2024-04-14 - 1 Samuel 20:1-8
2024-04-14 - 1 Samuel 20:1-8
When the new moon appeared, people celebrated the beginning of a new month by worshiping the Lord.
It was customary for each Jewish family to hold a feast at the new moon (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15; Ps. 81:3), and Saul would expect David to attend. If Saul’s son-in-law and leading military hero didn’t attend the feast, it would be an insult to the king as well as the family, so David’s absence would help reveal Saul’s genuine attitude toward David. If Saul became angry, then David’s assessment was correct, but if Saul excused David and didn’t press the matter, then Jonathan was correct.
A deep concern and affection was the basis of the covenantal relationship between Jonathan and David. This is the affection commanded by God when He said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39).
At first, Saul did not question David’s absence at the feast, assuming that he was ritually unclean and, thus, could not participate in the meal (cf. Lev. 7:20, 21; 15:16).
when the men met for their meal the second day, again David was missing, which suggested to Saul that his son-in-law’s absence was caused by something more serious than simple ritual defilement. An unclean person could remove the defilement in a day, but David had been missing for two days.
Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent, disdainfully calling him “the son of Jesse” rather than by his given name that was now so famous. Later, Saul would try to humiliate the high priest, Ahimelech, by calling him “the son of Ahitub” (1 Sam. 22:11–12).
Jonathan also used a verb that means “to get away, to make a quick visit” so that Saul wouldn’t suspect David of going home for a long visit and rallying his own troops so he could seize the throne.
When hateful feelings are in the heart, it doesn’t take much for angry words to come out of the mouth
Saul had probably been brooding over how David had insulted him by refusing to attend the feast, and the longer he brooded, the more the fire raged within. But instead of attacking David, King Saul attacked his own son! Had the Lord not intervened back in Ramah, Saul would have killed David in the very presence of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 19:22–24), and now he reviled his own son while eating a holy feast!
The king’s tirade seems to disparage his own wife, but rightly understood, his words describe his son as the lowest of the low. According to Saul, Jonathan’s treachery in befriending David indicated that he was not Saul’s son at all but the son of some other man, for a son of Saul would never betray his father.
Jonathan waited until the next day and then went out into the field with one of his young attendants as though he were going to practice shooting arrows.
bowed down three times. David’s bowing down more than once acknowledged Jonathan as the prince, and expressed humble affection for him.
This was not their last meeting (23:16–18), but it was certainly a profoundly emotional farewell. They both wept, but David wept the most. He didn’t know how many years of exile lay before him, and perhaps he might never see his beloved friend again.
Eastern peoples aren’t ashamed to weep, embrace, and kiss one another when they meet or when they part
Ten years later, the Philistines would kill Saul, Jonathan, and his brothers on the battlefield (1 Sam. 31:1–6).