terms of a
covenant. In every case, men have failed to keep God’s covenant, even though
God has faithfully kept His covenant commitments and promises. In order to
save men from their sins and give them entrance into His kingdom, God has set
aside the old covenant(s) for a new and better one. This covenant is not
dependent upon our performance, but on God’s. God sent His Son, Jesus
Christ, to live a sinless life, to perfectly fulfill the old, Mosaic Covenant. And
then, when He died on the cross of Calvary, He bore the penalty for man’s sins.
When He rose from the dead, He demonstrated God’s satisfaction, and His
(Christ’s) righteousness. By Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, God
provided men with a new covenant, whereby man could be assured of the
forgiveness of sins and eternal. In order to be saved, we need only embrace this
covenant as our only hope and provision for salvation. This covenant has been
secured, once for all. It cannot be set aside or nullified. It needs only to be
embraced as one’s own. By acknowledging our inability to please God by our
own efforts, and by trusting in the work Christ has done on our behalf, we
enter into this new covenant and all of its benefits. Have you entered into this
covenant? I urge you to do so today. What a great God we have, who has
offered us this covenant relationship with Him". author unknown
162

163. 163