Chapter 20

1 David consulteth with Jonathan for his safety. 11 Jonathan and David renew their covenant by oath. 18 Jonathan’s token to David. 24 Saul, missing David, seeketh to kill Jonathan. 35 Jonathan lovingly taketh his leave of David.

1. David fled. Evidently to Gibeah to confer with Jonathan. David would hardly have dared to return thither while Saul was there, but under the restraining power of the Spirit, Saul remained at Ramah for most of the day and night (see ch. 19:23, 24). The delay gave David an opportunity to find Jonathan and to learn from him the attitude of Saul. No mention is made of David’s visiting his wife at this time. He was confident that Jonathan would keep his counsel, but he was not too certain of Michal. See DavidХs Wanderings When Fleeing from Saul: a. and b.

Mine iniquity. The two words, “iniquity” and “sin,” are hardly repetitious synonyms. The word Фawon, translated “iniquity,” comes from the root Фawah, “to be of a perverse mind.” ФAwon often comprehends the guilt and punishment of sin. The word chattaХah, translated “sin,” comes from the root chataХ, “to miss the mark.” David was asking, What is my guilt and wherein have I been perverse in my attitude either toward the king or toward the kingdom? Have I not wrought for Saul under most trying conditions? Have I not done valiant service for Israel, fighting her enemies? Have not my motives and desires always been to bring success to my beloved people? Where have I missed the mark and failed in my purpose?

2. God forbid. Heb. chalilah, used as an exclamation of abhorrence, a protest. The Deity’s name is not in the Hebrew. The rendering “far be it” is to be preferred, as in v. 9. The expression “God forbid” is an old English idiom of protestation, which does not literally translate the Hebrew. Jonathan seems to be sure that his father’s actions are due to his mental derangement. He assures David that Saul will do nothing in secret, as was evidenced previously when he spoke to Jonathan and his officers about killing David (ch. 19:1). Jonathan had been able to reason with Saul then and quiet him, and he was sure there was a solution to the problem now. But, after seeing Saul’s attitude at the student lodgings at Ramah, David was not convinced.

3. David sware. That is, he affirmed with an oath that he knew whereof he spoke. David called Jonathan’s attention to the fact that Saul knew of their close friendship, and although Jonathan had been able to reason with his father in the past, David now feared that Saul would go on with his evil plans so secretly that he would not talk the matter over with anyone, let alone his own son. Perhaps Jonathan had not seen his father immediately before the Ramah experience and did not know of the sudden change for the worse.

Step. Heb.pesЊaФ. The word occurs only here in the OT. Its use in the phrase is an illustration of a colloquialism comparable to our modern idioms. Such expressions lend color to the narrative and give support to the authenticity of the story.

David had had a few hours to recover from his fright, and now he was able to think clearly and plan accordingly. He showed true leadership as he outlined his plan of getting the information necessary to determine future actions.

5. The new moon. The Jews, like many of their surrounding neighbors, observed a lunar calendar, in which the first day of the month began with the evening on which the crescent of the new moon appeared. The first day of the month, called the “new moon,” was a day of special festivities, including offerings (Num. 28:11–15) and the blowing of trumpets over the offerings and sacrifices (Num. 10:10). Such feasts were both tribal and community affairs at this time, and David, as Saul’s son-in-law, would be expected to be present. The narrative does not name the month of the year. However, inasmuch as there also was such a feast at Bethlehem called a “yearly sacrifice” (1 Sam. 20:6), it is possible that this was an annual feast, most probably that of the new year, which came on the first day of the seventh month, Tishri, in the autumn, as it does in the modern Jewish calendar (see p. 108). Such a gathering had been authorized at the central meeting place for all the tribes (Deut. 12:5–16). In the days of Eli this was Shiloh. Later, in the days of the kingdom, it was Jerusalem. After the removal of the ark from Shiloh, it was quite probable that each district held its own gathering. Thus the same kind of feast could have been held in Bethlehem as was held in Gibeah.

6. For all the family. Better, “for all the clan.” Israel was divided into 12 tribes, but these tribes were again grouped into clans, or families (see Ex. 6:14–30). In the tribes of Benjamin and Judah one clan might meet in Gibeah and another in Bethlehem.

Some have questioned David’s integrity in asking Jonathan to tell Saul of an intended visit home, because they believe that David did not plan to go to Bethlehem at all. A careful examination of the context does not confirm the contention. Bible narratives frequently omit many details that, had they been given, would clarify the picture. The brief account here set forth conveys the impression that the whole incident was a mere fabrication to test Saul’s attitude. But Jonathan’s statement made to his father (vs. 28, 29) strongly implies that the two friends had talked the whole matter over, and that more had been said than is here recorded. It appears evident that David did plan to see his brothers, and that he probably made a brief visit to Bethlehem (see PP 654, 655). But before Saul would be likely to send after him he returned and hid himself in the field awaiting the information from Jonathan as to Saul’s reaction.

8. If there be. David had the consciousness that his plight was not because of any sin on his part. If a load of guilt had been added to the reproach of being treated as a political enemy and the wretchedness of living as a fugitive, the burden would have been almost overwhelming. The knowledge of his innocence sustained David in this trying hour.

A clear conscience can compensate for any loss in this world. Those who are envious of the wicked, who indulge in the pleasures of sin, should remember that these pleasures are paid for by hours of remorse and self-loathing. Many who have drunk at earth’s polluted fountain would give all they had if only they could undo the past and wipe the foul blot from their lives. On the other hand, those who can face God and their fellow men with a conscience void of offense are the happiest people in the world. They may possess few material advantages but they hold a treasure that all the wealth in this world cannot buy (see 1 Peter 3:13–17).

9. Evil were determined. Jonathan felt in his heart that David was wrong in his deductions regarding Saul’s attitude. He seemed confident that it was only Saul’s deranged mind that at times made him act like a demon. He could have flatly contradicted David, but inasmuch as the experience affected David in a personal way, he willingly deferred to his friend’s method of determining Saul’s attitude. The future would reveal the truth, and, after all, there could be no harm in following David’s method.

There is a valuable lesson in this experience. Men do not have the same heredity and environment, and consequently do not approach the problems of life in the same way. Each believes his own individual method to be the correct one. The result is ofttimes differences of opinion, contradictions, and recriminations. Hot words are hurled back and forth that separate families, friends, and even lovers. Selfishness mounts up and pride maintains the position taken, whether tenable or not. This chapter presents a striking contrast between Saul’s and Jonathan’s ways of dealing with such situations. Saul, in his impatient tyranny and bigotry, felt that he must be first, and that what he said was correct and final. Anyone disagreeing had to be eliminated, regardless of the means taken to do it. Yet his own son approached life from an entirely different angle. Why the difference between father and son when both had had much the same surroundings and training? Did God illuminate one life and not the other? Was Saul born to be evil, and his son by contrast to possess noble traits of character? Were people required to accept Saul with all his eccentricities, making allowances for all his self-assertiveness and his domineering ways?

The solution to these questions is found in the words of Paul: “to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are” (Rom. 6:16). Because of his free choice, man gives his service, his thoughts, and his outlook on life to either one or the other of two masters—two leaders who represent diametrically opposite standards. Perhaps Saul had served self all during his early youth. Perhaps he had been a problem child in his father’s house, a bully among his associates, but still, like Judas, a born leader. If such be true, it is easy to understand his father’s anxiety when Saul was away from home hunting for the asses. Yet in Saul’s anointing there was abundant proof that God accepted him in spite of his faults and gave him a new heart (ch. 10:6, 9). But Saul refused to walk in the light of heaven. Jonathan, the son of Saul, on the other hand, chose to follow other interests than those of self. Early in life Jonathan, through prayerful surrender to the opening providences of God, had gradually developed the settled policy of his viewpoint. His approach to life led him gladly to accept David’s suggestion. This experience along with others may have been in David’s mind when he later sang, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1).

13. The Lord be with thee. Out in the field Jonathan bound himself to David by a solemn oath that he would not desert him, regardless of the turn of events. If the news was good, as he hoped it would be, he would not forsake David. On the other hand, if the news was evil, he would notify him of the truth and pray God’s blessing on him as he fled for his life. Jonathan had been personally convinced of God’s presence with his father when Saul took over the heavy responsibilities of the kingdom. But since meeting David he had been divinely impressed that the Lord had planned a high destiny for David also, which destiny would be accomplished, regardless of Saul’s malice toward him. In this attitude Jonathan showed true magnanimity.

15. From my house. By birth Jonathan was a member of the house that had sworn enmity to David. Yet he recognized God’s purpose to entrust the leadership of Israel to his brother-in-law. Jonathan chose of his own free will to affiliate himself with the house that God had indicated would replace the decadent family into which he had been born. In Jonathan’s heart God’s plan took precedence over family ties. This was not because of his desire for personal safety, but because he understood that truth must finally triumph.

For ever. Heb. ФadРФaolam, literally, “unto an age.” The length of the age must be determined by the idea with which it is associated. In this instance the extent of time would be the period of the simultaneous existence of the two houses. For proof that the expression “for ever” does not necessarily mean endlessness, see on Ex. 21:6.

16. Made a covenant. It is difficult to translate the Hebrew of this verse. The rendering of the LXX is, “And if thou doest not, when the Lord cuts off the enemies of David each from the face of the earth, should it happen that the name of Jonathan be discovered by the house of David, then let the Lord seek out the enemies of David.”

23. Between thee and me. Jonathan naturally hoped for good news. If it should be otherwise he was confident that the Lord would somehow work out His purposes. He was assured that the same God who had given to him and David such precious hours together would continue to watch over them both.

26. He is not clean. With all his evil traits, Saul was evidently a stickler for form. He understood that any ceremonial uncleanness would be sufficient reason for David’s absenting himself from such a special feast (see Lev. 15; 1 Sam. 21:3–5; etc.). His main concern at this moment was not, however, with the form of service, but with the whereabouts of a young man who had dared receive the plaudits of the populace ahead of the king.

27. The second day. If it had been merely a question of uncleanness, David could have washed himself and been clean at eventide and thus been present the second day. When Saul discovered that he was absent he betrayed his real feelings by inquiring of his son concerning “the son of Jesse.” His hatred for David was so great that his words were probably far from kindly (see v. 31). Twice David had slipped away from his murderous hand; he was determined he should not do so again.

28. Asked leave. See on v. 6.

30. Rebellious woman. The word “woman” is omitted in the Hebrew, but is clearly called for because the words “perverse” and “rebellious” are feminine in form. Consequently “woman” must be understood. It has been suggested that by leaving out the word “woman,” and putting both qualifying words in the feminine gender, Saul was heaping insult upon insult by refusing even to utter the word “woman,” or “mother,” he being so angry that he allowed himself only the descriptive expletives. One of the worst insults an Oriental can hurl is to heap reproach on someone’s mother.

31. Not be established. It was Saul’s determination to maintain his dynasty, regardless of any question of right or wrong. In pursuing this course Israel’s king was following the example of neighboring kings who held their thrones by force and fought and died to maintain their dynasties. Saul was unwilling to acknowledge God as the supreme ruler of Israel.

34. Grieved for David. The experience was a shocking disillusionment for Jonathan. The open break with his father was most painful to him. His decision to cast his lot with the “son of Jesse” was being tested, but he refused to swerve from the right. Like Moses, who turned his back upon the throne of Egypt, Jonathan chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb. 11:25). He knew by experience the truth Christ later spoke, “He that loveth father … more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37).

35. A little lad. By taking the “lad” and the bow and arrows Jonathan disguised the purpose of his journey into the field. He would be suspected merely of going on a hunt or for target practice.

38. Make speed. Compare v. 22. These words were added to impress upon David the extreme gravity of the situation.

41. David exceeded. Literally, “David caused to become great.” The exact meaning of this clause is uncertain. The LXX conveys the idea of weeping a long time or to a great climax. Some have understood the words literally in the sense of David being “made great” or “strengthened” for the ordeal ahead.

Ellen G. White comments

1–42PP 654, 655

1–3, 5PP 654

6, 7, 25–35, 41, 42PP 655