Jonathan And Saul Fall Out Over David At The New Moon Festival (20:24b-34).
Every ‘day of the new moon', which indicated the commencement of another ‘month', and thus regulated the seasons and the days of the religious feasts, was treated specially, with the offering of offerings and sacrifices and the blowing of ram's horns. And some new moon days would be even more special, such as those that fell on a Sabbath, or the day following the Sabbath, those that began the New Year, and those on which there were other special festivals. Thus this special gathering may not have occurred on every ‘day of the new moon'. But it is clear that on this particular day attendance was certainly expected by all courtiers and commanders, and places were set for those who should attend.
It was apparently a two day feast. This may have been so that if an error had been made about the correct date of the new moon it would ensure that the day was still properly celebrated by observing it on the next day (This certainly happened in later centuries). On the first day of the feast Saul was able to excuse David's absence (he was probably not the only one absent) on the grounds of some temporary ceremonial ‘uncleanness' which kept him at home ‘until the evening'. But when he was not present on the second day it necessarily raised the question as to why he was not there. And when Jonathan admitted that he had given David permission to go to his family in Bethlehem to feast at the family sacrifices Saul was furious. The result was that he berated Jonathan severely and in the end threw his spear at him, and the final consequence was that Jonathan realised that David had been right after all.
Analysis.
a And when the new moon was come, the king sat himself down to eat food. And the king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall, and Jonathan stood up (arose), and Abner sat by Saul's side, but David's place was empty (1 Samuel 20:24-25).
b Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean” (1 Samuel 20:26).
c And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the second day, that David's place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor today?” (1 Samuel 20:27).
d And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.' That is why he is not come to the king's table” (1 Samuel 20:28).
c Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the ground, you will not be established, nor your kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die” (1 Samuel 20:30-31).
b And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “For what reason should he be put to death? What has he done?” And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to put David to death (1 Samuel 20:32-33).
a So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had behaved shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame') (1 Samuel 20:34).
Note first the inclusio in that in 1 Samuel 20:25 we find ‘and Jonathan arose' and in verse 34 we again have ‘and Jonathan arose', which forms a parallel between the two verses. In ‘b' Saul is disturbed over David's absence because he intends ill towards him and has been thwarted, and in the parallel he hurls his spear at Jonathan for the same reason. In ‘c' he asks Jonathan why David has not come to the feast and in the parallel he commands Jonathan in anger to go and fetch David to the feast. Central in ‘d' is given the reason why David has not come to the king's table.
1 Samuel 20:24-25 (24b-25. e-Sword Note: For commentary on 1 Samuel 20:24 a, see the end of the commentary for 1 Samuel 20:23).
‘And when the new moon was come, the king sat himself down to eat food. And the king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall, and Jonathan stood up, and Abner sat by Saul's side, but David's place was empty.'
When the day of the new moon came (commencing at twilight) the king sat down to eat. The seat by the wall would be the central seat reserved for the king, with his back to the wall and probably facing the entranceway. The mention of Jonathan ‘arising' forms an inclusio with 1 Samuel 20:34. There are a number of possibilities as to its significance:
1). That Jonathan arose in order to demonstrate courtesy towards Abner, and in order to welcome him.
2). That Jonathan arose in order to give way to Abner, possibly because he was unhappy with what he saw in his father's behaviour and wanted an excuse not to sit by him.
3). That Saul asked Jonathan to give way for Abner because he wanted to discuss with Abner plans for David's arrest as soon as he arrived.
4). That we translate, ‘and Jonathan arose and sat down, and Abner (also sat down), by Saul's side'. This would tie in with 1).
In deciding which option to take we might feel that we would expect Jonathan to sit at Saul's right, and Abner, as commander-in-chief, at his left. This would favour 1). and 4). On the other hand the fact that Saul later hurled his spear at Jonathan does suggest that Jonathan had moved seats (although, of course, the spear hurling occurred on the second day which points to a more permanent change of seats, something which may well have annoyed Saul). This would favour 2). and 3).
The mention of the fact that David's place was empty heightens the tension and prepares us for what is coming.
‘ Nevertheless Saul did not say anything that day, for he thought, “Something has befallen him, he is not clean, surely he is not clean.” '
But Saul's reaction to the fact that David's place was empty was at first simply that because (no doubt like some others) David was ritually ‘unclean' he had been unable to attend. The ritual uncleanness would last until the evening. Such ritual uncleanness could arise through a variety of reasons, and would be quite common.
‘ And it came about that on the next day after the new moon, which was the second day, that David's place was empty, and Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why does not the son of Jesse come to the meal, neither yesterday, nor today?” '
However, when David's place was still empty on the second day Saul turned to Jonathan and asked him if he could explain David's absence on both days. Note Saul's contempt for David, referring to him simply as ‘the son of Jesse' (compare Isaiah 7:4-5 of ‘the son of Remaliah').
‘ And Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem, and he said, ‘Let me go, I pray you, for our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he has commanded me to be there, and now, if I have found favour in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers.' That is why he is not come to the king's table.”
Jonathan then gave the explanation that David and he had agreed on. He informed Saul that David had sought his royal permission to absent himself from the new moon celebration because he had been required by his elder brother to go to the family sacrifice in Bethlehem, and wanted to go and see his brothers, and Jonathan had agreed to it. That was why David was not at the king's table. There may well have been that about Jonathan's attitude (compare how he had moved seats) which made clear to Saul his disapproval of what he saw that Saul was now planning, and even if not such a disapproval may well have been read in by a paranoid Saul.
New moon celebrations would, of course, have been going on all around the country. However, Saul would no doubt have considered that his own requirement for David's presence, even if not openly expressed, should take precedence over any requirement coming from David's elder brother. (The fact that it came from David's elder brother suggests that Jesse, David's father, was quite ill. We know from 22:3 that he was still alive). It is clear why he saw the excuse for what it was, an attempt to forestall him. With his suspicious mind he would not realise that it was not until the events at the actual meal that Jonathan had become suspicious of his intentions, and that that was why he had moved seats. He would think that Jonathan had known about his plans beforehand.
‘ Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the ground, you will not be established, nor your kingship. Wherefore now send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die.” '
As a result of Jonathan's words Saul was so filled with rage that he turned on his son. To insult a man's mother in front of him was to have the intention of paying him the greatest insult possible, but the words were intended to describe Jonathan (as being what his mother was), not his mother. He was describing him as going against nature and as rebelling against him. In a sense, of course, both were true. He was supporting David against his father's perverseness, and he was going against Saul's will. But he was doing it because he wanted to do what was right. And taking up such a position often means being seen as perverse and rebellious by a sinful world.
Furthermore Saul emphasised that he was bringing shame on himself by favouring David, and shame on his mother's sufferings when she bore him. And in Saul's eyes the reason that he was doing this was because by his actions he was risking losing the kingship. For to Saul keeping hold of the kingship was everything. Thus if losing the kingship would really have been a disgrace and a shame then Saul was right. But he only felt like that because he had become obsessed with his kingship. To him nothing else mattered. What he was determined to do was show Samuel that he was wrong, and that he could hold on to his kingship both for himself and his family. He was overlooking the fact that it was he who had caused Jonathan to lose the kingship by his own disobedience to YHWH (1 Samuel 13:13-14). To Jonathan, on the other hand, there was no shame in what he was doing, for he was doing it for the right reason, and that was because he considered that David would make the better king. Thus far from bringing shame on his mother he was ennobling her, because he was demonstrating that she had brought him up with the right values. Saul, however, in his obsession with kingship, could not see that.
It was true, of course, that as long as David lived Jonathan would not be established in his kingship, but Jonathan recognised that that was because David was the chosen of YHWH, not because of any lack in himself. And Jonathan had been big enough a man to recognise the fact and accept it. To Saul, however, with his obsession with the kingship, no disaster could have been greater. And so he demanded that Jonathan bring David to him that he might die.
‘ And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “For what reason should he be put to death? What has he done?” '
It was Jonathan who was keeping his cool, and he therefore replied by asking why a man who had done nothing wrong should be put to death. If his father wanted David to be executed, let him now justify it.
‘ And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, by which means Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to put David to death.'
This reply, to which he had no genuine answer, took Saul's fury beyond bounds, and raising the ceremonial javelin that he carried as an emblem of his kingship, he hurled it at his son. As we have seen, Saul, as a result of his illness, which kept on interfering with his rational thinking, had got into the habit of expressing his fury precisely in this way when he was over-excited (1 Samuel 18:11; 1 Samuel 19:10), and he had, in fact, no doubt done it to a number of people when they had annoyed him when he was in one of his bad periods. It was not a genuine attempt to kill them, except perhaps in 1 Samuel 19:10, but it did put the person in danger nonetheless. Rather it meant that they had to be sharp in their reactions, which would be expected of courtiers in a military court. And as a result of Saul's response, Jonathan, who normally had a close relationship with his father, knew, both from this act, and from Saul's words, that it really did mean that Saul was determined to kill David. Now he could be in no doubt about it. It was clear that his father had gone beyond all reasoning.
Some have questioned whether Saul would have thrown his javelin at his own son, but people who have Saul's illness do tend to see enemies, especially, when they displease them, in those closest to them, especially when they seem to be acting against what they think is in their best interests. Thus in that moment he saw Jonathan as the one who was trying to thwart him and demonstrated what he thought by his action. For those who have experience of people with such an illness this would come as no surprise at all.
‘ So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had behaved shamefully towards him (literally ‘had done him shame').'
The recognition of his father's attitude filled him with anger, and as we have seen he was not a man to be easily angered. Rising from the table he refused any food, seeking to demonstrate by that fact that in his view there was at present nothing to be thankful about. He was expressing as openly as he dared his displeasure at what Saul was doing. For he was grieved for David, and for the shameful way in which Saul was behaving towards him.
We note from all this the writer's intention, both to emphasise David's innocence, and to emphasise the fact that YHWH had destined him for the kingship. Although it was not yet openly known, he wanted his readers to know continually that David was the Lord's Anointed and was now the one on whom was the Spirit of YHWH.