Summary: David realizes more quickly than Jonathan that his father can’t be trusted (vv.1-3). David creates a test to determine if Saul is still trying to kill him (vv.6-7), by telling Saul that he is in Bethlehem for an important feast. Jonathan still can’t face the fact that his father has lost it. When the feast occurs, Jonathan tells Saul that David was in Bethlehem, and he characteristically blows up in anger (v.30). It takes Saul trying to kill Jonathan for him to realize that his father was evil (v.33). David and Jonathan met up to weep over what had happened. David had been hiding, but after Jonathan’s arrow-fetcher left, he appeared to Jonathan (v.41). They split up after this.
(20:1-4) Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to take my life?”
2 “Never!” Jonathan replied. “You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn’t do anything, great or small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide this from me? It’s not so!”
3 But David took an oath and said, “Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, ‘Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.’ Yet as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.”
4 Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.”
David and Jonathan are in fierce disagreement and argument here. In the Hebrew, the language of this section is “emotionally charged.”[] Saul had made a fraudulent oath that David wouldn’t die (1 Sam. 19:6), but Jonathan can’t accept that his father would lie to him (v.9, 13). David had far more wisdom and discernment than Jonathan (2 Sam. 14:17, 20).
(20:5-7) So David said, “Look, tomorrow is the New Moon festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’ 7 If he says, ‘Very well,’ then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me.”
David sets up a test to reveal Saul’s motives. David must know that Saul would view his absence as disloyalty.
(20:8) “As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the LORD. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?”
The terms “show kindness” (hesed) is a translation of the Hebrew word “lovingkindness,” which is a repeated term for God’s loyal love. David would rather have Jonathan kill him than be disloyal to his covenant.
(20:9-10) “Never!” Jonathan said. “If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn’t I tell you?”
10 David asked, “Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?”
The focus of the disagreement is over whether Jonathan would keep loyalty to his father, rather than to David.
(20:11-13) “Come,” Jonathan said, “let’s go out into the field.” So they went there together.
12 Then Jonathan said to David: “By the LORD, the God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away safely. May the LORD be with you as he has been with my father.”
Jonathan promises to keep his word. David and Jonathan’s friendship was built on the foundation of God.
(20:14-15) “But show me unfailing kindness like that of the LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth.”
Jonathan knows that David will become king, and he asks David to keep him safe if (or when) this happens. Again, the term “unfailing kindness” (hesed) is used to describe their covenant with one another. David makes good on this promise, sparing Jonathan’s physically handicapped son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:7, 10).
(20:16) So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD call David’s enemies to account.”
If Saul is truly an enemy of David, then Jonathan is willing to see his own father cut off and killed to fulfill this covenant.
(20:17) And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
They renew the covenant that they made earlier in the account (1 Sam. 18:3).
(20:18-23) Then Jonathan said to David: “Tomorrow is the New Moon festival. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to him, ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,’ then come, because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the LORD has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the LORD is witness between you and me forever.”
Jonathan creates a way to communicate whether or not it is safe for David to return. If Jonathan tells his arrow bearer that the arrows are beside him, then David is safe (v.21). But if he says that the arrows are beyond him, then David is in mortal danger (v.22).
Where is Ezel? The location of this stone (Ezel) is unknown.[]
“The LORD has sent you away.” Jonathan understood that God could take this friendship away from him. He loved David enough to accept this in advance.
(20:24-29) So David hid in the field, and when the New Moon festival came, the king sat down to eat. 25 He sat in his customary place by the wall, opposite Jonathan, and Abner sat next to Saul, but David’s place was empty. 26 Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, “Something must have happened to David to make him ceremonially unclean—surely he is unclean.”
27 But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again. Then Saul said to his son Jonathan, “Why hasn’t the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?”
28 Jonathan answered, “David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. 29 He said, ‘Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.’ That is why he has not come to the king’s table.”
“He sat in his customary place by the wall.” Saul wanted his back to the wall to avoid any assassination attempts.[] This shows his paranoia. David was the one risking his life time and time again—not Saul.
“But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again.” It made sense for David to miss a holy day for being unclean. But two days in a row? Saul knew something was suspicious.
“Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?” This is the first time Saul calls David the “son of Jesse.” This was his son-in-law, but he calls him the “son of Jesse.” This slip of the tongue shows that Saul viewed David as being outside of his household. In Saul’s mind, David would always be gutter trash from a poor shepherding family.
(20:30) Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?”
“You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!” Saul refuses to call Jonathan his own son. Instead, he verbally disowns him. Youngblood[] states that this is “foul-mouthed anger,” which can be rendered “You bastard!” or “You son of a rebellious slut!”
(20:31) “As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!”
Saul pretends that he is wanting to kill David… for Jonathan’s sake. To paraphrase, he is arguing, “If I don’t kill David, then your line will disappear. Son, I’m only doing this to help you!” But Jonathan doesn’t fall for this.
(20:32) “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father.
Jonathan had asked his father this question before (1 Sam. 19:5), and it worked to calm down his father (1 Sam. 19:6). Jonathan must be holding out hope that it will work again.
(20:33) But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.
This rage-filled act tells Jonathan more about Saul’s motives than his words could ever communicate. If Saul was so intent on preserving Jonathan’s line (v.31), then why would he try to kill him?
(20:34) Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the month he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father’s shameful treatment of David.
“Fierce anger” describes “the highest levels of disappointed human fury.”[] Jonathan is filled with both rage and grief—two emotions that often go hand in hand. Yet, his heart is filled with anger and grief for David’s sake—not his own.
(20:35-40) In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, “Run and find the arrows I shoot.” As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathan’s arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, “Isn’t the arrow beyond you?” 38 Then he shouted, “Hurry! Go quickly! Don’t stop!” The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing of all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town.”
Jonathan picked a little kid to go with him (“small boy”), so that he wouldn’t have to worry about the boy asking any questions.
Jonathan shoots the arrows far away, so that his voice will carry to David in his hideout (see v.19).
(20:41) After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.
We might expect David to rub this in Jonathan’s face. Instead, he can only break down and weep “more” than Jonathan.
David and Jonathan “kissed each other” (1 Sam. 20:41). We shouldn’t project our cold, Western view of physical affection back onto this ancient Near Eastern culture. It was common for men to greet each other with a kiss—presumably on the cheeks. Consider just a few examples:
Isaac “kissed” his own son Gen. 27:26).
Laban “kissed” his nephew Jacob (Gen. 29:13).
Laban “kissed” his grandchildren and daughters (Gen. 31:55).
Esau “kissed” his brother Jacob (Gen. 33:4).
Joseph “kissed” his brothers (Gen. 45:15).
Jacob “kissed” his grandsons (Gen. 48:10).
Joseph “kissed” his dead father (Gen. 50:1).
Moses “kissed” his brother Aaron (Ex. 4:27) and his father-in-law Jethro (Ex. 18:7).
Samuel “kissed” Saul (1 Sam. 10:1).
Absalom “kissed” everyone who approached him (2 Sam. 15:5).
David “kissed” an old man Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:39).
Joab “kissed” Amasa (2 Sam. 20:9).
In the NT, believers should greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:13),
Men at this time expressed brotherly love in different ways. There are cultures today where men walk down the street holding hands, but this is not a sign of sexual attraction. Furthermore, look at the context: David and Jonathan kissed “and wept together, but David wept the more.” This does not refer to a sexual encounter! It describes deep sadness and despair. The emotion expressed is sorrow—not erotic pleasure.
“Bowed down before Jonathan three times with his face to the ground.” This is the most amount of times anyone is said to bow before someone else in the Bible, and this action was a way of “expressing subservience and loyalty to an authority.”[]
(20:42) Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, ‘The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.
These two men would only see each other one more time—shortly before Jonathan’s death. After this scene, David would be on the run for 10-15 years, running from Saul.
Saul allowed his emotions to control him. He was a man of jealousy (18:6), anger, (18:8), suspicion (18:9), and most of all fear (18:12, 15, 29).
He allowed his homicidal thoughts to quickly turn into attempted homicide (18:11), lying (19:6-7), and conspiracy (18:22).
His allowed his emotions to get so out of control that he even turned on his own son, trying to kill him (20:30-33).
Jonathan is a model of loyalty (20:12-13). He stood up for his friend, David, on multiple occasions (19:3-5; 20:32). Jonathan was willing to make a covenant with David despite the fact that this would anger his father. Indeed, Saul had tried to execute Jonathan for less. (cf. 1 Sam. 14:39ff). Jonathan was more committed to God’s will than he was to his father’s commands.
He was a model of sacrificial love. Jonathan had the most to gain from David’s death. It would’ve secured his own throne. But he did what was right instead.
He was a deeply loving man (20:17).
He was loyal to a fault (20:2). He knew that his dad made rash commands (14:29-45), and all of the evidence pointed to the fact that his dad was guilty. However, when it comes to family and close friends, our discernment can often be skewed.
David was widely loved and respected by the people (18:6, 30), but he didn’t let this go to his head. Instead, he continued to defend the nation (19:8) and the king. He was innocent of any crime against the crown (20:1).
He was a deeply emotional man (20:41-42).
He trusted God deeply. If it wasn’t for God’s protection, David would’ve become just another case of roadkill on the highway of history. However, God wouldn’t allow his plan or promise to be thwarted. God protects David through multiple means: Jonathan, Michal, and direct divine intervention when Saul and his messengers prophesy instead of killing him.
They could recognize that both of them were following God (1 Sam. 18:1).
Jonathan was self-sacrificial, while Saul was self-aggrandizing.
They had an emotional relationship (1 Sam. 20:41; 2 Sam. 1:25-26; cf. 1 Thess. 2:7; Acts 20:36-38).
They had a sacrificial relationship. Jonathan was willing to give up the kingdom to David, and it even cost him his life (31:1-2).
C.S. Lewis: “To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it. We admit of course that besides a wife and family a man needs a few ‘friends’. But the very tone of the admission, and the sort of acquaintanceships which those who make it would describe as ‘friendships’, show clearly that what they are talking about… is something quite marginal; not a main course in life’s banquet; a diversion; something that fills up the chinks of one’s time. How has this come about? The first and most obvious answer is that few value it because few experience it.” C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 719.
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 723.
Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 217.
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 724.
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 724.
Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 219.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
