Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Samuel 20:12 - 20:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
In the field, where they were both entirely free from observation, Jonathan first of all renewed his covenant with David, by vowing to him on oath that he would give him information of his father's feelings towards him (1Sa 20:12, 1Sa 20:13); and then entreated him, with a certain presentiment that David would one day be king, even then to maintain his love towards him and his family for ever (1Sa 20:14-16); and lastly, he made David swear again concerning his love (1Sa 20:17), and then gave him the sign by which he would communicate the promised information (1Sa 20:18-23).
1Sa 20:12-15
1Sa 20:12 and 1Sa 20:13 are connected. Jonathan commences with a solemn invocation of God: “Jehovah, God of Israel!” and thus introduces his oath. We have neither to supply “Jehovah is witness,” nor “as truly as Jehovah liveth,” as some have suggested. “When I inquire of my father about this time to-morrow, the day after to-morrow (a concise mode of saying 'to-morrow or the day after'), and behold it is (stands) well for David, and then I do not send to thee and make it known to thee, Jehovah shall do so to Jonathan,” etc. (“The Lord do so,” etc., the ordinary formula used in an oath: see 1Sa 14:44). The other case is then added without an adversative particle: “If it should please my father evil against thee (lit. as regards evil), “I will make it known to thee, and let thee go, that thou mayest go in peace; and Jehovah be with thee, as He has been with my father.” In this wish there is expressed the presentiment that David would one day occupy that place in Israel which Saul occupied then, i.e., the throne. - In 1Sa 20:14 and 1Sa 20:15 the Masoretic text gives no appropriate meaning. Luther's rendering, in which he follows the Rabbins and takes the first וְלֹא (1Sa 20:14) by itself, and then completes the sentence from the context (“but if I do it not, show me no mercy, because I live, not even if I die”), contains indeed a certain permissible sense when considered in itself; but it is hardly reconcilable with what follows, “and do not tear away thy compassion for ever from my house.” The request that he would show no compassion to him (Jonathan) even if he died, and yet would not withdraw his compassion from his house for ever, contains an antithesis which would have been expressed most clearly and unambiguously in the words themselves, if this had been really what Jonathan intended to say. De Wette's rendering gives a still more striking contradiction: “But let not (Jehovah be with thee) if I still live, and thou showest not the love of Jehovah to me, that I do not, and thou withdrawest not thy love from my house for ever.” There is really no other course open than to follow the Syriac and Arabic, as Maurer, Thenius, and Ewald have done, and change the וְלֹא in the first two clauses in 1Sa 20:14 into וְלוּ or וְלֻא, according to the analogy of the form לוּא (1Sa 14:30), and to render the passage thus: “And mayest thou, if I still live, mayest thou show to me the favour of the Lord, and not if I do, not withdraw thy favour from my house for ever, not even (וְלֹא) when Jehovah shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth!” “The favour of Jehovah” is favour such as Jehovah shall cut off,” etc., shows very clearly Jonathan's conviction that Jehovah would give to David a victory over all his enemies.
1Sa 20:16
Thus Jonathan concluded a covenant with the house of David, namely, by bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever. The word בְּרִית must be supplied in thought to יִכְרֹת, as in 1Sa 22:8 and 2Ch 7:18. “And Jehovah required it (what Jonathan had predicted) at the hand of David's enemies.” Understood in this manner, the second clause contains a remark of the historian himself, namely, that Jonathan's words were really fulfilled in due time. The traditional rendering of וּבִקֵּשׁ as a relative preterite, with אָמַר understood, “and said, Let Jehovah take vengeance,” is not only precluded by the harshness of the introduction of the word “saying,” but still more by the fact, that if אָמַר (saying) is introduced between the copula vav and the verb בִּקֵּשׁ, the perfect cannot stand for the optative בִּקֵּשׁ, as in Jos 22:23.
1Sa 20:17
“And Jonathan adjured David again by his love to him, because he loved him as his own soul” (cf. 1Sa 18:1, 1Sa 18:3); i.e., he once more implored David most earnestly with an oath to show favour to him and his house.
1Sa 20:18-19
He then discussed the sign with him for letting him know about his father's state of mind: “To-morrow is new moon, and thou wilt be missed, for thy seat will be empty,” sc., at Saul's table (see at 1Sa 20:5). “And on the third day come down quickly (from thy sojourning place), and go to the spot where thou didst hide thyself on the day of the deed, and place thyself by the side of the stone Ezel.” The first words in this (19th) verse are not without difficulty. The meaning “on the third day” for the verb שִׁלֵּשׁ cannot be sustained by parallel passages, but is fully established, partly by הַשְּׁלִשִׁית, the third day, and partly by the Arabic usage (vid., Ges. Thes. s. v.). מְאֹד after תֵּרֵד, lit., “go violently down,” is more striking still. Nevertheless the correctness of the text is not to be called in question, since שִׁלַּשְׁתָּ is sustained by τρισσεύσει in the Septuagint, and מְאֹד תֵּרֵד by descende ergo festinus in the Vulgate, and also by the rendering in the Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac versions, “and on the third day thou wilt be missed still more,” which is evidently merely a conjecture founded upon the context. The meaning of הַמַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיֹום is doubtful. Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer render it “on the day of the deed,” and understand it as referring to Saul's deed mentioned in 1Sa 19:2, viz., his design of killing David; others render it “on the day of business,” i.e., the working day (Luther, after the lxx and Vulgate), but this is not so good a rendering. The best is probably that of Thenius, “on the day of the business” (which is known to thee). Nothing further can be said concerning the stone Ezel than that Ezel is a proper name.
1Sa 20:20
“And I will shoot off three arrows to the side of it (the stone Ezek), to shoot for me at the mark,” i.e., as if shooting at the mark. The article attached to הַחִצִּים is either to be explained as denoting that the historian assumed the thing as already well known, or on the supposition that Jonathan went to the field armed, and when giving the sign pointed to the arrows in his quiver. In the word צִדָּה the Raphe indicates that the suffix of ־הָ is not a mere toneless ה, although it has no mappik, having given up its strong breathing on account of the harsh צ sound.
1Sa 20:21
“And, behold (הִנֵּה, directing attention to what follows as the main point), I will send the boy (saying), Go, get the arrows. If I shall say to the boy, Behold, the arrows are from thee hitherwards, fetch them; then come, for peace is to thee, and it is nothing, as truly as Jehovah liveth.”
1Sa 20:22
“But if I say to the youth, Behold, the arrows are from thee farther off; then go, for Jehovah sendeth thee away,” i.e., bids thee flee. The appointment of this sign was just as simple as it was suitable to the purpose.
1Sa 20:23
This arrangement was to remain an eternal secret between them. “And (as for) the word that we have spoken, I and thou, behold, the Lord is between me and thee for ever,” namely, a witness and judge in case one of us two should break the covenant (vid., Gen 31:48-49). This is implied in the words, without there being any necessity to assume that עֵד had dropped out of the text. “The word” refers not merely to the sign agreed upon, but to the whole matter, including the renewal of the bond of friendship.