1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, 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 it]! Thou shalt not die; behold, my father will do 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 sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth [knoweth well] 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 [Jehovah] liveth, and as thy soul 4liveth, there is but a step between me and death. Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said] unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth [saith], 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 sit with the king at meat; but let me go, that 6I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even. If thy father at all [decidedly] 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. 7If he say thus, It is well, [ins. then] thy servant shall have peace; but if he be 8very wroth,then be sure that evil is determined by him. Therefore [And] thou shalt deal kindly with 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 it 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? Then said David [And David said] to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly ? 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] Lord [Jehovah], God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to-morrow any time [this time to-morrow] or the third day, 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. [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] 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, Let the Lore, even require [David, and Jehovah required] it at the hand of David’s enemies.
17And Jonathan caused David to swear 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 quickly and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and thou shalt 20remain by the stone Ezel. And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as 21though I shot at a mark. 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.
2. Jonathan learns Saul’s 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 arose26and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s 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. 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], that David’s 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, 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 brother. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table.
30Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thy own confusion [shame] and unto the confusion [shame] of thy 31mother’s 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 cast a [his] javelin at him to smite him, whereby [and] Jonathan knew that it was determined34of 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 Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrows and 39came to his master. But [And] the lad knew not any thing; only Jonathan and 40David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave his artillery 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], 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].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 Saul’s real attitude toward David, and informing him of it.
1Sa_20:1 is connected immediately with the foregoing, the narrative of David’s flight from Naioth in Ramah standing in pragmatic connection with the account (close of 1 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.—David’s three-fold question as to his fault is a three-fold denial of it, since it involves as many assertions of his innocence. An echo of this assertion is found in the declaration, so frequent in the Davidic 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 Jonathan’s own knowledge.”
1Sa_20:2. Jonathan’s answer to David’s complaint is (1) the distinct assurance:far be it, thou shalt not die, and (2) the ground of this affirmation. Though this assurance has immediate reference to what David says of Saul’s attack on him (as Jonathan’s following words are intended to show that he knew nothing of such a murderous plan on Saul’s part), yet at the same time Jonathan, looking to David’s high divine mission for the people, prophetically declares what was determined in the Divine counsel concerning the maintenance and preservation of his friend’s life.—For
ìå
(“to him”) read
ìֹà
(“not.”) The marginal Impf. (
éַòֲùֶׂç
) 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. Saul’s lack of self-control 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 Jonathan’s hindering it; Saul even swore to Jonathan that he would not kill David, and this Jonathan told David (1Sa_19:6-7). To this Jonathan’s 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. David’s words in 1Sa_20:3 : “he (Saul) thought Jonathan must not know this,” confirm Jonathan’s assurance that his father had told him nothing of a plan of murder. But, it may properly be asked, did Jonathan know nothing of the events just described, on which David’s declaration is based? It is certainly possible that he [Jonathan] was at that time absent from court; but the connection does not favor this view. But, if he were present, Saul’s attempt against David could not possibly have remained concealed from him. Accepting this supposition as the more probable, we must, in order to understand Jonathan’s words, look at the whole situation. The account of all the occurrences from 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. Nägelsbach: “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 David’s life” (Herz. R.-E. xiii. 403). But while Jonathan had in mind merely the symptom in his father’s condition, David knew how deeply rooted in envy and jealousy Saul’s hate toward him was. He assures him with an oath, what was perfectly clear to him, that Saul sought his destruction.
òåֹã
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. David’s reply contains two things: (1) the explanation (connected with the indirect affirmation that Saul had resolved to murder him) of Jonathan’s statement that Saul had said nothing to him of the murder, by referring to Saul’s undoubted knowledge of the friendship between them, and (2) the assertion (with a double oath) that he saw nothing but death before him. (
ëִּé
is here intensive, =imo, so especially in oaths, 1Sa_14:44, 1Ki_1:29 sq., 1Sa_2:23 f., 2Ki_3:14.—
ëְּ
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. Jonathan’s answer supposes that he gives credence to David’s assertion, and proves his friendship by offering his help, with the declaration that he wished to fulfill every wish of his soul. The reply of David (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 Saul’s family (not merely as one (Then.) who had a standing formal invitation), brings him face to face with the danger in which his life stood; for the feast fell on the following day. On the religious celebration of the day of new moon with burnt-offering and sin-offering and sound of trumpet see Num_10:10; Num_28:11-15. As a joyful festival it was connected with a cheerful meal. To this refers Saul’s 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 former’s 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 Saul’s attitude toward him, and find out certainly whether in his hate the latter has really conceived a plan for his destruction. As David, according to 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.,—(
ðִùְׁàַì
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. Saul’s conduct in these two contrasted forms, was for Jonathan as for David the sign of his permanent attitude towards David in the condition of quiet in which he now was; for such a sign was necessary not only for Jonathan (S. Schmid) but also for David, since, as appears from the tenor of the whole narration, he did not yet certainly know how Saul in the depths of his heart was disposed towards him. If he says “well,” it means peace for thy servant, that 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.
ëָּìָç
= “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, Saul’s 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 Saul’s answer was unfavorable, but to the general help expected from him, that David might escape the threatened danger. That it includes what David looks for from Jonathan in case Saul answers angrily, appears from Jonathan’s reply in 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 Lord’s name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God. Thou hast brought me,—this indicates the initiative which, in the concluding of the covenant, was on the side of Jonathan (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 friend’s hand; Jonathan shall do him the kindness in this case not to deliver him up to Saul, that he may not be slain by him. This supposes that Jonathan had the right to inflict capital punishment for crimes against his father as king.
1Sa_20:9. Jonathan’s answer first decidedly sets aside the case last put by David. The “far be it from thee” is not to be connected with what follows, as if it were here said what was to be far (Ges., Del., Maur.), but is to be taken absolutely, and to be referred (as 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 Jonathan’s firm conviction of David’s innocence.—Then follows Jonathan’s solemn assurance that he will inform David if Saul exhibits a hostile disposition towards him. This was the service of love which he had first to do for his friend, that the latter might then take further measures for saving his life. (
ëִּé
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 father’s part is a thing determined. From the connection, and on account of the vigor and emphasis of the interrogation, which is in keeping with Jonathan’s excited feeling, it is better to construe the “if,” etc., as first member (protasis), and the “and not,” &c, as second interrogative member (apodosis) of a conditional sentence [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” (
àåֹ îָç
= whatever thing); against which we must insist with Keil that this signification of
àå
occurs only where another case is mentioned, where the ground-meaning is “or.” As
îָä
[“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 father’s displeasure.” The sense is therefore: “No one will tell me,” namely, the evil determined by Saul. This question, with its negative sense, is the answer, spoken with excited feeling, to Jonathan’s word: “I will tell thee the evil determined on,” and the tender, thoughtful form in which he clothes the decided: “Thou canst not tell me.” The second question:Or what harsh thing will thy father answer thee? refers to Saul’s anger (1Sa_20:7), whence Jonathan purposed learning that Saul’s evil plan against David was completed. Schmid’s explanation: “and if thou choose a messenger, how shall I understand what evil thy father answers?” rests on the false distinction between a person bringing the information (to whom only the first question is to refer), and the nature of the information (to which the second question is to refer), and requires us to supply a sentence which could by no means have been omitted. Maur., De Wette, Keil regard the question as referring to the evil consequences to Jonathan, if he himself brought the information to David: What would thy father answer thee hard (Maur.: “what thinkest thou he would decree against thee,” contrary to to the meaning of
òָðָä
), if thou thyself didst it? Against this is the word “answer,” since Jonathan would not say to Saul that he intended to tell David—and we cannot appropriately supply the idea that, if Saul afterwards heard of Jonathan’s going to David, he would answer him harshly. Rather the second question reads fully: “Or who will tell what thy father,” etc. Saul’s evil word, by which his fixed evil purpose is to be discovered, is distinguished from this latter. But the evil answer is not to be understood of threats against David (Böttcher), 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 David’s excited state of mind, and makes a full and candid conversation necessary, for which purpose Jonathan invites David to go with him to the field. [Erdmann’s translation is hardly satisfactory; the second clause does not suit the question: “who will tell?” The rendering: “who will tell me if perchance thy father,” &c, is the smoother, and suits the context better, but it is doubtful whether
àåֹ
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 David’s words to suppose that they wished to escape from observation (Then.), in order to speak further undisturbedly of the matter, and to think over ways and means (Berl. Bib.); but at the same time the context suggests as another aim, that Jonathan wished to point out what he thought a fit place wherein to give his friend by a trustworthy sign the desired information, comp. 1Sa_20:19-24. This obviously supposes Jonathan’s fixed determination, in spite of David’s protest, to bring the message himself. That Jonathan went out for the sake of the oath which he afterwards [see 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 David’s question, which was meant in a negative sense. 1Sa_20:12-13. Jonathan’s solemn oath that he will inform him of the mind of his father. The solemnity and loftiness of the vow, heightened by the oath, answers to the epoch-making importance and decisive significance of this moment in David’s life; for from this moment David’s way must coincide with that of Saul, or for ever diverge from it and be for him a way of uninterrupted suffering.—That Jonathan begins his address with a solemn invocation of God, “Jehovah, God of Israel” (De Wette, Keil) [so Eng. A. V., see “Text, and Gram.”] is untenable, because there is no analogy for such a mode of address, and because of the introduction “Jonathan said to David” (Thenius). Nor can we suppose an interrupted discourse, resumed in 1Sa_20:13, for against this is the beginning of 1Sa_20:13 : “The Lord do so.” 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
çַé
“after Cod. Kenn. 560 and 224 margin,” which might easily fall out before
éäåä
) 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.
ëָּòֵú îָçָø
= “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
ëָּòֵú
,= “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
ëִּé
without adversative particle: “(But) if it please my father to do thee evil,” etc. The apodosis: “I will show it thee and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace,” asserts, in distinction from the preceding apodosis, that Jonathan in this case will bring David the information himself without the intervention of a messenger. With this promise, confirmed by an oath, Jonathan connects the wish: “The Lord be with thee as he hath been with my father.” This indicates that Jonathan has at least a presentiment of David’s high destiny and his future calling, which he is some time to fulfil as King of Israel in Saul’s place.—This comes out still more clearly in what follows. For in 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 Jonathan’s pious soul, which felt and perceived God’s righteous working, there lay hid a divinatory and prophetic element, as here appears. Jonathan, having before expressed his wish for David, here declares what he desires from David as counter-proof of faithful friendship. With reference to the oriental custom of killing the children and relations of the former king on ascending the throne, Jonathan begs David hereafter to show mercy to his house. “The syntactical construction is a somewhat violent one, as accords with the emotion of the speaker” (Bunsen). Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 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 Jonathan’s excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew. 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.” 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 David’s duty to show him this love. “Not even when the Lord shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth.” The
áְֹּäַëְøִéú
forms an assonance
úַëְøִéú åְìֹà
: “do not cut off … even when the Lord shall cut off.” Jonathan clearly understands that enmity against David is enmity against the Lord’s purpose and act, and that God s destroying judgment must fall on his father’s house because of its opposition to the will of the Lord. His request that his house may be excepted from this judgment, as executor of which he regards David, is founded on and justified by his position outside of the circle of “enemies” (since he recognises God’s will concerning David, and bends to it as David’s friend), so that, though a member of Saul’s house, he does not belong to it so far as concerns the judgment of extermination.—See the fulfilment of Jonathan’s request, 2 Samuel 9.
1Sa_20:16 is a remark of the narrator 1) on this covenant between Jonathan and David, and 2) on the actual fulfilment of Jonathan’s word respecting the overthrow of David’s enemies. “And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David.” After
åַéִּëְøֹú
supply
áְּøִéú
: 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 (
åּáֵ÷ִּùׁ
) is by many put into Jonathan’s mouth as part of his oath, “and the Lord take vengeance on the enemies of David” (Then., Maur., De Wette, Buns.). But the objection to this is, that then (unless with Then, we adopt the corrupt Sept. and Vulg. text: “and may Jonathan’s name not be cut off from the house of David”) we must supply “saying” (
àָîַø
between
åּ
and
áֵ÷ִּùׁ
), 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” (
áֵּ÷ִּùׁ îִéַã
=“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 Jonathan’s 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” (
åְùִׁìַּùְׁúָּ
), 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.
ôñéóóåýóåéò
favors it) the Chald., Syr., Arab., and Vulg., which render “And on the third day,” and we must therefore read
åּùְׁìִùִׁéú
, 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 done”—but on account of the word “very” (
îְàֹø
). The Vulg. has “descend quickly.” From the difficulty of the reading some substitute “thou wilt be missed” (
úִּôָּ÷ֵã
, 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
îְàֹã
(“very”) we should read
îåֹòֵã
, “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.” Bunsen’s explanation “on the day when that happened” (1Sa_19:2-3) attenuates the meaning of the Heb. word (
îַּòֲùֶׂä
), 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 Jonathan’s deed, when near that spot he turned aside his father’s murderous thoughts from David, having brought him to the spot where David was hidden and could hear the conversation. This was the business which Jonathan’s brief allusion would suggest to David. A reference to this explanation is found as early as Clericus: “rather the allusion seems to be to the day when Jonathan occupied himself with this very business of David’s safety.”—And remain by the stone Ezel. (Sept.
ðáñὰ ôὸ Åñãὰâ ἐêåῖíï
,
äָàַøְâּá äַìָּæ
, “by that stone-heap.” So Then, and Ew., except that the latter reads
äָàָæֵì
, “the lonely waste.” There is, however, no need for change of text;
àֶáֶï
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 up from the place where they fell, whether in front of or behind the mark. (Böttcher: In
öãָּäֿ
the Raphe, as the accent shows, denotes that
ä
loses its aspiration by reason of the neighboring hard consonants (2
ö
and then
ø
), or remains as suffix
Îָäּ
, not as toneless local
Îַä
; this—
Îָä
refers to the preceding fem.
àֶáֶï
, so that
öִãָּäֿ
= juxta eam, at its (the stone’s) 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 Saul’s 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 [
òַì
, 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 himself—Saul sat at table on new-moon-day,”—this lapidary double remark admirably and vividly introduces the following narration, which is marked precisely by this two-fold fact. Saul sat in his “seat by the wall,” as the highest, most honorable place, opposite the door. See Harmar, Beob. über d. Orient, II. 66 sq. “As time on time,” that 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.
êὰé ðñï Ýöèáóå ôὸí
’
ÉùíÜèáí
(
åַéְּ÷ַãֵּí
for
åַéָּ÷ָּí
), 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 Saul’s side” (connecting
åַéֵּùֶׁá
with
åַéָ÷ָí
, and putting
åְ
before
àַáְðֵø
). 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 (
÷åּí
), which is used instead of “coming” in the elevated, solemn sense = “appearing,” but never of simple “coming.” If we keep the text and render “and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat” (Vulg.), the only possible explanation is: Jonathan rose from his place when Abner came, whether to show him honor as his uncle, or to give him his proper place at Saul’s side, which he had taken perhaps in Abner’s absence under the impression that the latter would not come to the meal.—Another rendering, however, naturally suggests itself; pointing the verb (
éùׁá
) as causative (Hiph.
åַéּùֶׁá
), written defectively) as in 2Ch_10:2 (Ges. § 69, 3 R. 7), and understanding that Jonathan had already seated himself after Saul, and that David’s absence was observed, we translate “he arose, and seated Abner at Saul’s side,” that is, in the place left vacant by David’s absence, in order that the seat next to Saul might not be empty, he himself having taken the seat on the other side of Saul.—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 David’s 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 Saul’s expecting David, that he supposed David would infer from the occurrence at Naioth 1Sa_19:24, that Saul’s 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 (
äַùֵּׁðִé
is Nom. with
åַéְäִé
, not Gen. after
äַçֹãֶùׁ
) and David’s place was missed,” so De Wette: “it came to pass on the following day of the new moon, the second.” In reply to Saul’s question about him Jonathan gave the answer agreed on in 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.” Jonathan’s quotation of David’s words is somewhat loose and incompact, agreeing with the cordial, light tone in which one friend makes such statements to another in confidential intercourse. This is the explanation also of the somewhat rough and jocose phrase “let me get away, take myself off” (
àִîָּìְèָä
). Comp. the “run” in 1Sa_20:6 (Bunsen).
1Sa_20:30 sq. Saul’s 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,”
ðַòֲåָä
as Ni. partcp., Maurer: “son of a perverse and contumacious mother—O perverse and obstinate son”) is partly the hardness of the phrase “perverse one of rebellion,” partly the monstrosity of the insult thus offered to Jonathan’s mother, which contradicts the Heb. family-spirit. The last objection lies also against the rendering of Sept. and Vulg. “thou son of a rebellious woman” (
ðַòֲåָä
for
ðַòֲåָä
, Then.), or, as Vulg., “thou son of a woman who voluntarily seizes on a man” (obviously reading
äַîֻּøְãָּó
(Isa_14:6) or
äַîִּøְãּåֹó
for
îַøְãּåּú
). So Ew., who puts Plu. instead of Sing.: “thou son of wenches who run after (men).” The most tolerable rendering is that of Köster, unjustly made light of by Then., found also in Clericus: “Thou son of perversity of rebellion” (taking
ðַòֲåúַ
as abstract noun, Ni. particip. of
òåä
), 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.” 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. (
áָּçַø
denotes choice out of love, commonly construed with
áְּ
, here only with
ìְ
. [On the unnecessary Sept. reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]). To thy shame and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness, who will be ashamed of having borne thee. So we must translate, and not with De Wette, “to the shame and nakedness of thy mother,” nor with Bunsen, “to the shame of thy unchaste mother.” Such an expression from Saul would be in contradiction to his previous reference to Jonathan’s mother according to the translation which we have rejected. In 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 Saul’s determined and permanent purpose to slay David as a rebel. And so he says: Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a son of death. These words fully reveal his disposition towards David.
