Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 20:1
And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what [is] mine iniquity? and what [is] my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
Ch. 1Sa 20:1-10. David’s consultation with Jonathan
1. David fled from Naioth ] While Saul lay helpless in his trance, David, perhaps by Samuel’s advice, returned to consult with Jonathan. It may seem surprising that he could think of venturing back to Gibeah after Saul’s late outbreak; but he on his part would be unwilling to break with Saul and become an outlaw till absolutely forced to do so; while Jonathan, knowing David’s value to the kingdom, would use every effort to effect a reconciliation. This he might still hope for, since all Saul’s actual attempts upon David’s life had been made in his fits of, insanity.
What have I done ] The three questions are a virtual assertion of his innocence. Compare the passionate protests of the Seventh Psalm, written probably somewhat later, during his flight, but reflecting the feelings of this time. See on 1Sa 24:9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
While Saul was under the constraining influence of the spirit of prophecy, David escaped from Naioth, and, probably by Samuels advice, returned to Sauls court to commune with Jonathan. Nothing could be a better evidence of his innocence than thus putting himself in Jonathans 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Sa 20:1-42
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 Sauls jealousy, he was brought into contact with Jonathan, and in his disinterested and sanctified friendship, furnished with one of the sweetest earthly solaces for the burden of care and sorrow. In merciful adaptation to the infirmities of his human spirit, God opened to him this stream in the desert, and allowed him to refresh himself with its pleasant waters; but to show him that his great dependence must be placed, not on the fellowship of mortal man, but on the ever-living and ever-loving God, Jonathan and he were doomed, after the briefest period of companionship, to a lifelong separation.
(2) In another view, Davids intercourse with Jonathan served an important purpose in his training. The very sight he constantly had of Sauls outrageous wickedness might have nursed a self-righteous feeling, might have encouraged the thought that as Saul was rejected by God for his wickedness, so David was chosen for his goodness. The remembrance of Jonathans singular virtues and graces was fitted to rebuke this thought; for if regard to human goodness had decided Gods course in the matter, why should not Jonathan have been appointed to succeed his father?
(3) But there was one feature of the friendship of Jonathan and David that had no parallel in classic times–it was friendship between two men, of whom the younger was a more formidable rival to the older. It is Jonathan that shines most in this friendship, for he was the one who had least to gain and most to lose from the other.
(4) Besides being disinterested, Jonathans friendship for David was of an eminently holy character. Evidently Jonathan was a man that habitually honoured God, if not in much open profession, yet in the way of deep reverence and submission. And thus, besides being able to surrender his own prospects without a murmur, and feel real happiness in the thought that David would be king, he could strengthen the faith of his friend, as we read afterwards (1Sa 23:16). What a priceless blessing is the friendship of those who support and comfort us in great spiritual conflicts, and help us to stand erect in some great crisis of our lives!
2. We cannot turn from this chapter without adding a word on the friendships of the young. It is when hearts are tender that they are more readily knit to each other, as the heart of Jonathan was knit to the heart of David. But the formation of friendships is too important a matter to be safely left to casual circumstances.
(1) It ought to be gone about with care. A friend is very useful, if he is rich in qualities where we are poor.
(2) But surely, of all qualities in a friend or companion who is to do us good, the most vital is, that he fears the Lord. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
A friendly prince a princely friend
I. The princely friendship.
1. An unselfish and self-denying avowal. He had soon to learn by experience, and he must have known the fact then, that to befriend David was to displease Saul. Yet is there no faltering in his fidelity. However contrary the waves may be, he changes not the vessels head; undeterred, he abides faithful. Calumnies and adulations change him not.
2. The religious character of this friendship is forced upon us. He begins with a covenant. Are any friendships worth cultivating whereupon we may not ask the Divine blessing?
3. Such a friendship was not only the affection of a man. He drew the power to thus love on from the Great Source of Love.
II. The purpose this friendship served.
1. God gave David a friend at court.
2. Another purpose the friendship of Jonathan served was to strengthen Davids faith. During his exile, especially in the early past, when his fortunes changed so suddenly, Davids faith became clouded. It is his voice that exclaims, There is but a step between me and death. The strong confidence is breathed by Jonathan (1Sa 20:14-15). When pressed almost beyond endurance and weary with continual flight, it is Jonathan who directs the trembling heart to God (1Sa 23:16-17).
Lessons:
1. Sanctified friendships are Gods hands of guidance. Such lead us always to Himself and never from Him.
2. Friendships formed for social or temporal gain are akin to traffic and bargain driving on the Temple floor, and must end in ruin. That is no real friendship which fails to lead us to God.
3. True friendships are stable. Human alliances are as fragile as the flowers the frost has traced upon the window, which melt away before the pure beams of love or the heat of trial from within. All friendships that are worth anything must begin with a covenant. (H. E. Stone.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XX
David complains to Jonathan of Saul’s enmity against him;
Jonathan comforts him, 1-10.
They walk out into the field, and renew their covenant, 11-17.
David asks Jonathan’s leave to absent himself from Saul’s
court; and Jonathan informs him how he shall ascertain the
disposition of his father towards him, 18-23.
David hides himself; is missed by Saul; Jonathan is questioned
concerning his absence; makes an excuse for David; Saul is
enraged, and endeavours to kill Jonathan, 24-33.
Jonathan goes out to the field; gives David the sign which they
had agreed on, and by which he was to know that the king had
determined to take away his life, 34-39.
He sends his servant back into the city; and then he and David
meet, renew their covenant, and have a very affectionate
parting, 40-42.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Verse 1. David fled frown Naioth] On hearing that Saul had come to that place, knowing that he was no longer in safety, he fled for his life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
David fled, whilst Saul lay in an ecstasy,
from Naioth in Ramah to Gibeah, where Jonathan was, taking the opportunity of Sauls absence.
What is my sin before thy father? what is it which thus incenseth thy father against me? what crime doth he charge me with?
That he seeketh my life, to wit, to destroy it, as this phrase is oft used, as 1Sa 22:23; Psa 38:12; 54:3; 63:9.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. David fled from Naioth inRamah, and came and said before JonathanHe could not remain inNaioth, 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 usualfell and sanguinary temper. It may be thought that David actedimprudently in directing his flight to Gibeah. But he was evidentlyprompted to go thither by the most generous feelingsto inform hisfriend of what had recently occurred, and to obtain that friend’ssanction to the course he was compelled to adopt. Jonathan could notbe persuaded there was any real danger after the oath his father hadtaken; at all events, he felt assured his father would do nothingwithout telling him. Filial attachment naturally blinded the princeto defects in the parental character and made him reluctant tobelieve his father capable of such atrocity. David repeated hisunshaken convictions of Saul’s murderous purpose, but in termsdelicately 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 sceneenacted at Naioth might have wrought a sanctified improvement onSaul’s temper and feelings, undertook to inform David of the resultof his observations at home.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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?
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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.)
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?”
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 after stands for : the Chethibh is probably to be preferred to the Keri , 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.
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.” introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1Sa 14:44, etc.
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 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.
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.
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.” , 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.
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 ( used to strengthen the suffix); for why wilt thou bring me to thy father? ” sc., that he may put me to death.
1Sa 20:9 Jonathan replied, “ This be far from thee! ” sc., that I should kill thee, or deliver thee up to my father. points back to what precedes, as in 1Sa 20:2. “ But ( 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. before , than to take the last clause as a question, “Shall I not tell it thee?”
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 in the sense of “ if perchance.” But this is evidently incorrect; for even though there are certain passages in which 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 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.
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.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David Consults Jonathan. | B. C. 1058. |
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? 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 and death. 4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee. 5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow 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, 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. 8 Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the LORD with thee: notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father?
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 (ch. xviii. 1), and he was a brother that was born for adversity, Prov. xvii. 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? v. 1. 2. He endeavors to convince him that, notwithstanding his innocency, Saul sought his life. Jonathan, from a principal of filial respect to his father, was very loth to believe that he designed or would ever do so wicked a thing, v. 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, 1 Cor. xiii. 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,” v. 3. And, as for Saul’s concealing it from Jonathan, it was easy to account for that; he knew the friendship between him and David, and therefore, though in other things he advised with him, yet not in that. None more fit than Jonathan to serve him in every design that was just and honourable, but he knew him to be a man of more virtue than to be his confidant in so base a design as the murder of David.
II. Jonathan generously offers him his service (v. 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.
III. David only desires him to satisfy himself, and then to satisfy him whether Saul did really design his death or no. Perhaps David proposed this more for Jonathan’s conviction than his own, for he himself was well satisfied. 1. The method of trial he proposed was very natural, and would certainly discover how Saul stood affected to him. The two next days Saul was to dine publicly, upon occasion of the solemnities of the new moon, when extraordinary sacrifices were offered and feasts made upon the sacrifices. Saul was rejected of God, and the Spirit of the Lord had departed from him, yet he kept up his observance of the holy feasts. There may be the remains of external devotion where there is nothing but the ruins of real virtue. At these solemn feasts Saul had either all his children to sit with him, and David had a seat as one of them, or all his great officers, and David had a seat as one of them. However it was, David resolved his seat should be empty (and that it never used to be at a sacred feast) those two days (v. 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, v. 7. 2. The excuse he desired Jonathan to make for his absence, we have reason to think, was true, that he was invited by his elder brother to Bethlehem, his own city, to celebrate this new moon with his relations there, because, besides the monthly solemnity in which they held communion with all Israel, they had now a yearly sacrifice, and a holy feast upon it, for all the family, v. 6. They kept a day of thanksgiving in their family for the comforts they enjoyed, and of prayer for the continuance of them. By this it appears that the family David was of was a very religious family, a house that had a church in it. 3. The arguments he used with Jonathan to persuade him to do this kindness for him were very pressing, v. 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.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Samuel – Chapter 20
Enlisting Jonathan’s Aid, vs. 1-10
Why did David leave Samuel? The reason is not given, though it may have been out of concern for endangering the old prophet’s life. Then, too, it appears that David still hoped for a reconciliation with Saul. He came secretly to Gibeah and met with Jonathan to seek out Saul’s reason for his attempts on David’s life. David was aware that Saul’s animosity went beyond the fact of his madness or even jealousy over his popularity. Though David had been anointed king, Saul must not have been aware of that, and David had made no attempt to usurp the throne.
Saul had not, however, intimated to Jonathan any reason, and his son could not accept that his father actually wished to kill David. He knew of no reason Saul would want to kill David and felt that if he had intended to do so he would have discussed it with Jonathan. David,
though, was sure that Saul’s intent had been to hide his purpose from Jonathan because he was aware of their friendship. David uttered words pregnant with meaning for everyone when he replied to Jonathan, “Truly as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.” The words, of course, are true in a sense of every person, and are especially of the soul which has not trusted in Christ.
When Jonathan agreed to help David in whatever way he desired, David reminded Jonathan of the requirement that all the household of Saul meet together at table each new moon (or month). The next day was the time for this, so David suggested a means by which Saul’s intentions might be ascertained. David would hide in the field for three days, and Saul would inquire of his whereabouts. Jonathan would reply that he had given David permission to return to Bethlehem for a yearly feast with his family. If Saul responded favorably it would bid well for David, but if he became very angry it would show that he intended evil against him. David pled for Jonathan’s help on the basis of the covenant, asking that Jonathan himself put him to death if there was iniquity in him. Jonathan assured David that he would surely tell him if Saul meant him harm, and they proceeded to lay plans whereby David could be informed of the outcome of the test.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
1Sa. 20:1. And David fled, while Saul was still under the power of the prophetic influence. Nothing could be a better evidence of his innocence than his thus putting himself in Jonathans power. Perhaps something passed between Samuel and Saul on the subject, since it appears from 1Sa. 20:5; 1Sa. 20:25; 1Sa. 20:27, that Saul expected David at the feast of the new moon. (Biblical Commentary.)
1Sa. 20:2. Why should my father hide this thing from me? This remark supposes that the intimate relation between Jonathan and David had been concealed, as far as possible, from Saul. (Erdmann.) Jonathan, it would seem, clung to a hope that the extraordinary scene at Naioth might have wrought a sanctified improvement on Sauls temper and feelings. (Jamieson.) Or, he might regard the late attempt on David as the result of a new but temporary access of rage, and remembering his distinct oath in his lucid intervals, might suppose that he would not in a quiet state of mind resolve on and execute such a murder. (Erdmann.)
1Sa. 20:3. Moreover: rather again.
1Sa. 20:5. To-morrow is the new moon, etc. This request implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore that the new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law in Num. 10:10; Num. 28:11; Num. 28:15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and in the latter character for two days; as we may infer both from the fact that David reckoned to the third evening, i.e., the evening of the third day from the day then present. it does not follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness, therefore the royal feast was a sacrificial meal. It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take part in a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law. (Keil.)
1Sa. 20:6. A yearly sacrifice. In the then disorganised condition of public worship, to which David himself first gave regular form, family usages of this sort, after the manner of other nations, had established themselves, which were contrary to the prescriptions concerning the unity of Divine worship. (Von Gerlach.)
1Sa. 20:8. Covenant of the Lord. Because it was not only made with invocation of the Lords name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God. (Erdmann.)
1Sa. 20:11. Come, let us go out, etc. The scene of this memorable conference was, as Porter describes it (Handbook, p. 324), a shallow valley between Gibeah (Tell el Flil) and Nob, breaking down on the east in rocky declivities into Wady Suleim. Behind some of the rocks in it David could easily lie hid, and yet see Jonathan descending from the city above. (Jamieson.)
1Sa. 20:12. O Lord God of Israel. This is not a prayer, but an invocationa calling upon God to witness to his sincerity.
1Sa. 20:14-15. Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 1Sa. 20:14, And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not? 1Sa. 20:15 cannot, then, be a part of the question, but must be taken as the subjoined expression of confident expectation: And thou wilt not cut off thy kindness, etc. But this sudden, abrupt transition to a question, and then, again, to direct discourse, is strange, even if these vacillations and diversities of discourse are referred to Jonathans excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew. Jonathan, having invoked a blessing on David, thus expresses his wish for himself: And wouldst thou, if I still live, wouldst thou show me the kindness of God, and not, if I die, not cut off thy love from my house for ever? So Syr., Arab., Maur., Then., Ew., Keil. (Erdmann.) Jonathans request was fulfilled. See 2 Sam., chap. 9.
1Sa. 20:16. So Jonathan made a covenant, etc., namely, by bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever. (Keil.) The second clause is generally understood to be a continuation of the historians words, and is rendered, And Jehovah required it at the hand of Davids enemies, i.e., Jonathans words were fulfilled. So Keil and others.
1Sa. 20:17. This verse is generally understood to mean that Jonathan made his love to David the ground of his request, or (Trans. of Langes Commentary) his love to David made him anxious to maintain friendly relations between their houses.
1Sa. 20:19. When thou hast stayed three days. Either with your family in Bethlehem, or wherever you find it convenient. (Jamieson.) Come down quickly. The Hebrew here is literally Come down very, but our authorised rendering seems to accord better with the sense than any other. Erdmann remarks that it might be necessary to insist on a quick descent to the place of meeting on account of the danger of being observed. When the business, etc. Literally on the day of the deed. Gesenius refers it to the attempt of Saul to kill David, narrated in 1Sa. 19:2, and Jonathans effort to save his friend on that occasion. Erdmann coincides in this view. Exel. The stone of departure. (Gesenius.) So called, probably, from its being the spot whence David separated from his friend. (Jamieson.)
1Sa. 20:23. The matter. Rather, the word. This refers not merely to the sign agreed upon, but to the whole matter, including the renewal of the bond of friendship. (Keil.) Behold, the Lord is between, etc. Sec Gen. 31:49.
1Sa. 20:24. So David hid himself, etc. Some expositors think that David went first to Bethlehem, others that the visit to his fathers house was entirely a fabrication. Meat, i.e., food of any kind.
1Sa. 20:25. A seat by the wall. The left-hand corner at the upper end of a room was, and still is, in the East, the most honourable place. The person seated there has his left arm confined by the wall but his right hand is at full liberty. From Abners position next the king, and Davids seat being left empty, it would seem that a state etiquette was observed at the royal table, each of the courtiers and ministers having places assigned to them according to their respective gradations of rank. (Jamieson). Jonathan arose. Kiel understands here that when Abner entered Jonathan rose from his seat by the side of Saul and gave up his place to Abner, others that he arose and seated Abner on the other side of Saul in Davids vacant place in order that the latter might not be missed. This latter suggestion seems, however, to be contradicted by the last clause of the verse which states that Davids place was empty.
1Sa. 20:27. The son of Jesse. Saul seems to hate the name of David and in contempt he calls him the son of Jesse. (Wordsworth).
1Sa. 20:30. Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman. This is a striking oriental form of abuse, the counterpart of that ancient benediction (Luk. 11:27). Saul was not angry with his wife; it was the son only upon whom he meant by this style of address to discharge his resentment; and the principle upon which it is founded seems to be that of a genuine filial instinct; it is a more inexpiable offence to hear the name and character of a parent traduced than any personal reproach. In every Eastern family the great object of devotion and respect is the mother. There are familiar expressions which show this very strongly. Pull my fathers beard, but do not speak ill of my mother, Strike me, but do not curse my mother.(Jamieson).
1Sa. 20:31. He shall surely die. Literally, he is a son of death.
1Sa. 20:34. He was grieved for David. The generosity of Jonathans character is very apparent. He did not resent the injury and insult offered to himself so much as the wrong done to his friend. (Biblical Commentary).
1Sa. 20:38. While in 1Sa. 20:20-22, this procedure is summarily described of three arrows, the account here is of one. We must suppose that Jonathan did so with each of the three arrows. (Erdmann).
1Sa. 20:40. Artillery. i.e., his bows and arrows. The French word artillerie signifies archery, and the term is still used in England, in the designation of the artillery company of London, the association of archers, though they have long disused bows and arrows. (Jamieson).
1Sa. 20:41. A place toward the south. An unintelligible description; one expects a repetition of the description of Davids hiding-place in 1Sa. 20:19. The word rendered toward is the same as that rendered near in 1Sa. 20:19, but instead of the stone Ezel following, there comes the inexplicable the south, (negeb) a word with which the adverb near is never joined, as it never is either with any other denoting a quarter of the heavens. The Sept. in both places read argab or ergab, a word meaning a heap of stones. If this is the true reading, Davids hiding-place was either a natural cavernous rock which was called argab, or some ruin of an ancient building, equally suited for a hiding place. (Biblical Commentary).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
SAULS DISPLEASURE AGAINST JONATHAN
Here we have
I. A strengthening of friendship between David and Jonathan. Two things contributed to this.
1. An act of confidence on the part of David. It shows how entire was the trust that David had in his friends fidelity, that in his extremity at this time he sought his presence and help. That he was to displace Jonathan on the throne of Israel was probably a fact which both of them now recognised, and in a friendship less perfect it would have had the effect of making David somewhat doubtful of the continuance of Jonathans regard. But he shows that he has fully gauged the exceeding love which left no room in Jonathans heart for any feeling of rivalry, and the very fact that he confided so entirely in his friend formed a new link in the already strong chain which bound them together. Where there is a sincere and unselfish love at the foundation of friendship, acts of mutual confidence increase and strengthen it.
2. A new act of self-denial on the part of Jonathan. Jonathan had before ventured to plead with his father on behalf of David. He had done morehe had fearlessly asserted his innocence, and now, although his method of procedure was different, it was evidently regarded by Saul as a declaration of friendship for David. And in proportion as Sauls wrath grew more fixed, so was the danger proportionately increased of those who showed him any favour. How dangerous it now was for Jonathan to defend him was apparent when his fathers anger went so far as an attempt to slay him. But this new exposure to danger for his friends sake would only cement the friendship on both sides. It is almost certain that David came to hear of Jonathans narrow escape from Sauls javelin, and the thought that the risk had been run on his account must have deepened his grateful love. But the same risk and danger would have had a deepening influence also on Jonathans love for David, for every act of self-denial for another gives us a new interest in him, and makes our affection for him stronger than before. It is like new wood placed upon a fireit gives new life to that which is already burning, and increases the volume of the whole.
II. A widening of the distance between Saul and his son. Jonathans filial respect for his father is as bright a feature in his character as his devotion to his friend. It manifests itself in his temperate remonstrance with his father when himself condemned to death by his unreasoning rashness (see 1Sa. 14:43), and when the same blind passion was prompting Saul to seek the life of David. In this chapter also it is displayed in his unwillingness to believe Davids assertion that Saul still sought his life. But the infatuation which had made a breach between the monarch and probably his most courageous and faithful subject, now creates one between the father and his most noble and dutiful son. It may well be supposed that the relations of Saul and Jonathan were never, after the occurrence here related, what they were before, and Sauls conduct is a striking illustration of the infatuation of wilful sin, which leads a man to cut off from his life one by one his truest sources of blessing and happiness.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
Friendship among the servants of God. Three questions:
1. Wherein is friendship among the servants of God grounded?It is a covenant in the Lord.
2. What perils threaten even friendship among the servants of God?That one friend, overlooking anothers sin, may do for his sake what is not right in the sight of God.
3. What blessing rests upon friendship among the servants of God?It teaches unenvying joy with them that rejoice, and faithful mourning and forbearing with them that mourn.J. Disselhoff.
1Sa. 20:3. It must not be forgotten that, to believers under the Old Covenant especially, Death was not yet the angel with the palm-branch of peace, as we to whom life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel know it, or at least ought to know it. If, notwithstanding, the thought that there is but a step between us and death fills us also with horror, as too frequently happens, how shall we venture to blame the man living under the Old Testament economy, if we hear him, in his trying situation, express the wish that he might escape at least that form of death which was intended for him?Krummacher.
1Sa. 20:4. Here friendship goes too far. It is wrong to promise unconditional compliance with the wishes of another. He may err in judgment and ask what is unwise, or may be misled by interest and ask what is wrong. And, besides, every man is solemnly bound to exercise his own judgment and conscience in the direction of his own conduct. Jonathan was led by this promise to tell a falsehood which his father detected, and was thereby the more enraged.Trans. of Langes Commentary.
1Sa. 20:8. So long as one sees before him ordinary ways and means of escaping from danger, he should make use of them, and not look for extraordinary help from God, that he may not tempt God.Starke.
1Sa. 20:17. True love delights in receiving and giving repeated and strong assurances. This is very different from the repeated assurance which distrust demands.Trans. of Langes Commentary.
1Sa. 20:41. Strong men weeping.
1. Great occasion for it here. (a). Personal separation. (b). Mad injustice of their father. (c). Prospect of a bitter conflict.
2. Not unbecoming when on sufficient occasion. Compatible (a). With manly courage and spirit. David and Jonathan were certainly brave. (b). With great self-control (1Sa. 17:29; 1Sa. 18:14; 1Sa. 20:32). (c). With living trust in Providence (1Sa. 20:22).Trans. of Langes Commentarg.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Davids Farewell to Jonathan, 1Sa. 20:1-42.
Davids Appeal to Jonathan. 1Sa. 20:1-10
And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
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 show 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 and death.
4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
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, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Beth-lehem 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.
8 Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou has brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord with thee: notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father?
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?
1.
Why did David appeal to Jonathan? 1Sa. 20:1
Samuel was the man who had anointed David to be king over Israel. In this role, Samuel had showed himself to be a friend of David. David first fled to him. After he had been with Samuel in Ramah, his thoughts must have turned to other friends and supporters. No one had been any closer to David than Jonathan. In addition Jonathan would have full access to the court of Saul. Jonathan would know if there were some possible reasons for Sauls continued animosity. It was for these reasons that David next turned to Jonathan. His question was three-fold: What had he done? What was his iniquity of any kind? What was his sin against Saul? David thought Saul had surely indicated some reason why he was seeking to take his life.
2.
Why did Jonathan deny his fathers intentions? 1Sa. 20:2
Jonathan did not so much deny his fathers intention as to utter a prayer that God would spare Davids life. It was unthinkable to Jonathan that David should be slain. His continued speech, however, reveals that he evidently thought that his father was not intending to take such drastic action. As heir apparent to the throne, Jonathan would be taken into his fathers most intimate confidence. Nothing of any significance would be hidden from Jonathan; and he felt that Sauls intentions towards David were ultimately for good, except when his father was in the throes of the state of depression into which he fell.
3.
Why did David insist that Saul did intend to kill him? 1Sa. 20:3
David said that Saul knew that there was a deep friendship between Jonathan and David. On account of this friendship he believed Saul had failed to reveal his full intentions towards David as a part of the information he gave to Jonathan. This was one aspect of the kingdoms business into which Saul had not taken Jonathan into his confidence. David thought that Saul did not want to grieve Jonathan in this matter and had spared him the mental anguish of knowing his father was intending to slay his best friend. David insisted that there was only a very slight chance that he could escape. He was just one step away from death.
4.
What was the plan devised between Jonathan and David? 1Sa. 20:5
David proposed being absent from the feast of the new moon. He intended to go and hide himself in a field for three days while Jonathan made specific inquiry into the status of Sauls plans. Should Jonathan find out that David could safely come back into the court, he was to come out into the field and get him. If there were no possibility of his being reinstated at the court, Jonathan was to come and inform him so that he could flee from Saul.
5.
Was there a feast at Jesses house? 1Sa. 20:6
The feast of the new moon was a very important feast to the Israelites. Every male member was expected to observe the beginning of the new month. It is quite possible that there was a feast being held at Jesses house in Bethlehem. The Tabernacle in Shiloh had lost its significance to the people since the Ark had been captured by the Philistines. The Ark itself was still in the house of Abinadab on the western border of the tribe of Judah. The faithful people of Israel would continue to hold their feast. Since this is mentioned as an annual feast, it may have been the first day of the new year, the first day of the month Abib.
6.
How would Davids absence indicate Sauls attitude? 1Sa. 20:7
David would surely be missed. This may have been the very time at which Saul had laid the plot to catch David. He may have been waiting for this occasion when all his courtiers were expected to be with him. The fact that David was gone would irritate the king. The extent of his irritation would indicate his attitude towards David.
7.
What covenant of the Lord was between David and Jonathan? 1Sa. 20:8
The covenant of friendship into which David and Jonathan had entered (1Sa. 18:1-2) was considered a holy covenant by David. It was more than a statement of friendship between two men. David did not take it lightly. He had sworn unto the Lord that he would show kindness to Jonathan. Jonathan had made the same vow to him. This covenant was renewed time and time again throughout the lives of the two men. It bound them together inseparably.
8.
What danger was there in the plan for Jonathan? 1Sa. 20:10
David foresaw the possibility of Sauls answering Jonathan roughly. As the matter transpired, Saul did answer Jonathan roughly. He called him the son of a perverse, rebellious woman (1Sa. 20:30). Saul even cast his javelin at Jonathan to smite him (1Sa. 20:33). It is hard to imagine any depth to which Saul could have fallen where he would be lower than he was at this time. He had turned upon his armor-bearer and champion, David. He had accused his own daughter of turning against him. He had imagined that his courtiers were all against him. He came to the place where he cast reproach and suspicion upon his own wife and then threw a javelin to kill his heir and prince.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan.The strange course of events in the prophetic schools by Ramah, while warning David that even the home of his old master, the great seer, was no permanent sanctuary where he could safely rest, still gave him time to fly, and to take counsel with his loved friend, the king s son. It was, no doubt, by Samuels advice that he once more betook himself to the city of Saul, but his return was evidently secret.
Alone with his friend, he passionately asserts his entire innocence of the crimes laid to his charge by the unhappy, jealous Saul. His words here are found in substance in not a few of his Psalms, where, in touching language, he maintains how bitterly the world had wronged and persecuted a righteous, innocent man.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
JONATHAN’S LAST INTERCESSION FOR DAVID, 1Sa 20:1-42.
1. David fled Probably very soon after he witnessed the desperate attempts of Saul to seize upon him in the presence of Samuel and the prophets. Recently he fled to Samuel, (1Sa 19:18,) hoping, in the sanctity of the school of the prophets, to find a secure asylum; but now he sees that his persecutor will rashly invade even that sacred retreat. Next he flies to his tried friend, Jonathan.
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
DAVID’S FLIGHT TO RAMAH, AND SAUL’S PURSUIT, 1Sa 19:18 to 1Sa 24:18.
David fled to Samuel Whither could he better go for help and counsel at a time like this? Surely, he thinks, Samuel will defend me against Saul.
He and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth Naioth is not to be regarded as a proper name. The word means habitations, dwelling places, and refers to the dwellings of the band of prophets over whom Samuel presided. The plural is used because of the number of cells or huts in this locality. The Targum renders the word house of instruction, and Ewald defines it as studium, or school. Here these disciples of Samuel dwelt, and disciplined themselves in holy exercises. How long David enjoyed this society of Samuel and these prophets before Saul ascertained whither he had fled we cannot determine, but probably not long.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David Seeks Out Jonathan ( 1Sa 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 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
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” (1Sa 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” (1Sa 20:3).
d Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your soul desires, I will even do it for you” (1Sa 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” (1Sa 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?” (1Sa 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?” (1Sa 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 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.
1Sa 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.
1Sa 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.
1Sa 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.
1Sa 20:4
‘ Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your soul desires, I will even do it for you.” ’
Jonathan then assured David that he would do anything that he asked of him. He had only to make his request and it would be granted. This not only revealed his love for David, but also that there was not a shadow of doubt in Jonathan’s heart, that David was innocent.
1Sa 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 horns (Num 28:11-15; Num 10:10). It was a time of celebration of YHWH’s goodness, and was a special sabbath (Psa 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 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 (Lev 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.
1Sa 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).
1Sa 20:9
‘ 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?” ’
Jonathan dismissed the idea that David could be guilty. He was quite well aware that David was totally innocent. On the contrary, he made it clear that far from than wanting to pass judgment on David, if he had known of any evil determined against him by Saul he would have informed him of it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Sa 20:19 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.
1Sa 20:19
1Sa 19:2-3, “But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself: And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where thou art, and I will commune with my father of thee; and what I see, that I will tell thee.”
1Sa 20:19 Word Study on “Ezel” Strong says the Hebrew name “Ezel” (H237) means, “departure.” This could have been a particular milestone named Ezel that directed travellers along a route, as Strong suggests, it was a memorial stone. David was to find a hiding spot near this stone. This is the only place in the Scriptures where the name Ezel is used.
1Sa 20:25 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.
1Sa 20:25
1Sa 20:27 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 to day?
1Sa 20:27
1Sa 20:30-31, “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? 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.”
1Sa 20:31 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.
1Sa 20:31
1Sa 24:20-21, “And now, behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand. Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father’s house.”
1Sa 20:34 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.
1Sa 20:34
Eph 6:4, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
1Sa 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.
1Sa 20:41
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Conference between David and Jonathan
v. 1. And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, v. 2. And he, v. 3. And David, v. 4. Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee, v. 5. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, v. 6. If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem, his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family, v. 7. If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace, v. 8. Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant, v. 9. And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee, v. 10. Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? v. 11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field, v. 12. And Jonathan said unto David, v. 13. the Lord do so and much more to Jonathan. v. 14. And thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not, v. 15. but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house forever, v. 16. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the Lord even require it at the hand of David’s enemies, v. 17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, v. 18. Then Jonathan said to David, Tomorrow is the new moon; and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat, v. 19. And when thou hast stayed three days, v. 20. And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot at a mark, v. 21. And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go find out, v. 22. But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows are beyond thee, v. 23. And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
JONATHAN ENDEAVOURS TO RECONCILE SAUL TO DAVID (1Sa 20:1-42.).
EXPOSITION
JONATHAN‘S COVENANT WITH DAVID RENEWED (1Sa 20:1-23).
1Sa 20:1
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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
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.”
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?”
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 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.
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 desireO that; and the whole may be translated, “And O that, while I still live, yea, O that thou wouldst show me the kindness 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.
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.
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.
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 quicklyHebrew, “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.
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 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.
HOMILETICS.
1Sa 20:1-10
Endangered life and reputation.
The facts are
1. David, believing in Saul’s purpose to kill him, flees to Jonathan, and inquires into the cause of this persecution.
2. Jonathan quiets him by the assurance that Saul would not hide any purpose from him.
3. On David referring to Saul’s knowledge of their friendship and its effect on his methods, Jonathan expresses readiness to do whatever David may suggest.
4. Thereupon David suggests a means by which Saul’s disposition towards him can be ascertained.
5. He further pleads, on the ground of their strong friendship, that Jonathan should slay or aid to deliver him. It is not improbable that the coming of the prophetic spirit on Saul was, among other reasons, designed to help him once more to a due consideration of his course. But by this time David appears to have awakened to the conviction that the recent attempts on his life were not to be ascribed to fitful outbursts of madness, but to a fixed purpose, for reasons he could not surmise. As then he had sought refuge with Samuel from the hand of passionate violence, so now he naturally turns to his beloved friend Jonathan to ascertain from one presumably in his father’s secrets the causes of this persistent attempt on his life, and to demand of him the offices of true friendship. A triple consciousness pervades this appeal of David: namely, of integrity, of danger, of duty of self-preservation.
I. A MAN CONSCIOUS OF INTEGRITY OF LIFE. It would appear that David was quite unaware of the secret of Saul’s conduct. It is probable that he knew nothing of that fearful doom pronounced by Samuel (1Sa 15:26-29) which had operated so disastrously on the guilty mind of Saul. With the innocence of an unworldly man, he could not imagine that a monarch reigning over the people of God could ever devise destruction against a subject unless he believed that subject to have committed some crime worthy of death. Possibly the king might be under an unfounded impression; and as Jonathan was heir to the throne and in his father’s confidence, he would surely inform his friend. At all events, so far as he knew his own heart, he was conscious only of integrity. “What have I done? What is mine iniquity?” In dealing with the important matter involved in these questions, let us observe that
1. Integrity is to be sought in every man. David was correct in the assumption underlying his inquirythat every one ought to be characterised by integrity of life, and that on its existence alone can we justly claim exemption from scorn, suffering, abandonment, and a right to respect, enjoyment of life, and personal protection. There is in every man a voice unceasingly demanding of him uprightness, moral soundness. The eye with which we look on one another is guided by this conviction. And it is in the universal recognition of the truth that integrity is to be sought in every one that we find a basis of appeal in the name of righteousness, and a rational place for the doctrines of atonement and regeneration.
2. Integrity is to be regarded in a twofold aspect. It will be observed that David simply raises the question as to what he had done in relation to Saul or his kingdom. He distinguished between integrity in his relations to man and integrity in his relations to God. All moral relations to man involve moral relations to God, but the reverse is not true. Man’s relations to God are wider than those to his fellow men. Religious morality is not identical with secular morality. The spiritual embraces obligations transcending the humanly moral. Integrity in relation to man lies in the faithful discharge of all obligations due to man, under the influence of pure motives in detail, and a supreme sense of justice in general. But integrity in relation to God means perfect rightness of spirit, manifesting itself in perfect love of God, perfect obedience to God, perfect purity of thoughtin fact, conformity in every secret and open movement of will with the holy will of God. This soundness, this health, is certain to insure integrity in relation to man, but the reverse is not true. This distinction is of great importance to the understanding of Scripture and the regulation of life (cf. 2Ch 6:36-39; Job 15:14; Psa 15:1-5.; Isa 33:15, Isa 33:16; Rom 3:23-28; Jas 5:16; 1Jn 1:8).
3. Integrity in its human relation is, in ordinary life, maintained without self-assertion. During the months of David’s service, from the day he entered into conflict with Goliath till his flight to Naioth, he had been a true, sincere man, doing his duty. But all this time he was not conscious of anything remarkable. The beauty of integrity of life lies in the naturalness which suggests no reflection upon itself. True virtue excludes self-admiration, and, when in exercise, self-consciousness. Our Saviour never refers to his goodness as a praise to himself. The sun needs only to shine, the truth only to be (Mat 6:1-4; Luk 18:12).
4. Integrity may be asserted when challenged by detractors, or when wrong is done to one’s interests. David’s uprightness of life would have gone on without self-introspection and self. assertion were it not that he was subject to a treatment not explicable on ordinary principles. It was time for him to affirm his innocence, and bring his natural integrity into distinct consciousness. He often does this in the Psalms, not to claim righteousness in relation to God, but to rebut accusations in reference to his conduct amongst men. It was the same sense of injustice which led Job to assert his innocence of many of the charges of his friends. “I will maintain mine own ways before him” (Job 15:13-16). The Apostle Paul also vindicated his own life against the insinuations of false brethren (2Co 10:8-11; 2Co 11:6-10, 2Co 11:21-30). Our Saviour also, when persecuted by malicious men, could ask, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (Joh 8:46). Only a stern sense of dutya protest against wrongwill break a righteous man’s silence in relation to himself.
5. Integrity before man must never be a substitute for integrity before God. David’s object was simply vindication from supposed charges of wrong deliberately done to Saul. He had a deep consciousness at the same time that in the sight of God, as a spiritual being, he was unworthy and in need of mercy. Only such a man, sensible of sinfulness before God, would dwell so much on mercy (Psa 52:8; Psa 62:12; Psa 86:5), and at the same time on “integrity” and “uprightness” (Psa 7:8; Psa 25:21; Psa 26:1; Psa 41:1-13 :42). Men take a very superficial view of things when they imagine that goodness which passes among men, and is a fulfilment of our earthly obligations, “extendeth” unto God (Psa 16:2, Psa 16:3). This was one of the deadly errors of the Pharisees, and it was exposed by the whole tenor of our Saviour’s teaching (Luk 18:9-14; Joh 3:1-11). As we have not integrity before God, we must be born again, repent, seek forgiveness and acceptance, not because of what we are and have done, but because of Christ having loved us and given himself for us (Act 4:12; Rom 3:24-28; Rom 4:5, Rom 4:6; Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2; Php 3:8, Php 3:9).
II. A MAN SENSIBLE OF GREAT PERIL. Two perils beset David. He feared death at the hand of Saul, and, most of all, loss of reputation. He rightly judged that if the king of Israel sought his life and chased him with that end in view, the impression would be conveyed to many that he had been guilty of some act of wrong well known to Saul, though unknown to the people. An upright man, although able to commit himself to God, dreads to be thought a wrong doer, and to die as though he were such. Hence his pleading with Jonathan, his pain at the suspicion of want of integrity, his desire to learn whether the king’s mind was more placable. These two perils beset us all. In one sense we are safe from death till our appointed time has come, for God’s care fails not; yet in relation to the forces at work around us we know not what a day or an hour may bring forth. Life is begirt with powers of destruction. There is but a “step” between us and death. “In the midst of life we are in death.” The proper effect of this sense of peril is wholesome. It leads to such an estimate of life as renders it wiser, more sober, earnest, and devout (Psa 39:4-7; Psa 90:12; Ecc 9:10; Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:13; 1Co 7:29-31). But to a sincerely good man danger to reputation is more serious. Many would rather die than either actually lose character or be deemed to have lost it. They can sympathise with David’s wish that Jonathan would slay him if really moral cause existed. Our Saviour’s pain was great because of the effort to ruin his character. But though all are exposed to these two perils in common with David, there is one other peril of life which often is an occasion of loss of reputation. We are exposed to the wiles of the devil. As Saul sought the life of David, so Satan goeth about seeking whom he may devour (1Pe 5:8). Every day the adversary destroys by “his strong ones.” The language of the Psalmist (Psa 10:8-10) will apply with wonderful precision to the destroyer of souls, the “murderer from the beginning” (Joh 8:44). The proper effect of this sense of peril is to induce watchfulness, avoidance of the haunts of iniquity, prayer for strength, and such consecration to work as shall leave no time or thought for dalliance with the tempter (Mat 7:13; Mat 26:41; Eph 6:11, Eph 6:12, Eph 6:18).
III. A MAN INTENT ON SELF–PRESERVATION. While in conflict with Goliath, amidst the regular duties of his public course, David seems to have been under no concern for his life or reputation. He did his duty and trusted in God. But when he suspected attempts in the dark on his life and character, he felt bound to devise means of securing himself, and rightly manifested much anxiety in relation thereto. It is possible that character may be so defamed during life that only death will prove its vindication, as in case of our Saviour; nevertheless, no means should be left unused to assert our innocence and if possible prove it. The subtle powers which threaten our life may be often avoided by observance of laws of health and abstention from unnecessary risks. Many men commit slow suicide by wilful neglect of fresh air, good and moderate food, and by excessive toil for gain. The preservation of character may often be secured by abstaining from the “appearance of evil,” though we shall never rid ourselves of uncharitable defamers.
General lessons:
1. We should strive to be free from the narrow suspicions and uncharitable thoughts which tend to injure excellent reputations (1Co 13:4-7).
2. If we cannot vindicate our reputation before men, let us have comfort in God’s knowledge of us (Psa 37:5, Psa 37:6; Psa 139:1-4).
3. Like Jonathan, we should manifest great sympathy with those whose honourable character is defamed or in peril.
4. Our supreme concern should be to live in spirit so as to find acceptance with the holy, all-seeing God.
1Sa 20:11-23
The spring of self-sacrifice.
The facts are
1. Jonathan and David retire from observation to confer further.
2. Jonathan undertakes to do all that David requires, and solemnly pledges himself to let him know the mind of Saul.
3. He pleads with David, in prospect of his elevation to power, that he and his house may receive mercy.
4. In his eagerness he seeks a renewal of David’s promise.
5. They then arrange that, after consulting with Saul, an arrow before or beyond a certain mark shall reveal safety or danger. This beautiful narrative brings out the love and confidence of these young men in such a way that one is constrained to ask whether there is not here, not only an exquisite instance of what all our religious friendship should be in spirit and expression, but an historical foreshadowing of the relation of the loving, confiding soul to the true Anointed of the Lord. We know that in the New Testament the promised land is a shadow of the “better country,” the “rock” in the wilderness a figure of Christ (1Co 10:4), Zion and Jerusalem a type of the city of God, and David, the king after God’s own heart, a pattern of another David, the only begotten of the Father, the eternal King in Zion (Isa 9:7; Act 2:25-36). Also in the Psalms (Psa 45:1-17.) and in Isaiah there are references to the deep interest of the Church in Christ and of Christ in the Church. It is not, then, unwarrantable to regard the devotion of Jonathan to the coming king, and because be was beloved as the coming king, as, at all events, suggestive of an analogous devotion of the true believer to Christ. The most striking feature of the narrative before us is the utter self-sacrifice of Jonathan and the deep love from which it sprang. We may notice the main features of the story, and in doing so point out their truth in Christian life.
I. There IS A FULL ACQUIESCENCE IN DAVID‘S DESIRES SO FAR AS THEY ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN. Some might regard the retirement of the two into the seclusion of “the field” as suggestive of the private and sacred communion of a believer and Christ; but, without dwelling on that, it may be noticed that as soon as privacy was secured Jonathan at once, with solemn and pathetic earnestness, pledges himself to all that David had so far required. How true this is of a believer in Christ! When the “Anointed of the Lord” makes known his request, whether it be to bear witness for him, to remember his death, or to feed and clothe the little ones, the true heart responds with all zeal and delight. It is a mark of a true Christian, that of delighting to do his will. His yoke is easy and his burden light. It was a very delicate and difficult business to find out Saul’s mind, and involved no little risk to Jonathan; and it is possible that much in which we have to acquiesce involves a strain and tension of feeling, a firmness and endurance, a risk of worldly loss, and a certainty of personal inconvenience; but nevertheless all is welcome, because it is for him who has won our love and is worthy of the best service we can ever render.
II. There IS A DISTINCT RECOGNITION OF HIS ENDURING SUPREMACY, AND A CORRESPONDING SENSE OF PERSONAL UNWORTHINESS OF SUCH DISTINGUISHED FRIENDSHIP. It is hard to say in words how refined spiritual minds obtain all their knowledge. They seem to possess an insight, a supersensual instinct, which takes them straight through the present external conditions to the abiding reality. At all events, Jonathan was convinced that his beloved friend was destined to be king in Israel, and he speaks as one not worthy of such honour; and yet, with all this reverence and awe of the coming majesty and power, there was the tender love “passing that of women.” Faith saw through the loneliness and oppressed state of David, and recognised the king in Zion. This was the real feeling of the apostles, in their better moods, during the Saviour’s humiliation. They knew that, though men were divided in judgment, he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mat 16:13-16). The deep love of John when reclining on his bosom, and the sense of unworthiness of Peter when he cried, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luk 5:8), were only instances of the feeling which usually pervaded their minds. And it is this recognition and the feeling accompanying it which enters into every believer’s life. He is the King, the Hope of the afflicted nations, the “Restorer of paths to dwell in” (Isa 58:12). As Jonathan with passionate love and strong confidence gazed on the beautiful face of David, so do we look with intense interest on Christ and feel sure, in spite of the slow ages and the present antagonisms, that he “must reign,” that on his own head an imperishable crown shall flourish (Psa 72:1-20.). And while admiration, joy, and satisfaction attend this prevision of the coming glory, the heart is filled with wonder and gratitude in being permitted to call that Chosen One a Friend.
III. There IS A FREE SURRENDER OF ALL THAT IS DEAREST TO THE REALISATION OF HIS SUPREMACY. Nothing, humanly speaking, was more precious to Jonathan than his right to the succession, and the prospects of power and distinction involved therein. Nothing in history is more beautiful than the spontaneity and heartiness with which he laid aside all this, and found joy and satisfaction in the coming supremacy of David (verses 14-17). What noble self-sacrifice for high spiritual purposes! This was more than “houses and lands,” more than “father and mother” (Mat 19:29). Only the true spiritual vision of the kingdom of God will account for such deviation from the selfish ways of the world. “The Lord” was in the mind of Jonathan, and “the Name” (Joh 17:1-26 :45) which David had exalted was the “Name” to be still more honoured in his coining reign. And in this is the essence of our Christian life. Surrender of all for Christ: sacrifice of every power, prospect, hope, and wish to the holy purposes for which the “Anointed One” lives. In this there is no exaction and no constraint. Christ does not demand something for his mere personal gratification, and we do not yield to a loss because a more powerful One claims what we have. Jonathan and David were as one (verse 17). They had but one interest, and lived for one object. Loss and gain were inadequate terms. The surrender to one was as a surrender to self. Loss was gain, and gain was loss. So is it in the mystical union of our lives with Christ. Though we give up all, and perform what men call self-sacrifice, we yet give up nothing. For us “to live is Christ.” Blessed oneness! Always giving, always receiving; ever denying self, ever enriching self! The glory of the King is our glory; the sorrows of our heart are his sorrows; deeds to his are deeds to him (Mat 25:34-40; Joh 17:24; Heb 4:15).
IV. LOVE, CONSTANT AND MASTERFUL, IS THE SPRING OF ALL THIS SELF–SACRIFICE. Jonathan’s love was the master passion”passing that of women”pure, steady, unaffected by public opinion and private influence (verses 30, 31), illumined and regulated by spiritual insight, prompt in expression, giving joy and satisfaction to every deed and word that might bring future honour to David or present comfort in trouble. This undying love, this regnant force, so pure, so sweet, so strong, so gentle: ennobled its possessor, and was regarded by its object as the most beautiful and precious thing on earth. Events show that it was reciprocal (verse 41; 2Sa 1:25, 2Sa 1:26). It is this strong master passion that lies at the spring of all our true Christian service. “We love him because he first loved us.” “The love of Christ constraineth us.” We do his will, lay our talents, possessions, prospects, all we inherit or can acquire, at his feet because we love to do so, and would not do otherwise if we could. No box of ointment is too costly for those dear feet that have trodden the sorrowful paths of life for us! No crown too glorious for that brow that once was pierced and pained for us! No joy too excessive in final enthronement over all principality and power of him who once did battle for us, and destroyed the gigantic foe of God’s people! To measure out our service, to reckon how little we can spare or do, to shut him out from any section of our lifethis were debasement and shame indeed. Love”passing that of women”seeks satisfaction in living for Christ and glorying only in him.
General lessons:
1. We should inquire whether any of Christ’s requirements have as yet been disregarded.
2. It is a matter of doubt whether the professing Christian Church fully enters into the joy of Christ’s coming glory, and is sufficiently identified in hope and feeling with it.
3. Each one may ask, Have I surrendered all that is precious to Christ? Is there any reserve?
4. The due culture of love for Christ as the supreme affection of life demands thought and care.
5. The cure of many of the sorrows and ills of Christians and Churches lies in the quickening of this personal interest in Christ.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 20:1-10. (GIBEAH.)
The intercourse of friends.
The regard which true friends have for each other prompts to much communion. In it they find an exalted pleasure, and a sure resource of help and comfort in adversity. Hence David, in his continued distrust and fear of Saul, hastened to his friend Jonathan. Concerning their intercourse, notice
1. Its entire freedom. They tell each other, without reserve, all that is in their hearts. Such freedom can be wisely indulged only in the presence of a friend. “A principal fruit of friendship is the ease and discharge of the fulness and swellings of the heart which passions of all kinds do cause and induce. No receipt openeth the heart but a true friend, to whom you may impart griefs, joys, fears, hopes, suspicions, counsel, and whatsoever lieth upon the heart to oppress it, in a kind of civil shrift or confession. It redoubleth joys, and cutteth griefs in halves” (Bacon, ‘Essays’).
2. Its gentle expostulations and reproofs. When David said, “Thy father seeketh my life” (an expression often used in the Psalms), Jonathan reproved his distrust”It is not so;” and only after a solemn oath could be induced to share it (1Sa 20:9). Rebuke is a duty and evidence of true friendship; and “where a man’s ears are shut against the truth so that he cannot hear it from a friend, the welfare of such a one is to be despaired of.” “As many as I love I rebuke.”
3. Its kindly assurances. “Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will do it for thee.” Such assurances he gave generously, sincerely, solemnly, and repeatedly, and they imparted encouragement and increased confidence. How “exceeding great and precious” are the promises which the heavenly Friend has given for this purpose to his friends!
4. Its anxious consultations and intelligent counsels. “The second fruit of friendship is healthful and sovereign for the understanding, as the first is for the affections; for friendship maketh indeed a fair day in the affections from storm and tempests, but it maketh daylight in the understanding out of darkness and confusion of thoughts; neither is this to be understood only of faithful counsel. The last fruit is aid, and bearing a part in all actions and occasions” (Bacon).
5. Its earnest requests of aid (1Sa 20:8). Although it is the part of friendship to grant help to a friend rather than to beg it of him, yet it shows itself by reliance upon him in great emergencies, and confidently claims the fulfilment of former assurances; nor will it look for aid to a true friend in vain.
6. Its manifest imperfection. For, like all things earthly, human friendship is imperfect. Its communion is liable to interruption (1Sa 20:10, 1Sa 20:41). It often entertains thoughts, devises plans, and makes requests which are mistaken and injurious. The statement of David (though founded upon a measure of truth) was a mere pretext, and through failing faith in God he fell into “foolish and hurtful devices.” It also omits reproof when it should be given, complies with doubtful requests, and promises what it is not able to perform. But all the defects which are found in the highest human friendship are absent from, and all the excellences which it possesses, and infinitely more, are present in, the friendship of Christ.D.
1Sa 20:3. (GIBEAH.)
Only a step.
Our path in life lies along the brink of a river or the edge of a cliff; and we may by a stepa single stepat any moment meet our fate. The asseveration of David may be regarded as the expression of a strong conviction (“As Jehovah liveth,” etc.) of
I. THE SOLEMNITY OF DEATH. The event is a serious one. To leave familiar scenes and beloved friends, to “be missed” from our accustomed place is a saddening thought. But what gives solemnity to death as well as life is its moral aspect, its spiritual and Divine relations.
1. It terminates our earthly probationsevers our immediate connection with the privileges, means, and opportunities by which character is proved and the soul prepared for another state. When this step is taken, all these things belong to the past.
2. It ushers us into the Divine presence; no longer partially concealed by the veil of material things, but fully revealed in light, which reveals the moral attitude of every human spirit and judges it “in righteousness.” “After death” (and following close upon it) “the judgment” (Heb 9:28). “We must all be manifest before the judgment seat of Christ,” etc. (2Co 5:10).
3. It fixes our future destiny, in weal or woe. “What is a man profited,” etc.
II. THE UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE. The step must be taken, but when we know not. That we may be duly impressed by a truth which all admit, hut few adequately realise, consider
1. The frailty of the body, and the innumerable dangers to which it is exposed. “Between us and hell or heaven there is nothing but life, the most fragile thing in existence (Pascal).
2. The facts of daily observation. What occurs to others so often, so suddenly and unexpectedly, may occur to ourselves. We have no guarantee that it will not. “Man’s uncertain life is like a raindrop on the bough, amid ten thousand of its sparkling kindred, and at any moment it may fall.”
3. The declarations of the Divine word. “Man knoweth not his time,” etc. (Ecc 9:12). “Ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life?” etc. (Jas 4:14). Why should we be left in such uncertainty?
(1) To teach us the sovereignty of God and our dependence upon him.
(2) To accord with our present probationary position, which necessitates the proper adjustment of motives to our freedom and responsibility.
(3) To enable us properly to perform the ordinary duties of life, in connection with which we are appointed to serve God here and prepare for his service hereafter.
(4) To check presumption in devoting undue attention to the affairs of this life and neglecting those of the life to come.
(5) To lead us not to put the event out of our minds altogether, but rather to constant preparation for it and for the life that lies beyond. “The last day is kept secret that every day may be watched”. “Take ye heed, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is” (Mar 13:33). “Be ye therefore ready also, etc. (Luk 12:40).
III. THE NECESSITY OF WATCHFUL PREPARATION. Seeing that at any instant the step may be taken, it plainly behoves us to be always ready.
1. By seeking and maintaining a right state of heart (Joh 3:2, Joh 3:14).
2. By diligent, faithful, and persevering performance of duty.
3. By constant and prayerful committal of our souls into the hands of God. So, whenever the step is taken, it will be “only a step” out of the shadows and sorrows Of earth into the glory and joy of heaven.D.
1Sa 20:11-23. (THE OPEN COUNTRY, NEAR GIBEAH.)
A covenant of friendship.
“And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David” (1Sa 20:16). The friendship of Jonathan and David was expressed and confirmed by a sacred covenant (1Sa 18:3). The covenant now made differed from the former.
1. It was made at a time of trial. Their friendship was put to a severe test; for it had become clear to the mind of Jonathan that David was destined to be king (1Sa 20:13), as he afterwards stated more fully (1Sa 23:17) “Jonathan caused David to swear again” (1Sa 20:17), not because he distrusted him, but “because he loved him: for he loved him as be loved his own soul;” and in times of special danger such repeated and solemn assurances may be needful and beneficial.
2. It included the obligation to show kindness to the house of Jonathan as well as himself. Consider it as
I. CONFIRMED BY AN APPEAL TO GOD. It was customary in making a covenant (contract or agreement) to take an oath in which God was appealed to as a witness and an avenger of its violation (Gen 26:28; Gen 31:45-53). Even when no such appeal is expressly made it should be remembered
1. That he observes the promises and engagements which men make to one another, and keeps a faithful record thereof (Mal 3:16).
2. That he loves to see truth and faithfulness in their speech and conduct (Deu 7:9; Deu 32:4).
3. That he manifests his displeasure toward those who neglect or violate their engagements (Eze 17:9).
4. That he shows favour and affords help to those who strive to keep them faithfully. “Who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord” (Psa 24:4; Psa 15:4; Eph 4:25).
II. DEEPENING THE SENSE OF OBLIGATION. In some cases a covenant creates a new obligation; in others (like that of friendship) it intensifies the force and feeling of it
1. By the solemn manner in which it is made.
2. By the greater definiteness in which the obligation is expressed.
3. By the permanent record which is formed of it in the memory, often associated with particular places and objects (Jos 24:27).
4. And this is important as an incentive to faithfulness in temptation arising from self-interest and strong passion to set it aside. As often as Jonathan and David remembered their sacred covenant they would be impelled to ever higher love and faithfulness.
III. CONTRIBUTING TO THE BENEFIT OF BOTH. “By Jehovah,” etc. (1Sa 20:12). “And O that thou wouldst while I live show me kindness,” etc. (1Sa 20:14). Each received as well as gave assurances of kindness, which served
1. To afford a claim that might be confidently urged in difficulty and danger (1Sa 20:8).
2. To enrich the soul with a permanent feeling of pure and elevating joy. “Very pleasant hast thou been to me” (2Sa 1:26).
3. To preserve it from despondency in hours of darkness and trouble.
4. To increase its aspiration and endeavour after all that is excellent. The continued loyalty of David to Saul and his acts of kindness to him were doubtless greatly incited by the love of Jonathan; and the latter was not less morally strengthened and blessed by the love of David. “There is no influence on a feeling mind stronger than the sense of being loved; nothing more elevating, more securing to the inner life.”
IV. INVOLVING THE WELFARE OF OTHERS. “And that thou wouldst not cut off thy kindness from my house forever,” etc. (1Sa 20:15, 1Sa 20:23). “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 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 as concerns the judgment of extermination” (Erdmann).
1. A parent naturally desires and ought to seek the welfare of his family.
2. He may by his faithful conduct do much to promote it.
3. For the sake of one many are frequently and justly spared and blessed. “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake” (2Sa 9:1).
4. The memory of the good is a perpetual incitement to goodness.
Learn
1. The wonderful condescension of God in making with men a friendly covenant (arrangement, constitution, dispensation), according to which be graciously assures them of unspeakable privileges and blessings (Gen 9:14; Jer 31:33; Gal 3:15-18).
2. The sure ground which is thereby afforded for confidence and “strong consolation.”
3. The necessity of observing the appointed conditions thereof.
4. To look to God for all good through “Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb 12:24), and “for Christ’s sake” (Eph 4:32).D.
HOMILIES BY D. FRASER
1Sa 20:3
Mortal peril.
Brave men have their times of depression, and believing men have their fits of discouragement. Of David’s courage there could be no question. He had faced death without flinching, both in defence of his flock from beasts of prey, and for the deliverance of Israel from the boastful Philistine. Yet he now recoiled, saying, “There is but a step between me and death.” He felt as on the edge of a precipice. One push, and he was gone. We need not wonder at this; for it is one thing to meet an enemy in the open field, another thing to feel that one’s steps are dogged by treacherous malice, and not know but one may be attacked in his sleep, or struck from behind, or entrapped by some cruel stratagem. Of David’s faith in God there could be just as little question as of his bravery. All the successes he had gained had been triumphs of faith. But temperament goes for something too, and the son of Jesse had the sensitive nature which goes with poetic genius. He was capable of great exultation, but just as capable of sudden discouragement; and when he gave way to a foreboding, melancholy mood, his faith looked like unbelief. The young and healthy cannot, should not, wish to die. We can feel for Henry Kirke White, though his tone was too gloomy, when he wrote, deprecating his early fate
“It is hard
To feel the hand of Death arrest one’s steps
Throw a chill blight o’er all one’s budding hopes,
And hurl one’s soul untimely to the shades.”
Poets, both heathen and Christian, have often deplored the disease and violence which cast young lives headlong from the precipice. And we regard the youthful David’s recoil from the cruel death which Saul designed for him as quite natural, and in no sense discreditable to his manhood. But there is more than this in his melancholy.
I. THE OLD TESTAMENT WAY OF REGARDING DEATH. In the days before Christ, dimness overhung the doctrine of a future existence. “Life and incorruption” had not been brought to light. It was therefore reckoned a blessing to live long in Palestine. It was a sore calamity to die in one’s youth. The soldiers of Israel would encounter death in the excitement of battle; and such prophets as Elijah and Jonah could even wish for death in a hurt and discouraged mood of mind; but, as a rule, even the most devout Hebrews regarded death with sadness and reluctance. No wonder that David, brought up in the ideas of his own age, not of ours, should shrink from the cutting short of his days by violence, just when he had won distinction, and begun to be of service to his nation. The horror of it hung above him for many a day; for even after many wonderful escapes we hear him say, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.” This sadness or reluctance in view of death never left an Old Testament worthy like David except in the hour of battle, or under some such strong emotion as once made him cry, “Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!” At the end of his career he made express mention in his song of thanksgiving of his deliverance from the “sorrows” and the “snares of death” (2Sa 22:1-51.). And when we see him in old age, anxiously nursed that his days might be prolonged, we catch no sign of a spirit longing to be free and assured of being with the Lord, such as one expects to find in the latter days of almost any eminent Christian. “Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth.” Compare the language in Psa 13:3; Psa 30:9; Psa 88:11; and that of Hezekiah in Isa 38:1-22. Contrast with this the contempt of death which was admired and often exhibited by the heathen. But the Hebrew feeling on the subject was really the more exalted, as having a perception of the connection of death with sin, and a value for communion with the living God in the land which was his, and therefore theirs, of which the heathen mind knew nothing.
II. BRIGHTER VIEW OF DEATH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
1. Contrast with the case of David in youth that of Stephen at Jerusalem, evidently young, or in the prime of life. His powers were at the full, and a distinguished career of usefulness among the Hellenist Jews opened before him. Those who entered into controversy with him “were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.” Suddenly the enraged Jews seized him, and dragged him before the Sanhedrim on the capital charge of blasphemy. Well did Stephen know that there was but a step between him and death; but no melancholy fell upon his spirit. “All that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.”
2. Contrast with the case of David in old age that of “such an one as Paul the aged,” and his feeling when he was “ready to be offered,” and the time of his departure was at hand. He too was a man of sensitive temperament, and suffered keenly at times from dejection. He too was careful not to throw his life away. But when there seemed but a step between him and death, what an access of light, what an advance of consolation and hope, had the servant of God in the New Testament over the servant of God in the Old! David said, “I go the way of all the earth.” But Paul, “We are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” O happy ending of this troubled life! O welcome escape from fleshly impediment, weariness, temptation, insufficiency, and sorrow!
III. CHRIST‘S CONTEMPLATION OF HIS OWN DECEASE. He who is the Son of David, and the Lord of Stephen and of Paul, saw in the very prime of youthful manhood that there was but a step between him and death, and that too a death of harsh violence such as his ancestor had feared. There was, however, this difference between “the Man Christ Jesus” and all other menthat he knew when, where, and how he should die. It was to be at Jerusalem, and at the time of the feast. He foretold the very day on which he should “be perfected,” and indicated that it would be by crucifixion in saying that the Son of man would be “lifted up from the earth.” From such knowledge it is well that we are exempt. To know the place, time, and manner of our death would tempt, perhaps, at first to carelessness; and then, as the date came near, would put a strain on our spirits very hard to be borne. Such a strain was upon Christ, and, as the bitter death approached, his spirit was “exceeding sorrowful.” As David had his friend Jonathan to show him sympathy and endeavour to drive from his mind the presentiment of death, so Jesus Christ had his disciples, who, as lovers and friends, besought him not to think of dying; but he could not take comfort from them. The cup which his Father had given him to drink, should he not drink it? To him death was gain. He finished all his work and travail, then left the world and went to the Father. “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” We have much to learn from David, more from Stephen and Paul, most of all from our Lord Jesus. What if there be but a step between us and death? It is a step which cannot be taken but as, and when, and where our Lord appoints. “Lord Jesus, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” “Absent from the body, present with the Lord.”F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Sa 20:1-23
1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan,1 What have I done? what is my iniquity and what is my sin before thy father that 2he seeketh my life? And he said unto him, God forbid [Far be it2]! Thou shalt not die; behold, my father will do3 nothing either great or small but that he will 3show it me, and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. And David sware4 moreover,5 and said, Thy father certainly knoweth [knoweth well]6 that I have found grace in thine eyes, and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this.7 lest he be grieved. But truly, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, and as thy soul 4liveth, there is but a step between me and death.8 Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said] unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth [saith],9 I will even [om. 5even] do it for thee. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to-morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit10 with the king at meat; but let me go, that 6I may hide myself in the field unto the third11 day at even. If thy father at all [decidedly]12 miss me, then say, David earnestly asked13 leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem, his city, for there is a yearly sacrifice14 there for all the family. 7If he say thus, It is well, [ins. then] thy servant shall have peace; but if he be 8very wroth,15 then be sure that evil is determined by him. Therefore [And] thou shalt deal kindly with16 thy servant, for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] with thee; notwithstanding [but], if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself, for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? And Jonathan 9said, Far be it17 from thee; for, if I knew certainly that evil were determined 10by my father to come upon thee, then would I not tell it thee?18 Then said David [And David said] to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly ?19 And Jonathan said unto David, Come and let us go out 11into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
12And Jonathan said unto David, O [By]20 Lord [Jehovah], God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to-morrow any time [this time to-morrow] or the third day,21 and behold, if there be good towards David, and I then send not 13unto thee and shew it thee, the Lord [Jehovah] do so and much more to Jonathan.22 [13] But if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace, and the Lord [Jehovah] be with thee 14as he hath been with my father. And thou shalt not only [And O that thou wouldest]23 while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord [Jehovah] that I 15die not [And O,23 if I die]. But also thou shalt [that thou wouldst] not cut off thy kindness from my house forever, no, not [ins. even] when the Lord [Jehovah] 16hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So [And] Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying,24 Let the Lore, even require [David, and Jehovah required] it at the hand of Davids enemies.
17And Jonathan caused David to swear25 again, because he loved him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
18Then [And] Jonathan said to David [him], To-morrow is the new moon, and 19thou shalt [wilt] be missed, because thy seat will be empty. And when thou hast stayed three days, then [om. then] thou shalt go down quickly26 and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and thou shalt 20remain by the stone Ezel.27 And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as 21though I shot at a mark.28 And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find out [om. out] the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them, then come thou, for there is peace to thee and no hurt, 22as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth. But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold the arrows are beyond thee, [ins. then] go thy way, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath sent 23thee away. And, as touching [as to] the matter which thou and I [I and thou] have spoken of, behold the Lord [Jehovah] be between thee and me [me and thee] forever.29
2. Jonathan learns Sauls disposition towards David, and gives information to the latter, who flees
1Sa 20:24 to 1Sa 21:1 [1Sa 20:42]
24So [And] David hid himself in the field. And when the new moon was 25come, the king sat him down to eat meat. And the king sat upon his seat as at other times, even [om. even] upon a [the] seat by the wall, and Jonathan arose30 26and Abner sat by Sauls side, and Davids place was empty. Nevertheless [And] Saul spake not any thing that day, for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he 27is not clean, surely he is not clean.31 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month [the morrow of the new moon, the second day],32 that Davids place was empty; and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore 28cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day? And Jonathan 29answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; And he said, Let me go, I pray thee, for our family hath a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he33 hath commanded me to be there; and now, if I have found favor in thine eyes, let me get away,34 I pray thee, and see my brother. Therefore he cometh not unto the kings table.
30Then Sauls anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman,35 do I not know that thou hast chosen36 the son of Jesse to thy own confusion [shame] and unto the confusion [shame] of thy 31mothers nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore [And] now, send and fetch 32him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father and 33said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? And Saul cast37 a [his] javelin at him to smite him, whereby [and] Jonathan knew that it was determined38 34of his father to slay David. So [And] Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
35And it came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out into the field at the 36time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. And he said unto his lad, Run, find out [om. out] now the arrows which I shoot. And as [om. and as] the 37lad ran [ins. and] he shot an [the] arrow beyond him. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the 38lad and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee? And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathans lad gathered up the arrows39 and 39came40 to his master. But [And] the lad knew not any thing; only Jonathan and 40David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave his artillery41 unto his lad, and said 41unto him, Go, carry them to the city. As soon as the lad was gone [The lad went.] [ins. And] David arose out of a place toward the south [arose from beside the stone],42 and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David exceeded [wept greatly].43 42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] saying, The Lord [Jehovah] be between me and thee and between my seed and thy seed forever.
1Sa 21:1 And he arose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. 1Sa 20:1-23. Conversation and agreement between David and Jonathan on the mode of discovering Sauls real attitude toward David, and informing him of it.
1Sa 20:1 is connected immediately with the foregoing, the narrative of Davids flight from Naioth in Ramah standing in pragmatic connection with the account (close of 1 Samuel 19.) of the proceedings of Saul and his messengers. They came to seize David; instead of which the irresistible Spirit of God had overpowered them and defeated their design. David must herein have seen the protecting hand of his God, which thus gave him opportunity to flee from Naioth, where he could no longer Find asylum.Having by flight escaped the machinations of Saul and his followers, he seeks and finds a way to an interview with Jonathan.Davids three-fold question as to his fault is a three-fold denial of it, since it involves as many assertions of his innocence. An echo of this assertion is found in the declaration, so frequent in the Davidic Psalms, of his innocence and purity in respect to the persecutions of his enemies.That he seeks my soul, that is, my life, comp. Exo 4:19. S. Schmid: The questions in this verse are an appeal to Jonathans own knowledge.
1Sa 20:2. Jonathans answer to Davids 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 Sauls attack on him (as Jonathans following words are intended to show that he knew nothing of such a murderous plan on Sauls part), yet at the same time Jonathan, looking to Davids high divine mission for the people, prophetically declares what was determined in the Divine counsel concerning the maintenance and preservation of his friends life.For (to him) read (not.) The marginal Impf. () is to be preferred to the Perf. of the text, expressing customary action (does nothing [Eng. A. V. will do nothing]); so Sept., Vulg., Chald. We may indeed read the word as Prtcp. with Bunsen, who therefore regards the masoretic change as unnecessary. Jonathan means to say: My father as a rule does nothing without telling me, nothing great or small, that is, absolutely nothing, comp. 1Sa 22:15, 1Sa 25:36, Num 22:18. The appended remark: Why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so! supposes that the intitimate relation between Jonathan and David had been concealed as far as possible from Saul. They were secret friends, as far as he was concerned. Otherwise Saul would certainly not have spoken to his son Jonathan (1Sa 19:1) of his purpose to kill David. This confirms what Jonathan here says to David. Sauls lack of self-control44 showed itself in his taking counsel about his scheme of murder with those about him, his violent passion so mastering him that he could not at all conceal the fury of his heart. His communication of his plan (1Sa 19:1) was the occasion of Jonathans hindering it; Saul even swore to Jonathan that he would not kill David, and this Jonathan told David (1Sa 19:6-7). To this Jonathans word here refers: thou shalt not die, &c. Since that time there had been another war with the Philistines (ib. 1Sa 20:8), and shortly before this conversation of David and Jonathan the incident narrated in 1Sa 20:9-24 occurred. Davids words in 1Sa 20:3 : he (Saul) thought Jonathan must not know this, confirm Jonathans assurance that his father had told him nothing of a plan of murder. But, it may properly be asked, did Jonathan know nothing of the events just described, on which Davids 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, Sauls attempt against David could not possibly have remained concealed from him. Accepting this supposition as the more probable, we must, in order to understand Jonathans words, look at the whole situation. The account of all the occurrences from 1Sa 19:9 on exhibits Saul in a relatively unsound state of mind, produced by a new attack of rage and madness. As now Saul had before, after recovering from such an attack, sworn to Jonathan in consequence of his representations, that he would not kill David, Jonathan might regard this late attempt on David as the result of a new but temporary access of rage, and, remembering his distinct oath in his lucid period, might suppose that he would not in a quiet state of mind resolve on and execute such a murder. Thus his decided it is not so may be psychologically explained. Ngelsbach: Between 1Sa 19:2 and 1Sa 20:2 there is no contradiction, since in the latter passage Jonathan merely denies that there is now a new attempt against Davids life (Herz. R.-E. xiii. 403). But while Jonathan had in mind merely the symptom in his fathers condition, David knew how deeply rooted in envy and jealousy Sauls hate toward him was. He assures him with an oath, what was perfectly clear to him, that Saul sought his destruction. refers to what is said in 1Sa 20:1, and so=thereto, moreover, not the second time, again, since nothing is said of a previous oath. Davids reply contains two things: (1) the explanation (connected with the indirect affirmation that Saul had resolved to murder him) of Jonathans statement that Saul had said nothing to him of the murder, by referring to Sauls undoubted knowledge of the friendship between them, and (2) the assertion (with a double oath) that he saw nothing but death before him. ( is here intensive, =imo, so especially in oaths, 1Sa 14:44, 1Ki 1:29 sq., 1Sa 2:23 f., 2Ki 3:14. expresses comparison or similarity). Yea, as a step, like a step. The picture is of a precipice, from which he is only a step removed, over which he may any moment be plunged.
1Sa 20:4. Jonathans answer supposes that he gives credence to Davids assertion, and proves his friendship by offering his help, with the declaration that he wished to fulfill every wish of his soul. The reply of David (1Sa 20:5) shows how far he had cause to fear that there was only a step between him and death. The recollection of the obligation on him to take part in the new moon feast at court as a member of Sauls family (not merely as one (Then.) who had a standing formal invitation), brings him face to face with the danger in which his life stood; for the feast fell on the following day. On the religious celebration of the day of new moon with burnt-offering and sin-offering and sound of trumpet see Num 10:10; Num 28:11-15. As a joyful festival it was connected with a cheerful meal. To this refers Sauls conjecture (1Sa 20:26) that David was absent on account of levitical uncleanness. And I must sit at table with the King. That is, as a matter of course, according to custom, he would be expected by Saul to take part in the meal. The Vulg. rightly renders ex more sedere soleo, but the Sept., proceeding from the fact that David was not present, wrongly inserts a negative: I shall not sit at meat. Ew. 338 b.: I am to sit, where the meaning is, I will certainly sit. As in 1Sa 16:2, it is here supposed that the custom was to sit, not to recline at table.Let me go, that I may hide myself. This is not a mere formula of courtesy, but a request that Jonathan would not press him to appear at table, but permit him to depart, that he might escape the danger threatening him. Till the evening of the third day, that is, from the present day. This supposes that the festival was prolonged by a meal the day after new moon.Comp. 1Sa 20:12; 1Sa 20:27; 1Sa 20:34, where Saul looks for David also the day after new moon.From the fact that both David and Saul here look to the formers appearance at the royal table, it has been held (Then., Ew.) that this whole narrative contradicts 1 Samuel 19., and is taken from another source. But there is no contradiction if we remember that Saul acted (according to 1Sa 19:9 sq.) under an attack of rage or madness, and, on the return of a quiet frame of mind, would expect everything to go on as usual, and the whole personnel of his family to be present at table. After his previous experiences, David must now know certainly whether Saul in his times of quiet and lucidness, maintained against him that hostile disposition which showed itself in his intermittent attacks of rage.
1Sa 20:6. David wishes through Jonathan to determine Sauls attitude toward him, and find out certainly whether in his hate the latter has really conceived a plan for his destruction. As David, according to 1Sa 20:5, is to hide in the field till the evening of the third day, his excuse for absence can be regarded only as a pretext, or a lie of necessity, and the explanation that, by reason of the proximity of Bethlehem to Gibeah, he might, meantime, easily go home, must be rejected as out of keeping with the sense of the whole narrative. In this statement, which Jonathan was to make in case Saul missed David, namely, that the latter had gone to attend a family feast, the fact (easily explained from the absence of a central sanctuary) is supposed that individual families in Israel were accustomed to celebrate yearly festivals (Keil); this would be the case more naturally in those places where, as in Bethlehem (comp. 1Sa 16:2 sq.), there were altars dedicated to the Lord as centres of sacrifice. O. v. Gerlach: In the then disorganized condition of public worship, to which David first gave regular form, family usages of this sort, after the manner of other nations, had established themselves, which were contrary to the prescriptions concerning the unity of divine worship. On the yearly sacrifice see on 1Sa 1:1.,( from the connection not Pass. but Reflex.,=sought for himself.) David could ask leave of absence from Jonathan as competent representative of the royal family, if he did not wish to go to Saul.
1Sa 20:7. Sauls conduct in these two contrasted forms, was for Jonathan as for David the sign of his permanent attitude towards David in the condition of quiet in which he now was; for such a sign was necessary not only for Jonathan (S. Schmid) but also for David, since, as appears from the tenor of the whole narration, he did not yet certainly know how Saul in the depths of his heart was disposed towards him. If he says well, it means peace for thy servant, that is, from the connection, he has laid no plot of murder against me. In the other event, if his anger burn, know that evil on his part is a settled thing. = to be finished, settled, firmiter decretum est (S. Schmid). The evil is not malice, and its development to the highest point (Vulg.), but the danger to David, Sauls murder scheme, as appears from the phrase by him.
1Sa 20:8. And show mercy to thy servant,this refers not merely to the request of 1Sa 20:6 (S. Schmid, Keil), nor to what Jonathan should do in case Sauls 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 Jonathans reply in 1Sa 20:9. David grounds his request on the covenant of the Lord which Jonathan had made with him. So he calls their covenant of friendship, because it was not only made with invocation of the Lords name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God. Thou hast brought me,this indicates the initiative which, in the concluding of the covenant, was on the side of Jonathan (1Sa 18:1-3).In the words: If there is iniquity in me, slay thou me, David adds a special request, which is closely connected with what precedes. He would rather atone for any sin which might rest on him by death at his friends hand; Jonathan shall do him the kindness in this case not to deliver him up to Saul, that he may not be slain by him. This supposes that Jonathan had the right to inflict capital punishment for crimes against his father as king.
1Sa 20:9. Jonathans answer first decidedly sets aside the case last put by David. The far be it from thee is not to be connected with what follows, as if it were here said what was to be far (Ges., Del., Maur.), but is to be taken absolutely, and to be referred (as 1Sa 20:2) to what David had just said. The from thee is therefore not expletive (Cleric.) The Vulg. rightly: absit hoc a te. This involves Jonathans firm conviction of Davids innocence.Then follows Jonathans 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. ( is particle of asseveration=yea, truly.) If I know certainly that * * * * that is, if, from your statement (1Sa 20:7), I know beyond doubt that evil on my fathers part is a thing determined. From the connection, and on account of the vigor and emphasis of the interrogation, which is in keeping with Jonathans excited feeling, it is better to construe the if, etc., as first member (protasis), and the and not, &c, as second interrogative member (apodosis) of a conditional sentence45 [as in Eng. A. V.]
1Sa 20:10, Tremell, Ges., Ew. ( 352 a), Then, and Bunsen take this as one sentence: who will show me what rough thing perchance thy father will answer thee ( = whatever thing); against which we must insist with Keil that this signification of occurs only where another case is mentioned, where the ground-meaning is or. As [what] indicates a new question, we must here suppose two questions. The first: Who will show me? is connected immediately with the last words of Jonathan in 1Sa 20:9 : I will come to thee and tell thee, namely, the evil determined on by my father. David is thinking in this first question of the danger which Jonathan would thus incur, and, for that very reason, putting him out of the question, asks: Who will show me (the evil), that is, what thy father decrees against me (Maur.) He asks what he would be willing to tell a servant (S. Schmid). The Berl. Bib. explains excellently: The matter cannot be entrusted to a servant, and thou must have care for thyself, lest thou also come under thy fathers 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 Jonathans 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 Sauls anger (1Sa 20:7), whence Jonathan purposed learning that Sauls evil plan against David was completed. Schmids 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 ), if thou thyself didst it? Against this is the word answer, since Jonathan would not say to Saul that he intended to tell Davidand we cannot appropriately supply the idea that, if Saul afterwards heard of Jonathans going to David, he would answer him harshly. Rather the second question reads fully: Or who will tell what thy father, etc. Sauls evil word, by which his fixed evil purpose is to be discovered, is distinguished from this latter. But the evil answer is not to be understood of threats against David (Bttcher), but of harsh language towards Jonathan (1Sa 20:6-7). In this double question David denies or doubts that in this unfortunate case information can be given him. The two-fold question, with its negative meaning, corresponds to Davids 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. [Erdmanns 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 can mean simply if.Tr.] 1Sa 20:11. Let us go into the field, namely, out of the city of Gibeah, or the royal residence therein, where this conversation was held. It certainly accords with Davids words to suppose that they wished to escape from observation (Then.), in order to speak further undisturbedly of the matter, and to think over ways and means (Berl. Bib.); but at the same time the context suggests as another aim, that Jonathan wished to point out what he thought a fit place wherein to give his friend by a trustworthy sign the desired information, comp. 1Sa 20:19-24. This obviously supposes Jonathans fixed determination, in spite of Davids protest, to bring the message himself. That Jonathan went out for the sake of the oath which he afterwards [see 1Sa 20:42] renewed with David (Grot.: they used to swear in the open air) is less probable.
1Sa 20:12-23 is essentially the full positive answer to Davids question, which was meant in a negative sense. 1Sa 20:12-13. Jonathans 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 Davids life; for from this moment Davids way must coincide with that of Saul, or for ever diverge from it and be for him a way of uninterrupted suffering.That Jonathan begins his address with a solemn invocation of God, Jehovah, God of Israel (De Wette, Keil) [so Eng. A. V., see Text, and Gram.] is untenable, because there is no analogy for such a mode of address, and because of the introduction Jonathan said to David (Thenius). Nor can we suppose an interrupted discourse, resumed in 1Sa 20:13, for against this is the beginning of 1Sa 20:13 : The Lord do so.46 As an oath follows, it is simplest to regard this as the formula of an oath by God, not supplying (with Maurer): may God destroy me, or (Syr., Arab.): God is my witness, but (with Thenius supplying after Cod. Kenn. 560 and 224 margin, which might easily fall out before ) reading: as God lives; unless with Bunsen we take the Jehovah, God of Israel, as a lively ejaculation in the sense of an oath = by God.The protasis begins: when I sound my father, and goes to the end of 1Sa 20:12. = to-morrow about this time, as in 1Ki 19:2; 1Ki 20:6; 2Ki 7:1; 2Ki 7:18, and the full phrase in Jos 11:6 (Gesen.). The following word on the third day is without a conjunction (which with Sept. and Vulg. is to be supplied from the sense) and similarly depends on ,= the third day about this time. This expression to-morrow or next day refers to the statement of time in 1Sa 20:5, and supposes that the festival was continued by a meal the day after new moon. And behold, there is good for David, etc.In circumstantial phrase, which befits the solemn and serious character of the situation, Jonathan distinguishes the two cases, the favorable and the unfavorable, in order to make each the object of a solemn oath. Jonathan swears that in the first case he will send to David to uncover his ear, that is, to reveal to him, inform him that Saul is favorably disposed towards him, comp. 1Sa 22:8.
1Sa 20:13 the apodosis: so do the Lord to Jonathan, etc. The same formula in oaths in 1Sa 14:44; 1Ki 19:2.The opposite case is introduced with without adversative particle: (But) if it please my father to do thee evil, etc.47 The apodosis: I will show it thee and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace, asserts, in distinction from the preceding apodosis, that Jonathan in this case will bring David the information himself without the intervention of a messenger. With this promise, confirmed by an oath, Jonathan connects the wish: The Lord be with thee as he hath been with my father. This indicates that Jonathan has at least a presentiment of Davids high destiny and his future calling, which he is some time to fulfil as King of Israel in Sauls place.This comes out still more clearly in what follows. For in 1Sa 20:14-16 with such a presentiment he begs David in the future to maintain faithfully his mercy and love towards him even in misfortune. On the ground of what is now happening to Saul and David under the divine providence, he foresees how Saul and his house will be hurled from the royal power, and David thereto elevated. In Jonathans pious soul, which felt and perceived Gods righteous working, there lay hid a divinatory and prophetic element, as here appears. Jonathan, having before expressed his wish for David, here declares what he desires from David as counter-proof of faithful friendship. With reference to the oriental custom of killing the children and relations of the former king on ascending the throne, Jonathan begs David hereafter to show mercy to his house. The syntactical construction is a somewhat violent one, as accords with the emotion of the speaker (Bunsen). Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 1Sa 20:14 : And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not? 1Sa 20:15 cannot then be a part of the question, but must be taken as the subjoined expression of confident expectation: And thou wilt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever, not even when, etc. But this sudden, abrupt transition to a question and then again to direct discourse is strange, even if these vacillations and diversities of discourse are referred to Jonathans excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew.48 Jonathan, having invoked a blessing on David, thus expresses his wish for himself: And wouldst thou, if I still live, wouldst thou show me the kindness of God, and not, if I die, not cut off thy love from my house for ever? So Syr., Arab., Maur., Then., Ew., Keil. The correspondence and parallelism of the clauses is thus evident: to if I yet live answers if I die.49 To the show kindness to me answers the similar negative request, cut not off thy kindness from my house,not even when, &c. Kindness of the Lord; that is, love, goodness, such as the Lord, as covenant-God, shows His people according to His promise, and, therefore, one member of the people ought to show to another, especially in such a covenant of love made in the presence of the Lord. By this request for the kindness of the Lord Jonathan indicates Davids 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 forms an assonance : do not cut off even when the Lord shall cut off. Jonathan clearly understands that enmity against David is enmity against the Lords purpose and act, and that God s destroying judgment must fall on his fathers 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 Gods will concerning David, and bends to it as Davids friend), so that, though a member of Sauls house, he does not belong to it so far as concerns the judgment of extermination.See the fulfilment of Jonathans request, 2 Samuel 9.
1Sa 20:16 is a remark of the narrator 1) on this covenant between Jonathan and David, and 2) on the actual fulfilment of Jonathans word respecting the overthrow of Davids enemies. And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David. After supply : comp. 1Sa 22:8; Jos 6:1; Jdg 19:30; 2Ch 7:18 [1Ki 8:9. The examples from Josh, and Judges present omissions of other words.Tr.]The second part of the verse () is by many put into Jonathans mouth as part of his oath, and the Lord take vengeance on the enemies of David (Then., Maur., De Wette, Buns.). But the objection to this is, that then (unless with Then, we adopt the corrupt Sept. and Vulg. text: and may Jonathans name not be cut off from the house of David) we must supply saying ( between and ), 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 ( =take vengeance, punish, with the word blood, 2Sa 4:11, without it here and Jos 22:23.
1Sa 20:17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again. According to the connection this does not refer to what follows from 1Sa 20:18 on (Maur.), but concludes naturally the transaction between Jonathan and David,but not as an oath by which Jonathan assures David anew that he will keep his promise (Then.), according to the incorrect rendering of Sept. and Vulg. he swore to David (from which Then, would read to David, instead of Acc. David)rather it is an oath by which Jonathan adjures David to fulfil his last request (1Sa 20:14-15). The again refers to 1Sa 20:12. He adjured him by his love to him; that is, he made his love to David the ground of his request, so that David might in turn show his love. [Or, his love to David made him anxious to maintain friendly relations between their houses; he could not bear to think of his children shut out from the love of this his much-loved friend, whom he loved as himself.Tr.]. The words: for he loved him as his own soul confirm and define the preceding by his love to him, and indicate the cordialness of his friendly love, which is like his love for himself; that is, he loves his friend as himself. The soul is the centre of the inner life and of the whole personality. Comp. 1Sa 18:1-3.
1Sa 20:18 sq. Further conversation on the carrying out of Jonathans promise.As to 1Sa 20:18 comp. 1Sa 20:5.(The Perf. with Waw consec. has a future signification when preceded not only by an express Fut. but also by any indication of futurity, as here the words: to-morrow is new moon.) The presupposed situation is resumed as basis for the following agreement.
1Sa 20:19. And on the third day come down quickly. If we point the Heb. form as a verb =to do a thing the third day (), Ges., Ew., Maur., it is to be taken asyndetically with the following word in an adverbial sense (Ges., 142, 3, c) = do it on the third day that thou come down. But this sense of the word occurs nowhere else; Gesenius reference to the Arab. to come every fourth day does not suit here, because nothing is said of coming every fourth day. We might more easily assume the meaning to do a thing the third time (1Ki 18:34), and render a third time come down. The first time of his going down was in 1Sa 19:2, our present narrative gives the second time, and 1Sa 20:35 would be the third time. But besides the forced character of this explanation, we have against this vocalization of the Heb. text (the Sept. favors it) the Chald., Syr., Arab., and Vulg., which render And on the third day, and we must therefore read , which agrees with 1Sa 20:5. The words Come down very [so literally the Heb.] are also somewhat strange; not on account of the Adv. down (Then.), for this is explained by the nature of the ground, the field of meeting being lower than the surrounding highlands (Cler.: Jonathan seems to wish David to go down into a very deep valley as near as possible to Gibeah, where Jonathan himself would tell him what was to be donebut on account of the word very (). The Vulg. has descend quickly. From the difficulty of the reading some substitute thou wilt be missed (, 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 (very) we should read , appointed place of meeting, comp. Jos 8:14. It would be an Acc. of place as in 1Sa 20:11; see the similar expression in verse 35, which refers to this passage. [Eng. A. V. gives a very doubtful translation of the Heb. text; see Text. and Gram.Tr.].And come to the place where thou didst hide on the day of the business. These words are usually rightly referred to the narrative in 1Sa 19:2. But what does the day of the business mean? Against the reference to the wicked deed of Saul, which forced David to fly (Maur., Ew., De Wette), Thenius rightly says that the word never means wicked deed in itself, but only when the connection points to it (Job 33:17). But in 1Sa 19:2. there is mention not of a deed, but only of a purpose of Saul; the explanation on the day of the purposed evil (Ew.) adds something not contained in the word. Against the rendering on the work day as opposed to feast-day (Chald., Sept., Vulg., Ges., Luther) is the fact that, as Then. remarks, to obtain a fitting sense, we must then read: Thou wilt come from, the place where thou (on the work-day) shalt have hidden thyself. Bunsens explanation on the day when that happened (1Sa 19:2-3) attenuates the meaning of the Heb. word (), yea, directly contradicts it. [The word means something done.Tr.] The rendering on the day of the business (known to thee) (Tanchum, Then., Keil) is unsatisfactory, because it is then wholly uncertain what business occurred on that day. Holding fast to the view that that day (1Sa 19:2 sq.) was the one here referred to, the business, regarded by Jonathan as specially memorable, could only be Jonathans deed, when near that spot he turned aside his fathers murderous thoughts from David, having brought him to the spot where David was hidden and could hear the conversation. This was the business which Jonathans 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 Davids safety.And remain by the stone Ezel. (Sept. , , by that stone-heap. So Then, and Ew., except that the latter reads , the lonely waste. There is, however, no need for change of text; is a hollow rock as a hiding-place, and Ezel is a proper name.) [On the reading see Text. and Gram.Tr.].
1Sa 20:20. He will shoot three arrows on the side of the stone; the Art. the three arrows is explained by supposing that Jonathan, who had no doubt come armed, showed David three arrows by which the latter might from his hiding-place recognise his presence. Jonathan would act as if he were practicing at a mark (Vulg. as if exercising at a mark), it being understood that the arrows thus shot were to be gathered up50 from the place where they fell, whether in front of or behind the mark. (Bttcher: In the Raphe, as the accent shows, denotes that loses its aspiration by reason of the neighboring hard consonants (2 and then ), or remains as suffix , not as toneless local ; this refers to the preceding fem. , so that = juxta eam, at its (the stones) side (so render Vulg., De Wette, and even Luther), expresses a definite mark.)
1Sa 20:21. The agreement as to the sign, whereby David was to know whether there was danger for him or not. Before go, find the arrows the word saying has not fallen out, but is to be supplied (with Sept. and Vulg.) from the sense. Comp. 1Sa 11:7; Isa 10:3-4. The procedure is as follows: The servant, taking position by order on the side of the mark, is first, after the shooting, to go to the mark in order to find the arrows; if then Jonathan calls to him: The arrows are from thee, that is from the place where thou art hitherward, bring them,that is a sign for David that it is well, he is to come; for there is peace to thee, and it is nothing, as the Lord liveth. But if (1Sa 20:22) he says: The arrows are from thee, that is yonsides, that is a sign that David is to go away, to flee. For the Lord sendeth thee away, that is, commands thee to go away.
1Sa 20:23. And the word that we have spoken, that is, not merely the sign agreed on, but (as is indicated by the we and the I and thou) what they had said to one another in the whole affair, and promised one another before the Lord. Behold, the Lord is between me and thee for ever, comp. Gen 31:49. We need not with Sept. supply the word witness, since without it the thought is clearly expressed that it is the Lord in whom they have here anew concluded their covenant of friendship, and in whose fear they feel themselves bound to maintain it and fulfil their promises to one another.
1Sa 20:24-34. The execution of the agreement, and the open exhibition of Sauls deadly hate against David.
1Sa 20:24. Instead of sat, the Sept. has came to the table, but the Heb. text is to be retained as in keeping with the rapid and minute portraiture of the narrative. The text on (above) the food [, Eng. A. V. omits the prep.] is to be retained against the marginal reading (Qeri) to; he who sits at table is elevated, comp. Pro 23:30 (Maur.).David hid himselfSaul 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. ber d. Orient, II. 66 sq. As time on time, that is, as formerly, as usually, comp. iii. 4; Num 24:1. Vulg. secundum consuetudinem. The word arose presents serious difficulties. It is proposed to adopt the Sept. ( for ), and render Jonathan sat in front (Then., Ew., Buns.). But this meaning of the Heb. word is not proved, while the rendering of the Sept. he (Saul) went before Jonathan would certainly accord with it, since the verb means to go before. But that would be understood of itself, apart from the fact that the context and the syntax do not allow us to take Saul as subject; therefore, too, Clericus explanation falls to the ground; Saul alone preceded Jonathan, that is, Jonathan sat down next after him. The rendering of the Sept. clearly springs from the difficulty of the expression And Jonathan arose. We must try to hold to the text. The Syr. renders: And Jonathan arose and seated himself and Abner (seated himself) at Sauls side (connecting with , and putting before ). 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 (), 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 Sauls side, which he had taken perhaps in Abners absence under the impression that the latter would not come to the meal.Another rendering, however, naturally suggests itself; pointing the verb () as causative (Hiph. ), written defectively) as in 2Ch 10:2 (Ges. 69, 3 R. 7), and understanding that Jonathan had already seated himself after Saul, and that Davids absence was observed, we translate he arose, and seated Abner at Sauls side, that is, in the place left vacant by Davids absence,51 in order that the seat next to Saul might not be empty, he himself having taken the seat on the other side of Saul.Maurer conjectures that the words and Jonathan arose have been inserted here by the mistake of a transcriber from the beginning of 1Sa 20:34.
1Sa 20:26. The first day Saul explained Davids absence by supposing that he was ceremonially unclean and unable to take part in the religious festival. See Lev 7:20 sq.; 1Sa 15:16; Deu 23:4. [Kitto suggests as the explanation of Sauls expecting David, that he supposed David would infer from the occurrence at Naioth 1Sa 19:24, that Sauls mood was changed, and there was no longer danger.Tr.].
1Sa 20:27. The statement of time here is with Keil to be literally rendered: it was on the morrow after the new moon, the second day ( is Nom. with , not Gen. after ) and Davids place was missed, so De Wette: it came to pass on the following day of the new moon, the second. In reply to Sauls question about him Jonathan gave the answer agreed on in 1Sa 20:6, only adding that David was called to Bethlehem by his brother.
1Sa 20:28. David earnestly asked leave of me to Bethlehem, an elliptical expression, in which to go (1Sa 20:6) is to be supplied
1Sa 20:29. And he hath commanded me, my brother, and now, etc. Stumbling at the Sing. brother, the Sept. has brothers; we are to understand the eldest brother (Ew.) as head of the family, who had the care of the domestic arrangements for the feast. Vulg. wrongly: one of my brothers. Syr. and Arab. wrongly translate: and he (David) exhorted me and said to me, my brother, if, etc. Jonathans quotation of Davids 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 (). Comp. the run in 1Sa 20:6 (Bunsen).
1Sa 20:30 sq. Sauls outbreak of wrath in consequence of these words of Jonathan. Against the rendering thou son of a woman perverse and rebellious (literally, perverse one of rebellion, as Ni. partcp., Maurer: son of a perverse and contumacious motherO perverse and obstinate son) is partly the hardness of the phrase perverse one of rebellion, partly the monstrosity of the insult thus offered to Jonathans mother, which contradicts the Heb. family-spirit.52 The last objection lies also against the rendering of Sept. and Vulg. thou son of a rebellious woman ( for , Then.), or, as Vulg., thou son of a woman who voluntarily seizes on a man (obviously reading (Isa 14:6) or for ). So Ew., who puts Plu. instead of Sing.: thou son of wenches who run after (men). The most tolerable rendering is that of Kster, unjustly made light of by Then., found also in Clericus: Thou son of perversity of rebellion (taking as abstract noun, Ni. particip. of ), full of perverse rebellion. Cleric.: It is much better to say that Jonathan is called a son of perversity of rebellion, a common Hebraism for a man of perverse and refractory nature.53 Saul observes that Jonathan is on the side of David, whom he wishes to destroy as an aspirant after the throne and therefore a rebel. And so he looks on Jonathan also as a rebel.In the words Do I not know? Saul intimates that he is well aware of the secret friendship between Jonathan and David, and regards this excuse as confirmatory of his opinion. ( denotes choice out of love, commonly construed with , here only with . [On the unnecessary Sept. reading see Text. and Gram.Tr.]). To thy shame and to the shame of thy mothers 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 Jonathans mother according to the translation which we have rejected. In 1Sa 20:31 we see clearly why Saul called Jonathan a son of perverse rebellion. David is making a rebellious attempt on the royal throne, and Jonathan, bound to him in intimate friendship, is therefore a rebel. He calls this rebellion perversity, because as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, he (Jonathan) and his kingdom will not be established. It is therefore Sauls determined and permanent purpose to slay David as a rebel. And so he says: Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a son of death. These words fully reveal his disposition towards David.
1Sa 20:32. In spite of this outbreak of rage on his fathers part Jonathan tries with mild and quiet words to set forth Davids innocence and the injustice of putting him to death, as in 1Sa 19:4-5. At that time Sauls better feeling got the upper hand. Here, completely enslaved by his passion, he is an impotent instrument of his own blind hate.
1Sa 20:33. As David before, so now Jonathan is the mark of his spear hurled [or, brandished,Tr.], in blind rage (comp. 1Sa 18:11). Jonathan saw that it was a settled thing with his father to kill David (comp. 1Sa 20:9).
1Sa 20:34. A vivid and psychologically true description of Jonathans consequent conduct; he rises in fierce anger from the table, eats nothing this second day of the new moon (in contrast with the first, when he took part in the meal), and, what is the reason of his not eating, is grieved for David,54 because his father had done him shame [that is, done David, not Jonathan shame.Tr.]. That there is nothing of this in the text (Then.) cannot be maintained, for the way in which Saul spoke of the relation of Jonathan to David, and his indirect declaration that David was a rebel against him, the king, and therefore deserved death, was shame and insult enough. And that Jonathan thought this insult offered to his friend as a completely innocent man is clear from his question: Why shall he die? What has he done?
1Sa 20:35-42. [Heb. 21:1]. According to the agreement David is informed of Sauls attitude towards him, and, after a sorrowful parting with his friend, betakes himself to flight.
1Sa 20:35. The following morning Jonathan went to the field to meet David at the appointed place ( ), not at the time agreed on, which translation requires too much to be supplied; and with him a small servant who would not so easily suspect anything; this trifling notice is of great value as testimony to the historical realness of the occurrence(Then.).
1Sa 20:36. The narration is evidently abridged. Jonathan says to the servant: Bring the arrows. This plural answers to the agreement in 1Sa 20:20 sq., which seems to be contradicted by the following statement that Jonathan shot only one arrow ( is ancient unshortened Sing. for later , as in 1Sa 20:37-38; 2Ki 9:24; see Ew., 186, 2 e). To send it beyond him, so that the arrow went further than the servant had run.
1Sa 20:37. To the place (or, the region, Thenius) of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, according to the agreement with David, which referred to three arrows to be shot, Jonathan calls to the boy: Is not the arrow beyond thee? Jonathan uses a question instead of direct discourse (as in 1Sa 20:20-22) in order more certainly to make the boy believe that he was merely practicing at a mark. He heaps up words of command hasten, hurry, stay not, to keep the boys attention fixed on the arrow, that he might not chance to see David, who was hid near by. The boy took up the arrow. The text (Sing.) is to be retained against the Qeri (Plu.), since the purpose is to tell of one arrow only. He came (not as Sept. brought) to his master, that is, bringing the arrow. While in 1Sa 20:20-22 this procedure is summarily described of three arrows, the account here is of one. The difference is not to be explained by the supposition that Jonathan shortened the affair and shot only once, because there was danger in delay (Then.), for the shooting of three arrows was a principal point in the agreement, and if there had been such need of haste, the following parting-scene could not have taken place. Rather we must suppose that Jonathan did so with each of the three arrows. Either, as Bunsen remarks, Jonathan shot the arrows one right after another, or he thrice repeated it. In the first case we must hold with Keil that the Sing. here stands in an indefinite general way, the author not thinking it necessary, after what he has before said, to state that Jonathan shot three arrows one after another.
1Sa 20:40. Jonathan, having given his artillery to the ladwe need not with Sept. read for (Then.)sent him to the city, that he might be alone with David.
1Sa 20:41. David rose from the south side of the rock, where he had been concealed, the preceding affair having occurred on the north side, whence the boy returned to the city which lay north of Davids hiding-place, so that the latter was completely hid from him. It accords very well with this statement of the points of the compass that David afterward fled southward to Nob.55 The affecting description of the sorrowful parting is in keeping with the deep emotion of these two hearts (one loving the other as himself) not merely on account of the separation, which was final, but on account of the great dangers and grievous sufferings which the one saw that the other must inevitably endure from Saul. David fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself thrice. Clericus: To do Jonathan honor, that he might implore his help or gratefully acknowledge his kindness. Josephus: he did obeisance and called him the saviour of his life.There is no need to render with Vulgate and Syriac ( for ): But David wept still more, that is, than Jonathan. No sense can be extracted from the reading of the Septuagint unto a great consummation ( , according to Thenius from substitution of for ), which provokes from Capell the merry remark that, according to this, the two friends are still weeping, and will continue to weep till the last day.56 We must render literally: David did greatly,namely, wept violently, aloud. For the construction comp. Joe 2:20-21; Psa 126:2-3.
1Sa 20:42. Jonathan must quickly part from his weeping friend to spare him further danger. From the connection and the circumstances it is not probable that another conversation [of which Jonathans words are merely the conclusion] had before taken place (Keil). Jonathans parting word is: 1) a wish for peace or blessing, and 2) conjuring him that the covenant of friendship be forever maintained. The apodosis is not uttered; the aposiopesis accords with Jonathans deep emotion.1Sa 20:1 [in Eng. A. V. 1Sa 20:42]. The concluding scene. David goes his way in flight; Jonathan returns in the opposite direction to the city.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. David designates the covenant of friendship which Jonathan had made with him (1Sa 28:1 sq.) as one which he made with him in the Lord (comp. 1Sa 23:18). It was therefore not a friendship which rested merely on mutual good feeling, but was based on a recognized common union of heart with the living God. Jonathans heart clung in firm faith and trust to the Lord; this was the root of his heroic courage and his victorious prowess (comp. 1Sa 24:6); this fresh power of faith, which elevated and sanctified his whole being, won him Davids regard and love. Davids whole life-course showed Jonathan the direct wonderful gracious leading of the Lord, to which he humbly submitted himself. The two hearts were one in looking to and hoping in the living God, in humble obedience to His holy will. This was the foundation of their communion of love and life in the Lord. God works such unions through and in Himself, so that such souls become wholly one (Berl. Bib.).
2. On the light of this noble friendship concluded in the Lord falls the shadow of the lie of necessity to which David resorts in order to save himself from Sauls murderous designs, and into which Jonathan allows himself to be enticed by David, having given the unconditional promise: What thy soul says, I will do for thee. Yet the duty of absolute truthfulness could not be known so clearly from the stand-point of the Old Testament as from that of the New; of the same David who expressly said Keep thy lips from speaking guile (Psa 34:14 [13]) precisely the opposite is here and elsewhere related. But though there is in the narrative no condemnation of the lie, the course of events brings a judgment on it; for Saul sees through it immediately. On Jonathan falls his fathers rage (thereby roused), and Sauls anger burns the more violently against David. Instead of having recourse to a lie as a supposed necessary self-help, they ought to have united in unconditional trust in the Lords help, and have committed their affairs to Him. Compare how the Lord formerly exposed and brought to naught the lies of Abraham and Isaac (Gen 12:11 sq.; 1Sa 26:7 sq.), and punished the lie of Rebecca and Jacob (Gen 27:6 sq.).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa 20:1 sqq. Schlier: The old saying is right:
Silently suffer, forbear and endure,
Thy troubles to no one lament;
Despair not of God, for His promise is sure,
And daily thy help will be sent.
But it is another thing when we are indeed silent to the world, but tell our troubles and conflicts to a faithful friend, when we communicate to others all that oppresses us, when we do not complain and lament, but do seek counsel and consolation.Starke: Even great-hearted men sometimes grow faint-hearted; let us therefore not build too much on ourselves, but on God, whose power is mighty in the weak (2Co 12:9; Psa 30:8).[1Sa 20:2. Scott: Pious children will veil the faults of their parents as far as consists with other duties, and speak as favorably of them as truth permits.Tr.]
1Sa 20:3. Starke: Even in the midst of life we are in death.57 O man, do think of it, and never feel secure (Psa 39:6).[1Sa 20:4. Here friendship goes too far. It is wrong to promise unconditional compliance with the wishes of another. He may err in judgment and ask what is unwise, or may be misled by interest and ask what is wrong. And, besides, every man is solemnly bound to exercise his own judgment and conscience in the direction of his conduct. Jonathan was led by this promise to tell a falsehood, which his father detected, and was thereby the more enraged (1Sa 20:28-33).
1Sa 20:6. Taylor: From brooding morbidly over Sauls treatment of him, to the entire exclusion from his mind of Gods constant care over him, David fell into despair, and ran into a course of reckless deceit which brought the most fearful consequences in its train (1 Samuel 20-22).Tr.]
1Sa 20:8. Starke: So long as one sees before him ordinary ways and means of escaping from danger, he should make use of them, and not look for extraordinary help from God, that he may not tempt God.
1Sa 20:10. S. Schmid: A wise man not only proposes to himself to do good, but he looks around him for suitable means of accomplishing his good designs (Pro 21:25-26).
1Sa 20:11. Conversations between friends united in the Lord upon the highest and holiest matters of the inner or the outer life are to be preserved from the disturbing influences of the unquiet world; the thoughts interchanged in stillness before the Lord and in the Lord unite their hearts in all the closer inward ties for time and eternity.
1Sa 20:13. All the highest and most blessed things that souls united in the Lord can wish for each other are included in the one word: The Lord be with thee; for what is greater and more blessed than the Lords guidance and gracious presence?
1Sa 20:14. The kindness of the Lord itself exercises and employs the child of God as its instrument for his fellow-children and brethren; children of God love one another with and in the love of God which dwells in their hearts.
1Sa 20:15. Berlenb. Bible: A truly tranquil soul seeks neither honor nor advantage for itself. It is just as joyful when God is glorified in others as in itself. It only asks such a faithful friend, whom with joy it sees preferred before itself, that he will give it any help it may need in the spiritual life.
1Sa 20:17. Disselhoff: Unselfish love bears especially two noble fruitsto rejoice with them that rejoice, and to weep with them that weep. How heart-refreshingly do both of these beckon to us from the history of our two friends. Through Davids glorious victory, Jonathan, who had before been highly praised by the people as a conqueror, fell wholly into the shade. He lost through David even his hope of the crown. Yet he looked with joyful eye upon the deeds of David and his growing fame.[True love delights in receiving and giving repeated and strong assurances. This is very different from the renewed assurance which distrust demands.Tr.]
1Sa 20:23. S. Schmid: What has been once promised and is not opposed to God must be held fast.Schlier: A faithful friend is a gift of God, and God gives such a blessing to him that fears Him. The God-fearing David received from the Lord such a noble blessing of friendship as few others ever enjoyed.
1Sa 20:30 sqq. Schlier: We take up so easily with anger, and yet how fearful is the power of anger! How blind does anger make a manhow it carries him out of himself, so that he does not even know what he is doing; how it makes a man like a beast, so that he ceases to be himself, and falls under the power of darkness.
1Sa 20:35-40. Starke [from Hall]: In vain are those professions of love which are not answered with action (1Jn 3:18).
1Sa 20:32. Berl. Bible: A friend in grace cannot possibly let himself be moved by self-advantage. When he has once let self-seeking go, in order to give himself to God, then nothing disturbs him of all that may be said or done against him. He well knows the essential deep ground of unity, which is in God alone.Unity with favored souls draws after it also a like condition and like sorrow. So long as David is thy friend, thou must also have part in his cross.[1Sa 20:34. Scott: Under great provocations the meekest cannot always refrain from anger; but when its emotions are felt, it is our wisdom to withdraw in silence; and it is generous to be more grieved for our insulted friends than for ourselves.Tr.]
1Sa 20:41. S. Schmid: In misfortune the love of true friends must much rather increase than fall off.Osiander: The pious experience such weakness when they stand in fear of death or other trials, in order that they may know, when they have overcome misfortune, that they have done so not by their own strength, but that it is Gods gift. 1Sa 20:42. S. Schmid: When we are separated from our dearest friends in the world, it is our consolation if we are not separated from God, but have Him for a friend (Psa 73:25 sq.).Berl. Bible: The unions that are made in God are for that reason the strongest of all. Nothing human forms their bond. Presence does not increase them, just as little as absence diminishes them. Thence comes it that such persons separate without pain if God so wills. They desire only one thing, namely, to maintain peace even amid the greatest antagonisms, since this peace is a sure sign that one has not withdrawn from submission to the will of God.
J. Disselhoff to 1 Samuel 20 : Friendship among the servants of God. Three questions: 1) Wherein is friendship among the servants of God grounded?It is a covenant in the Lord. 2) What perils threaten even friendship among the servants of God?That one friend, overlooking anothers sin, may do for his sake what is not right in the sight of God. 3) What blessing rests upon friendship among the servants of God?It teaches unenvying joy with them that rejoice, and faithful mourning and forbearing with them that mourn.
F. W. Krummacher (1Sa 20:16-17): Sanctified friendship: The love of Jonathan for David is put to a severe test by a three-fold discovery which he makes: he gets a glimpse of the real disposition cherished by his royal father towards his friend, the heroic youthof the high destiny which God designs for his beloved friendand of the danger which threatens himself through his connection with David.
[1Sa 20:3 (end). A good funeral text in case of sudden death, especially when from accident.
1Sa 20:14-15. The friends plea for kindness. 1) Kindness notwithstanding separation and outward antagonism. 2) Kindness not merely on grounds of personal regard, but kindness of Jehovah. 3) Kindness not only to himself, but also to his posterity.
1Sa 20:41. Strong men weeping. 1) Great occasion for it here, a) Personal separation, b) Mad in justice of their father (comp. 1Sa 24:16). c) Prospect of a bitter conflict. 2) Not unbecoming when on sufficient occasion. Compatible a) With manly courage and spirit. David and Jonathan were certainly brave, b) With great self-control (1Sa 17:29; 1Sa 18:14; 1Sa 20:32). c) With living trust in Providence (v. 42).Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa 20:1. Sept. came before Jonathan and said, not so well. Wellhausen refers for a similar order to 2Sa 18:18.Tr.]
[2][1Sa 20:2. The divine name is not in the Heb.Tr.]
[3][1Sa 20:2. On the Qeri and Keth. see Exposition.Tr.]
[4][1Sa 20:3. So Chald., Syr., Vulg., Arab.; Sept. answered. Wellh.: The Sept. is right for David never swears, but see latter part of this verse and 1Ki 2:8.Tr.]
[5][1Sa 20:3. See Erdmanns Expos. against Thenius.Tr.]
[6][1Sa 20:3. The Inf. Absol. is throughout the chapter variously translated.Tr.]
[7][1Sa 20:3. Anonymous Greek version adds: lest he tell David, which is probably a gloss and not a translation.Tr.]
[8][1Sa 20:3. The Sept. here gives substantially the sense of the Heb.Tr.]
[9][1Sa 20:4. Margin of Eng. A. V.: Say what is thy mind, which is a free renderingTr.]
[10][1Sa 20:5. Literally: I should certainly sit, and so Chald. and Vulg., Syr., Arab., Rashi (I am accustomed to sit) and the Greek vss. except Sept., which has I will not sit, clearly from the succeeding narrative; on a special occasion like this (there seems to have occurred between 1 Samuel 19 and 1 Samuel 20 a reconciliation of Saul and David) he would be looked for.Tr.]
[11][1Sa 20:5. The fem. form is difficult. We may suppose here fem., or render (Rashi) evening of the third day, against which is the Art. with , or (with Sept. and Wellh.) omit the numeral.Tr.]
[12][1Sa 20:6. Infin. Absol. pressingly inquire after me.Tr.]
[13][1Sa 20:6. Niph. reflexive.Tr.]
[14][1Sa 20:6. Margin of Eng. A. V. feast, which gives the sense.Tr.]
[15][1Sa 20:7. Sept., if he answer thee roughly, probably from 1Sa 20:10.Tr.]
[16][1Sa 20:8. Heb. . Sept., Chald., Syr. (perh. Vulg., Arab.) which is the Heb. usage ( seems to be found nowhere else, , , in a few instances after ).Tr.]
[17][1Sa 20:9. This is the same Heb. phrase as is found in 1Sa 20:2.Tr.]
[18][1Sa 20:9. Or, we may render: If I knew, etc., and did not tell thee and supply Jehovah do so, etc. Syr.: If I knew, etc., I would come and tell thee, an impossible rendering, but perhaps from a different text.Sept. adds after come upon thee, , which is probably a duplet (so Wellh.).Tr.]
[19][1Sa 20:10. See Erdmann in the Expos. No satisfactory rendering is offered by vss. or expositors. Eng. A. V. is substantially supported by Chald.; the other vss. render: who will tell me whether thy father, etc? and this seems best if the present text is retained. But, while there is no good external authority for changing the text, the meaning whether perchance for is not established.Abarbanel quotes the explanation: who will tell me if thy father answers peace, or who will tell me what thy father answers rough? (which is nearly the form adopted by Erdmann), and then gives his own view that David says two things: 1) he asks who will tell him Sauls decision, whether good or bad? 2) he exclaims or what will thy father, etc?Ewald and others follow the vss. as above.Tr.]
[20][1Sa 20:12. On the whole passage, 1Sa 20:12-17, see Erdmanns discussion.The Vocative here (as in Eng. A. V.) is hardly possible. The vss. supply different words, Syr., Arab., witness, Sept., knows. Two MSS. insert by the life of Jehovah and Rashi calls it an oath. We must either so take it (which is simpler), or suppose the phrase interrupted and resumed below in the beginning of 1Sa 20:13.Tr.]
[21][1Sa 20:12. The same difficulty as in 1Sa 20:5; occurs a few times (perhaps only in Eze 7:10) as fem. We have also to supply or between and . Yet we cannot throw out the latter (Wellh.) which is sustained by all the vss., and does not in its content contradict the narrative. Jonathan may easily have seen reason for putting off his inquiry till the third day.Tr.]
[22][1Sa 20:12. This clause clearly belongs to 1Sa 20:13.Tr.]
[23][1Sa 20:14-15. Instead of read , = .Tr.]
[24][1Sa 20:16. There is no reason for the insertion of saying here. Chald., Vulg., render by the Aor. required, Syr. has Fut. It is properly a remark of the author, not of Jonathan, but it sounds like a marginal gloss which has crept into the text, though the Sept. had it before them. See the Exposition. On the opinion that Davids enemies here stands for David himself, and that this was fulfilled when his kingdom was divided because he deprived Mephibosheth of half of his possessions (2 Samuel 19), see Pooles Synopsis in loco.Tr.]
[25][1Sa 20:17. Sept., swore to David. The difficulty is in the reason assigned, namely, Jonathans love for David, which seems to support the Greek reading, on which see Erdmann in loco.Tr.]
[26][1Sa 20:19. Literally very. Sept. and apparently Chald () and Syr. read instead of . The seems to be maintained by the vss., Chald. and Syr., well, greatly, Vulg. quickly (so Eng. A. V.); some explain it of a deep descent into the valley. The Denom. thou shalt thrice do (So Erdmann), hardly thou shalt wait three days (but contra Philippson, Wellh., and apparently some vss.). Perhaps the best rendering would be: and the third day thou shalt watch thy opportunity and come to the place.Tr.]
[27][1Sa 20:19. Syr., that stone, Chald., stone of a sign, whence Rashi lapis viatorius to point travellers on the way.Tr.]
[28][1Sa 20:20. Literally to shoot (me) at a mark. Sept. I will shoot three times with arrows, afterwards one arrow only is mentioned; as in 1Sa 20:21, where the Heb. has the plu. And in 1Sa 20:36 we have the Sing. in the Heb. Yet this does not establish the Sept. reading, since the Plu. in the Heb. may be used in a general sense, while the Greek may have changed the number to make it agree with 1Sa 20:36.Tr.]
[29][1Sa 20:23. Chald. and Sept. have a witness for ever, which may be simply an explanation, or they may have read for .Tr.]
[30][1Sa 20:25. On this reading see the Exposition.Tr.]
[31][1Sa 20:26. Better, after the Sept., he has not cleansed himself.Tr.]
[32][1Sa 20:27. The Heb. is difficult. Wellh., combining Heb. and Sept., reads simply on the second day. Chald.: on the day after, which was the interealation of the second month (translated in Waltons Polyg. the day after that day which was, etc.) that is the day after the second new-moon, or the second day of the month. The rendering given above is altogether the easiest.Tr.]
[33][1Sa 20:29. The Heb. does not admit this rendering. Wellh. suggests and lo!Tr.]
[34][1Sa 20:29. Some MSS. and edd. have send me away.Tr.]
[35][1Sa 20:30. Sept., son of a faithless damsel, as if they read instead of , which is against the vss. and the rule proclivi scriptioni prstat ardua.Tr..]
[36][1Sa 20:30. Sept., art associated with (). The before is unusual. Yet if we substitute for there seems to be no good reason for changing the text.Tr.]
[37][1Sa 20:33. Or, brandished (Bib.-Com.).Tr.]
[38][1Sa 20:33. Instead of read (Wellh.).Tr.]
[39][1Sa 20:38. So in Qeri; the text has Sing. arrow. See on 1Sa 20:20.Tr.]
[40][1Sa 20:38. Sept., brought them, . Between the two readings it is hard to decide.Tr.]
[41][1Sa 20:40. Literally his implements. The distinctive word artillery, though now rarely used in this sense, is needed and should be retained.Tr.]
[42][1Sa 20:41. A difficult passage. The Heb. (as given in Eng. A. V.) does not yield a good sense, and the vss. deal variously with the sentence. Chald.: from beside the stone of the sign (or the stone Atha) which is on the south (from 1Sa 20:19), Syr.: from beside the stone, Sept., Vat., from the Argab, Alex., from sleep (see Orig. Hex. ed Montf.), Vulg. and others as the Heb. It seems probable that the readings here and in 1Sa 20:19 are the same, and that we should render in both cases either beside the stone or beside the stone Ezel (or, the sign-stone).Tr.]
[43][1Sa 20:42. Or, with Sept. and Wellh. omitting David, wept with one another greatly.Tr.]
[44][This seems to be the meaning of Erdmanns innere haltlosigkcit here.Tr.]
[45][See Text, and Gram.Tr.]
[46][Yet it is quite possible to read: Jehovah, God of Israelwhen I have sounded, etc.,if there be good and I show it not, so do Jehovah to Jonathan, which is instead of Jehovah do so to me if there be good and I show it not. The difficulty is only in the post-position of the adjuration.Tr.]
[47]Instead of Hiphil read with Bttch. and Then. Qal. , which may be construed, as with (Ps. 64:32), so also with (Bttch.). The Accus, particle before the subject =as respects, quoad, if it please my father in respect of evil. But this word () can never denote the Nominative; yet often only the general sense of the discourse calls forth the Acc., since the active form of connection everywhere presses in as the most natural (Ew., 277 d). So stands the Accus.-particle after the opposite of , that is, , 2Sa 11:25. Bunsen remarks that after my father to bring, has probably fallen out. But it is not necessary, in order to maintain as Accus. particle, to insert a supposed from the Sept. What the latter renders is clearly not , but itself read as (as in 1Ki 21:29; comp. 1Sa 17:54; 1Sa 18:27), because was wanting in its text (Bttch.).
[48]In 1Sa 20:14, instead of the double is read , or = , particle of wish, so in 1Sa 14:30; Isa 63:19 : O that, utinam, usually with the Impf., Ew. 329 b, 358 b.
[49]For , which, put thus absolutely, accords with the feeling of the speaker, we are not with Thenius after Sept. and Vulg. to read ; the conditional particle is often wanting, and is here naturally supplied from the preceding if I still live.
[50][This Verb is supplied conjecturally, being omitted in the German text.Tr.]
[51][Similar is Abarbanels view, and also Rashis.Tr.]
[52][The most grievous insult to an Arab is one directed against his mother, but such a phrase is not probable here; in the general uncertainty and obscurity of the language, Erdmanns explanation seems the least objectionable.Tr.]
[53][Wellhausen reads after Sept. and renders from Jdg 16:12 ( , comp. Lagardes Syr. vs.) runaway slave. On our passage Frankel (Vorstudien zur LXX. 187) says: The Hagada relates that Jonathans mother was one of the maidens carried off at Shiloh (Judges 21), and willingly offered herself to Saul (comp. Rashi in loco). This Hagada is expressed in the Greek (LXX.), and still more clearly in the Vulgate. So also in Joseph. Ant. VI. 11, 9, probably from the Sept., as is frequent with Josephus.Tr.]
[54][Bib. Comm.: The generosity of Jonathans character is seen in that he resented the wrong done to his friend, not that done to himself.Tr.].
[55][A point can hardly be made of this. David might just as well have fled in any other direction, and chose the south because he was naturally more familiar with the region where he was brought up.See Text. and Gram. for the difficulties of the text.Tr.].
[56][The phrase is used in New Test of the end of the world, as in Mat 13:39 al.Tr.].
[57] [Starke quotes this saying in substantially the form given it by Luther in a metrical version. We have substituted the form familiar to the English-speaking world from the Book of Common Prayer. Luthers hymn (Knapp 2824, Schaff 446) derives its first stanza, with alterations, from an older German version. The original Latin is found in Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus II. 329, is certainly quite old, and believed by some to have been written by a monk who died A. D. 912. It was once a favorite battle-song. The first line is so famous that it may be well to insert the whole:
Media vita in morte sumus:
Quem qurimus adjutorem nisi te, domine,
Qui pro peccatis nostris iuste irasceris:
Sancte Deus, sancte fortis, sancte et misericors salvator:
Amar morti ne tradas nos.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
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.
1Sa 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 Mat 2:13 ; Luk 4:28-30 ; Joh 8:59 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Character of Jonathan
1Sa 20
‘One knows not,’ says Dr. Blaikie, ‘whether most to wonder at the faith of Jonathan or the sweetness of his nature. It is David, the poor outlaw, with hardly a man to stand by him, that appears to Jonathan the man of power, the man who can dispose of all lives and sway all destinies; while Jonathan, the King’s son and confidential adviser, is somehow reduced to helplessness and unable even to save himself. But was there ever such a transaction entered into with such sweetness of temper? The calmness of Jonathan in contemplating the strange reverse of fortune, both to himself and David, is exquisitely beautiful… it is manly and glorious while it is meek and humble; such a combination of the noble and the submissive as was shown afterwards, in its highest form, in the one perfect example of our Lord Jesus Christ.’
References. XX.-XXII. W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 65. XX. 3. H. Woodcock, Sermon Outlines, p. 252. J. M. Neale, Sermons for Some Feast Days in the Christian Year, p. 193. XX. 25. Herbert Windross, The Life Victorious, p. 33. XXI. 8, 9. Ibid. Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii. p. 15. XXII. 2. H. J. Buxton, God’s Heroes, p. 109. XXIII. 14-16. J. M. Neale, Sermons for Some Feast Days in the Christian Year, p. 338. XXIII. 17. John Watson, Respectable Sins, p. 253. XXIII. 19, 20. Ibid. Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii. p. 112. XXIII. 28. W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 79. XXIV. R. Lorimer, Bible Studies in Life and Truth, p. 231. W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Jonathan’s Moral Courage
1Sa 20:34
WE are to understand that David was in great jeopardy from Saul, the king of Israel. David himself was very sensible of the peril of his condition, so much so, that he graphically described it to Jonathan in these words: “As thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death!” David was anxious to know whether Saul was at all mollified towards him. So the two young men, Jonathan and David, made a little plan between them, by which they were to test the present condition of the king’s mind. The dinner was provided as usual; Saul took his accustomed seat; but David was not present. But Saul had self-control enough that day to say nothing about the absence of David. The next day things were established in their usual order, and still David was not present. Saul now lost self-control, so far as to ask Jonathan why David, the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, was not in his place. Jonathan, according to a prearranged scheme, made reply. Saul with murderous intent took up a javelin, and hurled it at Jonathan; and Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame. We propose to inquire into the moral meaning of this incident, to see whether there is anything in it that applies to our own circumstances. It is impossible to read this story without having the mind arrested at several points of unusual interest
First of all, here is the saddest of all sights man arrayed against man. Not man against a savage beast; but man against his own kind, smiting the face of one made in his own image and likeness; thirsting, as it were, for human blood! Is there any sight sadder than that? It is, too, the king himself arrayed against those who are under him. It is no mean man. It is a man with a great name; and if great names should signalise great natures, it was the greatest man in the kingdom that was arrayed against a youth comparatively friendless. This is the state of society today. We are, as amongst ourselves, our own worst enemies. There is no fight between dogs that is comparable to the controversy between husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant, employer and employed. There are no wolves in the forest that can tear each other so terribly as men can do by unkind words, by unjust dealings, by taking sudden and unexpected advantage one of another. When God looks down from heaven to see the condition of his family upon earth, is there anything that can grieve his heart with so keen a pang as to see one man the enemy of another? Are we not mutual enemies? Is there not an eternal feud between man and man? Some accidental circumstances may be suggested which are apparently pointing in another direction. But, given a state of society in which limits and restrictions are taken away such as now bind us to what is at all events apparently right, is there not in our hearts the very spirit of homicide? This is not a popular doctrine to preach; but let us inquire whether it is not true. We are watching one another just now; we are to some extent upon our good behaviour; we live upon an island that is guarded and defended by a thousand limitations; but still take off all these artificial limitations, leave us to ourselves as ourselves, and is it not the part of man to devour man? That part was played so consistently and so urgently, that the apostle Paul at one time feared that it would get into the Church itself; and therefore he said, “See that ye bite not, nor devour one another!” He was actually afraid that the Church would be turned into a menagerie, and that the menagerie would have no iron bars around it, so that man would develop his fiercer disposition, and bite and devour and slay his fellow-men. We sigh for the spirit of brotherhood; and pray for the good time when man shall see in man the image and likeness of God. When human nature is more highly valued, the Spirit of Christ will prove to be more thoroughly established within us. Find a man that cares nothing for humanity, and you find a man who will never “go away into life eternal.” Find a man who will divide the last crust with a fellow-pilgrim, and you find one whom Christ shall call into the prepared kingdom, and start on the line of immortality.
Here we have not only the saddest of all sights, but we have the rupture of the most sacred bonds. Who is it that is offended in this case? It is not a stranger; it is the son that rose in fierce anger, being grieved for David and ashamed of his own father. “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.” Here is the natural order of things inverted. What is the natural order of things? That the young should look up to the old; that the old should be the inspiration and the defence of the young; that the father should be as God to the child, and that the child should look up with reverence and veneration to the father. Here is a son getting up from his own father’s table in shame and grief. To such passes may we come. Can anything be more pathetic, anything more fully charged with the highest elements of tragedy, than this that a son should get up in the presence of a great number of people ashamed of his own father? How are you bringing up your children? You cannot leave them great fortunes, but you may leave them good examples; you cannot leave them an illustrious name, but you may leave them a name that they can pronounce in every company, and defy the world to impeach. Your sons are taking notice of you. For a son to rise from his own father’s table, to go out of the house ashamed of his own father, is a possibility of which all men, heads of houses, ought to be fully aware. Are there not today fathers of whom children are ashamed? drunken fathers, indolent fathers, extravagant, thoughtless, imperious, self-willed fathers: the head of the house its only human curse, the man that ought to be “guide, philosopher, and friend,” either the terror of his household or the shame of his progeny! When fathers occupy their right positions, sons, in most cases, will be likely to occupy theirs. A good example is never lost. For a time it may seem to have no good effect; but the period will come, in living out this troubled human life of ours, when the boy will remember whose son he is, when the spirit of traditional piety may seize him, when he will remember whose mantle it is that has fallen upon his shoulders. Oh, to have a name left that can be pronounced without fear or shame, that you can defend with both hands, is surely to have an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. When your son is ashamed of you, know that the time of your destruction draweth nigh.
Here, too, is the assertion of the highest instinct What is it that asserts itself in this case? It is the spirit of right. “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” There are times in life when we must put aside all parental, traditional, ecclesiastical, and parliamentary authority, and do the right, as Jonathan did when he arose on this occasion. What was it that stirred him to this deed? His father had done wrong, and he himself was determined to vindicate right. The voice of right ought to be heard through all the noise and tumult and distraction incident to human society. Have we had any experience of this kind? Oh, how it shakes a man! We know of no finer sight than to see the spirit of rectitude filling out a man’s nature, making his very weakness strength, giving a strange penetrating emphasis to a voice naturally weak, giving fire to the youth whom we thought incapable of vehemence. The sight is grand, beyond all the imaginings of poetry and dreams. These are the men that keep the world square: men that get up from dinner-tables and say, “No! I am ashamed of your evil doing; and I will not taste your bread!” We tarry at the trough, and satisfy our appetites, and slake our thirst, but the man that is going out will save the world! Now and then it does us good, it heightens us with a divine elevation, to see a man who even under the most restricted circumstances will assert the right. How many people would have said, “Let dinner pass quietly over; do not outrage the conventional decencies of domestic society. Sit still. Be quiet. Eat your dinner, and when it is over we will see what can be done.” But Jonathan took no such course. The bread was in his mouth, but he said, “I will not swallow it!” The cup was in his hand, but he said, “I will set it down again! I cannot make thee a wise and true king; but I can do the next thing, I can protest against thee, and I will; and see, I leave thee with the fire of shame on my cheeks! I am ashamed, not because of David, but because of the king, my father!” Thank God for a man with a voice like that! There are so many of us that must have our dinner if all the Davids in creation were wronged!
We fear, however, that some are making distinctions which in the long run will be found to be not only foolish, but immoral and destructive. Do we not hear now and then some persons making a distinction between what they term abstract right and practical right? When the abstract right is trifled with, the practical right must sooner or later be thrown down. If any scheme of politics, education, government, social regeneration, is not metaphysically right, it never can be practically right in the long run. It may be expedient; it may be apparently right; it may do a little useful work for the time being; but if we are wrong at the centre, wrong in the highest metaphysical thinking, the outcome of our work will prove itself a failure. Get hold of a man who is right in the abstract, right in the soul, right in his theories; and beware of that man who says, “It’s all very well, in theory.” If a thing be wrong in theory, it never can be right in practice. It may be veneered, painted, gilded, and done up for a price; but it never can be right out and out from the centre to the circumference. Jonathan in this case made a protest on behalf of the abstract right, the essential right; and his voice has gone through the generations like a thunderbolt. Thank God that we had such testimony, because it may now and again touch the heroic nerve in young natures, and prove that even yet there are men amongst us who will not see wrong at least without crying shame and protesting against it.
Here we have a disproof of a familiar proverb. The familiar proverb is, “Blood is thicker than water.” Jonathan says, “Right is thicker than blood. David is no relation of mine physically; but David is an injured man; and my father is the individual who is injuring him, and I snap all ties that I may go and stand by the side of God and proclaim myself in favour of the right!” Consider no ties where righteousness is in question. There are secondary rights, and there are primary rights. You are your father’s child, and you say you ought to be filial and obedient. The spirit of righteousness says, No! “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” That is the explanatory qualification. Whatever your father tells you to do, if it be not “in the Lord,” you have a right to resist. Whatever your Government tells you to do that is not “in the Lord,” you have a right to protest against and to resist to the utmost. We are often serving some sub-gods, some under-deities, some little proxy kings, and forgetting the one eternal, absolute Ruler. We are measuring ourselves by false standards, and not by the one great judgment. Will you do wrong for your father’s sake, and call it filial obedience? There is only one Father. This term “father” that we use, we use only temporarily and with qualifications. One is your Father God. Let every tie be broken; let it go, so that you serve him who is clothed with righteousness, and who sits for ever in the light. Shall a man say, “If it had been anybody but my father, I certainly would have taken another course”? We ask, What is the question in controversy? If it be a question of mere politeness, civility, honour due to age, attention required by the ordinary courtesies of life, then all honour to you for honouring your father. But if it be a moral question, a question as between right and wrong, your father ceases to have any claim upon your conscience, if so be he indicate a course that is wrong or questionable. You are in partnership with your father, and will you think to put down to his credit all the elements of the management that are not exactly to your taste? You cannot do so, You aggravate your own guilt by doing it. What am I then to do? To come out of it and to be separate to leave my own flesh and blood? Yes! To be a stranger and an alien in the land? Yes! It is not necessary that you should live, but it is necessary that you should be true.
Men delude themselves with proverbs; they say, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” Nothing of the sort, unless the question be one that is very limited in its scope. “Blood is thicker than water.” The question is not between blood and water; the question is between blood and God, blood and righteousness, physical kinship and eternal alliance with the virtues and the honesties of the universe. A man says, “You know I must live.” We know just the contrary, if it be a moral question that is involved. There is no need in creation for any particular individual to live. It is a perfect fallacy to say, “You know I must live.” No! I must be good; I must be right; I must be honest; I must be true. There your music is of a pure kind; the angels march according to the beat of that rhythm. But when you say that you must live, it is the grandest mistake you can possibly make. No man can be of the slightest consequence to the universe as mere existences. It is when there is virtue in us, life, nobleness, purity, divinity it is then that the universe cares for us, and will keep itself together, as it were, for our convenience and progress. Who is deterred from doing right because his father is on the other side? Who is kept in a wrong church, where the truth is not spoken, because his father has a pew there? Kept from the open profession of Christianity, because his father would feel annoyed if he said anything about it? Are you comforting yourself with this text from the fool’s Bible “Blood is thicker than water”? Then, we say: Give up your father, rather than give up conscience, righteousness, truth, purity. Do not make his shame public, if you can avoid it; but let everything be struck down, rather than the Spirit of righteousness shall be grieved or quenched. “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God.” “Quench not the Spirit.” Inasmuch as you have had bitter experience of this kind of conduct from your father, see to it that, in your turn, you give your children the benefit of a right example.
Here we have the espousal of a noble policy. What was the policy of Jonathan? He espoused the cause of right against might. David had no resources. Saul had everything; and Jonathan said, “I know that he is the king, that he is my father, and that he has life and death upon his lips, so far as this existence is concerned; but in the name of the eternal right I defy him!” Shall the example be lost upon us? Is there no weak cause we can espouse? Can we do nothing to put down the evil side of that foolish proverb, “Nothing succeeds like success”? Let us beard Success in its own den; fight the most popular evils; espouse the poorest and the weakest causes, if it be that they are inspired by one element of right. It takes a strong man to stand alone. It is only a man here and there that can raise a tune; almost everybody tries to mumble after it is raised. But stand alone, young man; stand alone, poor man; stand with the right. Do not stand with it presumptuously and self-displayingly, with self-idolatrous demonstrativeness; but stand beside it because it is right, with all meekness and self-control and purity and honesty. We are in the minority, but we are in the minority of God! We do not believe in majorities, popularly so called. We believe that men should be weighed as well as numbered. Better have the support of one man of a certain kind than the support of ten thousand men of a kind directly opposite. If we cannot have them both, let us say: Give me that one man. “If God be for us, who can be against us?”
Now came a very beautiful little incident. Jonathan went out of the house, and took his way into the field by appointment, took a little lad with him, shot some arrows, called out to the boy words upon which himself and David had agreed; and David knew that anger was determined against him, “but the lad knew not anything.” There are unconscious workers in society. We do not know the full measure of all that we are doing. Had the lad been asked: “What are you doing?” he would have replied: “I am picking up arrows for Jonathan, the king’s son.” That is the end of his tale, so far as he knows it. Did he know that through him was telegraphed to a breaking heart that the king was determined against him? It is just so with us. We see part of our work; the other side of it we know nothing about. What a mysterious life, then, is this! We are observed; we are set in order; we are made instruments in some cases. We are called with the consent of our will up to a certain point; and then beyond that we seem to be utterly helpless, not knowing the influences that are shed off the sides of our character, and the indirect results or the moral meanings of what we are doing. We have been comforted sometimes by people who did not know that they were doing so. Sometimes a very poor and weak man, as the world calls poor and weak, has said something to us that has enabled us to redeem years of our life, bringing them back again so as to work with their experience; and the man has gone away without knowing that he has done anything. You give a child a book; can you tell what the influence of that is to be in after-years? You smiled upon some young man who was grappling with a difficulty. The smile cost you nothing. Yet, seeing that it came from your heart as well as from your face, it fell upon him like sunshine, and did another kind of work than that which it was intended at the moment it should do. So there is an unintentional and unconscious life. There is a part of our life that is lived on purpose; and there is a part of our life we know nothing about. There is a straight line; and suddenly it sweeps off into poetry and curvings. “No man liveth unto himself” in a far deeper sense than is usually attached to that passage. The boy was not living unto himself. He was doing a poor kind of thing without poetry or perspective in it, yet he was the telegraph between two hearts. This ought to invest life with something very solemn. We do not know whom we may be addressing, or what application this subject may have; but the word of the Lord cannot return unto him void. Children, obey your parents; let it be in the Lord! Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, obey your masters, but remember that One is your Master. Do not be deceived by sub-titles, by secondary divisions, but look at the primary, the essential, the everlasting.
What is the cure for all social chaos, domestic trouble, secret pain, all wrongdoing as between kings and subjects, fathers and children, man and man? The one cure is the Cross of Christ. There is no second prescription. The prescription by which we must abide is this: “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. We may veneer ourselves, and put ourselves into transient attitudes, but the only way to get right outwardly is to get right inwardly; the only one way to have clean hands is to have a clean heart; the only way to be holy is to have the Holy Spirit. You cannot hush society into a perpetual rest; you cannot beckon men into righteousness. You may say to Saul, “Saul, do not exclaim so today; and let this meal pass without putting these questions to Jonathan; see him, alone.” He may for a moment heed you, but you have not arrested the man. You must get at his heart. So it is with all social questions. You may give men better dwellings, you may give them better drainage, and better air. But never forget that, when man did fall, he fell, not in a metropolitan alley, not in a London slum; he fell where the sunshine was broadest, where the rivers were deepest and calmest. When he fell he fell amid surroundings which God himself had placed for his convenience and gratification. The only cure is not in change of circumstances, but in change of heart.
Prayer
Almighty God, we too are in the mount, the mount Zion, the mount of peace and reconciliation. Whilst we tarry upon its sacred heights may we see God through the pureness of our hearts, and feel the nearness of his presence, and respond to every appeal of the divine voice. We bless thee for mountain days. We thank thee for power to climb; it is next to power to fly. By-and-by, we shall fly in the midst of heaven. Now we tarry on high places and see glimpses of heaven, and feel upon us the air from a better land. For sanctuary days, and church-opening, we bless thee. They are the festivals of the soul; they are times of emancipation and deliverance and inexpressible delight. We thank thee for rapture, for ecstasy, for the times when we know not whether we are in the body or out of the body, but where the place whereon we stand is as the high heavens. Give us now and again such uplifting of soul, such transport and rapture of heart, and then enable us to return to the common duties of the time and to do them with cheerfulness and religious zeal, and to accept all the purpose of God thankfully and obediently. We thank thee that we do see now and again beyond the narrow lines of time. Now and again we see heaven opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. We ask questions concerning the white-clothed host, the wondrous band moving to strains of infinite music before thy throne. We cannot tell what we see, where we are, or what we are; but our souls are enlarged, influenced, ennobled, and variously enriched; so that when we return to earth and time and all the duties that lie nearest hand, behold we feel within us a new power, a touch of immortality, a strange royalty, which is yet kindred with the purposes of our creation. Help us now to gather around the mount of God and to enjoy expectations which thou alone canst excite, and may our prayer be answered with a great peace and our desire be consummated in the blessed consciousness of the divine nearness. This must be the time of triumphing over sin. If we name it, it is enough; if we point towards it with the confessing finger, it is sufficient. Thou wilt not hear our whole speech in hideous detail: thou wilt stop us in the recital of the iniquity by forgiveness, by assurance of love, by showing us the relation of the mystery of the cross to all the evil we have done. Thus whilst we are still talking of our straying away from home, and our folly and vice and iniquity behold, there the tale ceases; the house will be lighted, and there shall be mirth and joy and festival among the angels because the lost are found. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XII
SAUL’S MURDEROUS PURSUIT OF DAVID
1Sa 19:18-22:23
Let us trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the clothes,” answering this fivefold question: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or the second commandment? (4) What the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Protestants and Romanists, and what the danger of their use even as a help toward the worship of God.
We find the first use of it in Gen 31:19 ; Gen 31:26 ; Gen 31:31 ; Gen 31:34 . That chapter shows how Jacob and his wives and children and property left his father-in-law, Laban, on their return to the Holy Land, and that Rachel stole her father’s “teraphim;” and when Laban pursues, as we find in the same chapter, it is one of his accusations against Jacob that he had stolen his household gods. Jacob invites him to make a search and Rachel puts them under a camel saddle and sits down on the saddle and won’t get up, and so Laban can’t find them. Then, in Gen 35:2 Jacob orders all of his family to put away those false gods.
The next use of the word comes in Judges 17-18. The history is this: Micah, in the days of the judges, makes to himself molten and graven images and teraphim and puts them in a separate room in his house, i.e., has a little temple, and consecrates his own son to be a priest, but eventually there comes along a Levite, who is a descendant of Moses through Gerghom, and Micah employs this Levite on a salary to be his priest and to conduct his worship through these images graven, molten and the teraphim, using an ephod. A little later the Danites on their migration capture all these household gods of Micah, and the priest as well. Micah pursues and complains that they robbed him of his gods. The Danites advise him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and in the meantime they capture Laish in the northern part of the Holy Land and set up these same images and use that same descendant of Moses with the ephod to seek Jehovah through those images. The next time we find the word is in this section, where Michal took a teraphim and put it in David’s bed and made it look like somebody asleep. The next usage of the word is found in 2Ki 23:24 , in the early part of the great reformation led by King Josiah, who, after the law of the Lord had been found, causes all Judah to put away the teraphim and everything that was contrary to the Mosaic law.
We find it next in order of time in Hos 3:4 , where a prediction is made that Israel for a long time shall be without king or ephod or teraphim, and the last use is in Eze 21:22-23 . Ezekiel in exile shows how the king of Babylon came to the forks of the road and used divinations, etc., by the use of teraphim.
The word is never used in a good sense. Jehovah appoints his own way of approach to him and of ascertaining the future) condemning the use of teraphim in approaching him. Even that passage in Hosea only shows that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews for a long time the present time included will have no king, no ephod, no teraphim. That is, they would in no sense be idolaters, and yet their worship of Jehovah for this long period including the present time will be empty and vain until just before the millennial times, when they in one day accept the long-rejected Messiah.
A teraphim is an image, but it is distinguished from graven or molten images in two particulars: (1) it is carved out of wood; (2) it always represented a human form, whereas the graven and molten images were always of metal and oftenest took the form of the lower animals, like the calf that Aaron made at Sinai, and the calves set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel. To make the distinction clearer by a passage in the New Testament, the image of the great goddess Diana at Ephesus (Act 19 ), which was said to have fallen down from heaven, was a teraphim; that is, was a wooden image in human form and a very ugly one, but the little silver shrines of the temple of Diana made by Demetrius, the silversmith, and other silversmiths, were either graven or molten images. Another distinction is that the graven and the molten images were oftenest worshiped as gods, the teraphim oftenest used as a method of approach to their gods, and both of them were violations of the Second Commandment.
The teraphim in David’s house was Micah’s, not David’s, as the stolen teraphim of Laban’s was Rachel’s and not Jacob’s. There is no evidence that either Jacob or David ever resorted to teraphim or favored their use.
Coming now to the last part of the question, one of the chief issues between the Protestants and the Romanists in the Reformation was that the Romanists multiplied images in their worship metallic or wooden images. For instance, an image of Jesus on the cross, an image of the virgin Mary, the cross itself, or the image of some saint when carved out of wood representing human form, were teraphim, but when they were made out of metal were graven or molten images. While the better and more learned class of the Romanists only use these images as objective aids to worship, the masses of the people become image worshipers, bowing down before the image of the virgin Mary and ascribing adoration to her and praying to her, and ascribing all the grace of salvation to her. Even the pope himself says, in one of his proclamations, that the fountain of all grace is in Mary. In this way they violate that fundamental declaration of our Lord that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The Greek word, eikon , an image, equals in sense the Hebrew word, ” teraphim, ” and other images, so when the Protestants, in their fury against what they called idolatry, would break up these images wherever they found them they were called “iconoclasts,” i.e., “breakers of images.” Hence, when Charles I wrote that famous book, Eikon , Oliver Cromwell demanded of Milton that he write a reply to it, and he named his reply Iconoclast, a breaker of the image. The image question is a big one in history. There is a relation to that teraphim of Michal and her wifely relation to David. It showed that while indeed she loved David when he was a prosperous man, she had no sympathy with his religion, nor was she willing to share his exile and its sufferings. She could never say to him what Ruth said to Naomi: “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor cease from following after thee; for where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be buried.” When David’s fortunes were eclipsed she readily enough consented to become the wife of another man, to whom her father gave her, and whom she loved more than she had ever loved David. When David, after he became king, sent for her to be returned to him, as we learn from 2Sa 3 , she came unwillingly, and at a still later date when David brought the ark of the covenant from Kirjathjearim to put it in Jerusalem and participated in the religious exercises of the day, Michal looked out of the window and saw him and despised him, and when he came in she broke out on him in scornful speech, mocking him for the part he had taken in that day’s religious service. When a wife differs so radically from her husband in his religion as Michal did, the marital relation is much affected by it.
The reconciliation of the declaration in 2Sa 6:23 that Michal to the day of her death had no children, with the declaration in 2Sa 21:8 that there were five sons of Michal, is this: In the second passage the word Michal should be Merab, the older sister of Michal, who was married to Adriel, the Meholathite, and bare him five sons who were gibbeted to appease the wrath of the Gibeonites.
Fleeing from Saul, David rightly seeks refuge with Samuel at Ramah, and Samuel took him to Naioth of Ramah. Being banished from the king, quite naturally and appropriately he sought the prophet, and when he came to Samuel, the prophet took him from Ramah to Naioth; that means the Seminary, buildings where the school of the prophets was assembled, as if we had said, “He went from Waco to Fort Worth and to Naioth of Fort Worth,” i.e., the Seminary of Fort Worth. That is a very important passage. It refers to the buildings in which the school of the prophets assembled for instruction. But Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifested itself in this place of refuge. Hearing that David was there, he sent messengers to take him, but when the messengers came within the orbit of influence of that school of the prophets the spirit of the prophets fell on the messengers and they prophesied. This happened three times in succession. Finally Saul came himself, and it fell on him so violently that he tore off his outer clothing and in an ecstasy of prophesying fell down in a trance before Samuel and remained in that helpless condition all night long.
The compliment to Naioth is this: A number of God’s people, together studying his word, filled with his Spirit, the spiritual atmosphere of the place becomes a bar against the approach of evil. The evil-minded who come to mock remain to pray. I have seen revival meetings get to such power that emissaries of the devil, children of Belial, who would come there to break up the meeting, would be overpowered by its force. That was notably illustrated in the early days of Methodism, and particularly in the rise of the Cumberland Presbyterians. My son has given a very vivid account of that time, and of how wicked men would be seized with jerks and finally fall helpless into a trance when they attended these revival meetings.
The main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection are as follows: Doubtless through Samuel’s advice, David, while Saul lay in that trance, left Naioth and went back to make another appeal to Jonathan. The reason that he did this was that Jonathan, in his first intercession in behalf of David, had succeeded in pacifying the wrath of his father toward him. Their meeting is graphically described in the text. There isn’t a more touching passage in any piece of history than Jonathan’s solemn promise that if his father meant evil that he would inform David, and the plan they arranged to test whether Jonathan’s second attempt would be successful.
With the Jews the new moon was a sabbath, no matter on what day of the week it came, and they had a festival, and there was one just ahead. On these new moon festivals all of the official household of Saul had to be present, so it was arranged that when Saul observed that David’s place was vacant at that festival and he made inquiry about it, Jonathan would say, “He asked me to give him permission to go to his brother’s house and partake in the new moon sacrifices at home with his family,” then if Saul manifested no anger, that would be a sign that David could return. So on the second day of the new moon festival, Saul looked around, and seeing David’s seat empty on such an important occasion, directly asked Jonathan where he was, and Jonathan told him, according to the arrangement made with David, at which Saul became furious against Jonathan and denounced him in awful language, and when Jonathan makes his last appeal, Saul hurls a Javelin at him. Jonathan, insulted, outraged, gets up and leaves the table and goes out and shows David that it will never do to return to Saul, that he must seek refuge elsewhere, and they renew their covenant. Jonathan says, “I know you will be king, and I will be next to you, and when you are king be good to my family.” We will have some sad history on that later, about whether David did fulfil his solemn pledge to Jonathan to be good to Jonathan’s family when David had the power.
David next seeks refuge at Nob, where the priests and the’ tabernacle were not the ark that was at Kirjathjearim but the priests were assembled in the village of Nob with the high priest. David came, and did not relate to the priests the malice of Saul toward him, but came worn out, exhausted, famished with hunger, and the priest gives him to eat of the shew bread, unlawful for any but a priest to eat. The priest inquires through the Ephod what David wants to find out from Jehovah, and gives to him the sword of Goliath. You know I gave you a direction to trace that sword of Goliath’s; to ascertain what became of it. It had been carried to the tabernacle at Nob, and the priest gave it to David. David left there because he saw a rascal in the crowd, Dog, the Automat, one of Saul’s “lick-spittle” followers, and he said to the high priest, “That fellow will tell all of this to Saul when he gets back home.”
The New Testament reference to that is when the Pharisees were springing questions on our Lord he showed them that the sabbath law, like other laws, always had exceptions in cases of judgment, mercy, and necessity. Though it be the sabbath day when a man found an ass crushed under his burden or an ox in the ditch, he must work to relieve that poor beast, so, while it was against the law for anybody but a priest to eat the shew bread, yet, in a case of necessity, David being famished, the priest did right to give him the shew bread and he did right to eat it.
What the result? We learn that when this Dog went back and told Saul, he sent for the whole family of the priests and they came, and he demanded why they had sheltered and fed his enemy and used the Ephod in his behalf. The high priest explained. Saul told him that everyone of them should die, but he could find no officer who would put them to death. It seemed to be sacrilegious, until Dog, this Automat, took great pleasure in killing all of them except one. Then Saul sent and destroyed, root and branch, women and children, the entire village and all the priests at Nob.
David’s next attempt to find a refuge failed, but he succeeded later. He went to Achish, the king of the Philistines at Gath, and they were not ready to greet him. They believed that he came upon an evil mission. They said he was the man that had brought all the ruin on the Philistines, concerning whom the women sang, “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” To preserve himself from the danger of death that threatened him he feigned madness, and so deceived the king. A North American Indian would have done the same thing. They never shoot or strike the insane, believing them under the hand of a spirit.
David’s next effort at self-protection was at the cave of Adullam, and the record states that everyone that was in distress or in debt or discontented gathered unto him and he became a captain over them. Quite a number of mighty men, the greatest fighters then known to the world, came to him. A company came to him from Judah and Benjamin; his father’s household came, fearing that Saul would destroy them, so that he organized a fighting force of 400 men that has never been equalled by the same number of men. A little later we will see that it had grown to 600 men by other accessions. All of them were heroes and great fighters. Then there came to him Abiathar, the last one of the high priest’s family when Saul had destroyed the village of Nob, and there came to him some of the prophets, especially Gad, who remains with him all the time, and who wrote a part of the history we are discussing.
So that cave was the scene of the change in the fortunes of David. It makes little difference now whether he stays in Judah or goes anywhere else with that crowd back of him; nobody is able to harm him. It was at this time that he took his father and mother, who were old and couldn’t move swiftly with his fighting force, over to Moab, across the Jordan, doubtless relying upon the fact that Ruth, the Moabitess, was an ancestress of his, and the king of Moab sheltered the father and mother of David; but Gad, the prophet, admonishes David to leave Moab and go back to Judah. God would take care of him in his own land if he trusted him, and so he went back to Judah.
In view of Moab’s kindness to David’s family, the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day, to the history of which we will come later. They say that the king of Moab murdered David’s father and mother who had been left in his charge, and that David swept them with fire and sword for it when he got to them.
The great sermons in our day which have been preached on this part of David’s career are: (1) Melville’s sermon on David’s feigning madness at the court of Achish. A remarkable sermon. (2) Spurgeon’s great sermon on the Cave of Adullam from the text, “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain over them.” Spurgeon used that to illustrate how a similar class of people gathered around Christ, and he became a captain over them. Everyone that was in debt, or distress, or sick, or poverty-stricken, whatever the ailment, or in despair about the affairs of life, came to Jesus and be became a captain over them. It is a great sermon.
QUESTIONS
1. Trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, “teraphim,” which occurs in chapter 1Sa 19:13 : “And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and puts a pillow of goat’s hair at the head thereof and covered it with the “clothes,” answering the following questions: (1) Is the word, “teraphim,” ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first or second commandment? (4) What is the meaning of such an image being in David’s house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line between Romanists and Protestants, and what the danger of their use, even as a help toward the worship of God.
2. What bearing has Michal’s teraphim on her wifely relation to David, and what the proofs in later times?
3. Fleeing from Saul, with whom does David rightly seek refuge, and what the distinction between Ramah and Naioth in 1Sa 19:18-19 ?
4. How does Saul’s relentless hate toward David manifest itself in this place of refuge, what the result, and what the compliment to Naioth?
5. Give the main points of David’s next attempt at self-protection, show why he resorted to it, and what the result.
6. With whom next does David seek refuge, what the main incidents, what the New Testament reference thereto, why did David leave that refuge, and what the results to the priests for sheltering him?
7. What was David’s next attempt to find a refuge, why did it fail this time but succeed later, what was David’s expedient to escape from the danger, and why did that expedient succeed?
8. What was David’s next effort at self-protection, what accessions came to him, and what was the result on his future fortunes?
9. In view of the Moab’s kindness to David’s family, how do the Jews acquit David of the severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day?
10. What great sermons in our day have been preached on this part of David’s career?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Sa 20:1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what [is] mine iniquity? and what [is] my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
Ver. 1. And David fled from Naioth in Ramah. ] To Gibeah of Saul, which is twelve miles from Ramah, say some, a and where Jonathan was resident and president in his father’s absence. Hither David was hunted “as a partridge in the mountains”; and so hard bestead, that he knew not whither to betake him, unless it were to heaven (as he did, Psa 11:1-7 throughout), and to his fast friend Jonathan, who did his utmost for him when he was forlorn and forsaken of his hopes: God being now fitting him for the kingdom, by making “his soul even as a weaned child.” Psa 131:2
That he seeketh my life.
a Patriach., Travels.
1 Samuel
JONATHAN, THE PATTERN OF FRIENDSHIP
1Sa 20:1 – 1Sa 20:13 The friendship of Jonathan for David comes like a breath of pure air in the midst of the heavy-laden atmosphere of hate and mad fury, or like some clear fountain sparkling up among the sulphurous slag and barren scoriae of a volcano. There is no more beautiful page in history or poetry than the story of the passionate love of the heir to the throne for the young champion, whom he had so much cause to regard as a rival. What a proof of the victory of love over self is his saying, ‘Thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee’! 1Sa 23:17. Truly did David sing in his elegy, ‘Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women’; for in that old world, in which the relations between the sexes had not yet received the hallowing and refinement of Christian times, much of what is now chiefly found in these was manifested in friendship, such as that of these two young men. Jonathan is the foremost figure in it, and the nobility and self-oblivion of his love are beautifully brought out, while David’s part is rather that of the loved than of the lover. The scene is laid in Gibeah, where Saul kept his court, and to which all the persons of the story seem to have come back from Samuel’s house at Kamah. Saul’s strange subjugation to the hallowing influences of the prophet’s presence had been but momentary and superficial; and it had been followed by a renewed outburst of the old hate, obvious to David’s sharpened sight, though not to Jonathan. In the interview between them, David is pardonably but obviously absorbed in self, while Jonathan bends all his soul to cheer and reassure his friend.
There are four turns in the conversation, in each of which David speaks and Jonathan answers. David’s first question presupposes that his friend knows that his death is determined, and is privy to Saul’s thoughts. If he had been less harassed, he would have done Jonathan more justice than to suppose him capable of knowing everything without telling him anything; but fear is suspicious. He should have remembered that, when Saul first harboured murderous purposes, Jonathan had not waited to be asked, but had disclosed the plot to him, and perilled his own life by his remonstrances with his father. He should have trusted his friend. His question breathes consciousness of innocence of any hostility to Saul, but unconsciously betrays some defect in his confidence in Jonathan. The answer is magnanimous in its silence as to that aspect of the question, though the subsequent story seems to imply that Jonathan felt it. He tries to hearten David by strong assurances that his life is safe. He does not directly contradict David’s implication that he knew more than he had told, but, without asserting his ignorance, takes it for granted, and quietly argues from it the incorrectness of David’s suspicions. Incidentally he gives us, in the picture of the perfect confidence between Saul and himself, an inkling of how much he had to sacrifice to his friendship. Wild as was Saul’s fury when aroused, and narrow as had been his escape from it at an earlier time 1Sa 14:44, there was yet love between them, and the king made a confidant of his gallant eldest son. They ‘were lovely and pleasant in their lives.’ However gloomy and savage in his paroxysms Saul was, the relations between them were sweet. The most self-introverted and solitary soul needs some heart to pour itself out to, and this poor king found one in Jonathan. All the harder, then, was the trial of friendship when the trusted son had to take the part of the friend whom his father deemed an enemy, and had the pain of breaking such close ties. How his heart must have been torn asunder! On the one side was the lonely father who clung to him: on the other, the hunted friend to whom he clung. It is a sore wrench when kindred are on one side, and congeniality and the voice of the heart on the other. But there are ties more sacred than those of flesh and blood; and the putting of them second, which is sometimes needful in obedience to earthly love or duty, is always needful if we would rightly entertain our heavenly Friend.
Jonathan’s soothing assurances did not satisfy David, and he ‘sware’ in the earnestness of his conviction. David gives a very good reason for his friend’s ignorance, which he has at once believed, in the suggestion that Saul had not taken him into his confidence, out of tenderness to his feelings. Their friendship, then, was notorious, and, indeed, was an element in Saul’s dread of David, who seemed to have some charm to steal hearts, and had bewitched both Saul’s son and his daughter, thus making a painful rift in the family unity. It does not appear how David came to be so sure of Saul’s designs. The incident at Ramah might have seemed to augur some improvement in his mood; and certainly there could have been no overt acts, or Jonathan could not have disputed the suspicions. Possibly some whispers may have reached David through his wife Michal, Saul’s daughter, or in the course of his attendance on the king, which he had now resumed, his quick eye may have noticed ominous signs. At all events, he is so sure, that he makes solemn attestation to his friend, and convinces him that, in the picturesque phrase which has become so familiar, ‘There is but a step between me and death.’ Such temper was scarcely in accordance with ‘the prophecies which went before on’ him. If he had been walking by faith, he would have called Samuel’s anointing to mind, and have drawn arguments from the victory over Goliath, for trust in victory over Saul, as he had done for the former from that over the lion and the bear. But faith does not always keep high-water mark, and we can only too easily sympathise with this momentary ebb of its waters.
None the less is it true that David’s terror was unworthy, and showed that the strain of his anxious position was telling on his spirit, and making him not only suspect his earthly friend, but half forget his heavenly One. There was but a step between him and death; but, if he had been living in the serenity of trust, he would have known that the narrow space was as good as a thousand miles, and that Saul could not force him across it, for all his hatred and power.
Jonathan does not attempt to alter his conviction and probably is obliged to admit the justice of the explanation of his own ignorance and the truth of the impression of Saul’s purposes. But he does what is more to the purpose; he pledges himself to do whatever David desires. It is an unconditional desertion of his father and alliance with David; it is the true voice of friendship or love, which ever has its delight in knowing and doing the will of the beloved. It answers David’s thoughts rather than his words. He will not discuss any more whether he or David is right; but, in any event, he is his friend’s.
The touchstone of friendship is practical help and readiness to do what the friend wishes. It is so in our friendships here, which are best cemented so. It is so in the highest degree in our friendship with the true Friend and Lover of us all, the sweetness and power of our friendship with whom we do not know until we say, ‘Whatsoever thou desirest, I will do it,’ and so lose the burden of self-will, and find that He does for us what we desire when we make His desires our law of conduct.
Secure of Jonathan’s help, David proposed the stratagem for finding out Saul’s disposition, which had probably been in his mind all along. It says more for his subtlety than for his truthfulness. With all his nobility, he had a streak of true Oriental craft and stood on the moral level of his times and country, in his readiness to eke out the lion’s skin with the fox’s tail. It was a shrewd idea to make Saul betray himself by the way in which he took David’s absence; but a lie is a lie, and cannot be justified, though it may be palliated, by the straits of the liar. At the same time it is fair to remember the extremity of David’s danger and the morality of his age, in estimating, not the nature of his action, but the extent of his guilt in doing it. The same relaxation of the vigour of his faith which left him a prey to fear, led him to walk in crooked paths, and the impartial narrative tells of them without a word of comment. We have to form our own estimate of the fitness of a lie to form the armour of a saint. The proposal informs us of two facts,-the custom of having a feast for three days at the new moon, and that of having an annual family feast and sacrifice, neither of which is prescribed in the law. I do not here deal with the grave question as to the date of the ceremonial law, as affected by these and similar phenomena; but I may be allowed the passing remark that the irregularities do not prove the non-existence of the law, but may be accounted for by supposing that, in such unsettled times, it had been loosely observed, and that many accretions and omissions, some of them inevitable in the absence of a recognised centre of worship, had crept in. That is a much less brilliant and much more old-fashioned explanation than the new one, but perhaps it is none the worse for that. This generation is fond of making ‘originality’ and ‘brilliancy’ the tests of truth.
David’s words in 1Sa 20:8 have a touch of suspicion in them, in their very appeal for kind treatment, in their reminder of the ‘covenant’ of friendship, as if Jonathan needed either, and still more in the bitter request to slay him himself instead of delivering him to Saul. He almost thinks that Jonathan is in the plot, and means to carry him off a prisoner. Note, too, that he does not say, ‘We made a covenant,’ but ‘Thou hast brought me into’ it, as if it had been the other’s wish rather than his. All this was beneath true friendship, and it hurt Jonathan, who next speaks with unusual emotion, beseeching David to clear all this fog out of his heart, and to believe in the genuineness and depth of his love, and in the frankness of his speech. True love ‘is not easily provoked,’ is not soon angry, and his was true in spite of many obstacles which might have made him as jealous as his father, and in the face of misconstruction and suspicion. May we not think of a yet higher love, which bears with our suspicions and faithless doubts, and ever answers our incredulity by its gentle ‘If it were not so, I would have told you’?
David is not yet at the end of his difficulties, and next suggests, how is he to know Saul’s mind? Jonathan takes him out into the privacy of the open country they had apparently been in Gibeah, and there solemnly calls God to witness that he will disclose his father’s purposes, whatever they are. The language is obscure and broken, whether owing to corruption in the text, or to the emotion of the speaker. In half-shaped sentences, which betray how much he felt his friend’s doubts, and how sincere he was, he invokes evil on himself if he fails to tell all. He then unfolds his ingenious scheme for conveying the information, on which we do not touch. But note the final words of Jonathan,-that prayer, so pathetic, so unselfish in its recognition of David as the inheritor of the kingdom that had dropped from his own grasp, so sad in its clear-eyed assurance of his father’s abandonment, so deeply imbued with faith in the divine word, and so resigned to its behests. Both in the purity of his friendship and in the strength of his faith and submission, Jonathan stands here above David, and is far surer than the latter himself is of his high destiny and final triumph. It was hard for him to believe in the victory which was to displace his own house, harder still to rejoice in it, without one trace of bitterness mingling in the sweetness of his love, hardest of all actively to help it and to take sides against his father; but all these difficulties his unselfish heart overcame, and he stands for all time as the noblest example of human friendship, and as not unworthy to remind us, as from afar off and dimly, of the perfect love of the Firstborn Son of the true King, who has loved us all with a yet deeper, more patient, more self-sacrificing love. If men can love one another as Jonathan loved David, how should they love the Christ who has loved them so much! And what sacrilege it is to pour such treasures of affection at the feet of dear ones here, and to give so grudgingly such miserable doles of heart’s love to Him!
iniquity. Hebrew `avah. App-44. sin. Hebrew. chata’. App-44.
my life = my soul. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13. “Me” emphatic.
Chapter 20
Now David fled from Naioth in Ramah, he came to Jonathan, he said, What have I done? what is my iniquity? what is my sin that your father is seeking my life? And Jonathan said to him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but he’ll shew it to me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? is it not so ( 1Sa 20:1-2 ).
David said, “Your father’s trying to kill me.” Jonathan says, “Ah, he’s not really trying to kill you, he wouldn’t do anything unless he told me first, and he hasn’t said anything about it.”
And David sware moreover, and said, Your father certainly knows that you and I are good friends; and so he said, Don’t let Jonathan know this, lest he is grieved: but truly as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death ( 1Sa 20:3 ).
David just said, “Man, I’m living on the border of eternity. There’s just a step between me and death. Your dad’s after me and he’s trying to kill me.”
Then Jonathan said to David, Whatever you want, I’ll do. And David said to Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I’m supposed to be sitting there at your father’s feast: and I’m not gonna show up. [I want you to pick up on your dad’s attitude when I don’t show up.] If he says, Where’s David? Just tell him, Well his family is having an annual get together in Bethlehem. [And David pleaded with me that he might go and spend this annual family affair with his family. So he didn’t come. Just notice what your dad’s attitude is when I don’t show up, because he’s really planning to kill me when I come and sit there at the table. So Jonathan was a little skeptical, but he said, Okay, we’ll let you know.] But he said, What we’ll do is you wait out here behind this rock, and I’ll come out with my servant when I really find out what my dad’s feelings are. I’ll come out with my servant, and I will shoot my arrows and send him out after them; and if I call to him, and I say, The arrows are this side of you, then they’ve fallen short, then you’ll know that it’s okay, my dad is in a good mood, and he doesn’t really have any intentions of killing you. But if I say to the young fellow, The arrows have gone beyond you, then you’ll know it’s time to flee because my dad is angry and is thinking about killing you. So Saul, the new moon, [the feast of the king,] and Abner his captain was there, Jonathan’s place was there, but David’s place was empty. And Saul didn’t say anything the first day: he thought, Well he probably isn’t ceremonially clean, [maybe he’s killed somebody, has blood on his hands, go through the cleansing rites before he comes, he’ll be here tomorrow.] So the next day when David’s chair was empty too: he said to Jonathan, Where’s David? Jonathan said, Well his family’s having an annual get together it’s a family gathering, and David pleaded with me that he might go, and spend this celebration with the family in Bethlehem. And Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, Thou son of the perverse woman, don’t I know that you’ve chosen the son of Jesse to your own confusion, and to the confusion of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse is living, you’re not gonna become king after me, he’s gonna have the kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die ( 1Sa 20:4-31 ).
So Saul of course gave forth now his true feelings. Jonathan saw what was in his dad’s heart.
And Jonathan said, Why should he be slain? what evil has he done? And Saul cast his javelin at Jonathan: [You know the guy was just enraged, and so just because his son dared to ask a question, “Why should you kill him, what has he done wrong?” Saul let fly with the javelin towards his son Jonathan.] and so he knew that he had determined to kill David. So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, [He was really upset with his dad.] he did not eat meat on the second day of the month: and he was grieved for David, because his father had done him this shame. So it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out in the field at the time appointed with David, and a little fellow was with him. [The little boy that chases arrows.] And he said to the lad, Run, out to the field and find the arrows which I shoot. And so as the lad ran, he shot the arrows 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? So Jonathan said, Hurry and gather together all of the arrows. And so the fellow gathered together all of the arrows, and he brought them back to Jonathan. So Jonathan gave him all of his artillery, and said, Take it back to town. And after the little boy left, then David came out from behind the rock where he was hiding, and he bowed himself: they kissed each other, they wept with one another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of Jehovah, saying, The Jehovah be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And they arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city ( 1Sa 20:33-42 ).
Now Jonathan and David had made a bond. Jonathan had realized that somehow God was gonna give the kingdom to David, and he said, “I just want you to treat my family well when you come into the kingdom, and all of my descendants. Let there be a bond between us.” And David made an oath to Jonathan that he would treat the house of Saul with respect and kindness, and love. “
1Sa 20:1-2. 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?
And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: He could not think that his father really intended to take the life of his friend.
1Sa 20:2-3. 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. 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 and death.
He had so often escaped, as it were by the skin of his teeth, from his cruel persecutor, that he knew himself to be in a position of extreme peril.
1Sa 20:4. Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
Such was his love for David that he would make no exception; whatever there was that David wished him to do, he would do it for him.
1Sa 20:5-10. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow 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. If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family. 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. Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the LORD with thee: notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? 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 Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly!
What am I to do in such a case as that? If thy father should turn against thee as well as against me, what is to be done then?
1Sa 20:11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
To get quite alone, that they might express to one another the feelings of their inmost hearts, and also might consult together without any risk of being overheard.
1Sa 20:12-17. And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee; 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. And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not: but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of Davids enemies. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
Thus were these two men bound together by ties of mutual love; may we be thus bound to Jesus! Oh, that there may be such love between us and our Lord as shall even excel the love of Jonathan and David!
This exposition consisted of readings from 1Sa 18:1-16; 1Sa 20:1-17.
David returned to Jonathan, and there follows an interesting and beautiful account of a time in which these two friends took counsel together about David’s peril.
Every incident of the story is full of arresting beauty; Jonathan’s deep concern and all he did to help his friend reveal a man of the finest type.
As we have suggested, the whole attitude of Jonathan becomes the more wonderful when we remember that he was the heir apparent to the throne. Moreover, we see not merely his love for David, but his willing co- operation with what he knew to be the will of God. He was aware that God had chosen his friend to be king, and, evidently without any pang of regret, he acquiesced in that divine appointment and remained true to David, loving him more rather than less because he saw in him the anointed of Jehovah.
On account of all this, Saul added to all his other sins his attempt on the life of his own son. He is revealed as rapidly becoming an irresponsible madman, while David is seen through all the painful discipline as being prepared for the work that lay before him.
Friendships Covenant
1Sa 20:1-16
Life becomes intolerable when suspense is long drawn out; hence Davids appeal to his friend. Besides, he yearned for one more glimpse of the dear home at Bethlehem, and to drink of the well which was by the gate. The talk between the friends was heart-breaking to both. Only those who have experienced the severance of loving communion and intercourse can fathom the depth and bitterness of the waters that began to roll between the two friends.
Jonathan is one of the noblest types of manhood presented in Scripture biography. Whether in private or public life, he shone with peerless beauty, as a star in a dark sky. David said of him that he was lovely and pleasant. Jonathan had a clear prevision of Davids coming greatness, but it gave him no pang of jealousy. He loved his friend better than himself, so much, indeed, that it was a richer ecstasy for Jonathan to see David crowned and exalted than to ascend the throne himself. Love casts out jealousy. This friendship was ideal; and we can only ask that we may realize something of its sweetness, and know the love of Christ after the same fashion.
1Sa 20:6
The word in this verse rendered “sacrifice,” is in the margin of our English Bibles rendered with somewhat greater felicity “feast.” The family of Jesse continued to keep up their residence in Bethlehem after David had been chosen and anointed as the successor of Saul upon the throne, and carefully observed the household festivals through the year as in earlier days they had been accustomed.
I. At the outset let us notice some of the advantages found in the observance of this yearly thanksgiving festival. (1) First and chief of these is the consideration that for all God’s love and care for us, there is due at least full acknowledgment of the hand which has given them to us. (2) There is manifest advantage in these annual festivals growing out of the cultivation of our domestic affections and the perpetuation of our home tastes and feelings. (3) Again there is manifest advantage in these thanksgiving festivals found in the perpetuation of ancestral memories to which they are calculated most strongly to minister. (4) The yearly festival gives an opportunity for kindling and quickening a true patriotism in the hearts of the people.
II. Notice, secondly, where David went to keep the festival. (1) To his own city, the story says, and that city was Bethlehem; a poor little town indeed, but it was his, and that was enough. (2) David went to his own home in Bethlehem. Escaping for a day from the frightful dangers of Saul’s palace, he would rehearse at home the many troublous experiences he had had. (3) David would go to the various houses of his brethren.
No appliances are within our reach so easy of employment and so sure in result as thanksgiving associations carefully observed. Once a year, at least, the fetters of business and care drop off, and the worn man becomes a sort of hero in a family triumph and is refreshed by becoming a child again.
C. S. Robinson, Sermons on Neglected Texts, p. 193.
References: 1Sa 20:6.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 523. 1Sa 20:10.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1188. 1Sa 20:16, 1Sa 20:17.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 102. 1Sa 20:25.-J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 153; E. Mellor, The Hem of Christ’s Garment, p. no; Parker, vol. vii., pp. 73, 74. 1Sa 20:27.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1454. 1Sa 20:34.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 8 (see also The Ark of God, p. 264). 1Sa 20:39.-Ibid., p. 74
1Sa 20:42
This was the last meeting and the final leaving of two young men whose friendship has been a proverb for nearly thirty centuries.
I. There are partings in every life; the ties of yesterday are loosened to-day, and will be broken to-morrow. We are closely bound to each other by the strong bonds of circumstances one moment, and the next we are severed and each goes on his way to strive or to suffer, and to conquer or to fall, alone. The hour of parting came to David and Jonathan, and nought remained but this, “Jonathan said to David, Go in peace.”
II. There was one thought which took away some of the bitterness of that moment and allowed them to go each on his way with a firm step and a strong heart, for theirs had been no light and trifling friendship, which had sprung up in a day and might be dissolved in an hour, but a serious, manly, steadfast love, rooted in a common faith and held together by a common object animating their lives; and therefore the one could say to the other, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord.” One might go back to the haunted house, where Saul would curse and rave, and the other might wander abroad in the wilderness; but come what might, they were both prepared for good or evil fortune. Both had sworn to put their trust in the living God.
A. Jessopp, Norwich School Sermons, p. 263.
References: 1Sa 21:1.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 118. 1Sa 21:6.-J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 82. 1Sa 21:7.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 74. 1Sa 21:8.-Ibid., p. 75.
5. Jonathan Protects David and Their Separation
CHAPTER 20
1. David with Jonathan (1Sa 20:1-10)
2. The strengthened bonds and the token (1Sa 20:11-23)
3. Sauls attempt to kill Jonathan (1Sa 20:24-34)
4. David separated from Jonathan (1Sa 20:35-42)
We do not need to enlarge upon this beautiful story of the further devotion of Jonathan to David. What friendship and affection is here! Indeed the chapter contains one of the most charming incidents in this book. When David told Jonathan of his great danger, Jonathan refused to believe it. But David knew there was but a step between him and death. The conversation which took place in the field is most pathetic. Both were men of faith putting their trust in Jehovah and hence this great affection. Jonathan also was deeply conscious of Davids destiny as the Lords anointed. Verses 14 and 15 bear witness to this. And thou shalt not only while I live show me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not. But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever, no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. Then Jonathan caused David to make a covenant with him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul. And Jonathan had to taste his fathers anger. Vicious are Sauls words to his own son, and in wrath he threw a javelin at him to smite him. How this illustrates Satans hatred, both against Christ and those who are one with Him, as David and Jonathan were one.
Then comes the parting. They kissed one another, and wept one with another till Davids weeping exceeded (literally, till David wept loudly). Jonathan went into the city and David into the suffering of the exile. They met but once more (1Sa 23:16-18).
fled: 1Sa 19:19-24, 1Sa 23:26-28, Psa 124:6-8, 2Pe 2:9
What have: 1Sa 12:3, 1Sa 24:11, 1Sa 24:17, Psa 7:3-5, Psa 18:20-24, 2Co 1:12, 1Jo 3:21
Reciprocal: Num 35:20 – by laying 2Sa 4:8 – sought Psa 7:4 – without Heb 11:34 – escaped
1Sa 20:1. David fled, and came and said before Jonathan Sauls 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.
1Sa 20:5. The new moon, a day of feasting and trumpets, accompanied with the exercises of devotion. Num 10:16.
1Sa 20:6. Run to Bethlehem. It was not very far from Sauls residence, and only four miles from Jerusalem.
1Sa 20:17. Jonathan caused David to swear again. He knew that David would be king; and though he asked nothing for himself, yet he asked for his children, and for his seed for ever: 1Sa 20:42. David, according to his covenant, sought out Mephibosheth, a lame son of Jonathan, and treated him as a prince. See more on 2 Samuel 16.
1Sa 20:21. I will send a lad. Jonathan durst not let it be known that he had seen David.
1Sa 20:40. Gave his artillery. Hebrews keley, instruments; the bow and arrows.
REFLECTIONS.
The fidelity of Jonathan to David runs through the whole of this chapter. This lovely prince knew, either by Davids anointing, or by a sort of divine intuition, that David would certainly be king, and that all his enemies would be cut off. He therefore wisely included his posterity in the covenant. A hint to christians, to place all their children in the hands of God, and to select holy men for their guardians.
Jonathan did all in his power to soften the anger of Saul, and to divert him from his bad purpose. Herein he is a model to us, in compromising feuds and disputes. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
But a prince, a prophet, a youth whose heart was fraught with every virtue, driven to exile among the heathen, ever accounted unclean; excites great interest in the heart. He leaves his country, and a young princess, the wife of his bosom; he leaves his parents and kin, exposed to the melancholy hatred of the king. But oh, more lovely still, he seeks first the oracle of God. Christian, learn of David to get more religion in all thy peregrinations, that he may bring thee also back to the promised crown.
1 Samuel 20. David and Jonathan (J).
1 Samuel 20 has no obvious connexion with any of the preceding or following sections: And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, is an editorial insertion to connect this section with the preceding after the events narrated in 1Sa 19:1-17, Jonathan could hardly assure David that Saul would not kill him, and that he was privy to all his fathers plans. Similarly the literal translation of 1Sa 21:1 is And David came, etc. 1 Samuel 20 is probably an extract from an early document, but the editor has omitted its context and supplied the gaps from other sources.
1Sa 20:1-10. David tells Jonathan that he is convinced that Saul seeks his life. They arrange that Jonathan shall test Sauls intentions. To-morrow is the feast of the new moon; in the natural course of things, David would be amongst the kings guests, but saith he, I will not sit with the king at meat, so LXX; let me go that I may hide myself in the field until the evening, so LXX. Jonathan will gather Sauls intentions from what he says about Davids absence; but how will David know?
1Sa 20:11-17 (E). An insertion from another parallel narrative, probably also early. There is no reason why the conversation should be interrupted that they may go out into the field.
Jonathan promises to tell David his fathers intentions. At Jonathans request, David swears that if he becomes king, he will show favour to Jonathans family.
1Sa 20:18-23 (J). Continues 1Sa 20:10; perhaps 1Sa 20:18 is an editorial addition.
Jonathan arranges that on the third day David shall be by yonder heap of stones, so LXX, not by the stone Ezel. Jonathan will come with a boy, as if to practise archery; by his words to the boy, he will give the desired information.
1Sa 20:24-34 (J). Continues 1Sa 20:23.
Accordingly, at the feast, Jonathan, sitting opposite his father (so LXX, not stood up), watches to see what Saul will say as to Davids absence. The first day, Saul thinks he is kept away by some ceremonial uncleanness, but the next day, he asks Jonathan for an explanation. He gives the reply agreed upon between himself and David: Davids family are holding their annual sacrifice at Bethlehem. Such a sacrifice would be a great banquet and reunion, at which every member of the family would be expected to be present, if it were in any way possible. The new moon (p. 101) would be a natural occasion for such a function: obviously the writer has no idea that it is lawful to offer sacrifices only at a single central sanctuary. Saul bursts into a passion, abuses David and Jonathan, insinuating that Jonathan is not his son, and throws a spear at him, so that he leaves the table in anger.
1Sa 20:29. my brother: read, my brethren with Vatican LXX
1Sa 20:35-42 (J). The next morning, Jonathan gives David the signal agreed upon. Afterwards he dismisses his attendant and takes personal leave of David, who arose from the heap of stones, where he had hidden (cf. 1Sa 20:19, so Vatican LXX), not out of a place toward the south. According to many, 1Sa 20:40-42 are an editorial addition; the elaborate arrangements for the signal would not have been necessary, if it had been safe for the friends to have a personal interview.
David however was fearful of the very presence of Saul at Naioth. He left there and returned back to find Jonathan, apparently hoping to find some possibility of help in Jonathan’s further interceding with his father. He asks Jonathan what reason Saul had for being determined to kill him. This could be justified only if David were guilty of serious iniquity. Jonathan cannot believe his father would go that far: if so, he would have let Jonathan know. But David insists that Saul is firmly set on killing him, but in this case has concealed it from Jonathan because he knows Jonathan is friendly with David. In fact, he assured Jonathan “there is but a step between me and death” (v.3).
Between them they agree to a test as to this matter. The following day was the new moon, when as a rule David was required to have meats with the king, evidently over a period of three days. David proposes to be absent, and would hide in the countryside, but asks Jonathan to excuse him to Saul by telling him that David asked permission to go to Bethlehem to attend a yearly sacrifice for his family. Of course this was deception, which we must not think of defending, but if Saul should be agreeable to David’s absence, this would give confidence that he was not now holding the enmity that had surfaced more than once. If Saul became angry, this would indicate his intention of killing David (v.7).
In this case David entreats the kind consideration of Jonathan, telling him too that if he (David) was guilty of iniquity, he would rather have Jonathan kill him than Saul. But Jonathan’s friendship for David was real, and he freshly assures him that if he knew Saul was purposed to kill him, he would certainly not conceal it from David.
David then asks how Jonathan would communicate to David the information as to what Saul’s attitude was after he had tested him (v.10). In answer Jonathan takes him out to a field, no doubt a wooded area. There he invokes the witness of the Lord God of Israel, that whether Saul showed a favorable attitude or whether he showed a hostile attitude, Jonathan would faithfully let David know. In the latter case he would send David away in peace, desiring the blessing of the Lord to go with him. He also asks David’s consideration of his (Jonathan’s) family, that he would show kindness to them when God would cut off David’s enemies and establish him as king over Israel. This takes the form of a covenant, with David giving his oath to Jonathan, which Jonathan desired because he loved David as his own soul (vs.16-17).
Jonathan anticipated that though David would be missed even the first day of the new moon, yet that Saul would make no issue of it until later, so that he arranges with David that he should be present at the stone Ezel, hidden, on the third day. On that day Jonathan would come to that vicinity with bow and arrows, and a young boy with him (v.20). Such practicing of archery would be quite normal and would raise no suspicions on the part of the people.
In sending a boy to find three arrows, Jonathan would shoot them either short of where the boy was or beyond him. If short, he would call out to the boy that the arrows were on this side of him. This would indicate that Saul’s intentions against David fell short of his actually desiring to kill him. But if he called to the boy that the arrows were beyond him, this would inform David that Saul would not stop short of killing him if he had the opportunity. In this case the only wise course would be for David to leave.
The day of the new moon finds Saul’s court gathered to eat together, the chief men present with him. When Saul saw David’s place empty he missed him, but said nothing, thinking that David must have contracted some ceremonial defilement and therefore could not be present until he was ceremonially cleansed from this (v.26). It seems strange that it did not occur to him that David might feel he was not safe in Saul’s presence, specially since Saul had threatened his life more that once.
The second day, however, Saul questions Jonathan as to why “”the son of Jesse” was not present either the first of second day. When Jonathan answers that David had earnestly asked leave to go to Bethlehem since his family observed a sacrifice at the time, Saul was infuriated. A matter like this ought to have caused no objection whatever, but Saul’s outburst showed that he only wanted David there so that he could kill him. His vicious anger is directed against Jonathan whom he calls the “son of a perverse, rebellious woman.” Jonathan himself was not characterized by perverse rebellion, and this was a most cruel way of describing Jonathan’s mother. Saul’s unreasonable tirade only exposes the folly of his own pride. It was true that Jonathan had chosen David in preference to himself. But this was not to Jonathan’s confusion. Saul said this because Saul thought Jonathan would have the same pride as his father in wanting to reign. His insulting language shows that he is ignorant of the dignity becoming to a king (v.30).
Why was Saul so concerned that Jonathan would not be established as king so long as David was alive? Was it because Saul loved Jonathan? No, it was because he loved himself, for his own pride involved pride of his family name. Jonathan had showed that he was perfectly willing that David should be king, as God had decreed (ch.18:1-4). But Saul was so enraged that he demanded that Jonathan should send and bring David to Saul to be killed. It is the sad characteristic of this world’s rulers that they would rather see Christ dead than taking the reins of government.
Jonathan was not a mere “yes-man”, however: he protested with the question, “Why should he be slain? what has he done?” Saul had no answer for this except to allow his bad temper to rise to such a height as to throw a javelin at his own son (v.33). If he had killed Jonathan, then he would have fulfilled his own words that Jonathan would not be established as king.
We can only approve Jonathan’s fierce anger against his father, for his motives were not selfish. He was grieved for David, that Saul should have so shameful an attitude toward him. Yet he did not retaliate or speak insulting words to Saul as Saul had to him. He did show his displeasure by leaving the table and not eating that day. This shows that one may have fierce anger without losing control of his temper. Today we know that many have the same unwarranted hatred toward the Lord Jesus as Saul had toward David. We should feel this, but should still control our own temper as regards the matter. The righteous “fierce anger” of the Lord is recorded often in scripture (Jer 4:8; Jer 12:13; Jer 25:37; Jer 51:25 etc.)
The next morning (the third day) Jonathan took a boy with him out to the field at the time he had appointed with David (v.35), instructing the boy to find the arrows he shot. Shooting the arrow beyond him, he called out to the boy that the arrow was further. He shot more than the one arrow, for the boy obediently gathered up the arrows, whatever the number was, and brought them back to Jonathan. Jonathan then gave his bow and arrows to the boy and told him to return with them to the city. Though David had received his message, evidently Jonathan decided that he did not want David to leave without their speaking together.
When the boy who gathered up the arrows had gone, David came from his hiding place, fell on his face before Jonathan and bowed himself three times. Evidently David intended to show all due respect to King Saul through the person of his son Jonathan, and instead of being angered and resentful, would bow to the ordeal of being rejected and a fugitive (v.41). This spirit of true subjection to government is seen in perfection in the Lord Jesus, who did not resist though government was grossly unfair toward Him.
The cruelty of Saul, however, only strengthens the affections of Jonathan toward David. They kissed one another and wept “until David exceeded.” As well as feeling the sorrow of his exile, David felt the pain of being separated from Jonathan. They part with the reminder to each other of their having sworn in the name of the Lord to remain faithful to one another and to each other’s families, the Lord Himself being the Bond between them.
20:1 And David {a} 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?
(a) For Saul was detained, and prophesied a day and a night by God’s providence, that David might have time to escape.
2. Jonathan’s advocacy for David ch. 20
This chapter records Jonathan’s last attempt to reconcile Saul to David. The emphasis is on the hardening of Saul’s heart that God allowed since the king refused to genuinely repent.
David’s concern for his own safety 20:1-11
David was wondering if he had done something wrong that had provoked Saul’s hatred (1Sa 20:1). Walking with God is sometimes confusing. We need to learn, as David did, that when we try to follow God faithfully some people will oppose us simply because we want to do God’s will. Their antagonism is not the result of our sinfulness but theirs. Jonathan assured David that he had done nothing wrong (cf. 1Sa 14:45), but Jonathan did not understand the intensity of Saul’s hatred for David (cf. 1Sa 19:6). He was in a state of denial.
There are several oaths and strong affirmations in this chapter (1Sa 20:3; 1Sa 20:12-13; 1Sa 20:16-17; 1Sa 20:23; 1Sa 20:42). The one that David made in 1Sa 20:3 is very strong. He believed correctly that he was in mortal danger, and he tried to make Jonathan see this. Jonathan was open to anything David wanted to suggest to prove his point (1Sa 20:4).
The new moon introduced the new month that the Israelites celebrated with a sacrificial meal. It was both a religious and a civil holiday (Num 10:10; Num 28:11-15; cf. 2Ki 4:23). David would normally have been present at the king’s table since he was one of Saul’s high-ranking military commanders. However, David evidently believed that Saul would try to kill him again if he ate with the king (cf. 1Sa 18:11; 1Sa 19:10-11). Hiding in a field seems to be an extreme measure. Why could David not have gone home to Bethlehem or stayed with friends who would have kept his presence secret from Saul? Perhaps David trusted no one but Jonathan now.
Apparently David’s family held a reunion on one of these holidays each year (1Sa 20:6; cf. 1Sa 1:21; 1Sa 2:19). David told a lie; he did not go to Bethlehem but hid in a field. At the beginning of his period of flight from Saul, David resorted to trickery as well as trust in Yahweh. As this trial wore on, he learned to trust God more completely, as we shall see. His trials purified his character (cf. James 1).
David proposed his test (1Sa 20:7) to convince Jonathan that Saul really intended to kill David. The covenant to which David referred was the one he and Jonathan had previously made (1Sa 18:3-4). David appealed to it and asked Jonathan to kill him himself if he must die, rather than allowing Saul to do it. David wanted to die at the hand of his friend rather than at the hand of his enemy. David had temporarily lost sight of God’s promise that he would rule over Israel.
Jonathan refused to kill David but promised to tell him if Saul responded angrily as David predicted he would (1Sa 20:9). Jonathan then suggested a plan by which he could communicate with David without revealing David’s location (1Sa 20:10-11).
CHAPTER XXVII.
DAVID AND JONATHAN.
1Sa 20:1-42.
WE have no means of determining how long time elapsed between the events recorded in the preceding chapter and those recorded in this. It is not unlikely that Saul’s experience at Naioth led to a temporary improvement in his relations to David. The tone of this chapter leads us to believe that at the time when it opens there was some room for doubt whether or not Saul continued to cherish any deli- berate ill-feeling to his son-in-law. David’s own suspicions were strong that he did; but Jonathan appears to have thought otherwise. Hence the earnest conversation which the two friends had on the subject; and hence the curious but crooked stratagem by which they tried to find out the truth.
But before we go on to this, it will be suitable for us at this place to dwell for a little on the remarkable friendship between David and Jonathan – a beautiful oasis in this wilderness history, – one of the brightest gems in this book of Samuel.
It was a striking proof of the ever mindful and considerate grace of God, that at the very opening of the dark valley of trial through which David had to pass in consequence of Saul’s jealousy, he was brought into contact with Jonathan, and in his disinterested and sanctified friendship, furnished with one of the sweetest earthly solaces for the burden of care and sorrow. The tempest suddenly let loose on him must have proved too vehement, if he had been left in Saul’s dark palace without one kind hand to lead him on, or the sympathy of one warm heart to encourage him; the spirit of faith might have declined more seriously than it did, had it not been strengthened by the bright faith of Jonathan. It was plain that Michal, though she had a kind of attachment to David, was far from having a thoroughly congenial heart; she loved him, and helped to save him, but at the same time bore false witness against him (1Sa 19:17). In his deepest sorrows, David could have derived little comfort from her. Whatever gleams of joy and hope, therefore, were now shed by human companionship across his dark firmament, were due to Jonathan. In merciful adaptation to the infirmities of his human spirit, God opened to him this stream in the desert, and allowed him to refresh himself with its pleasant waters; but to show him, at the same time, that such supplies could not be permanently relied on, and that his great dependence must be placed, not on the fellowship of mortal man, but on the ever-living and ever-loving God, Jonathan and he were doomed, after the briefest period of companionship, to a lifelong separation, and the friendship which had seemed to promise a perpetual solace of his trials, only aggravated their severity, when its joys were violently reft away.
In another view, David’s intercourse with Jonathan served an important purpose in his training. The very sight he constantly had of Saul’s outrageous wickedness might have nursed a self-righteous feeling, – might have encouraged the thought, so agreeable to human nature, that as Saul was rejected by God for his wickedness, so David was chosen for his goodness. The remembrance of Jonathan’s singular virtues and graces was fitted to rebuke this thought; for if regard to human goodness had decided God’s course in the matter, why should not Jonathan have been appointed to succeed his father? From the self-righteous ground on which he might have been thus tempted to stand, David would be thrown back on the adorable sovereignty of God; and in deepest humiliation constrained to own that it was God’s grace only that made him to differ from others.
Ardent friendships among young men were by no means uncommon in ancient times; many striking instances occurred among the Greeks, which have sometimes been accounted for by the comparatively low estimation in which female society was then held. ”The heroic companions celebrated by Homer and others,” it has been remarked, “seem to have but one heart and soul, with scarcely a wish or object apart, and only to live, as they are always ready to die, for one another. . . . The idea of a Greek hero seems not to have been thought complete without such a brother in arms by his side.”* (*Thirlwalls ”History of Greece. ”)
But there was one feature of the friendship of Jonathan and David that had no parallel in classic times, – it was friendship between two men, of whom the younger was a most formidable rival to the older. It is Jonathan that shines most in this friendship, for he was the one who had least to gain and most to lose from the other. He knew that David was ordained by God to succeed to his father’s throne, yet he loved him; he knew that to befriend David was to offend his father, yet he warmly befriended him; he knew that he must decrease and David increase, yet no atom of jealousy disturbed his noble spirit. What but divine grace could have enabled Jonathan to maintain this blessed temper? What other foundation could it have rested on but the conviction that what God ordained must be the very best, infinitely wise and good for him and for all? Or what could have filled the heart thus bereaved of so fair an earthly prospect, but the sense of God’s love, and the assurance that He would compensate to him all that He took from him? How beautiful was this fruit of the Spirit of God! How blessed it would be if such clusters hung on every branch of the vine!
Besides being disinterested, Jonathan’s friendship for David was of an eminently holy character. Evidently Jonathan was a man that habitually honoured God, if not in much open profession, yet in the way of deep reverence and submission. And thus, besides being able to surrender his own prospects without a murmur, and feel real happiness in the thought that David would be king, he could strengthen the faith of his friend, as we read afterwards (1Sa 23:16): ”Jonathan, Saul’s son, arose and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.” At the time when they come together in the chapter before us, Jonathan’s faith was stronger than David’s. David’s faltering heart was saying, ”There is but a step between me and death” (1Sa 20:3), while Jonathan in implicit confidence in God’s purpose concerning David was thus looking forward to the future, – “Thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord that I die not; but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever; no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David everyone from the face of the earth.” There has seldom, if ever, been exhibited a finer instance of triumphant faith, than when the prince, with all the resources of the kingdom at his beck, made this request of the helpless outlaw. What a priceless blessing is the friendship of those who support and comfort us in great spiritual conflicts, and help us to stand erect in some great crisis of our lives! How different from the friendship that merely supplies the merriment of an idle hour, at the expense, perhaps, of a good conscience, and to the lasting injury of the soul!
But let me now briefly note the events recorded in this chapter. It is a long chapter, one of those long chapters in which incidents are recorded with such fullness of detail, as not only to make a very graphic narrative, but to supply an incidental proof of its authenticity.
First of all, we have the preliminary conversation between David and Jonathan, as to the real feeling of Saul toward David. Incidentally, we learn how much Saul leant on Jonathan: ”My father will do nothing, either great or small, but he will show it me,” – a proof that Jonathan was, like Joseph before him, and like Daniel after him, eminently trustworthy, and as sound in judgment as he was noble in character. Guileless himself, he suspected no guile in his father. But David was not able to take so favourable a view of Saul. So profound was his conviction to the contrary, that in giving his reason for believing that Saul had concealed from his son his real feeling in the matter, and the danger in which he was, he used the solemn language of adjuration: ”As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.” Viewed from the human point, this was true; viewed from under the Divine purpose and promise, it could not be true. Yet we cannot blame David, knowing as he did what Saul really felt, for expressing his human fears, and the distress of mind to which the situation gave birth.
Next, we find a device agreed on between David and Jonathan, to ascertain the real sentiments of Saul. It was one of those deceitful ways to which, very probably, David had become accustomed in his military experiences, in his forays against the Philistines, where stratagems may have been, as they often were, a common device. It was probable that David would be missed from Saul’s table next day, as it was the new moon and a feast; if Saul inquired after him, Jonathan was to pretend that he had asked leave to go to a yearly family sacrifice at Bethlehem; and the way in which Saul should take this explanation would show his real feeling and purpose about David. In the event of Saul being enraged, and commanding Jonathan to bring David to him, David implored Jonathan not to comply; rather kill him with his own hand than that; for there was nothing that David dreaded so much as falling into the hands of Saul. Jonathan surely did not deserve that it should be thought possible for him to surrender David to his father, or to conceal anything from him that had any bearing on his welfare. But inasmuch as David had put the matter in the form he did, it seemed right to Jonathan that a very solemn transaction should take place at this time, to make their relation as clear as day, and to determine the action of the stronger of them to the other, in time to come.
This is the third thing in the chapter. Jonathan takes David into the field, that is, into some sequestered Wady, at some distance from the town, where they would be sure to enjoy complete solitude; and there they enter into a solemn covenant. Jonathan takes the lead. He begins with a solemn appeal to God, calling on Him not as a matter of mere form or propriety, but of real and profound significance. First, he binds himself to communicate faithfully to David the real state of things on the part of his father, whether it should be for good or for evil. And then he binds David, whom by faith he sees in possession of the kingly power, in spite of all that Saul may do against him, first to be kind to himself while he lived, and not cut him off, as new kings so often massacred all the relations of the old; and also after his death to show kindness to his family, and never cease to remember them, not even when raised to such a pitch of prosperity that all his enemies were cut off from the earth. One knows not whether most to wonder at the faith of Jonathan, or the sweetness of his nature. It is David, the poor outlaw, with hardly a man to stand by him, that appears to Jonathan the man of power, the man who can dispose of all lives and sway all destinies; while Jonathan, the king’s son and confidential adviser, is somehow reduced to helplessness, and unable even to save himself. But was there ever such a transaction entered into with such sweetness of temper? The calmness of Jonathan in contemplating the strange reverse of fortune both to himself and to David, is exquisitely beautiful; nor is there in it a trace of that servility with which mean natures worship the rising sun; it is manly and generous while it is meek and humble; such a combination of the noble and the submissive as was shown afterwards, in highest form, in the one perfect example of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Next conies a statement of the way in which Jonathan was to announce to David the result. It might not be safe for him to see David personally, but in that case he would let him know what had transpired about him through a preconcerted signal, in reference to the place where he would direct an attendant to go for some arrows. As it happened, a personal interview was obtained with David; but before that, the telegraphing with the arrows was carried out as arranged.
On the first day of the feast, David’s absence passed unnoticed, Saul being under the impression that he had acquired ceremonial uncleanness. But as that excuse could only avail for one day, Saul finding him absent the second day, asked Jonathan what had become of him. The excuse agreed on was given. It excited the deepest rage of Saul. But his rage was not against David so much as against Jonathan for taking his part. Saul did not believe in the excuse, otherwise he would not have ordered Jonathan to send and fetch David. If David was at Bethlehem, Saul could have sent for him himself; if he lay concealed in the neighbourhood, Jonathan alone would know his hiding-place, therefore Jonathan must get hold of him. If this be the true view, the stratagem of Jonathan had availed nothing; the plain truth would have served the purpose no worse. As it was, Jonathan’s own life was in the most imminent danger. Remonstrating with his father for seeking to destroy David, he narrowly escaped his father’s javelin, even though, a moment before, in his jealousy of David, Saul had professed to be concerned for the interests of Jonathan. “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and to the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?” What Strange and unworthy methods will not angry men and women resort to, to put vinegar into their words and make them sting! To try to wound a man’s feelings by reviling his mother, or by reviling any of his kindred, is a practice confined to the dregs of society, and nauseous, to the last degree, to every gentle and honourable mind. In Saul’s case, the offence was still more infamous because the woman reviled was his own wife. Surely if her failings reflected on any one, they reflected on her husband rather than her son. But that it was any real failing that Saul denounced when he called her ”the perverse rebellious woman,” we greatly doubt. To a man like Saul, any assertion of her rights by his wife, any refusal to be his abject slave, any opposition to his wild and wicked designs against David, would mean perversity and rebellion. We are far from thinking ill of this nameless woman because her husband denounced her to her son. But when we see Saul in one breath trying to kill his son with a javelin and to destroy his wife’s character by poisoned words, and at the same time thirsting for the death of his son-in-law, we have a mournful exhibition of the depth to which men are capable of descending from whom the Spirit of the Lord hath departed.
No wonder that Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month. One wonders how the feast went on thereafter, but one does not envy the guests. Did Saul drown his stormy feelings in copious draughts of wine, and turn the holy festival into a bacchanalian rout, amid whose boisterous mirth and tempestuous exhilaration the reproaches of conscience would be stifled for the hour?
The third day has come, on which, by preconcerted agreement, Jonathan was to reveal to David his father’s state of mind. David is in the agreed-on hiding-place; and Jonathan, sallying forth with his servant, shoots his arrows to the place which was to indicate the existence of danger. Then, the lad having gone back to the city, and no one being on the spot to observe them or interrupt them, the two friends come together and have an affecting meeting. When Jonathan parted from David three days before, he had not been without hopes of bringing to him a favourable report of his father. David expected nothing of the kind; but even David must have been shocked and horrified to find things so bad as they were now reported. In an act of unfeigned reverence for the king’s son, David bowed himself three times to the ground. In token of much love they kissed one another; while under the dark cloud of adversity that had risen on them both, and that now compelled them to separate, hardly ever again (as it turned out) to see one another in the flesh, “they wept one with another until David exceeded.”
”They wept as only strong men weep,
When weep they must, or die.”
One consolation alone remained, and it was Jonathan that was able to apply it. ”Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever.” Yes, even in that darkest hour, Jonathan could say to David, ”Go in peace.” What peace?” Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee.” “The angel of the Lord encampeth about them that fear Him, and delivereth them.” “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth them out of them all.” We cannot turn from this chapter without adding a word on the friendships of the young. It is when hearts are tender that they are most readily knit to each other, as the heart of Jonathan was knit to the heart of David. But the formation of friendships is too important a matter to be safely left to casual circumstances. It ought to be gone about with care. If you have materials to choose among, see that you choose the best. At the foundation of all friendship lies con- geniality of heart – a kindred feeling of which one often becomes conscious by instinct at first sight. But there must also be elements of difference in friends. It is a great point to have a friend who is above us in some things, and who will thus be likely to draw us up to a higher level of character, instead of dragging us down to a lower. And a friend is very useful, if he is rich in qualities where we are poor. As is in In Memoriam-
”He was rich where I was poor,
And he supplied my want the more
As his unlikeness fitted mine.”
But surely, of all qualities in a friend or companion who is to do us good, the most vital is, that he fears the Lord. As such friendships are by far the most pleasant, so they are by far the most profitable. And when you have made friends, stick by them. Don’t let it be said of you that your friend seemed to be everything to you yesterday, but nothing to-day. And if your friends rise above you in the world, rejoice in their prosperity, and banish every envious feeling; or if you should rise above them, do not forget them, nor forsake them, but, as if you had made a covenant before God, continue to show kindness to them and to their children after them. Pray for them, and ask them to pray for you.
Perhaps it was with some view to the friendship of Jonathan and his father that Solomon wrote, “There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.” Jonathan was such a friend to David. But the words suggest a higher friendship. The glory of Jonathan’s love for David fades before our Lord’s love for His brethren. If Jonathan were living among us, who of us could look on him with indifference? Would not our hearts warm to him, as we gazed on his noble form and open face, even though we had never been the objects of his affection? In the case of Jesus Christ, we have all the noble qualities of Jonathan in far higher excellence than his, and we have this further consideration, that for us He has laid down His life, and that none who receive His friendship can ever be separated from His love. And what an elevating and purifying effect that friendship will have! In alliance with Him, you are in alliance with all that is pure and bright, all that is transforming and beautifying; all that can give peace to your conscience, joy to your heart, lustre to your spirit, and beauty to your life; all that can make your garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; all that can bless you and make you a blessing. And once you are truly His, the bond can never be severed; David had to tear himself from Jonathan, but you will never have to tear yourselves from Christ. Your union is cemented by the blood of the everlasting covenant; and by the eternal efficacy of the prayer, ”Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am.”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary