Outline of Chapter 20:

       vv.    1–24a    David and Jonathan Meet up and Discuss a Plan

               vv.    1–8        David Tries to Convince Jonathan of Saul’s Deadly Intentions

               vv.    9–17      Jonathan Makes a Pact with David

               vv.   18–24a    Jonathan’s Plan to Signal David

       vv.   24b–34    Jonathan and Saul Confront One Another at the New Moon Feast

       vv.   35–40      Jonathan Signals David Surreptitiously While Target Practicing with His Personal Servant

       vv.   41–42      Jonathan and David Part Company for the Last Time

Charts and Maps:

       v.      1           Venn Diagram Illustrating Sin and Crime

       v.      6           Gleason Archer’s Three Points on Lying

       v.     15           Keil and Delitzsch Exegete 1Samuel 20:14–15a

       v.     15           Summary of Translations and Interpretations of 1Samuel 20:14–15

       v.     15           Jonathan’s Complete Pact With David — I Samuel 20:12–15

       v.     15           A Summation of Vv. 14–15

I ntroduction: With 1Sam. 20, I have decided to change the way I list the translations. I personally know which translations are quite literal and which are paraphrases; however, to the unlearned, one might be tempted to notice that most of the translations favor this translation rather than that, so they side with the majority. In some cases, we have found that all of the translations except for Young might be in agreement, and Young is correct. He is probably the most literal of the literal translations. Therefore, I am going to group the translations; however, within their group, I will simply put them in alphabetical order. I began doing this at this time; however, I backtracked and fixed all of 1Samuel.

McGee’s comments: David’s life is in jeopardy until Saul’s death. During these days of exile—possibly a period of ten years—David is hunted like a wild animal. He is a nomad, a vagabond. Living in caves in the wilderness, he endures many hardships and privations. However, he is being tested and trained in God’s school. He takes the full course and graduates magna cum laude. He becomes Israel’s greatest king—in fact, the world’s greatest king—and a man after God’s own heart. Many of the wonderful Psalms of David are written during this rough and rugged period.

One of the reasons that there are those who teach that many books were written by two different authors and then woven together is the fact that there are some seemingly parallel incidents. In this chapter, we will again see a covenant between David and Jonathan and Jonathan will again meet up with David secretly in a field, and there will be a code between them that no one else will be aware of. This is obviously very similar to 1Sam. 18; however, simply because there are similar incidents which are recorded from time to time does not mean that two different authors wrote about the same tradition, each putting their own spin on it, and then both diversions from the truth were put together in the same book. Sometimes we have similar incidents which happen to us; sometimes, we have a day, or a week, which has parallels to a previous day or week.

Briefly, David and Jonathan meet in secret, and David tells Jonathan that his father Saul is out to kill him. Although Jonathan does not believe this, he first makes a pact with David and then he formulates a plan by which he can contact David when he determines if his father is so inclined or not. At the Feast of the New Moon, Jonathan realizes that his father is out to kill David, regardless. So Jonathan warns David, and David flees.

In vv. 1–3, David meets with Jonathan, and asks why his father Saul is out to kill him. Jonathan cannot believe that this is true, as his father would not take such a course of action behind his back. In vv. 4–7, David tells Jonathan that he will skip the New Moon Festival hosted by King Saul, which is apparently a 2 or 3 day affair. When Saul notices that David is missing, Jonathan is to feel him out, to see whether or not Saul is out to kill David. David ends his proposal with, “And if I have done some iniquity, then you kill me for it; don’t haul me to your father’s.” (v. 8). In vv. 9–23, Jonathan does two things: he clearly makes a lifetime pact with David which will extend to David’s ancestors and his own (vv. 12–15) and he sets up a means by which he can signal David surreptitiously (vv. 18–22).

As David hides in the field, Saul sits down to the New Moon Festival (v. 24). Saul sees that David’s chair is empty, and he makes a mental note of it on the first day, assuming that David had possibly made himself unclean in some way (vv. 25–26—interestingly enough, Saul does not conclude, “I am a homicidal maniac who has already made several attempts on David’s life—that’s why he’s not here”). On the second day of the festival, David, of course, is not there, and Saul questions his son Jonathan. Jonathan says that David had a previous engagement with his family at a sacrificial meal in Bethlehem (vv. 27–29; see v. 6). Suddenly, Saul explodes, chewing Jonathan out for siding with David. When Jonathan asks, “What has David done to deserve death?” Saul hurls a javelin at him, which is the height of disrespect. Jonathan refuses to eat for the rest of the day (vv. 30–34).

Jonathan takes his personal servant out to the field where David is, supposedly to get in some target practice. He uses this to signal David. When he realizes that he has not been followed, and that he, his servant and David are alone in that field, he sends his servant back to the palace (vv. 35–40). Once the lad is gone, Jonathan and David hug one another and kiss, and say goodbye. Jonathan’s final words again emphasize that God would be between he and David and between their ancestors forever (vv. 41–42).

David and Jonathan Meet up and Discuss a Plan

David Tries to Convince Jonathan of Saul’s Deadly Intentions

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic text                And so flees David from Naioth in the Ramah and so he comes and so he says to faces of Jonathan, “What have I done, what [is] my crime, and what [is] my sin to faces of your father that [he] is seeking my soul?”

The Septuagint                      And David fled from Navath in Rama, and comes into the presence of Jonathan; and he said, “What have I done, and what [is] my fault, and where have I sinned before your father, that he seeks my life?”

Significant differences           No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David escaped from Prophets Village. Then he ran to see Jonathan and asked, “Why does your father Saul want to kill me? What have I done wrong?”

NJB                                        Fleeing from the huts at ramah, David went and confronted Jonathan, ‘What have I done, what is my guilt, how have I wronged your father, for him to want to take my life?’

NEB                                       David now fled from Naioth in Ramah and found Jonathan. “What have I done?” he exclaimed. “What is my crime? How have I offended your father that he is so determined to kill me?”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David fled from the pastures at ramah, came to Jonathan, and asked, “What have I done? What crime am I guilty of? What sin have I committed against your father that he’s trying to kill me?”

JPS (Tanakh)                        David fled from Naioth in Ramah; he came to Jonathan and said, “What have I done, what is my crime and my guilt against your father, that he seeks my life?”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Then David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said to [lit., before] Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my iniquity And what is my sin before your father, that he is seeking my life?”

Young's Updated LT              And David flees from Naioth in Ramah and comes and says before Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my iniquity And what is my sin before your father that he is seeking my life?”

What is the gist of this verse? David leaves Naioth and finds Jonathan. He asks Jonathan why his father is trying to kill him.

Translation: David then fled Naioth in Ramah, and went before Jonathan, and said,... In the previous chapter, Saul became much more overt in his attack upon David, sending men to David’s home to arrest him so that he could be executed. David escaped through his second story wall window and he fled to Samuel in Ramah. Samuel took him to what is probably a suburb of Ramah, Naioth, where he apparently was running the first seminary. Saul tracked David down, but when he sent his own men again to arrest David, they were overpowered by God the Holy Spirit and were unable to arrest David. Saul eventually went to Naioth himself and was also overcome by the Holy Spirit, so that he not only became involved in theological discussions, but he found himself so exhausted that he fell asleep, half-naked, right there in the seminary.

David, of course, was there, although nothing is said about him at the end of 1Sam. 19. The focus is upon Saul and Saul’s officers. However, David is in Naioth, Saul is also there, and Saul is asleep before him in the seminary. We don’t know if David was in the seminary when Saul came in; however, we can be reasonably assured that David came in and looked down at Saul sleeping or was told that Saul had been discussing theological issues with the other students and had fallen asleep. David was familiar with Saul’s radical mood changes and did not want to hang around until Saul woke up. However, since Saul was there, it was safe for David to, at least temporarily, return to Ramah and to his only true ally, Jonathan. David, still thinking that there must be some way to reason with Saul, went to Jonathan in order to figure out just exactly what had Saul in such a rage.

Also, interestingly enough from the previous chapter, very little is said about Samuel. No verbal interchange between Samuel and anyone else is recorded, and the only interaction recorded is between David and him, when he takes David to his seminary in Naioth.

Translation: ...“What have I done,... We will have three approaches which David takes to Saul’s anger with him. He first asks Jonathan, “What have I done?” That is, what has David said to offend Saul; what act of disrespect has David committed, or what misunderstanding might exist about something that David has done to cause Saul to be so angry. David is assuming that there is a rational, human explanation for this.

Translation: ...what [is] my crime,... Usually when a warrant has been issued for a person’s arrest, it is because they have committed some crime. There is some civil or criminal law which has allegedly been broken and David wants to know what that might have been. David asks Jonathan point blank, “What crime have I committed?”

Translation: ...and what is [my] sin... Not all crimes are necessarily sins (e.g., the crime of evangelism in some countries) and certainly, not all sins are crimes (e.g., the sin of homosexuality). David asks what sin has he committed that causes Saul to make attempts on his life. David is simply assuming that there is a rational explanation for Saul’s behavior. David believes that Saul thinks that David beat his wife (Saul’s daughter); Saul thinks that David is organizing a revolution against him; Saul thinks that David has been spreading lies and rumors behind Saul’s back. David thinks that there is some rational explanation for Saul’s hatred, some misunderstanding that could be cleared up. Let’s see if I can put this in a different perspective: let’s say that you have a disagreement with your superior, and you have been allowed to express your opinion, and you believe that logically, there is no other position to take but yours. In fact, you cannot imagine someone having a differing viewpoint, and you figure, once you present the facts, any reasonable person will be persuaded. Most of us have been in that position and most of us have been shut down, despite the reasonableness of our position.

We also get a chance here to differentiate between these two terms, iniquity (or, crime) and sin. Sin, in general, is a transgression either against God or against man. A crime is a violation of a particular law. The simplest way to represent this is with a Venn diagram. Silent prayer would be an example of something which is neither a sin nor a crime; evangelism in some countries could be made into a crime; murder everywhere is both a crime and a sin; gossip is a sin, but not a crime.

Venn Diagram Illustrating Sin and Crime

Translation: ...before your father that he is seeking my life?” David assumes that there is something which he has done, inadvertently, which has set Saul off. In his own mind, David simply needs to figure out what this transgression is, and then he can smooth over his relationship with Saul. Neither he nor Jonathan fully appreciate just exactly how far gone Saul is. No amount of reasoning will curtail Saul’s efforts to kill David.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic text                And so he says to him, “Far be it! You will not die. Behold to him [or, not] does my father a word great or a word small and he is not uncovering my ear. And why hides my father from me the word the this? Without this!”

Septuagint                             And Jonathan said to him, “Far be it from you; you will not die. Behold, my father will not do anything great or small without discovering it to me; and why should my father hide this matter from me? This thing is not so.”

Significant differences           Apart from the interpretation of the final phrase, there are no significant differences; however, there are a couple of phrases which probably caused problems for the translators of the LXX.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       “My father can’t be trying to kill you! He never does anything without telling me about it. Why would he hide this from me? It’s can’t be true!”

NLT                                “That’s not true!” Jonathan protested. “I’m sure he’s not planning any such thing, for he always tells me everything he’s going to do, even the little things. I know he wouldn’t hide something like this from me. It just isn’t so!”

TEV                                       Jonathan answered, “God forbid that you should die! My father tells me everything he does, important or not, and he would not hide this from me. It just isn’t so!”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Jonathan answered, “That’s unthinkable You’re not going to die! My father does nothing without telling me, whether it’s important or not. Why should my father hide this from me? It’s just not that way.”

JPS (Tanakh)                        He replied, “Heaven forbid! You will not die. My father does not do anything, great or small, without disclosing it to me; why should my father conceal this matter from me? It cannot be!”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And he said to him, “Far from it, you shall not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me [lit., and he does not uncover my ear]. So why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so!”

Young's Updated LT              And he said to him, “Far be it! You do not die. Lo, my father does not do anything great or small and does not uncover my ear; and why does my father hide from me this thing? This thing is not!”

What is the gist of this verse? Jonathan protests that his father withholds nothing from him, and he both assures David that he will not be executed and there is nothing which David has done.

Translation: He answers him, “Profanity! You will not die! Jonathan’s initial remark is one of great disbelief. It might be updated to no way, impossible, you’re wrong. He cannot believe his ears. Recall that he just recently spoke with his father and convinced Saul of David’s loyalty in 1Sam. 19:1–6. Saul had told Jonathan that he wanted to execute David and Jonathan talked him out of it.

You may wonder, how can this be? Jonathan is in the palace with Saul; Jonathan is in all of the staff meetings. Jonathan is aware of Saul’s mental illness. So, how does Jonathan not know how wacked out Saul is? Reasonable questions, all. First of all, with regards to mental illness: when you are close to someone or to a situation, you often lose your perspective. For instance, if your husband or wife is mentally ill, you may not even be aware of it. Their behavior which would alert any stranger, goes unnoticed by you. You see what they do, but you are so close, you do not recognize it as mental illness. Recall back in 1Sam. 18:14–18 where Saul’s staff decided that something needed to be done about Saul’s erratic behavior and it was suggested that a musician be brought in to calm him. Do you recall seeing Jonathan’s name in that narrative? No; Jonathan was not in on this music-therapy. He did not recognize how serious his father’s condition was, and therefore, was not a part of the discussion of how to calm King Saul when he begins entering into such a state. Now, I don’t say this so that you can go home and carefully examine all of your family members to determine whether they should be put into therapy or not. I’m simply pointing out why Jonathan did not recognize Saul’s terrific mental illness (which involved demon influence).

So Jonathan tells David, “Impossible! You are not going to be executed!” In fact, this idea is so impossible in Jonathan’s mind that he does not even use the Hiphil of mûwth (which would mean to execute) but he uses the Qal form, which means simply to die. It seems so far fetched to Jonathan that he refuses to even say the word to execute. More precisely, Jonathan says, “That suggestion is profane! You will not die!” In Jonathan’s mind, he has already settled this matter with his father. He reasoned with his father, and his father recognized the logic of his argument and agreed with him. This tells us that when Saul organized his men on several occasions to go and seize David (1Sam. 19), that Jonathan was carefully left out of those talks. In fact, Saul probably saw to it that Jonathan was completely out of the palace at that time. Saul knew for certain what Jonathan’s feelings were and, although Saul was a paranoid schizophrenic, he could still function as a very crafty person. He had the ability and the wherewithal to keep Jonathan from knowing about his plans. So all that went on in the previous chapter, Jonathan is unaware of. In Jonathan’s mind, what had happened that he was aware of was because of a temporary fit of madness; and that he had reasoned with his father since then and his father had come to his senses. As far as he was concerned, Saul no longer desired to kill David.

Translation: Listen, my father does not do anything, great or small, without disclosing [it] to me [lit., in my ear]. Jonathan is chief of staff. He is a great general. Saul does everything with Jonathan—or so Jonathan thinks. It would never occur to Jonathan that his father would plot against anyone behind his back. Even with David, Saul originally took Jonathan aside and said, “We need to execute him!” (1Sam. 19:1). Jonathan is so used to being in on everything, that he does not realize that the events of 1Sam. 19 took place (except that he certainly knows that Saul went to Samuel and prophesied). However, he does not associate that with a plot to kill David. His father used to confer with Samuel all of the time. No matter what Jonathan heard, no doubt that his father spoke to him first and straightened him out. “You know, son, I tried to speak with Samuel the other day.” Saul explained. So Jonathan does not associate what is common knowledge (“Is Saul among the prophets?” 1Sam. 19:24) with a plot to kill David. So, as far as Jonathan is concerned, all that Saul does or plans to do, major or minor, is run by him first. In Jonathan’s mind, that is the sort of relationship that he and his father have. He does not realize that there is this intense burning hatred for David that Saul has been able to conceal from his son, and that he often daily considers methods of killing David.

On televison (and I am sure this happens in real life), you have the married couple and one of them says to the other, “I don’t know you anymore!” Or words to that affect. This is Jonathan and Saul. There are profound changes in Saul’s character that Jonathan does not see. So, in his mind, Jonathan believes that Saul proposes every move that he plans to make first to Jonathan. Furthermore, he believes that he knows his father well enough to know that he would not do anything like make a concerted effort to kill David.

Translation: Furthermore, why would my father hide this matter from me? Saul has already revealed to Jonathan that he wanted to kill David (1Sam. 19:1) and Jonathan talked him out of it (1Sam. 19:4–6). As far as Jonathan is concerned, if his father revealed this to him before, he certainly would not hide it from him now. Jonathan sees himself as a sounding board for his father (and believes that Saul sees him in this same way). Obviously, Jonathan believes that he can still reason with his father (as he did at the beginning of 1Sam. 19) and that his father will respect and listen to his opinions (my feeling is that he and Saul had this sort of a relationship up to a point).

Translation: [It is] not so [lit., not this]!” Giving an exact translation to these two words is difficult; however, the gist is fairly clear, “This just cannot be! It’s impossible! No way!”

You may wonder, how can they even be discussing this? Clearly, Saul intends to kill David! Again, Jonathan is too close to his father to recognize that he has gone over the edge. He is too close to his father to realize that Saul’s predisposition to kill David is more than a fit of madness that comes and goes. The madness has come and it has stayed with Saul. Furthermore, Jonathan has no idea that Saul has carefully hidden from him the most recent incidents of the previous chapter. As far as Jonathan is concerned, what Saul has done is the result of a couple fits of madness—and this madness was well-known to everyone in the palace, and the music-therapy seemed to help mollify Saul.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree, commenting: Jonathan could not be persuaded there was any real danger after the oath his father had taken; at all events, he felt assured his father would do nothing without telling him. Filial attachment naturally blinded the prince to defects in the parental character and made him reluctant to believe his father capable of such atrocity.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic text                And so swears again David and so he says, “Knowing has known your father that I have found grace in your [two] eyes and he says, ‘Will not know this Jonathan lest he grieves.’ And indeed living of Y^ehowah and a living of your soul that about a step between me and the death.”

The Septuagint                      And David answers Jonathan, and says, “Your father knows certainly that I have found grace in your sight and he said, ‘Let not Jonathan know this, lest he refuse his consent.’ But [as] the Lord lives and your soul lives, as I said, [a space] is filled up between me and death.”

Significant differences           There are no significant differences until the end; what is said is unclear and it is possible that the LXX was trying to clear this up.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                        "Jonathan, I swear it's true! But your father knows how much you like me, and he didn't want to break your heart. That's why he didn't tell you. I swear by the living LORD and by your own life that I'm only one step ahead of death."

NLT                                Then David took an oath before Jonathan and said, “Your father knows perfectly well about our friendship, so he has said to himself, ‘I won’t tell Jonathan—why should I hurt him?’ But I swear to you that I am only a step away from death! I swear it by the Lord and by your soul.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         But David took an oath, saying, "Your father certainly knows that you support me, so he said └to himself┘, 'Jonathan must not know about this. It will bring him distress.' But I solemnly swear, as the LORD and you live, I'm only one step away from death."

JPS (Tanakh)                        David swore further, “You father knows well that you are fond of me and has decided: Jonathan must not learn of this or he will be grieved. But, as the Lord lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Yet David vowed again, saying, [lit., and said] “Your father knows well that I have found favor in your sight, and he has said, ‘Do not let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.’ But truly as the Lord lives and as your soul lives, there is hardly [lit., about] a step between me and death.”

Young's Updated LT              And David swears again, and says, “Your father has certainly known that I have found grace in your eyes, and he says, ‘Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.’ And yet, Jehovah lives and your soul lives, but—as a step between me and death.”

What is the gist of this verse? David knows that Saul has kept his hatred from Jonathan; and David realizes that he lives precariously, given Saul’s hatred.

Translation: So again David swore, saying, “Your father certainly knows that I have found grace in your eyes... David, as a more impartial witness, recognizes what is going on. He knows that Saul knows of Jonathan’s affection for him. The relationship between David and Jonathan explains why Saul has not confided in Jonathan. The idea is, “Your father has his murderous intentions from you because he knows that I have found grace in your sight.”

Translation: ...and he thinks [lit., says], ‘Jonathan should not know about this or he will grieve [lit., lest he grieve].’ The verb âmar is occasionally used for what a person thinks, rather than what he says out loud. Because of Jonathan’s love for David, Saul knows full well that if he makes it clear that he is going to execute David no matter what, that Jonathan will be upset. Therefore, rather than upset his son, Saul carefully excludes him from his meetings to arrest and kill David. David could have obviously gone into more detail: Jonathan would then be also placed in a position of having to choose between David and his father, and Saul certainly would not want Jonathan placed in that position as well (not for Jonathan’s sake, but for his own).

Translation: But, [as] certainly Y^ehowah lives and as your soul lives, [there is but] a step between me and death.” The idea is that, all it would take on the part of David is a misstep, and Saul will kill him. Saul has tried to pierce him with a javelin on two occasions (1Sam. 18:11 19:10). Saul has clearly stated his intentions to his staff, including Jonathan (1Sam. 19:1). He has sent soldiers to his home to take him (1Sam. 19:11). Then Saul has thrice sent out soldiers to pursue David in Naioth (1Sam. 19:20–21). And Saul himself then went to Naioth, for the purpose of killing David (1Sam. 19:19:22). Saul will do anything to kill David, and David recognizes that clearly (as did even his wife, Saul’s daughter). Any misstep could have resulted in David’s death.

McGee: What a statement! —“there is only a step between me and death.” It was not only that way in David’s day, it is also that way today. Whether we drive the freeways of the city or the highways of the country, you and I are within a step of death. Isaiah said that there is only a heartbeat between you and death. Death can come at any time. That is the reason we ought to be ready at any moment to move out into eternity and into the presence of God. How many folks have made every arrangement for this life but none for the next life! Are you a saved individual—that is, are you trusting Christ as Saviour—so that if you should die at this moment you would go into the presence of God? Let me caution you not to put off accepting Christ as your Lord and Saviour any longer.

Previously, I mentioned how someone close to a mentally ill person might not perceive the full depth of their illness. So, how did Michal know, but Jonathan did not? Simple: Jonathan spent a lot of time with his father. Michal spent her time with David. So Michal’s take on her father is a more objective one. Furthermore, Saul was careful to keep all of the incidents mentioned above secret from Jonathan (except for the staff meeting in 1Sam. 19:1 and perhaps the first javelin throw). As David’s wife, Michal would have known about both attacks with a javelin, and she probably knew about her father’s order to kill David, even though this was certainly not reported to her by her father (women have their ways). If someone were going to try to warn David, it is reasonable that they would warn his wife Michal. Finally, what particularly blinds Jonathan to his father’s evil intent is his father’s oath to him in 1Sam. 19:6.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says Jonathan unto David, “What says your soul and I will do to you.”

Septuagint                             And Jonathan said to David, “What does your soul desire, and what will I do for you?”

Significant differences           In the MT, it sounds as if Jonathan is willing to do whatever David requests; and in the LXX, he is asking David what he would like him to do.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Then Jonathan said, "Tell me what to do, and I'll do it."

NJB                                        At which, Jonathan said to David, ‘Whatever you think best, I will certainly do for you.’

NLT                                “Tell me what I can do!” Jonathan exclaimed.

TEV                                       Jonathan said, “I’ll do anything you want.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Jonathan said to David, "I'll do whatever you say."

JPS (Tanakh)                        Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want, I will do it for you.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Updated Emphasized Bible   And Jonathan said to David,—

I will do for you <whatever your soul desires.> [So it should be as per the Aramaic and Septuagint.

NASB                                     Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you say [lit., your soul says], I will do for you.”

Young's Updated LT              And Jonathan says to David, “What does your soul say? And I do it for you.”

What is the gist of this verse? Jonathan agrees to do whatever David asks of him.

Translation: Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your soul says I will do for you.” Jonathan has an open mind. He may be certain in his own soul that his father means David no harm, but he is not so foolish as to completely discount what David has said to him. David made it clear that his life is truly in danger. Jonathan recognizes that there may be some truth in this matter. In fact, it is Jonathan’s willingness to listen to David and to consider that David may be right, which will guide David as to what he should do. Jonathan offers to do whatever it is that David wants for him to do.

Application: I want you to notice what David does not do: he does not expect God to suddenly appear as a burning bush or a cloud overhead and guide him in his next step. God is guiding David and will guide David throughout the rest of his life, but God’s guidance will be more subtle than getting direction from following a cloud overhead. Secondly, notice that David does not pray for guidance. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told to pray to God for guidance or how many times I have heard others tell me how they prayed to God for guidance. Listen carefully: God is not going to appear to you in your prayers, in your sleep, or give you any other sort of divine apparition to lead you to your left or to your right. God will guide you and rarely is His guidance so subtle that you are left clueless. The key is Bible doctrine. If you know God’s Word and if you are in fellowship, God is going to guide you. As I type this, I am sitting 2500 miles away from where I was brought up. I listened to many friends who told me that they could not wait to graduate and move out of Sacramento. I was not one of those people. I liked Sacramento, I loved my family and I loved my friends. For all intents and purposes, God picked me up and moved me here. When I began considering that maybe I had to move, I had three choices come to me, and Houston was in a distant 3^rd place, as per my own personal choice. In retrospect, I cannot even imagine moving to those other two places; I cannot imagine remaining in Sacramento.

Recently, I ended my career (at least temporarily) as a teacher. God essentially forced me to stop. I would be in my old classroom today if I were the one who chose each step to take. In the transition, certainly, I prayed to God—but more to accept His guidance, rather than to ask for guidance. As a young Christian, I often pondered, “Should I go left, should I go right? What does God want me to do?” After years of Bible study, I know how to get into fellowship; I know what takes me out of fellowship; and guidance, even though I am at a point where I do wonder, what will I be doing 6 months from now?, I am also confident that God will place that before me. My point in all of this is, they key to divine guidance is not praying to God for that guidance; the key is knowing His Word and being in fellowship.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says David unto Jonathan, “Behold a new moon tomorrow and I sitting I will sit with the king to eat and you will send me away and I will be hidden in the field until the evening the third.

Septuagint                             And David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow [is] the new moon and I will not on any account sit down to eat, but you will let me go and I will hide in the plain until the evening.

Significant differences           In the Hebrew, David would customarily sit down for a meal with the king on the next day; in the Greek, David indicates that no way would he sit down with the king tomorrow. The overall meaning of this verse remains unchanged.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David answered: Tomorrow is the New Moon Festival, and I'm supposed to eat dinner with your father. But instead, I'll hide in a field until the evening of the next day.

NLT                                David replied, “Tomorrow we celebrate the new moon festival. I’ve always eaten with your father on this occasion, but tomorrow I’ll hide in the field and stay there until the evening of the third day.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David replied, "Tomorrow is the New Moon Festival, when I should sit and eat at the king's └table┘. But let me go and hide in the countryside for two more nights.

JPS (Tanakh)                        David said to Jonathan, “Tomorrow is the new moon, and I am to sit with the king at the meal. Instead, let me go and I will hide in the countryside until the third [meaning uncertain] evening.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible                David said to Jonathan, Tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at the table with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field till the third day at evening.

Updated Emphasized Bible   And David said to Jonathan—

Listen! ║The new moon║ is tomorrow and ║I║ must not sit with the king to eat, —let me go then and hide myself in the field until the evening..

NASB                                     So David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I ought to sit down to eat with the king. But let me go, that I may hide myself in the field until the third evening.

Young's Updated LT              And David says unto Jonathan, “Lo, the new moon is tomorrow, and I do certainly sit with the king to eat; and you have sent me away, and I have been hidden in a field until the third evening.

What is the gist of this verse? It was customary for David to share a meal with Saul at the new moon. David is going to skip this meal, and hide out in a field instead.

To help explain what is happening—David is at a loss as to what to do. His life is in danger and he goes to his closest friend to try to sort things out. To some extent, David might even be searching for a second opinion. In any case, Jonathan is a person that David can trust with his life (which is what David is doing in meeting with him). Jonathan will provide a new perspective, a second opinion, and David will decide from that what to do.

Now, you or I may view this situation and think, “Duh, David, Saul is trying to kill you. You might as well leave town. Things aren’t going to get better.” Even if you have not read ahead; even if you do not know what is going to occur, you’re still thinking, “David, this is pretty obvious. You need to get out of town.” That is God’s guidance. He has patiently beat David over the head with His guidance. David has to leave the city of Saul and become a fugitive. This should be clear to you. That is how God’s guidance works. He is able to guide us and He is infinitely patient in doing so.

You may, particularly if you are a new believer or a believer lacking doctrine, ask, “Aren’t there other things that David could do besides leave town? Couldn’t he overthrow Saul’s government? After all, David is the next king and Samuel has clearly told him that.” Here’s the problem with that scenario: there is nothing in the Law which suggests that David should overthrow his current government. There is no Bible doctrine which indicates to David that once his government has become corrupt enough, then it is time for him to topple it, for the good of all. Nowhere do we find that in Scripture. David’s options are to (1) remain in the city of Saul and be found and killed; (2) remain in the city of Saul and attempt to overthrow the present government, a criminal act for which there is no Scriptural support; or, (3) leave Gibeah. Do you see how simple this is? David does not have to pray to God and ask God, “Should I go left or right?” Now, David may not like God’s guidance, and I don’t blame him. I can’t tell you how sad I was on my first night living in Houston. However, God’s guidance is clear and unequivocal, and not ascertained by prayer.

Translation: David answered Jonathan, “Listen, tomorrow [is] a new moon and I should be sitting with the king to eat;... Apparently, at the new moon, Saul gathered with his staff and officers and ate a meal with all of them. It is not clear for how many meals this continued. It seems to be implied (in the next part of this verse) that this meal may have carried on for three days.

Now, what David is doing here is supposing that everything is alright. He is supposing that Saul’s attacks upon him have been the result of a freak emotional imbalance. This is not what David believes, but what Jonathan believes. So, David sets up a scenario whereby he is safe, but that they assume that Saul’s previous attacks may have been simply aberrations. “Now, if everything is hunky dory, then I would normally attend the New Moon Feast at the palace tomorrow. However, I will hide out instead. Here is what you will do...” And then David presents to Jonathan what he could say to his father to determine for himself whether or not David is safe in the presence of Saul.

The New Moon Feast is found in Scripture in Num. 10:10 and 28:11–15. It is properly performed by the Aaronic priesthood and the sacrifices were laid out in the latter passage. However, Saul’s celebration of this was probably a bastardization of the celebration, which is not something which should strike us as being out of the ordinary. After all, two of our most popular celebrations, Christmas and Easter, are both bastardizations of what it is that they purport to celebrate. They are a mixture of heathen celebrations with some Christian overtones.

Clarke comments: The months of the Hebrews were lunar months, and they reckoned from new moon to new moon. And as their other feasts, particularly the passover, were reckoned according to this, they were very scrupulous in observing the first appearance of each new moon. On these new moons they offered sacrifices, and had a feast; as we learn from Num 10:10; Num 28:11. And we may suppose that the families, on such occasions, sacrificed and feasted together.

JB&F comment further: The beginning of a new month or moon was always celebrated by special sacrifices, followed by feasting, at which the head of a family expected all its members to be present. David, both as the king's son-in-law and a distinguished courtier, dined on such occasions at the royal table, and from its being generally known that David had returned to Gibeah, his presence in the palace would be naturally expected. This occasion was chosen by the two friends for testing the king's state of feeling. As a suitable pretext for David's absence, it was arranged that he should visit his family at Beth-lehem, and thus create an opportunity of ascertaining how his non-appearance would be viewed.

Translation: ...however, let me go and I will stay hidden in the field until the third evening. The perfect tense of to hide designates not only completed action but here indicates that David will remain hidden until this third evening. The idea is not necessarily that he and Jonathan will meet in three days. However, this is the maximum duration that David will remain hidden. Given their relationship and given the paranoia of Saul, it is unclear as to how soon Jonathan would be able to break away and find David. There is also the possibility, mentioned in v. 5a, that this new moon meal might last three days, which I think is the case here. Whatever animals are slaughtered are eaten until the group finishes off the animal (or animals) completely.

Gill suggests a slightly different time line. With the Jews, the day begins at sunset. So, the third [day] [in the] evening could refer to the evening of the second day (which, begins the third day for Jews). This way, we don’t simply have David just hanging out for three days, but he is giving a specific time to meet Jonathan. Furthermore, David is not hiding in the same place for the next 2+ days. He is able to hide wherever he chooses; however, he needs to be in the field on the evening which begins the 3^rd day.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       If a visit, visits me your father and you have said, ‘Asking leave, asked leave from me David to run [to] Bethlehem his city for a slaughter of the days there to all of the family.’

Septuagint                             And if your father does in anyway inquire for me, then you will say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem, his city, for [there is] there a yearly sacrifice for all the family.’

Significant differences           No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       If Saul wonders where I am, tell him, “David asked me to let him go to his hometown of Bethlehem, so he could take part in a sacrifice his family makes there every year.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         If your father really misses me, tell him, ‘David repeatedly begged me to let him run to Bethlehem, his hometown, because his relatives are offering the annual sacrifice there.’

JPS (Tanakh)                        If your father notes my absence, you say, ‘David asked my permission to run down to his home town, Bethlehem, for the whole family has its annual sacrifice there.’

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     “If your father misses me at all, then say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city, because it is the yearly sacrifice there for the whole family.’

Young's Updated LT              If your father at all look after me and you have said, ‘David asked earnestly of me to run to Bethlehem, his city, for a sacrifice of the days is there for all the family.’

What is the gist of this verse? David suggests a plan so that Jonathan can determine for himself how his father really feels about David. When Saul asks about David, Jonathan is to tell him that David is with his family in Bethlehem for a family feast.

Translation: If your father definitely misses me,... We have a repetition of the verb pâqad, which has a variety of uses, listed above in the exegesis. The key to this word is generally human contact. Saul will go around and speak with most everyone at this meal, thus having personal contact with them. As he does, he takes a mental inventory of who is there and who is not. In his mental inventory, he might realize that David is missing. That would be a simple use of the verb pâqad. However, here, Saul is said not simply to miss David, in his inventory, but to definitely miss David. The idea is that Saul makes an issue of this. He is verbal about missing David. In this case, Jonathan is to say something to his father.

Translation: ...you will say, ‘David earnestly asked leave from me to run [to] his city Bethlehem for the yearly sacrifice there for the entire family.’ Then Jonathan is to tell his father that David asked permission to take leave of this dinner. However, again, just like we have with pâqad, the verb shâal is doubled, giving it great emphasis. So David does not simply request leave from this meal, but it is an earnest request, a passionate request.

With this, we have the verb to run. The idea is that David had to leave immediately and suddenly for this sacrifice in Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the city of David’s family (see 1Sam. 16), so this would make sense. In our culture, we tend to have family reunions at funerals and weddings, and occasionally during some holidays; in the ancient world, the family could be gathered for a yearly sacrifice. The animal would be slaughtered, but there would be a meal as well, made from the sacrificed animal. The words used here would indicate that this request was a very strong request and that David had to take his leave immediately in order to get to Bethlehem in time.

Quite obviously, David is asking Jonathan to lie to his father, which Jonathan will do. The idea is that Saul is unjustly trying to have David killed. Saul has declared David a dead man; and primarily because David is the heir to his throne. Therefore, what we have here is a planned political assassination. I would think that, under these circumstances, that David would have the right to lie. I’ve got to admit to being a little confused on this issue in this circumstance. Gill, on the other hand, suggests that this could be a true request. It is possible that David’s family was meeting in Bethlehem, and David is close enough to Bethlehem to go there and then to return for Jonathan’s report. He writes: it was customary for the family of Jesse one day in a year, and as it should seem on a first day of the month, and perhaps the first day of the first month, or New Year's Day, to have an anniversary feast by way of gratitude and thankfulness for the mercies of the year past, and for the continuance of them for time to come; in which the family rejoiced together at the great goodness of God unto them, 1Sa 9:12. Since David’s actual presence in Bethlehem is not stated but only implied, David would not even have to go to Bethlehem in order for this statement to be, more or less, true. I’m not certain that I buy into either of these theories, but either one would easily solve the problem of David asking Jonathan to lie to his father. In any case, the fact that Saul does not question this tells us that it was customary for families to have gatherings with somewhat of a religious purpose. Given that the Tent of God may not be in service at this point in time, also gives us a good reason to suspect that the religious feasts were practiced a little more free-form than what is prescribed in Scripture.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       If thus he says, ‘Good,’ [then] peace to your servant; and if in anger he is angry to him, [then] know that completed the evil from with him.

Septuagint                             If he says thus: ‘Good,’ safe for your servant; but if he answers harshly to you, know that evil is determined by him.

Significant differences           No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       If your father says it's all right, then I'm safe. But if he gets angry, you'll know he wants to harm me.

NAB                                       If he says, ‘Very well,’ your servant is safe. But if he becomes quite angry, you can be sure he has planned some harm.

NLT                                If he says, ‘Fine!’ then you will know all is well. But if he is angry and loses his temper, then you will know he was planning to kill me.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         If he says, 'Good!' then I will be safe. But if he gets really angry, then you'll know for sure that he has decided to harm me.

JPS (Tanakh)                        If he says, ‘Good,’ your servant is safe; but if his anger flares up, know that he is resolved to do [me] harm.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     “If he says [lit., says thus], ‘It is good,’ your servant shall be safe; but if he is very angry, know that he has decided on evil.

Young's Updated LT              If thus he says: ‘Good; peace is for your servant.’ And if it be very displeasing to him—know that the evil has been determined by him;...

What is the gist of this verse? David offers up two possible scenarios to Jonathan. First, after telling his father that David has gone to Bethlehem to be with his family, if Saul says, “Good” then he is clearly over his rage. However, if Saul is noticeably angry, then he plotted evil against David for that meal.

Translation: If thus he says: ‘Good,’ [then there is] peace [and safety] to your servant;... Saul is either going to respond positively or negatively to the news that David is supposedly at a family sacrificial meal in Bethlehem (or, he could have very little by way of response). Saul, as a family man, would be pleased that David is taking time to be with his family; and even better that the celebration involved sacrifices to God. As the busy king, Saul might not even notice that David is gone or not think much one way or the other. So, if Saul had nothing plotted against David; if he was not troubled by a desire to kill David, then he would have a good response or no response to hearing this. Now David knew that Saul would not respond in either of these ways; however, he has to present these alternatives because Jonathan believes that he has already convinced his father that David is an asset to him.

Translation: ...but if he is clearly angry [lit., in anger, he is angry] within [lit., with reference to] himself,... We have a repetition of the word angry. You have no doubt noticed that we have already had several Qal infinitive absolute’s in this chapter, which seems to be characteristic of David’s speech (at least at a time like this). Saul is not simply angry, but it is clear that he is angry; he is extremely upset. This thought is completed with the lâmed preposition affixed to the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix, which I am having difficulty rendering into the English so that it makes sense. However, I believe the sense of this is, even if Saul is angry within himself. He may not say anything, but it is clear by observation that he is angry. The doubling of the verb means that he is clearly and unmistakably angry or that his anger is excessive. Saul will be angry because this would be an opportunity for him to kill David.

Translation: [then] know that evil has been accomplished from with him. The idea here, with the perfect tense, is that Saul had planned something against David for that meal. Saul knew that David attended these meals and would have the opportunity to have a plot already devised to take David at that time. David recognizes now that Saul is definitely out to kill him and that he will stop at nothing. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that Saul had something already lined up for this monthly meal.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And you have done grace with your servant for in a covenant of Y^ehowah you have brought your servant with you. And if there [is] in me iniquity, kill me yourself and as far as your father, to why this bring me?”

Septuagint                             And you will deal mercifully with your servant; for you have brought your servant into a covenant of the Lord with you, and if there is iniquity in your servant, kill me yourself. But who do you thus bring me to your father?”

Significant differences           There is a minor difference noted; there are no significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Be kind to me. After all, it was your idea to promise the LORD that we would always be loyal friends. If I've done anything wrong, kill me yourself, but don't hand me over to your father.

NLT                                Show me this kindness as my sworn friend—for we made a covenant together before the Lord—or kill me yourself if I have sinned against your father. But please don’t betray me to him!”

TEV                                       Please do me this favor, and keep the sacred promise you made tome. But if I’m guilty, kill me yourself Why take me to your father to be killed?”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Now, be kind to me. After all, you forced me into an agreement with the Lord. If I have committed any crime, kill me yourself. Why bother taking me to your father?.

JPS (Tanakh)                        Deal faithfully with your servant, since you have taken your servant into a covenant of the Lord with you. And if I am guilty, kill me yourself, but don’t make me go back to your father.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     “Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a covenant of the Lord with you. But if there is iniquity in me, put me to death yourself; for why then should you bring me to your father?”

NRSV                                    Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a sacred covenant [Hebrew, a covenant of the Lord] with you. But if there is guilt in me, kill me yourself; why should you bring me to your father?”

Young's Updated LT              And you have shown kindness, to your servant, for into a covenant of Jehovah you have brought your servant with you; —and if there is in me iniquity, put me to death; and to your father, why is this—you bring me in?”

What is the gist of this verse? David acknowledges that Jonathan has been gracious to him in the past, to the point of entering into a bond in Jehovah with him. Then David adds, “If I am guilty of anything, then you kill me. There is no reason to haul me to your father.”

Translation: Furthermore, you have been gracious [lit., manufactured grace] to your servant for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Y^ehowah with you. David closes by acknowledging the relationship between himself and Jonathan. Jonathan willingly forged a bond or an alliance between them before God. This was not something which he was constrained to do, or something that he did because it might be a good move politically speaking. Jonathan made a pact with David because he respected, loved and trusted him. At one gym where I worked out, there was an ex-professional football player, so big that he took up most of the space going up and down the stairs, which were designed for two. Heck of a nice guy as well and I believe that he is a believer. If circumstances were such that I should need to ally myself with someone, I’d choose someone like him, as he seemed trustworthy, solid and spiritually mature. Jonathan chose to make such a pact with David for roughly the same reasons. However, Jonathan made this pact from a position of power. Jonathan made this pact when David had nothing to give him. David recognized this as an act of grace. Jonathan, being the son of the king, held the cards. He could choose to whom he would be allied, and he recognized David’s character and chose him on the basis of his character rather than on the basis of his assets. Quickly contrast these men: Jonathan is a brave soldier and the son of the king, in line to the throne. David is potentially a fugitive. Early on in their friendship, Jonathan made a pact with David (1Sam. 18:3) and this passage is more of a renewal or an acknowledgment of that pact.

Translation: But if there [is] iniquity in me, [then] kill me yourself. The latter half of this verse makes a reasonable argument to have a less than literal Bible translation as a back up. David is offering himself to Jonathan, saying, “Now, if you believe me to be guilty of some crime or offense, then you should kill me.” Jonathan, as the king’s son, had this sort of authority. He could determine the innocence of guilt of a man, and execute him on the spot. David is telling Jonathan, “If you believe that there is iniquity in me, then you execute me here and now.”

Gill writes: ...this expresses the strong sense [that David]...had of his own integrity, and served to confirm Jonathan in his opinion of it. David’s position, which Jonathan must agree to, is that he is blameless and has acted only with the utmost integrity.