Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 20:24
So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
24 34. Saul’s intention tested by Jonathan
24. meat ] Lit. bread. “Meat” in the E. V. signifies food in general, and is nowhere limited to the modem meaning flesh. This usage survives in some provincial dialects.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
David hid himself, to wit, at the time appointed; for it seems probable that he went first to Bethlehem, as he bade Jonathan tell his father, 1Sa 20:6, and thence returned to the field, when the occasion required; else we must charge him with a downright lie, which ought not to be imagined (without any apparent cause) concerning so good a man, especially in so distressed and dangerous a condition. And why should he hide himself there so long before the time when Jonathan was to come thither to inform him? Nor were there any need of appointing a certain time to meet, if David were there all the while.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
So David hid himself in the field,…. Not directly, but at the time appointed; for he went to Bethlehem, and returned from thence before that time:
and when the new moon was come; the first clay of the month, which was a solemn festival:
the king sat him down to eat meat; Saul sat down at his table to eat of the provisions that were set upon it; which it is very probable were the peace offerings for that day, which he, his family, and nobles, feasted on together; it is in the Hebrew, “he sat down at the bread” b, which is put for all the food on the table, and the provisions of it.
b “ad [vel] juxta panem”, Pagninus, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
David thereupon concealed himself in the field, whilst Jonathan, as agreed upon, endeavoured to apologize for his absence from the king’s table.
1Sa 20:24-25 On the new moon’s day Saul sat at table, and as always, at his seat by the wall, i.e., at the top, just as, in eastern lands at the present day, the place of honour is the seat in the corner (see Harmar Beobachtungen ii. pp. 66ff.). “ And Jonathan rose up, and Abner seated himself by the side of Saul, and David’s place remained empty.” The difficult passage, “ And Jonathan rose up,” etc., can hardly be understood in any other way than as signifying that, when Abner entered, Jonathan rose from his seat by the side of Saul, and gave up the place to Abner, in which case all that is wanting is an account of the place to which Jonathan moved. Every other attempted explanation is exposed to much graver difficulties. The suggestion made by Gesenius, that the cop. should be supplied before , and referred to Jonathan (“and Jonathan rose up and sat down, and Abner [sat down] by the side of Saul”), as in the Syriac, is open to this objection, that in addition to the necessity of supplying , it is impossible to see why Jonathan should have risen up for the purpose of sitting down again. The rendering “and Jonathan came,” which is the one adopted by Maurer and De Wette, cannot be philologically sustained; inasmuch as, although is used to signify rise up, in the sense of the occurrence of important events, or the appearance of celebrated of persons, it never means simply “to come.” And lastly, the conjecture of Thenius, that should be altered into , according to the senseless rendering of the lxx, , is overthrown by the fact, that whilst does indeed mean to anticipate or come to meet, it never means to sit in front of, i.e., opposite to a person.
1Sa 20:26 On this (first) day Saul said nothing, sc., about David’s absenting himself, “ for he thought there has (something) happened to him, that he is not clean; surely ( ) he is not clean ” (vid., Lev 15:16.; Deu 23:11).
1Sa 20:27-29 But on the second day, the day after the new moon (lit., the morrow after the new moon, the second day: is a nominative, and to be joined to , and not a genitive belonging to ), when David was absent from table again, Saul said to Jonathan, “ Why is the son of Jesse not come to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day? ” Whereupon Jonathan answered, as arranged with David (compare 1Sa 20:28 and 1Sa 20:29 with 1Sa 20:6). “ And my brother, he hath commanded me,” i.e., ordered me to come. as in Exo 6:13, and , the elder brother, who was then at the head of the family, and arranged the sacrificial meal.
1Sa 20:30-31 Saul was greatly enraged at this, and said to Jonathan, “ Son of a perverse woman ( is a participle, Niph. fem. from ) of rebellion,” – i.e., son of a perverse and rebellious woman (an insult offered to the mother, and therefore so much the greater to the son), hence the meaning really is, “Thou perverse, rebellious fellow,” – “ do I not know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness? ” , to choose a person out of love, to take pleasure in a person; generally construed with pers., here with , although many Codd. have here also. “ For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou and thy kingdom (kingship, throne) will not stand.” Thus Saul evidently suspected David as his rival, who would either wrest the government from him, or at any rate after his death from his son. “ Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a child of death,” i.e., he has deserved to die, and shall be put to death.
1Sa 20:32-34 When Jonathan replied, “ My father, why shall he die? what has he done? ” Saul was so enraged that he hurled his javelin at Jonathan (cf. 1Sa 18:11). Thus Jonathan saw that his father had firmly resolved to put David to death, and rose up from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat that day; for he was grieved concerning David, because his father had done him shame. is a substantive in the sense of unalterable resolution, like the verb in 1Sa 20:9. , on the second day of the new moon or month.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Jonathan Excuses David to Saul. | B. C. 1058. |
24 So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat. 25 And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s place was empty. 26 Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean. 27 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day? 28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem: 29 And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table. 30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. 32 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? 33 And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David. 34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
Jonathan is here effectually convinced of that which he was so loth to believe, that his father had an implacable enmity to David, and would certainly be the death of him if it were in his power; and he had like to have paid very dearly himself for the conviction.
I. David is missed from the feast on the first day, but nothing is said of him. The king sat upon his seat, to feast upon the peace-offerings as at other times (v. 25), and yet had his heart as full of envy and malice against David as it could hold. He should first have been reconciled to him, and then have come and offered his gift; but, instead of that, he hoped, at this feast, to drink the blood of David. What an abomination was that sacrifice which was brought with such a wicked mind as this! Prov. xxi. 27. When the king came to take his seat Jonathan arose, in reverence to him both as a father and as his sovereign; every one knew his place, but David’s was empty. It did not use to be so. None more content than he in attending holy duties; nor had he been absent now but that he must have come at the peril of his life; self-preservation obliged him to withdraw. In imminent peril present opportunities may be waived, nay, we ought not to throw ourselves into the mouth of danger. Christ him self absconded often, till he knew that his hour had come. But that day Saul took no notice that he missed David, but said within himself, “Surely he is not clean, v. 26. Some ceremonial pollution has befallen him, which forbids him to eat of the holy things till he has washed his clothes, and bathed his flesh in water, and been unclean until the evening.” Saul knew what conscience David made of the law, and that he would rather keep away from the holy feast than come in his uncleanness. Blessed be God, no uncleanness is now a restraint upon us, but what we may by faith and repentance be washed from in the fountain opened, Ps. xxvi. 6.
II. He is enquired for the second day, v. 27. Saul asked Jonathan, who he knew was his confidant, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat? He was his own son by marriage, but he calls him in disdain, the son of Jesse. He asks for him as if he were not pleased that he should be absent from a religious feast; and so it should be example to masters of families to see to it that those under their charge be not absent from the worship of God, either in public or in the family. It is a bad thing for us, except in case of necessity, to omit an opportunity of statedly attending on God in solemn ordinances. Thomas lost a sight of Christ by being once absent from a meeting of the disciples. But that which displeased Saul was that hereby he missed the opportunity he expected of doing David a mischief.
III. Jonathan makes his excuse, 1Sa 20:28; 1Sa 20:29. 1. That he was absent upon a good occasion, keeping the feast in another place, though not here, sent for by his elder brother, who was now more respectful to him than he had been (ch. xvii. 28), and that he had gone to pay his respects to his relations, for the keeping up of brotherly love; and no master would deny a servant liberty to do that in due time. He pleads, 2. That he did not go without leave humbly asked and obtained from Jonathan, who, as his superior officer, was proper to be applied to for it. Thus he represents David as not wanting in any instance of respect and duty to the government.
IV. Saul hereupon breaks out into a most extravagant passion, and rages like a lion disappointed of his prey. David was out of his reach, but he falls upon Jonathan for his sake (1Sa 20:30; 1Sa 20:31), gives him base language, not fit for a gentleman, a prince, to give to any man, especially his own son, heir apparent to his crown, a son that served him, the greatest stay and ornament of his family, before a great deal of company, at a feast, when all should be in good humour, at a sacred feast, by which all irregular passions should be mortified and subdued; yet he does in effect call him, 1. A bastard: Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman; that is, according to the foolish filthy language of men’s brutish passion now a day, “Thou son of a whore.” He tells him he was born to the confusion of his mother, that is, he had given the world cause to suspect that he was not the legitimate son of Saul, because he loved him whom Saul hated and supported him who would be the destruction of their family. 2. A traitor: Thou son of a perverse rebellion (so the word is), that is, “thou perverse rebel.” At other times he reckoned no counsellor or commander that he had more trusty and well-beloved than Jonathan; yet now in this passion he represents him as dangerous to his crown and life. 3. A fool: Thou hast chosen the son of Jesse for thy friend to thy own confusion, for while he lives thou shalt never be established. Jonathan indeed did wisely and well for himself and family to secure an interest in David, whom Heaven had destined to the throne, yet, for this, he is branded as most impolitic. It is good taking God’s people for our people and going with those that have him with them. It will prove to our advantage at last, however for the present it may be thought a disparagement, and a prejudice to our secular interest. It is probable Saul knew that David was anointed to the kingdom by the same hand that anointed him, and then not Jonathan, but himself, was the fool, to think to defeat the counsels of God. Yet nothing will serve him but David must die, and Jonathan must fetch him to execution. See how ill Saul’s passion looks, and let it warn us against the indulgence of any thing like it in ourselves. Anger is madness, and he that hates his brother is a murderer.
V. Jonathan is sorely grieved and put into disorder by his father’s barbarous passion, and the more because he had hoped better things, v. 2. He was troubled for his father, that he should be such a brute, troubled for his friend, whom he knew to be a friend of God, that he should be so basely abused; he was grieved for David (v. 34), and troubled for himself too, because his father had done him shame, and, though most unjustly, yet he must submit to it. One would pity Jonathan to see how he was put, 1. Into the peril of sin. Much ado that wise and good man had to keep his temper, upon such a provocation as this. His father’s reflections upon himself made no return to; it becomes inferiors to bear with meekness and silence the contempts put upon them in wrath and passion. When thou art the anvil lie thou still. But his dooming David to die he could not bear: to that he replied with some heat (v. 32), Wherefore shall he be slain? What has he done? Generous spirits can much more easily bear to be abused themselves than to hear their friends abused. 2. Into the peril of death. Saul was now so outrageous that he threw his javelin at Jonathan, v. 33. He seemed to be in great care (v. 31) than Jonathan should be established in his kingdom, and yet now he himself aims at his life. What fools, what savage beasts and worse does anger make men! How necessary it is to put a hook in its nose and a bridle in its jaws! Jonathan was fully satisfied that evil was determined against David, which put him out of frame exceedingly: he rose from table, thinking it high time when his life was struck at, and would eat no meat, for they were not to eat of the holy things in their mourning. All the guests, we may suppose, were discomposed, and the mirth of the feast was spoiled. He that is cruel troubles his own flesh, Prov. xi. 17.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Saul Attempts to Slay Jonathan, vs. 24-34
The plan proceeded as intended. It appears that David had been admitted to a very elite circle by virtue of having become the king’s son-in-law. While on the first day of the new moon (month) David hid in the field the rest of the circle met according to custom. The king took his seat first next to the wall; Jonathan and Abner, captain of the host, waited upon him, and David’s seat was empty, as planned. On this first day Saul said nothing, supposing that David had some ceremonial uncleanness which prevented his attendance.
The question arises as to why Saul should have expected David to be there after he had previously sought to kill him. It may have been that in the past David had more or less overlooked the king’s periodic seizures and continued as usual after an interval. Thus Saul expected this again. Even Jonathan seems to have thought his father’s behavior was only the product of temporary insanity. Of course, it had gone so far that David feared for his life in Saul’s presence.
On the second day, finding David’s place still empty, Saul inquired of Jonathan why the “son of Jesse” had absented himself for two days. Saul’s reference to David as the “son of Jesse” must have been an expression of his contempt for David as the son of a little known poor man. The Scriptures do imply the poverty of David’s family, which might be surprising inasmuch as he was descended from Boaz, who was a well-to-do farmer of Bethlehem as revealed in the Book of Ruth. It is well to remember, however, that Obed, the first son of Boaz and Ruth, was legally the son of Mahlon, the son of Naomi, by the law of levirate marriage (De 25:5-10), and his inheritance was meager.
Jonathan answered his father’s inquiry according to the story devised by himself and David, that David’s brother had commanded him to attend a family feast in Bethlehem, and Jonathan had granted him permission. Saul did not believe the false story, and his extreme wrath showed that he had hoped David would innocently return as before to the king’s table. Then he planned to seize and put him to death. Saul cursed Jonathan his son as the offspring of a bad woman who was putting his mother to shame by his espousal of David. He then commanded Jonathan to send and bring David from his hiding place that he might be put to death for Jonathan’s own best interest. For Jonathan could never be established over the kingdom so long as the “son of Jesse” lived.
Jonathan challenged his father to produce a reason why David should be slain, whereupon Saul seized the ever-ready javelin and hurled it at his own son to kill him. Jonathan arose in great anger and ate nothing that day out of grief for David and the shame Saul had done him.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Sauls Attack on Jonathan and David. 1Sa. 20:24-34
24 So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
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 Sauls side, and Davids place was empty.
26 Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean.
27 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that Davids place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor today?
28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Beth-lehem:
29 And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favor in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the kings table.
30 Then Sauls 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 mothers nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send an fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
32 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
33 And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.
34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
13.
Where was Davids seat? 1Sa. 20:25
From the arrangement given in the text it appears that Abner sat on one side of Saul and David sat on the other. Mention is made of the fact that Jonathan arose which may be an indication of Jonathans having given Abner his seat next to Saul. Sauls seat was by the wall, a reference that indicates the use of a room where Saul could come and dine. The feast itself was important to the Israelites and David might well be expected to attend.
14.
Why did Saul think David was unclean? 1Sa. 20:26
Those who touched dead bodies were not clean and could not attend the feasts. Since David was a man of war and was sent out to fight Sauls battles, he might be expected to be in this condition. Even some animals were considered unclean to the Israelites, and anyone who touched them was unclean until the end of the day (Lev. 11:27). When Saul missed David from the feast of the new moon, he was hoping that he was absent for some unavoidable reason, and the most logical explanation would be that he was ceremonially unclean and therefore not eligible to participate in the feast. This would lead Saul to expect that David would be at the feast on the next day. With this thought in mind he dismissed the situation.
15.
Why would Davids brother command him to be at home? 1Sa. 20:29
The elder brother had the right of prototokia. This was the same as the Latin primogeniture. The firstborn in the family was given a double portion of the fathers inheritable goods. He had the responsibility for the younger children and especially for the arranging of marriages for the daughters in the family. If the father left a widow, the older son was also responsible for her welfare. Davids father was not yet dead, for we learn that he later joined David in his flight from Saul (1Sa. 22:3). Eliab, Davids older brother, may well have been assuming many of the responsibilities of the head of the family during the years of Jesses later life.
16.
Why would Jonathans love for David cause confusion? 1Sa. 20:30
Under normal circumstances Jonathan would have been heir to Sauls throne. The love that Jonathan had for David led him to honor David as the leading man in Israel. By doing this he was taking a second place himself and was not filling the prominent role which Saul thought belonged to the crown prince. Saul evidently believed that Jonathan would rather see David sitting on the throne than to sit on the throne himself. Such a situation would lead to a break in the genealogy of the house of Saul or at least to a change of dynasties. In this way Ahinoam, Jonathans mother, would not be the queen mother. This would cause confusion on her part.
17.
Why did Jonathan become angry? 1Sa. 20:34
Jonathan became so angry that he left the feast. He did not participate in the services of the second day of the feast of the new moon, and he was filled with fierce anger. He had been convinced beyond all question or doubt of the fact that his father was determined to kill David. In addition to this Saul had cast reproach upon Jonathans mother and even attempted to take Jonathans life. Although Jonathan appears to be the kind of a person who would give the other fellow every benefit of the doubt, he finally saw the truth of the matter. Such a desperate situation filled him with grief and anger. He was grieved for Davids sake. He was filled with fierce anger towards his father.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(24) Sat him down.The LXX. paraphrases here, came to the table.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Jonathan And Saul Fall Out Over David At The New Moon Festival (20:24b-34).
Every ‘day of the new moon’, which indicated the commencement of another ‘month’, and thus regulated the seasons and the days of the religious feasts, was treated specially, with the offering of offerings and sacrifices and the blowing of ram’s horns. And some new moon days would be even more special, such as those that fell on a Sabbath, or the day following the Sabbath, those that began the New Year, and those on which there were other special festivals. Thus this special gathering may not have occurred on every ‘day of the new moon’. But it is clear that on this particular day attendance was certainly expected by all courtiers and commanders, and places were set for those who should attend.
It was apparently a two day feast. This may have been so that if an error had been made about the correct date of the new moon it would ensure that the day was still properly celebrated by observing it on the next day (This certainly happened in later centuries). On the first day of the feast Saul was able to excuse David’s absence (he was probably not the only one absent) on the grounds of some temporary ceremonial ‘uncleanness’ which kept him at home ‘until the evening’. But when he was not present on the second day it necessarily raised the question as to why he was not there. And when Jonathan admitted that he had given David permission to go to his family in Bethlehem to feast at the family sacrifices Saul was furious. The result was that he berated Jonathan severely and in the end threw his spear at him, and the final consequence was that Jonathan realised that David had been right after all.
Analysis.
a
b Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean” (1Sa 20:26).
c And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the second day, that David’s place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor today?” (1Sa 20:27).
d And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.’ That is why he is not come to the king’s table” (1Sa 20:28).
c Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the ground, you will not be established, nor your kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die” (1Sa 20:30-31).
b And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “For what reason should he be put to death? What has he done?” And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to put David to death (1Sa 20:32-33).
a So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had behaved shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame’) (1Sa 20:34).
Note first the inclusio in that in 1Sa 20:25 we find ‘and Jonathan arose’ and in verse 34 we again have ‘and Jonathan arose’, which forms a parallel between the two verses. In ‘b’ Saul is disturbed over David’s absence because he intends ill towards him and has been thwarted, and in the parallel he hurls his spear at Jonathan for the same reason. In ‘c’ he asks Jonathan why David has not come to the feast and in the parallel he commands Jonathan in anger to go and fetch David to the feast. Central in ‘d’ is given the reason why David has not come to the king’s table.
1Sa 20:24-25 (24b-25. e-Sword Note: For commentary on 1Sa 20:24 a, see the end of the commentary for 1Sa 20:23).
‘And when the new moon was come, the king sat himself down to eat food. And the king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall, and Jonathan stood up, and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was empty.’
When the day of the new moon came (commencing at twilight) the king sat down to eat. The seat by the wall would be the central seat reserved for the king, with his back to the wall and probably facing the entranceway. The mention of Jonathan ‘arising’ forms an inclusio with 1Sa 20:34. There are a number of possibilities as to its significance:
1). That Jonathan arose in order to demonstrate courtesy towards Abner, and in order to welcome him.
2). That Jonathan arose in order to give way to Abner, possibly because he was unhappy with what he saw in his father’s behaviour and wanted an excuse not to sit by him.
3). That Saul asked Jonathan to give way for Abner because he wanted to discuss with Abner plans for David’s arrest as soon as he arrived.
4). That we translate, ‘and Jonathan arose and sat down, and Abner (also sat down), by Saul’s side’. This would tie in with 1).
In deciding which option to take we might feel that we would expect Jonathan to sit at Saul’s right, and Abner, as commander-in-chief, at his left. This would favour 1). and 4). On the other hand the fact that Saul later hurled his spear at Jonathan does suggest that Jonathan had moved seats (although, of course, the spear hurling occurred on the second day which points to a more permanent change of seats, something which may well have annoyed Saul). This would favour 2). and 3).
The mention of the fact that David’s place was empty heightens the tension and prepares us for what is coming.
1Sa 20:26
‘ Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean.” ’
But Saul’s reaction to the fact that David’s place was empty was at first simply that because (no doubt like some others) David was ritually ‘unclean’ he had been unable to attend. The ritual uncleanness would last until the evening. Such ritual uncleanness could arise through a variety of reasons, and would be quite common.
1Sa 20:27
‘ And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the second day, that David’s place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor today?” ’
However, when David’s place was still empty on the second day Saul turned to Jonathan and asked him if he could explain David’s absence on both days. Note Saul’s contempt for David, referring to him simply as ‘the son of Jesse’ (compare Isa 7:4-5 of ‘the son of Remaliah’).
1Sa 20:28
‘ And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.’ That is why he is not come to the king’s table.”
Jonathan then gave the explanation that David and he had agreed on. He informed Saul that David had sought his royal permission to absent himself from the new moon celebration because he had been required by his elder brother to go to the family sacrifice in Bethlehem, and wanted to go and see his brothers, and Jonathan had agreed to it. That was why David was not at the king’s table. There may well have been that about Jonathan’s attitude (compare how he had moved seats) which made clear to Saul his disapproval of what he saw that Saul was now planning, and even if not such a disapproval may well have been read in by a paranoid Saul.
New moon celebrations would, of course, have been going on all around the country. However, Saul would no doubt have considered that his own requirement for David’s presence, even if not openly expressed, should take precedence over any requirement coming from David’s elder brother. (The fact that it came from David’s elder brother suggests that Jesse, David’s father, was quite ill. We know from 22:3 that he was still alive). It is clear why he saw the excuse for what it was, an attempt to forestall him. With his suspicious mind he would not realise that it was not until the events at the actual meal that Jonathan had become suspicious of his intentions, and that that was why he had moved seats. He would think that Jonathan had known about his plans beforehand.
1Sa 20:30-31
‘ Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the ground, you will not be established, nor your kingship. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die.” ’
As a result of Jonathan’s words Saul was so filled with rage that he turned on his son. To insult a man’s mother in front of him was to have the intention of paying him the greatest insult possible, but the words were intended to describe Jonathan (as being what his mother was), not his mother. He was describing him as going against nature and as rebelling against him. In a sense, of course, both were true. He was supporting David against his father’s perverseness, and he was going against Saul’s will. But he was doing it because he wanted to do what was right. And taking up such a position often means being seen as perverse and rebellious by a sinful world.
Furthermore Saul emphasised that he was bringing shame on himself by favouring David, and shame on his mother’s sufferings when she bore him. And in Saul’s eyes the reason that he was doing this was because by his actions he was risking losing the kingship. For to Saul keeping hold of the kingship was everything. Thus if losing the kingship would really have been a disgrace and a shame then Saul was right. But he only felt like that because he had become obsessed with his kingship. To him nothing else mattered. What he was determined to do was show Samuel that he was wrong, and that he could hold on to his kingship both for himself and his family. He was overlooking the fact that it was he who had caused Jonathan to lose the kingship by his own disobedience to YHWH (1Sa 13:13-14). To Jonathan, on the other hand, there was no shame in what he was doing, for he was doing it for the right reason, and that was because he considered that David would make the better king. Thus far from bringing shame on his mother he was ennobling her, because he was demonstrating that she had brought him up with the right values. Saul, however, in his obsession with kingship, could not see that.
It was true, of course, that as long as David lived Jonathan would not be established in his kingship, but Jonathan recognised that that was because David was the chosen of YHWH, not because of any lack in himself. And Jonathan had been big enough a man to recognise the fact and accept it. To Saul, however, with his obsession with the kingship, no disaster could have been greater. And so he demanded that Jonathan bring David to him that he might die.
1Sa 20:32
‘ And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “For what reason should he be put to death? What has he done?” ’
It was Jonathan who was keeping his cool, and he therefore replied by asking why a man who had done nothing wrong should be put to death. If his father wanted David to be executed, let him now justify it.
1Sa 20:33
‘ And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to put David to death.’
This reply, to which he had no genuine answer, took Saul’s fury beyond bounds, and raising the ceremonial javelin that he carried as an emblem of his kingship, he hurled it at his son. As we have seen, Saul, as a result of his illness, which kept on interfering with his rational thinking, had got into the habit of expressing his fury precisely in this way when he was over-excited (1Sa 18:11; 1Sa 19:10), and he had, in fact, no doubt done it to a number of people when they had annoyed him when he was in one of his bad periods. It was not a genuine attempt to kill them, except perhaps in 1Sa 19:10, but it did put the person in danger nonetheless. Rather it meant that they had to be sharp in their reactions, which would be expected of courtiers in a military court. And as a result of Saul’s response, Jonathan, who normally had a close relationship with his father, knew, both from this act, and from Saul’s words, that it really did mean that Saul was determined to kill David. Now he could be in no doubt about it. It was clear that his father had gone beyond all reasoning.
Some have questioned whether Saul would have thrown his javelin at his own son, but people who have Saul’s illness do tend to see enemies, especially, when they displease them, in those closest to them, especially when they seem to be acting against what they think is in their best interests. Thus in that moment he saw Jonathan as the one who was trying to thwart him and demonstrated what he thought by his action. For those who have experience of people with such an illness this would come as no surprise at all.
1Sa 20:34
‘ So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had behaved shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame’).’
The recognition of his father’s attitude filled him with anger, and as we have seen he was not a man to be easily angered. Rising from the table he refused any food, seeking to demonstrate by that fact that in his view there was at present nothing to be thankful about. He was expressing as openly as he dared his displeasure at what Saul was doing. For he was grieved for David, and for the shameful way in which Saul was behaving towards him.
We note from all this the writer’s intention, both to emphasise David’s innocence, and to emphasise the fact that YHWH had destined him for the kingship. Although it was not yet openly known, he wanted his readers to know continually that David was the Lord’s Anointed and was now the one on whom was the Spirit of YHWH.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jonathan’s Information to David
v. 24. So David hid himself in the field; and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat, v. 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. v. 26. Nevertheless Saul spake not anything that day, v. 27. And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty, v. 28. And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; v. 29. and he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, v. 30. Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse, rebellious woman, v. 31. For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, v. 32. And Jonathan, v. 33. And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him, v. 34. So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger and did eat no meat, v. 35. And it came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. v. 36. And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot, v. 37. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, v. 38. And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not, v. 39. But the lad knew not anything; only Jonathan and David knew the matter.
v. 40. And Jonathan gave his artillery, v. 41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, v. 42. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn, both of us, in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
OPEN HATRED OF SAUL AGAINST DAVID (1Sa 20:24-34).
1Sa 20:24-26
The king sat him down to eat meat. Hebrew, “the king sat down at the bread to eat.” On sitting at table see 1Sa 16:11. And Jonathan arose. When the king had taken his usual place, that of honour, next the wall, and therefore farthest from the door, Jonathan arose and took his place on one side of the king, while Abner sat on the other. David’s place below them was left empty. The omission of the statement that Jonathan sat down makes the passage obscure, and the versions bungle in rendering it, but there can be little doubt that these words ought to be supplied. He is not clean. Saul supposed that some ceremonial defilement (see Le 1Sa 15:2-16) had befallen David, and as the new moon was a religious festival, this would necessarily prevent his attendance.
1Sa 20:27-29
On the morrow, which was the second day of the month. Hebrew, “on the morrow of the new moon, the second day.” David’s absence on the second day made Saul aware that it was no accident, and he demands of Jonathan the reason; whereupon he gives the excuse previously arranged, adding that it was David’s brother who had required his attendance. The Septuagint has brothers, being offended at the singular, because Jesse was still alive. But as the festival was not confined to Jesse’s household, his brother might very properly be the convener, without usurping his father’s place. Let me get away. Literally, “let me escape,” “let me get off,” a light, half jocose way of speaking adopted by Jonathan, as if the matter were a mere trifle.
1Sa 20:30, 1Sa 20:31
Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman. Literally, “thou son of one perverse in rebellion.” In the East it is the greatest possible insult to a man to call his mother names; but the word rendered perverse, instead of being a feminine adjective, is probably an abstract noun, and “son of perversity of rebellion” would mean one who was thoroughly perverse in his resistance to his father’s will. Unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness. I.e. thy mother will feel ashamed and disgraced at having borne such a son. He shall surely die. Hebrew, “he is a son of death,” son, being constantly used in Hebrew to express qualities, or, as here, the fate to which a man is destined.
1Sa 20:32-34
When Jonathan pleaded mildly for his friend, Saul did not east, but “brandished” (see on 1Sa 18:11) his javelin at him, threatening to smite him. This fierce behaviour of his father filled Jonathan also with anger, and he arose, refused to partake of the meal, and went away in wrath. His indignation was roused not merely at his father having thus brandished his javelin in his face, for he was sitting close to Saul, but because he had cast shameful aspersions upon David in saying that he was a rebel, and deserved death.
JONATHAN‘S LAST MEETING WITH DAVID (1Sa 20:35-42).
1Sa 20:35-38
The next morning Jonathan went out into the field, not at the time, but “to the place” appointed, taking with him a little lad, as less likely to suspect a reason. Having shot at the mark, he sends him to pick up the arrows, and as he runs to do so he shoots one beyond him, and, calling aloud, gives David the sign that there was no hope. To keep the boy’s attention engaged he gives him hurried commandsMake speed, haste, stay not. Instead of the arrows the written text has “Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrow,” i.e. that one especially which Jonathan had shot beyond him, and to which his rapid commands referred.
1Sa 20:40-42
His artillery. I.e. his weapons. To get rid of the boy Jonathan sends him home with his bow and arrows, and then David arose out of a place toward the south, or “from the south side” of the stone Ezel, and while not forgetting in his repeated obeisance the honour due to Jonathan’s dignity, yet friendship prevailed, and they kissed one another and wept sore, until David exceeded, i.e. broke down, and was completely mastered by his grief. And so they parted, David to begin a life of danger and wandering, while Jonathan returned to the city to be a dutiful son to Saul. Phillipson remarks, “The scenes in this chapter are some of the most affecting presented to us in history, whether in old or modern times, and we may Well wonder at the delicacy of feeling and the gentleness of the sentiments which these two men in those old rough times entertained for one another. No ancient writer has set before us so noble an example of a heart felt, unselfish, and thoroughly human state of feeling, and none has described friendship with such entire truth in all its relations, and with such complete and profound knowledge of the human heart.”
HOMILETICS.
1Sa 20:24-34
Wasted influences, muffed thoughts, and conflicting interests.
The facts are
1. While David lies hidden, Saul notices his absence from the feast on the first day, and refers it to some ceremonial defilement.
2. On the second day he calls Jonathan’s attention to the fact, and inquires the cause.
3. On his explaining the reason, Saul, in a fit of anger, accuses him of friendship with David, and points out the injury which he thinks will arise therefrom.
4. On Jonathan reasoning against the command to fetch David that he may be slain, Saul, in his rage, casts a javelin at him.
5. Jonathan, indignant at the injustice and cruelty of his father, leaves the court and spends the day in fasting and sorrow. The chief interest of this section turns on the conduct of Jonathan and Saul in the absence of David. The event proved the sagacity of David in keeping at a safe distance from his declared enemy. The facts of this narrative may be best dealt with as furnishing suggestions of realities common even in modern life.
I. THE COMMINGLED CHARACTERS OF LIFE. Here was a festive board, a court banquet, and a blending in it of characters most dissimilar. First there was Saul, sullen, morose, charged to the full with envy and malice, ready for deeds of blood, and fearful of a doom of which he dared not speak. Then there was Jonathan, pure, bright, the very soul of chivalry and honour, carrying on his heart a tender secret, and bound by holy bonds to the interests of a coming king. By him was Abner in a seat of honour, just coming into distinction, a warrior destined to play an important part in the future affairs of Israel. Others, not named, were theremen of influence, varying in temper and diversely influenced by the strange events of the age. And, in spirit, holding his right to a vacant place, David, who in sympathy sustained the heart of his beloved friend in face of a perilous undertaking. A motley assembly in a moral point of view! Representative of many a banquet and social gathering! Society is strangely formed. The necessities of life, sustained by custom, bring into contact elements most dissimilar, each being toned down by the presence of the other, and the powers that lie in the heart being systematically repressed out of deference to the proprieties of life. The contending forces of sin and holiness, modified by diversities in education and association, issue in shades of character in endless variety. Take any assembly, around the festive board or in a wider circle; what passions, hopes, fears, terrors, joys, aspirations, motives, designs lie concealed in each breast! Each one there is a distinct world; carries in himself a special destiny; is a sepulchre of buried joys, or a garden of germinating seeds. How little we know of those sitting by our side! What tragedies are to be wrought out by some we meet! (Mat 10:26; 1Co 2:11).
II. WASTED INFLUENCES. Saul’s spirit and conduct at this time were evidence that all the efforts to bring him to a right state of mind were in vain. During his career Providence had wrought through trouble and joy, prophet and people, threatening and encouragement, and lately through the wise and gentle persuasions of his eldest son and the awe-inspiring presence of the prophetic company (1Sa 19:21-24). But it all proved to be as the “morning cloud and early dew.” Indeed, the coarse language and foul abuse and increased violence on this occasion remind us of the unclean spirit returning with other spirits to make the last state worse than the first (Mat 12:45). This necessarily raises the thought of the extent and lessons of the wasted influences of life. That vast and varied influences are brought to bear on human beings, which, so far as we can trace in this life, do not issue in their legitimate results is obvious. “Seed on stony ground” is a fact in the moral as in the physical world. “How often would I have gathered thee!” is repeated by hundreds of parents and teachers after the example of the sorrowing Lord. The hitter tears of broken hearted parents and the lamentations of our true Jeremiahs over degenerate nationalities raise the question of Why such wasted energy for good? It does not, indeed, follow that all is lost which seems to be lost on the immediate object. The waste of life which Butler refers to in his ‘Analogy’ is, we know, not really such in the economy of the universe. And so even the fruitless expenditure of moral influence on our reckless souls is wrought up into useful expenditure, for moral instruction and maintenance of justice, in the whole circle of moral existence. Our Saviour’s appeals issued in rejection by the Pharisees, but the two together will form an element in the discipline and instruction of untold ages which will be highly useful. It suggests thought as to the mystery of the human will, and the relation of present to future existence. It suggests inquiries for all Christian workerswhether their methods are wisest, are sustained in a right spirit, and are sufficiently varied in kind. It brings grave questions to the conscience of those who enjoy privilegesas to what account they will render, and whether they shall ever be more than awful monuments in the universe for the warning of other beings.
III. MUFFLED THOUGHTS. “Saul spake not anything that day: for he thought” (1Sa 20:26). As the monarch sat at the head of his table the guests saw his stately form and heard his voice when he conversed on the ordinary topics of the day; but also “he thought”thoughts of David, his past honours, his possible future, his absence today, and his appearance on the morrow, and then his speedy death, passed swifter than lightning through the dark mind, indicating their existence in the low, muffled tones which only the ear of God could discern. Thought is constantly tending to expression in words, and there are gradations in its movement. From simple definiteness of existence up to loud exclamations, Saul’s thoughts, like muffled bells, were ringing within in subdued tones, their language being distinct to himself and to God. It is often forgotten that thought is language in the world of mind; and it is a solemn fact that our real life lies in the thoughts we allow to pass through our mind. Many are under the delusion that what is said audibly and done visibly constitutes the material of which character is built and on which judgment will one day be pronounced. We are spiritual, invisible beings. And while thus our thoughts are the real forms of our life, it is worthy of remark that not one thousandth part of what we think ever finds expression in distinct, audible tones. The vast preponderance of our thoughts beat in muffled tones because we dare not or cannot utter them. What God must hear beating in the hearts of men daily! It was muffled thought which Christ detected saying, “This man blasphemeth” (Mat 9:3; Luk 6:7, Luk 6:8), and which said, “There is no God.” The same is true of the “groaning of the prisoner” which cometh up before God, and the dumb prayers of the children of God all over the earth. Keep thy heart with all diligence.
IV. CONFLICTING INTERESTS. Jonathan appears to have been an authority with his father in all matters pertaining to the court and government (1Sa 20:2, 1Sa 20:27). The muffled thoughts which all along had muttered vengeance against David now found audible and violent expression in the abuse poured on Jonathan and the villanous attempt on his life. He set before Jonathan as conflicting interests, between which he was to make a choice, his friendship for David and his succession to the kingdom. If Jonathan kept the one he must lose the other. Saul assumed that policy and prudence would dictate the choice of the succession, for, with the swift logic of the cruel, he wound up his argument by, “Therefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die” (1Sa 20:31). It is easy to show that Saul’s logic, like that of all the wicked, was faulty; for if David was really the “neighbour” to whom God had decreed to give the kingdom (1Sa 15:28), no breaking of friendship would prevent his having it; and if David was a friend of Jonathan he would never rob him of his right should the friendship be maintained. Jonathan’s love and spiritual insight enabled him to see through the fallacy and to make his choice. There are alternatives open to most men in the course of years which bring material and spiritual considerations into sharp contrast. Here it was selfish grasping at power versus joy in God’s purposes for Israel and mankind. Moses had to say whether the probability of becoming prime minister of Egypt was more attractive than identifying himself with the despised slaves in prosecution of a spiritual enterprise. The same contrast arose, though the choice was different, when the young rich man was required to evince his supreme love for God and all that that implies by giving up the wealth on which his heart was set (Mat 19:20-22). The possession of wealth and acquisition of honour in public life are not inconsistent with true piety, but it makes all the difference when parents say to young men, “Give up your religion if you are to make your way in the world;” “Surrender the Greater than David, and grasp the honours of this life.” Every one is called on to decide between Christ and the supremacy of material, earthly interests. In which lies wisdom is evident (Mat 10:37; Mat 19:27-29).
V. VIRTUE VICTORIOUS. Jonathan was proof against parental influence, material considerations delusively presented, and even threatening of death. He pleaded for right and innocence. He mourned the debasement of a father. He was indignant at the base insinuations against the noblest and purest of men. He dared to let the court know his preference for the spiritual over the material (1Sa 20:34). This is heroism requiring far more courage than to go amidst the cheers of men and the pageantry of war to the cannon’s mouth. Here is the power of faith, the sufficiency of God’s grace, the victory that overcometh the world (Heb 11:32-38). The world is short sighted. Jonathan now wears a crown which will never fade (2Ti 2:12; 2Ti 4:7, 2Ti 4:8; Rev 3:21).
General lessons:1. Seeing that such varied characters are around us, let us be in every place as the “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.”
2. It is our duty to exercise the holiest influence and to work unweariedly, whatever be the issue (Ecc 11:6).
3. We should cultivate such an inner life that if all our thoughts found audible expression we need not be ashamed (Psa 51:6, Psa 51:10).
4. Everyone is tempted to reject Christ, and so every one has to determine his own destiny.
5. Fidelity in seasons of great trial depends much on previously cultivated friendship with Christ.
1Sa 20:35-42
Warning in danger.
The facts are
1. In accordance with arrangement, Jonathan, on the next day, goes out into the field, and, on shooting the arrow beyond the lad with him, he cries out the signal of danger.
2. David recognises the sign, and the lad is sent away to the city.
3. Thereupon David and Jonathan embrace each other, and take a sorrowful farewellJonathan giving him his benediction, and reminding him for his comfort of the sacred covenant between them both. A crisis had come in the life of David which demanded prompt action. He had passed from a quiet pastoral occupation to the fall glory of a victor’s triumph, and from thence through the chequered scenes of public service in the army and the court. Meanwhile the hidden purposes of God were fast developing; and now the “anointed” has to take a painful step in order to insure the preservation of life essential to the realisation of the end for which Samuel had chosen him in the name of God. The manner in which Jonathan performed his part is a beautiful instance of wise and faithful friendship under most perilous circumstances. We see here
I. HOW WE MAY COME INTO CIRCUMSTANCES OF GREAT DANGER WHICH AT ONE TIME WOULD NOT BE ANTICIPATED. The life of the anointed of the Lord was in real peril by reason of the fixed purpose of an enraged and envious king. No one would have supposed such a condition of things when the ruddy youth went forth to meet the giant, and subsequently received favours at the hand of Saul. But the possibilities of human experience transcend all our effort to foresee. What the web of life will embrace as the weaving goes on who can tell? It is true one stage prepares the way for another according to fixed laws, but we know not what new external condition a day or an hour may bring forth to modify an existing stage. Who less than Divine could have supposed that Adam, pure and blessed, would soon be exposed to so deadly a peril in Eden? or that he who received the homage of wise men and was the subject of angelic praise would be sought by a murderous Herod? The great lines of human experience are still the same. In business affairs the once prosperous come sometimes into risks of property, reputation, and all that is dear. By associations not looked for, characters once without suspicion are in danger of a fatal compromise. The tender, happy youth of a pious home, encircled by all that love can provide, is found far from home on the verge of a moral precipice. No position of privilege or service sets us above the possibility of grave dangers. Even David, the chosen servant, was nigh unto death, and the holy apostle was anxious lest, having preached to others, he himself should at last be a “castaway” (1Co 9:27).
II. PROVIDENCE ALWAYS PROVIDES KINDLY WARNINGS OF DANGER AND INCENTIVES TO ESCAPE. In the service of God David came into this great peril, but by the offices of friendship God mercifully provided for his need. The signal was given, and he recognised its meaning. It said to him, “Flee; escape.” Perhaps it may be safely said that there is no circumstance of moraland often of materialdanger into which we may be brought in the unfolding of events but that God makes known our position and opens a way of escape. Even in ordinary affairs the voice of a sober judgment, if not of some personal friend, may warn the merchant of his risks, and suggest a speedy retreat from entanglements. Often a man, gradually forming undesirable associations, is warned by relatives and those who love him best of the peril of his reputation. The quondam youth of purity hears a voice as from a mother’s heart saying, as he in later years stands on the brink of ruin, “Flee!” Providence has many a Jonathan to shoot the arrow and cry “Beyond.”
III. It is REASONABLE THAT IN ALL TIMES OF DANGER WE SHOULD PROMPTLY ACT ON THE WARNING AT ANY COST. In David’s case we see the reasonableness of his noting the sign, acting on its significance, even though in so doing it cost him the bitter pang of parting from the dearest friend of his life, and becoming a beggar and a fugitive. Only thus could he ultimately fulfil the end of his existence. It was reasonable, for Jonathan knew the danger to be real, and would not deceive. So in any case of our peril, whether of health, business, reputation, Christian profession, or future salvation, it is important at once to heed the voice of warning; for Providence never lies. It is a fact that many are ruined in spite of warning. The reason is, they either will not cultivate the habit of discerning the “signs of the times” in moral and spiritual matters (Mat 16:3); or, discerning them, they fall under the delusion that somehow they shall escape, even though they remain as they are; or else they refuse to believe the signs. Many reject the testimony of the faithful Jonathan. They prefer their own speculations to the declared testimony of Christ (Rev 1:18). Verily unbelief is folly, and those who pride themselves on reason are most unreasonable. It often costs much to act promptly on the voice of warning. We may not have to endure a separation from a holy friend as did David; but a temporary loss may be sustained of serious character. The ruin threatening from a man’s entangled business affairs may be escaped by a prompt surrender of luxurious habits and home comforts. To save reputation friends may have to be abandoned. A soul can only be saved from death sometimes by a resolute plucking out of a right eye (Mat 5:29). Lot lost all in Sodom but saved himself.
General lessons:
1. Knowing the perilous possibilities of life, let us go forward cautiously, yet quietly trusting in God.
2. Whenever it is in our power, let us prove ourselves friends by warning others of their material or spiritual dangers.
3. We should give careful heed to the first promptings of conscience, remembering that in moral questions the first motions of conscience are safest for action.
4. We may make a useful study of the partings of lifeof, e.g; Lot and Abraham, Moses and Pharaoh, Paul and the Ephesians, Christ and his disciples.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 20:24-34. (GIBEAH)
Anger.
“Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan” (1Sa 20:30). “And Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger” (1Sa 20:34). Anger is not necessarily sinful. “It is in itself, and in its original, no more than indignation against injury and wickedness” (Butler, on ‘Resentment’). But it is too frequently sinful because of the manner in which it is indulged. How different was the anger of Saul now from what it was on a former occasion (1Sa 11:6). Consider that
I. IT MAY BE UNINTENTIONALLY EXCITED (1Sa 20:24-29). The reason which Jonathan gave why “David’s place was empty” was doubtless a mere pretext (1Sa 20:12), harmless as he thought, and not designed to provoke wrath; but Saul saw through it at once, and his anger was kindled against Jonathan on account of it and his taking part with one whom he regarded as his enemy. Care should be exercised, even when no harm is meant, to furnish no occasion for offence, especially in intercourse with those who are of an irritable and passionate temper, and to avoid “all appearance (every kind) of evil.” Deception practised for a good end is not good, and sometimes produces much mischief.
II. IT IS OFTEN UNRIGHTEOUSLY INDULGED (1Sa 20:30-33), as
1. When it springs from selfishness and pride, and is associated with malice and revenge. Saul’s anger against Jonathan was the offspring of the envy toward “the son of Jesse” which slumbered in his breast, if indeed he had not now formed the deliberate purpose of putting him to death at the first opportunity. It is not said that “the evil spirit from Jehovah came upon him” again. Hatred of David had become the pervading spirit of his life, and it gave a colouring to everything. “Anger is an agitation of the mind that proceeds to the resolution of a revenge, the mind assenting to it” (Seneca, on ‘Anger’).
2. When it is felt without just or adequate cause. The questions of Jonathan (1Sa 20:32) did not, any more than the reason he had previously given, justify his father’s wrath, and his jealousy of David was groundless and wicked. “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause,” etc. (Mat 5:22).
3. When it becomes excessive, and ceases to be under the control of right reason. “Be master of thine anger.”
4. When it issues in bitter words, and violent and unjust acts. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,” etc. (1Jn 3:15). He has within him the principle of murder, the germ from which the outward act naturally grows. “Cease from anger and forsake wrath” (Psa 37:8). “Where envy and strife are there is confusion and every evil work” (Jas 3:16). “Sinful anger destroys our own peace of mind, hurts the unity of spirit among brethren, blocks up the way to the Divine throne, exposes us to danger, makes work for bitter repentance, fires the minds of others, makes us unlike the meek and lowly Jesus, causes us to resemble madmen and devils, and is cruel and murderous” (Fawcett, ‘Essay on Anger’.).
III. IT CAN BE UNBLAMABLY ENTERTAINED (1Sa 20:34). It may in certain circumstances be a Christian virtue. But in order to this
1. It must be directed, out of love to righteousness, against the wrong which is done or intended rather than against the wrong doer, and be associated with sorrow for him and good will toward him. “Resentment is not inconsistent with good will. These contrary passions, though they may lessen, do not necessarily destroy each other. We may therefore love our enemy and yet have resentment against him for his injurious behaviour toward us” (Butler, on ‘Forgiveness of Injuries’). “And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts,” etc. (Mar 3:5).
2. It must be felt from love to others rather than ourselves, especially to those who love God, and from zeal for his honour. “He was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.”
3. It must be kept under proper control. Jonathan did not retaliate. He “arose from the table,” and went out; to fast, not to raise a rebellion against his father, as Absalom did at a subsequent period.
4. It must not be suffered to continue too long. “Wise anger is like fire from flint; there, is a great ado to bring it out; and when it does come, it is out again immediately (M. Henry). “Be ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath, neither give place to the devil.”
IV. IT MUST BE UNCEASINGLY GUARDED AGAINST and duly suppressed by the use of proper means, such as consideration of the effects of sinful anger on others and on ourselves, of the allowance which ought to be made for others, of our own faults, and of the patience and gentleness of Christ; the realisation of the presence and love of God; the cultivation of the opposite principles of humility, charity, and meekness; and continual prayer for the Holy Spirit.D.
1Sa 20:35-40. (THE STONE EZEL.)
An obedient lad.
(A word to the young.) Prince Jonathan went out into the country, by the stone Ezel, to practise archery of his famous bow (2Sa 1:18, 2Sa 1:22), and took with him a lad, “a little lad” (1Sa 20:35), to carry his arrows and gather them up after they had been shot at the mark. This lad
1. Had learnt a great lesson, the first and most important lesson of lifeobedience. He was a young soldier, and had learnt a soldier’s chief duty. “Children, obey your parents” (Eph 6:1). “Servants, obey your masters” (Col 3:22). “Obey” your teachers (Heb 13:17). “Obey magistrates” (Tit 3:1).
2. Had learnt his lesson well. He did what he was told to do willingly, cheerfully, quickly (“make speed, haste, stay not”), fully, “without asking any questions.”
3. Was very useful to his master. Though but a little lad, he could be of service to a prince and great hero.
4. Did a greater service than he was aware of. He was seen by David from his hiding place in the rock, and was useful to him as well as to Jonathan. “And the lad knew not anything” (1Sa 20:39). In doing our duty One sees us whom we see not, and regards it as done to him.
5. Did not go unrewarded. He pleased his master, and would be more highly valued for this service and promoted to a higher position, for which it helped to prepare him.
6. Set a pattern of the kind of service we should render to God. “We ought to obey God” (Act 5:29) above all. “Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth.”D.
1Sa 20:41. (THE STONE EZEL.)
The parting of friends.
Friends sometimes part because they cease to esteem each other. They also sometimes part not in feeling, but only in space; not willingly, but under the constraint of a higher necessity; and their separation is one of the most painful trials of life. Such was the parting of Jonathan and David. “This is the culminating point in the mutual relations of the two friends who furnish the eternal type of the perfection of noble friendship; and, moreover, in these last hours before their separation, all the threads of their destinies, henceforth so widely different, are secretly woven together. It is also at this point, consequently, that the clearest anticipation of the whole subsequent history already shines through. As Jonathan here foresees, David afterwards obtains the kingdom; and, in accordance with his oath to his friend, he afterwards, when a powerful king, always spares the descendants of Jonathan, in grateful remembrance of his dearly loved friend, and never loses an opportunity of showing them kindness” (Ewald). In their parting we observe
I. COURTESY. David “fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times.” He did so not merely in external and courtier like obeisance to the prince, but also in heartfelt esteem and homage to the friend, who had shown his fidelity in a great crisis, virtually renounced the prospect of a kingdom for his sake and in obedience to what he saw to be the Divine purpose, and was worthy of the highest honour. True courtesy
1. Has its seat in the heart, and expresses itself in appropriate speech and conduct in intercourse with others, according to the custom of the time and place and the relative position they occupy. The outward bearing of itself, is morally worthless. It may be superficial and hypocritical. Yet “courtesy of feeling is very much acquired and promoted by cultivating courtesy of manner. Gentleness of manner has some influence on gentleness of life.”
2. Is the opposite of selfishness and pride (the chief causes of its absence); unsociableness, austerity, and moroseness; coldness, reserve, and neglect; contemptuous demeanour, rudeness, and undue familiarity. And it by no means implies obsequiousness or want of self-respect.
3. Consits of humility, benevolent regard for others, kindly consideration for their feelings even in little things, gentleness, and frankness.
4. Is attended with many advantages; commended by the examples recorded in the word of God, and enjoined by its precepts (Gen 23:12; Luk 7:44; Act 28:7; Philemon). “Whatsoever things are lovely,” etc. (Php 4:8). “Be courteous” (1Pe 3:8).
II. TENDERNESS. “And they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David exceeded” (LXX; “wept one with another with great lamentation”). The tenderness of their affection and grief was “wonderful.” Something of the same tenderness
1. Is commonly possessed by men of a brave and noble type of character. “There is in David (as there is said to be in all great geniuses) a feminine as well as a masculine vein; a passionate tenderness, a keen sensibility, a vast capacity of sympathy, sadness, and suffering which makes him truly a type of the Man of sorrows” (Kingsley).
2. Is revealed in them by special circumstances, and is in such circumstances worthy of them.
3. Is shown in sympathy with the trouble of others, rather than in grief occasioned by the deprivation of their friendship and aid. The loss which David and Jonathan were each about to suffer by the separation was great; but they were chiefly affected by the thought of the trouble which awaited each other: the one to become an outlaw and to be pursued with relentless malice; the other to bear the frowns of his royal father, and witness his ruinous career, without any consolation but that derived from the prospect of a better time under the rule of his chosen friend.
4. Appears in the restraint which is put upon the indulgence of personal feeling, from concern for others’ welfare. The interview might not be prolonged. There was danger in delay. And Jonathan hastened the departure of his friend, saying, “Go in peace.” Equal tenderness appears in none save those whose hearts are softened and pervaded by Divine grace (Act 20:37, Act 20:38; Act 21:13), or in “the Friend of sinners.”
III. PIETY. “Go in peace, forasmuch,” etc. Their souls were “knit” to God before they were knit to each other; the one was the cause of the other; their covenant was made “in the name of Jehovah,” and he would still be with them when they parted. The piety which is possessed in common alleviates and sanctifies the grief occasioned by the separation of friends. It appears in
1. The fellowship which is held with the eternal Friend and abides amidst all earthly changes.
2. Submission to his sovereign will, which appoints the lot of each and all (Act 21:13).
3. Faith in his overruling power and goodness, according to which “all things work together for good”the welfare of his people, the establishment of his kingdom.
4. The wish and prayer for his continued presence and blessing. In him parted friends may still meet, continue of “one heart and one soul,” and obtain by their prayers invaluable benefits for one another.
IV. HOPEFULNESS. They did not part without the hope of meeting again in this life (which was fulfilled1Sa 23:16), and doubtless also in the eternal home to which God gathers his people. “Let it be considered what a melancholy thing any friendship would be that should be destined to expire with all its pleasures and advantages at death. That is the worthy and happy friendship, and that alone, where the parties are zealously preparing and have a good hope to meet in a nobler scene” (J. Foster). The friendship which is formed and cherished in God is not dissolved by death, but is renewed in “a life beyond life,” and perpetuated forever.
“As for my friends, they are not lost;
The several vessels of thy fleet,
Though parted now, by tempest tossed,
Shall safely in the haven meet.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Sa 20:24 So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
Ver. 24. The king sat him down to eat meat. ] At the feast of the new moon, which Saul, as bad as he was, yet was careful to keep, and to have his chief princes keep it with him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
meat. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Species), App-6, for all kinds of food.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the king: Psa 50:16-21, Pro 4:17, Pro 15:17, Pro 17:1, Pro 21:3, Pro 21:27, Isa 1:11-15, Zec 7:6, Joh 18:28
Reciprocal: Psa 35:16 – hypocritical
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 20:24-26. David hid himself in the field Namely, at the time appointed: for it seems probable that he went first to Beth-lehem, and thence returned to the field, when the occasion required. Jonathan arose He rose from his seat where he had sat next the king, and stood up at Abners coming, to do honour to him, who was his fathers cousin, and the general of the army. Something hath befallen him Some accident, which has rendered him unclean, and so unfit to partake of this feast, which consisted in part of the remainders of the peace-offerings, according to the law; (Lev 7:20;) unfit also to come into any company, much more, into the kings company, lest he should pollute them also.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Saul’s anger over David’s absence 20:24-34
Saul concluded at first that David had not come to the new moon sacrificial meal because he was unclean (cf. Lev 7:20-21; Lev 15:16). His continued absence required an explanation, which Saul looked to David’s friend to provide. Saul hated David so much he could not bring himself to use his name (1Sa 20:27; 1Sa 20:31). "The son of . . ." was a mild insult (cf. 1Sa 10:11). [Note: Youngblood, p. 723.] By insulting Jonathan’s mother Saul was intensifying his insult (1Sa 20:30). Today’s English Version translated Saul’s epithet, "You bastard!" The New Jerusalem Bible rendered it, "You son of a rebellious slut!" The note in the NET Bible says, "You stupid son of a bitch!" Jonathan had chosen David as his friend to his own shame (1Sa 20:30) in the sense that because he had made him his friend, rather than killing him, as Saul wanted him to do, David would take Jonathan’s place as the king of Israel. That would be a shame for Jonathan. Jonathan had chosen David to the shame of his mother’s nakedness in that Jonathan’s conception and birth were useless if David replaced him. Jonathan would fail to achieve the purpose for which he had been born, in Saul’s way of thinking (1Sa 20:31). Saul perceived David as a threat to his continuing dynasty, not just to his personal rule. Clearly Saul was rejecting and opposing God’s will that his reign and his dynasty would not endure. Saul said he would kill David so that David could not do what God had said He would do.
Jonathan’s ambitions were not the same as Saul’s. He wanted God’s plans to succeed more than he wanted to become Israel’s king. Therefore he interceded for David again (1Sa 20:32; cf. 1Sa 19:4). Saul, exasperated by what he interpreted as Jonathan’s selfless folly, tried to execute David’s advocate as he had formerly tried to kill David himself (1Sa 20:33; cf. 1Sa 18:11; 1Sa 19:10). This brush with death finally convinced Jonathan that David had been right about Saul’s intentions after all (cf. 1Sa 20:3). It also convinced him to get out of the king’s presence. Jonathan departed in hot anger because of Saul’s attitude toward David and because of Saul’s attitude toward himself. Saul had said David would not allow Jonathan to rule, but Saul himself almost prevented that from happening by attacking the crown prince. Jonathan’s departure from Saul’s table symbolized his departure from his father’s fellowship.