1 Samuel 20:1–42

Original Meaning

Jonathan and David Devise a Plan (20:1–23)

THIS ACCOUNT BEGINS with an expression that connects 19:18–21:15 as a series of “flight” stories. Four sequential units begin with almost identical expressions to describe David’s departure from one location to another (Heb. wayyaboʾ, lit., “and he went”; see 19:18; 20:1; 21:1; 21:10); three of these are additionally modified by another verb, “flee” (Heb. brḥ). First, David fled from Saul’s approaching soldiers and went to Samuel at Ramah (19:18). Then he flees Naioth at Ramah and goes to Jonathan, presumably back in Gibeah (20:1). Next, David goes to Nob, that is, to the priest Ahimelech (21:1). Finally, he flees Saul and goes to Achish, king of Gath (21:10). Together, these four units illustrate the desperate circumstances in which David meets with Jonathan. He needs safety and support. He needs to know who his friends are.

Jonathan had earlier established a covenant with David and had essentially abdicated his right to succeed Saul as king of Israel (18:1–4). David therefore feels he can trust Jonathan to act surreptitiously in order to learn the true disposition of the king and to help determine what he should do next. They agree on the ruse at the next day’s New Moon festival as a test case for Saul’s true intentions. The first day of the lunar month was designated as a day of rest and feasting, and specific sacrifices were prescribed according to Numbers 28:11–15.

The elaborate speeches of Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:12–15, 16, 18–23) contain more than a simple plan to determine Saul’s intentions toward David. Acknowledging that David will certainly one day be king, Jonathan confirms his covenant commitment to David and desires to protect his own children when David in fact becomes king. He also speaks frankly and prophetically about David’s future international rule, which is a new theme in the books of Samuel. These speeches of Jonathan have been called “the thematic centerpiece of the story of Jonathan,” for they legitimize David’s rule as the rightful successor to the throne of Israel and underscore the future relationship between the house of Saul and the house of David (20:15–16, NIV’s “family” in v. 15 is “house” in Heb.).3

Saul’s New Moon Festival (20:24–34)

Bridging Contexts

IN BRIDGING THE DISTANCE from this ancient text to our own day, we have several options. The text has a decidedly forward-looking feature. Jonathan is convinced that David will one day rule Israel, and throughout the narrative he is keenly aware of what this could mean for his family. He knows that most ancient Near Eastern kings feel obligated to exterminate the descendants of other pretenders to the throne, and indeed most ancient readers would assume that David would execute all of Saul’s children. In his speeches to David, Jonathan is careful to emphasize his covenant-based relationship with David in the hopes that David will preserve his children, regardless of what happens in the future (20:14–15, 42). Thus, we could explore the messianic themes that surround David’s rise to the throne and the gracious way in which he kept faith with Jonathan’s family once he became king.

But this text also has a decidedly retrospective feature. In the central and most dramatic moment of the narrative, Saul is once again moved by his anger and jealousy to curse his own son and to reveal to Jonathan (and to the reader) that he is indeed bent on destroying David (20:30–31). Thus, we could explore again the results of unchecked anger, jealousy, and fear in the life of Saul, which relates further to his failure as Yahweh’s first king for his people Israel.

The ḥesed relationship. However, these two themes are developed more fully elsewhere in 1 Samuel. What really holds chapter 20 together is the relationship between David and Jonathan. That relationship drives them to find together solutions to their problems with Saul. When it becomes clear that no solutions are available to them, their tenacious relationship drives them again, this time to make future commitments to each other that have implications for the rest of 1 and 2 Samuel. It is Jonathan’s commitment to David that partially makes it possible for David to survive and replace Saul as king. And it is David’s faithfulness to Jonathan that leads him to preserve Mephibosheth in order to honor Jonathan’s name, as we will see (2 Sam. 9:7; 21:7).

Using this passage, we could explore the simple virtues of friendship in general. But our text has considerably more to teach us. The essence of that relationship between David and Jonathan is a covenant that involves promises of mutual protection. They are committed to looking out for each other. Jonathan will do all he can to protect David; likewise, David will look after Jonathan. But the whole arrangement depends completely on the covenant relationship with its fierce loyalty. What holds the unit together is the prospects of relational faithfulness.

The specifics of this are detailed in two speeches, one of David’s and one of Jonathan’s. Both appeal to the covenant or relational loyalty of the other in order to motivate each other to fidelity in their relationship (cf. NIV’s “kindness” in 20:8, 14–15). The term used in these verses has many important theological connotations and is important for reading the Old Testament in general (ḥesed, variously translated “loyalty, faithfulness, kindness, love, mercy,” etc.).13 It can have either human or divine features, since it is used to characterize God’s relationship with humans or human relationships with each other.14

The preponderance of the 246 uses of ḥesed refer to God’s beneficent actions expressed toward humans. In essence, ḥesed is the life-sustaining grace of God that makes it possible for humans to have a loving relationship with him. Opinions differ, but it appears that the ḥesed relationship is characterized by bilateral commitment, meaning the parties involved are mutually obligated, regardless of relative status. When used to describe Yahweh’s relationship to his people, his ḥesed becomes the essence of the covenant itself. Because of his prior commitment or covenant with his people, God’s boundless ḥesed is evident in his salvation from disaster or oppression. It is God’s ḥesed that makes it possible for his people to relate to him at all. But even in Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, there is a reciprocity assumed, a mutual commitment on their part that requires faithful service and obedience.

Besides the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel, the Old Testament also has covenants between humans. The concept of ḥesed is central to these relationships as well, regardless of the status of the individuals involved. Moreover, ḥesed in such human relationships is frequently something one does or performs. It is not simply an abstraction. If it is genuine, ḥesed exhibits concrete expression of the underlying attitude through one’s actions to another. This is frequent in the formulaic expression “show [lit., do] kindness to someone.”15

These details provide important background for our passage, since David’s plea is for Jonathan to “show kindness” because of their previous covenant (20:8; cf. 18:1–4). Most scholars agree that such kindness implies one member in the relationship is in a position to render help or aid to the other, who is for one reason or another in need and unable to help himself.16 Furthermore, the help is performed simply because of the deep and enduring relationship between the two friends, which is sometimes also sealed by covenant, as is the case here. It is natural to emphasize the need for ḥesed in situations where its performance is in question, where it seems unnatural, or where future circumstances may render it unlikely that one friend will help the other.

Thus, David recognizes that Jonathan will undoubtedly come under incredible pressure to support Saul and to abandon their covenant relationship, with its attendant commitments of loyalty. Saul will certainly require Jonathan to hand David over to him. He pleads for Jonathan to remain loyal to their relationship (i.e., show ḥesed). The alternative? “If I am guilty, then kill me yourself!” (20:8). Sadly, David’s fears quickly come to fruition in the next scene, when Saul takes up the spear to threaten his own son, revealing that he will certainly attempt to kill David (20:33).

Likewise, Jonathan pleads with David to “show kindness” and never “cut off” his ḥesed to Jonathan’s descendants (20:14–15). Jonathan looks beyond the current crisis with Saul to its unseemly, but apparently unavoidable, continuation in the future. Their roles are reversed now in that the crown prince is asking David for favors. When David replaces Saul as king, Jonathan is concerned that David will remain loyal to him and preserve the life of his children. Thus, in both cases, one friend has a way to aid the other in services no other friend can perform. Jonathan can help David with Saul now, and David can help Jonathan with the crisis of the future.

Furthermore, Jonathan’s use of the formulaic “show kindness” in verse 14 combines the human and divine uses of ḥesed because he asks for the “kindness of Yahweh” (NIV “unfailing kindness like that of the LORD”). Scholars have debated the significance of this “ḥesed of Yahweh,” but it is probably a covenant oath claiming Yahweh as a witness or an idiomatic way of expressing the superlative, “the greatest possible kindness.”17 Besides the intersection of divine and human features of this important term, Jonathan’s “ḥesed of Yahweh” also provides a link between this passage and 2 Samuel 9, where “ḥesed of Elohim [God]” occurs (2 Sam. 9:3; NIV’s “God’s kindness”).18 Jonathan’s plea anticipates David’s kindness or loyalty to Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:1; see 21:7).

Perhaps more significantly, Jonathan’s plea is a bold and confident assertion about David’s future. David is asking for help in his attempt to run for his life. In such uncertain circumstances his good friend says, as it were, “No, but it is I who should be asking favors from you.” Jonathan is certain that David will be king, and though the present circumstances are not favorable, his concern turns to his role and that of his family in David’s future kingdom. Hertzberg has summarized the situation eloquently.

David is on the brink of flight, he is now dependent, and will soon be an outlaw; in the foreseeable future he will have to make decisions such as those now made by Saul and Jonathan, royal decisions. The Lord’s plans are firmly and clearly contrasted to the present moment. The man shortly to be exiled will nevertheless become a king.19

Contemporary Significance

FIDELITY AND LOYALTY. What drives this text forward is the question of fidelity in the covenanted relationship between David and Jonathan. Will Jonathan remain loyal to David even in the face of the harshest opposition from his father? Will he look for compromise and try to placate his father’s fears while trying to keep David in the fold? The answer comes in verse 34, when Jonathan storms out of Saul’s presence without eating because of his disgust at his father’s treatment of his friend. It is Jonathan’s faithfulness that also permeates the closing scene, when he protects David and urges him to flee.

But the closing lines turn the whole relationship around, when Jonathan reminds David that their covenant relationship should also mean peace between their descendants (20:42). Jonathan pleads for David’s help in the future, as David has needed his help in the present. Just as the question of Jonathan’s fidelity drives 1 Samuel 20, the question of David’s fidelity will become a central question in the chapters to follow and well into 2 Samuel.

The message of fidelity in covenanted relationships speaks as powerfully today as it did in the biblical context. Especially compelling is the permanency of the commitment between David and Jonathan, which grew out of their covenant relationship rooted in love (20:17). The relevance of this discussion on faithfulness for contemporary culture in North America should be readily apparent and applicable on several levels. Our society today longs for models of such permanency or lasting commitment in relationships.

Generally, Christians today bemoan what is happening in our culture concerning the abandonment of children by parents, the crumbling of traditional marriages, and the broken and dishonorable way in which business is conducted in today’s marketplace. The concept of ḥesed-faithfulness in this text holds up a discernible model that teaches about advanced decision-making and mutual dependence. Thus the Bible opens up a whole different perspective into the potential of human relationships. Against much of modern pop culture, this text teaches that it is possible for humans to build relationships that are durable and employable in God’s plan for the future.

Larger social issues. Most Christians are content with applying these biblical principles to a limited number of selected issues. We are often satisfied to address family values without tackling the larger social problems. Certainly the lessons of 1 Samuel 20 are applicable to the needy marriages and parent-child relationships of our generation. It teaches us that it is possible to be so radically committed to each other that our families can survive and grow into healthy, unbreakable relationships even when change and external pressures attack. But does the David and Jonathan friendship covenant have anything to say to the larger social issues?

For example, many Christians today are slow to explore the way greed and materialism in American society affect the poor. We generally abhor all forms of communism and are quick to teach that the collapse of Soviet communism in the closing decades of the twentieth century is a lesson that Marxism in general is an exhausted and vanquished ideology. There is no question that the form of liberation theology that was so influential from 1965 to 1990 is a decaying system and is in crisis at the moment in many Third World countries.20 But it will also not be sufficient to appeal to a simple market-driven capitalism as the only true alternative. True democratic capitalism must be tempered and held in check, in a way that has never been successfully accomplished, by Christian ideals, such as faithfulness in relationships with fellow humans.

This text illustrates those Christian ideals. It is Christianity itself that made democracy and free-market capitalism possible, through its emphasis on human freedom.21 But it is also Christianity that teaches us about ḥesed relationships. We must be committed to our fellow human beings so that all can enjoy our economic prosperity, not just those who look and sound like us. We are called to live in ḥesed loyalty with those less fortunate than we are, which, as we have seen, implies a determination to help a brother or sister who is unable to provide such aid for themselves. While embracing the concept of free enterprise, John Perkins reminds us that greed and exploitation create a system that is just as oppressive as communism is ineffective.

Free enterprise, as it now exists, falls far short of God’s standard. It has failed to distribute the earth’s resources equitably. And when Christianity should have been calling the American free enterprise system to account for its immoral stewardship, it was instead “baptizing” the system, adopting free enterprise as an implicit “article of faith.” Free enterprise has become almost a religious doctrine that justifies our greed and substitutes token charity for real economic justice. It enables us to blame the victims of oppression for their own poverty and lets us feel little responsibility to redistribute our wealth to the needy. The result of such a system is predictable—increasing production by the rich, but continuing poverty for the oppressed.

… While some economic systems are better than others, no system will serve the people well as long as those who control it are motivated by greed. We as Christians must champion an alternative.

… Despite its serious failures I don’t want to throw out the free enterprise system. The freedom which many use to satisfy their greed can also be used to develop economic enterprises not based on greed. The free enterprise system gives us the freedom to create businesses designed to serve, rather than to exploit.22

The ḥesed loyalty illustrated in 1 Samuel 20 provides a basis for our understanding of such commitment to our fellow human beings. A fully Christian application of covenant relationships will consider not only how this informs our family relationships and our church partnerships, but also our larger commitments to the social structure in which we live. As David and Jonathan were faithful in their responsibilities to each other, so may today’s church be faithful in her responsibilities to the world.

Original Meaning

Saul’s New Moon Festival (20:24–34)

AT FIRST GLANCE, David’s absence at Saul’s table seems like no more than a simple gaffe in social etiquette, though it could also represent a preference for David’s ancestral line over the rightful place of Saul’s royal lineage (“our family is observing a sacrifice in the town,” 20:29).4 Such an explanation may indicate that David’s absence betrays his own royal aspirations, or so Saul may have assumed.

Whatever the implications, the reader is hardly prepared for the violent reaction of Saul in verse 30. He refers three times to David as “the son of Jesse” (20:27, 30, 31), which is perhaps derogatory.5 But after hearing the full explanation for David’s absence (20:28–29), Saul erupts into a full-fledged tirade in which he insults Jonathan personally, which one scholar has called “a burst of foul-mouthed anger.”6 Some of the modern translations concur with the NIV’s “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!” as an English euphemism for a more graphic insult intended by the original (as in NLT’s “You stupid son of a whore!” and NJB’s “Son of a rebellious slut!”).

Saul’s shocking outburst reveals a new element in his obsession with David and helps explain why Jonathan and David finally realize they must abandon all hopes of reconciliation with Saul. In verse 31, Saul’s suspicion of David (which has been prominent in his obsession; see 18:12, 14–15, 28–29) becomes a conviction that David’s rapid rise not only threatens Saul personally, but also Jonathan and the hopes of a Saulide dynasty in Israel. Saul says to Jonathan, “As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established.” It is no longer enough to drive David away from the royal court at Gibeah, because Saul sees him as a threat to the dynasty even after Saul’s death.

It has now become necessary, in Saul’s mind, to take David’s life in order to protect his own heritage. His fear and jealousy of David have grown into an irrational obsession with eliminating him as a means of ensuring his own future through Jonathan. This establishes the pattern of episodes that follow in 1 Samuel.7 David has been driven from Saul’s court at Gibeah, but the king will not stop there. Saul is convinced he must pursue David and take his life at almost any cost. He finishes his speech to Jonathan with the command, “Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!”

When Jonathan tries yet again to defend David’s motives, Saul reaches for his spear to kill even Jonathan!8 One scholar has argued that Jonathan’s role throughout these chapters has oscillated “between close identification with David and an emptying of himself into David,” showing a readiness to be replaced by David as Saul’s successor.9 So here Saul threatens to impale Jonathan as he previously attempted to impale David (18:11; 19:10). “The identification of Jonathan and David is total: an act directed at one is an act directed at the other.”10 Jonathan is sure of Saul’s resolve to kill his friend. Sadly, the time has come for Jonathan and David to part company. Jonathan must remain with Saul; David cannot.

Jonathan and David Say Farewell (20:35–42)