By James M. Rochford

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New International Version (NIV).

1 Samuel 18 (David and Saul)

Summary: David becomes best friends with Jonathan, Saul’s son (vv.1-3). Saul becomes increasingly suspicious of David, because the women praise him more for his courage in battle (18:9). God sends an evil spirit to Saul (v.10), and Saul is “afraid of David” because he knows that God is with him (18:12; 29). He tries to spear him… twice! Saul tries to marry David to one of his daughters, so that he will be obligated to go into more military service, killing him off.

After Goliath’s death, you’d think it would be happily ever after. Not true! David’s battles are only just beginning.

David and Jonathan form a friendship

(18:1) After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

This conversation must’ve lasted for quite some time. Jonathan apparently listened to David as he shared about his dedication to God, and they probably traded war stories.

“The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David” (1 Sam. 18:1). This Hebrew expression is “never once used in the Old Testament for a sexual or romantic relationship.”^[1] In fact, this Hebrew expression (nep̱eš niqš^erāh b^enep̱eš) is very close to the phrase used in Genesis 44:30 (nep̱eš q^ešûrāh b^enep̱eš). Genesis 44 describes a father’s love for his son: Jacob’s love for his son Benjamin.

(18:2) From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house.

This could be an innocent comment. Or perhaps, Saul wanted to keep him close to keep an eye on him.

(18:3) And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3). This Hebrew term for “love” (ʾāheḇ) is never once used to describe same-sex attraction or homosexual acts.^[2] The term used for sex is the Hebrew word “know” (yāḏaʿ). The “covenant” that they make is one of loyalty—not lust. Later, we read that this covenant refers to protecting each other from their enemies (1 Sam. 20:16).

Throughout this book, many people “love” David, including Saul (1 Sam. 16:21), all Israel (18:16), Michal (18:20), and all of Saul’s servants (18:22). Does this imply that everyone in Israel had sexual lust for David?

“Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself” (1 Sam. 18:3). Does this refer to the “covenant” of marriage? No. The term “covenant” (bĕrit) refers to a “treaty, alliance, pledge, or an agreement.”^[3] Typically, it refers to a political agreement between parties. For instance, the author used the term to refer to a peace treaty between the Ammonites and the people of Jabesh (1 Sam. 11:1). Later, he uses the term “covenant” to refer to the (broken) political agreement to protect the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:2). The “covenant” between David and Jonathan is “the only unequivocal mention of a compact between two individuals in the OT.”^[4] So, it is decidedly thin to see this as a same-sex marriage when it is the only usage of this term in the Hebrew Bible.

While the “covenant” is never explicitly defined, the context strongly implies that this was an oath from David to protect Jonathan’s family after the transfer of power. Later, David fulfils this promise: “[David] spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Saul’s son Jonathan” (2 Sam. 21:7).

(18:4) Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Jonathan didn’t strip naked in front of David. He merely stripped himself of his robe and armor. This is in contrast to how Saul “loved” David (1 Sam. 16:21), but David rejected Saul’s clothes for battle (1 Sam. 17:38-39).

The covenant seems to have been political based on the fact that Jonathan removed his robe, armor, sword, bow, and belt. Moreover, “by giving his robe to David, Jonathan effectively passes over his badge of rank, acknowledging tacitly that David will succeed to the throne.”^[5] The handing over of the robe was “tacitly handing over to him the right of succession.”^[6]

Jonathan was the oldest son of a king. David was the youngest son of a farmer. Thus, Jonathan gave up the kingship—even though he wanted it and deserved it. He had this dream for his entire life, but he gave it to the person God had chosen. For more on this subject, see our earlier article, “Were David and Jonathan gay?”

(18:5) Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul’s officers as well.

The text states that David was pleasing to “the servants” and “the people,” but not Saul.

Saul’s disappointing reception by the women

(18:6-7) When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. ⁷ As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

David is “going viral” after these battles, and songs about him are on the top of the charts for weeks. It was common for women to come to welcome a king home from war (Ex. 15:21; Judg. 5:1-31). In greeting David, these women wrote songs about how he had killed ten times the number of men as Saul. Indeed, in the days of Absalom, the people said that David was worth “ten thousand” men (2 Sam. 18:3).

Why did Saul grow jealous of David? After all, Saul could’ve been content with the songs about himself. It wasn’t like he was receiving bad press or even no press. Instead, the women were singing that Saul had “slain his thousands.” That’s high praise! However, comparison is where jealousy originates. His number didn’t seem very high when he was stacked up next to David.

Moreover, Samuel had told Saul that his time as king would soon be over: “You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel… The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you” (1 Sam. 15:26, 28). Was Saul already becoming paranoid about the man who would replace him? Was he already suspecting David as being the man who would tear his throne away from him? We’re not sure, but whatever the case, Saul kept thinking about this song, and he couldn’t let it go.

David, on the other hand, behaved wisely, and he didn’t let it go to his head (v.14). He could handle adversity, as well as success. His years of shepherding created humility in him. After all, when David performed heroic acts of strength and skill in protecting his sheep, he didn’t receive any affirmation. Furthermore, he was the runt of his family, and his brothers and dad frequently dismissed him and looked down on him. This led David to not grow a big head.

(18:8) Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?”

Saul was very insecure about their praising David more than him. He worried that David would next take over his kingdom. Little did he know, God was already working to install David as the king.

Saul grows suspicious of David

(18:9-10) And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David. ¹⁰ The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand.

“Saul kept a jealous eye on David. The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul.” Was Saul’s suspicion the cause for God sending the evil spirit? Certainly a lack of forgiveness (2 Cor. 2:10-11) and unresolved anger (Eph. 4:26-27) can create a foothold for Satan. God had previously sent the Holy Spirit with power (1 Sam. 10:10; 11:16), but now, he sends an evil spirit “forcefully” upon Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14). This is also in fulfillment of Samuel comparing Saul’s sin to “divination” (1 Sam. 15:23).

David had a “harp” in his hand, while Saul had a “spear” in his hand. The two men couldn’t be any more different.

(1 Sam. 18:10) Why would God send an evil spirit to Saul? (c.f. 16:14) This seems to be an act of judgment on Saul.

Saul tries to kill David DIRECTLY

(18:11) Saul had a spear in his hand and he hurled it, saying to himself, “I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice.

Saul tried to pin David “twice,” and he later tried a third time (1 Sam. 19:10). Saul also tried to kill his son Jonathan in this way (1 Sam. 20:32-33). Apparently, Saul had very poor aim! By contrast, David refused to lay a hand on Saul (1 Sam. 26:8-11). Bergen writes, “David’s willingness to remain in the room long enough for Saul to retrieve the spear after the failed first attempt and then take a second shot at him portrays the incredible depth of David’s loyalty to the king and his commitment to helping Saul overcome his torments.”^[7]

(18:12) Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with David but had left Saul.

Saul is a complex character: He was murderous toward David, but this is because he feared him. God’s power in David’s life scared Saul.

Saul tries to kill David INDIRECTLY with Merab

(18:13) So he sent David away from him and gave him command over a thousand men, and David led the troops in their campaigns.

Saul assigns David to be the head of the military. He did this because he wanted David dead at the hands of the Philistines (v.17, 21, 25). This is the same strategy that David would later employ in killing Uriah (2 Sam. 11).

(18:14-16) In everything he did he had great success, because the LORD was with him. ¹⁵ When Saul saw how successful he was, he was afraid of him. ¹⁶ But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns.

“All Israel and Judah loved David.” Despite Saul’s plots, David continued to prosper, because God’s power and protection was on him. David’s prospering only led Saul to grow more fearful and filled with hatred. Even Saul’s own son loved David, and so did his daughter (v.20). Men wanted to be David, and women wanted to be with David.

(18:17-19) Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!” ¹⁸ But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my father’s clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” ¹⁹ So when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

David turns down the offer, and Merab marries another man instead. David wasn’t motivated by the glory or the rewards. Saul wasn’t expecting David to be so humble. A self-obsessed man like Saul thinks that everyone thinks like him. So, he tries again with his other daughter Michal…

Saul tries to kill David INDIRECTLY with Michal

(18:20-22) Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. ²¹ “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.” ²² Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’”

Saul offers David his other daughter (Michal) to get him to die in battle. Youngblood makes an astute observation: “The symbolism of David marrying Saul’s daughter should not be missed: When political marriages were arranged, it was usually the daughter of the ostensibly weaker ruler who married the stronger (cf. Gen 34:9; 1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chronicles 18:1). David’s relentless climb to Israel’s throne proceeds apace.”^[8]

In what ways was Michal a “snare” to David? Michal was an idol worshipper. Bergen writes, “The term translated as ‘snare’ (Hb. môqēš) is a theologically significant one, used three times in the Torah to describe the dangers of idols and idol worshipers (Exod 23:33; 34:12; Deut 7:16). Perhaps Saul was spiritually astute enough to recognize that in marriage his daughter’s idolatrous inclinations (cf. 19:13) could easily lead David astray, in which case David would become the Lord’s enemy and come to a disastrous end. Thus Saul was especially eager to provide David with ‘a second opportunity’ to become a ‘son-in-law’ to the king and spoke to David directly about it.”^[9]

(18:23-26) They repeated these words to David. But David said, “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.” ²⁴ When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, ²⁵ Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines. ²⁶ When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law.

“Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.” David must’ve been feeling insecure. After all, he was from a poor family. So, he didn’t have money for a dowry. If he wanted to marry into the royal dynasty, he couldn’t afford a financial dowry.

Saul uses this to his advantage by giving David another opportunity: Face insurmountable odds by going to war with the Philistines. Saul figured that David would come home in a casket. Even if David didn’t die in battle, the foreskins would outrage the Philistines and put a target on his back.

“To take revenge on his enemies” Surely Saul told David this to allay David’s suspicions. Ironically, David himself had become Saul’s enemy! (see v.29).

(18:27) So before the allotted time elapsed, David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

“David and his men.” This is the beginning of “David’s mighty men.”

(18:28-29) When Saul realized that the LORD was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David, ²⁹ Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.

Saul could see that God was with David, and this filled him with both fear and animosity at the same time.

(18:30) The Philistine commanders continued to go out to battle, and as often as they did, David met with more success than the rest of Saul’s officers, and his name became well known.

Saul’s manipulation didn’t work. David kept rising to the top. He was esteemed because of his faithfulness. David became more and more famous among the Israelites (1 Sam. 18:6) and among the Philistine ranks (1 Sam. 29:3-4, 9).

1 Samuel 19 (David becomes a Fugitive of the State)

Summary: Saul tells his soldiers and Jonathan to assassinate David (v.1). But Jonathan tells David that he will spy on his father’s plans for him instead (vv.2-3). Jonathan tries to talk Saul out of killing David, and Saul vows not to kill him (v.6), letting David back into the court of the king (v.7). Once again, David effectively fought the Philistines (v.8), and this caused Saul to hurl a spear at David (v.10). Saul’s men chased David to his house, but his wife Michal disguised an idol in David’s bed for them to kill (v.16). Saul’s men went to Naioth to capture David, but wave after wave of men began to prophesy instead of killing David (vv.20-21). Even Saul himself began to prophesy when he showed up at Naioth (vv.23-24).

Jonathan is loyal to David—not his Dad

(19:1-3) Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan was very fond of David ² and warned him, “My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. ³ I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. I’ll speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out.”

Jonathan had already made a covenant to protect David (1 Sam. 18:1-3), and Jonathan trusted David more than his own father (v.2). Culturally, this would’ve been completely out of bounds, and politically, it could get Jonathan killed. Indeed, Saul had tried to execute Jonathan for less (cf. 1 Sam. 14:39ff). Jonathan assures David that he will intercede for him with his father, and even pass along secret information to David.

Jonathan argues with Saul

(19:4-5) Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, “Let not the king do wrong to his servant David; he has not wronged you, and what he has done has benefited you greatly. ⁵ He took his life in his hands when he killed the Philistine. The LORD won a great victory for all Israel, and you saw it and were glad. Why then would you do wrong to an innocent man like David by killing him for no reason?”

Jonathan recounts David’s history of faithfulness to the throne, trying to revive Saul’s memory and conscience.

(19:6) Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: “As surely as the LORD lives, David will not be put to death.”

Saul makes an oath to preserve David’s life. Is this a deceitful oath? It certainly seems so in light of the fact that he immediately breaks it (v.11).

(19:7) So Jonathan called David and told him the whole conversation. He brought him to Saul, and David was with Saul as before.

David came back to the palace, and he served with Saul again. This is despite the fact that Saul had tried to hurl a spear through David (1 Sam. 18:9-10).

Saul’s jealousy and fear cause him to break his oath

(19:8) Once more war broke out, and David went out and fought the Philistines. He struck them with such force that they fled before him.

Once again, David shows how much he cares for the kingdom of Israel. He puts his life at risk, while Saul sits in security in the castle. Yet, Saul continues to interpret this all wrong: David’s success only leads him to further jealousy and fear.

(19:9-10) But an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the harp, ¹⁰ Saul tried to pin him to the wall with his spear, but David eluded him as Saul drove the spear into the wall. That night David made good his escape.

(1 Sam. 19:9) Why would God send an evil spirit to Saul? (c.f. 16:14; 18:10)

This is the third time David dodged one of Saul’s spears (cf. 1 Sam. 18:10-11). He must’ve had one eye on his harp and one eye on Saul’s spear. After all, why would Saul be holding a spear in the first place? Bergen writes, “Only a deeply troubled individual would sit armed for war inside the safest house in Israel!”^[10]

Saul hunts David to his house

(19:11) Saul sent men to David’s house to watch it and to kill him in the morning. But Michal, David’s wife, warned him, “If you don’t run for your life tonight, tomorrow you’ll be killed.”

According to the superscription, Psalm 59 was written at this time. The men try to put him to death “in the morning,” but David sings about God’s lovingkindness “in the morning” (Ps. 56:16).

Michal is a complex character. She loved David, but for the wrong reasons. She worshipped idols (1 Sam. 19:13), and she hated his love and excitement for God (2 Sam. 6:16, 20-23). She must’ve loved David for his popularity. At the same time, she protected David when his life was in danger, and she chose David over her father. She serves as a complicated heroine in this section, risking her life for David’s.

(19:12) So Michal let David down through a window, and he fled and escaped.

The great warrior David had to escape through a window at night.

(19:13) Then Michal took an idol and laid it on the bed, covering it with a garment and putting some goats’ hair at the head.

The “idol” or teraphim “was utilized in ancestor worship and as an aid for use in magical healing rituals.”^[11] Why did Michal have an idol in her house? Youngblood states that this could reflect “pagan inclination or ignorance on her part.”^[12] Later, we see that this shows that Michal has a poor relationship with God (see 2 Sam. 6:16-23).

(19:14-15) When Saul sent the men to capture David, Michal said, “He is ill.” ¹⁵ Then Saul sent the men back to see David and told them, “Bring him up to me in his bed so that I may kill him.”

Initially, these grunts didn’t want to barge into the house of the princess. Surely, the princess carried political clout, and she was powerful enough to turn them away with a word. However, when King Saul hears about this, he overrules his daughter: Saul doesn’t care if David is sick. Saul wants David to be more than sick… He wants him dead!

(19:16-17) But when the men entered, there was the idol in the bed, and at the head was some goats’ hair. ¹⁷ Saul said to Michal, “Why did you deceive me like this and send my enemy away so that he escaped?” Michal told him, “He said to me, ‘Let me get away. Why should I kill you?’”

Saul must have come to the house himself in order to have this conversation. Or perhaps this is a transcript of their conversation back and forth via the messengers.

Why doesn’t Saul punish Michal for lying? This would’ve been politically expedient because “if David had threatened a member of the royal household, he was doubly worthy of death.”^[13]

“My enemy.” David did everything for Saul, but Saul couldn’t see it. He could only see David as a threat and an “enemy.”

David flees to Naioth in Ramah

(19:18-19) When David had fled and made his escape, he went to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. Then he and Samuel went to Naioth and stayed there. ¹⁹ Word came to Saul: “David is in Naioth at Ramah.”

Saul has eyes and ears all over Israel. He quickly learns that David is staying at Naioth. Baldwin writes, “It was in Ramah that Saul had had his providential encounter with Samuel, and had been secretly anointed; now Samuel was protecting David, in that very place.”^[14]

(19:20-21) So he sent men to capture him. But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon Saul’s men and they also prophesied. ²¹ Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied.

When the first wave failed, Saul must’ve asked, “What happened? Were there soldiers? David’s mighty men? An ambush?” The messengers would’ve said, “No, your majesty! The men you sent simply started to speak ecstatically for God when they got to Samuel’s place.” Just imagine how perplexing this would’ve been for Saul as he heard this report three consecutive times! Bergen writes, “Those who had entered into Naioth under the influence of the ruler of Israel now found themselves under the infinitely greater influence of the ruler of the universe.”^[15] David was protected by a prayer meeting, and the violent enemies turn into friends. How? Why? The Holy Spirit disarms them.

Saul must’ve thought, “If you want to do something right, you’ve got to do it yourself.” So, he leaves to personally kill David…

(19:22) Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?”

“Over in Naioth at Ramah,” they said.

(19:23) So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even upon him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth.

Saul should’ve seen this coming. But he is so spiritually blind that he misses it. God blocks Saul from his murderous intent by having him prophesy.

(19:24) He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

Saul entered looking like a king, but he was stripped of his clothing. This visually showed Saul’s status, and it revealed to everyone that “Israel’s most powerful citizen was subjugated by the power of God.”^[16] The stripping of Saul’s royal clothing showed that the nation was being stripped from him (1 Sam. 15:23, 28). It also foreshadows him being “stripped” and killed by the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:8-9).

“Is Saul also among the prophets?” This question is a repetition of the first time Saul prophesied (1 Sam. 10:11-12). This question could be rhetorical in the sense that Saul was neither fit to be a prophet, nor a king.^[17] Baldwin holds that this is an “ironic comment on Saul’s life story.”^[18]

1 Samuel 20 (Jonathan Realizes Saul Has Lost It)

Summary: David realizes more quickly than Jonathan that his father can’t be trusted (vv.1-3). David creates a test to determine if Saul is still trying to kill him (vv.6-7), by telling Saul that he is in Bethlehem for an important feast. Jonathan still can’t face the fact that his father has lost it. When the feast occurs, Jonathan tells Saul that David was in Bethlehem, and he characteristically blows up in anger (v.30). It takes Saul trying to kill Jonathan for him to realize that his father was evil (v.33). David and Jonathan met up to weep over what had happened. David had been hiding, but after Jonathan’s arrow-fetcher left, he appeared to Jonathan (v.41). They split up after this.

(20:1-4) Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to take my life?”

² “Never!” Jonathan replied. “You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn’t do anything, great or small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide this from me? It’s not so!”

³ But David took an oath and said, “Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, ‘Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.’ Yet as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.”

⁴ Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.”

David and Jonathan are in fierce disagreement and argument here. In the Hebrew, the language of this section is “emotionally charged.”^[19] Saul had made a fraudulent oath that David wouldn’t die (1 Sam. 19:6), but Jonathan can’t accept that his father would lie to him (v.9, 13). David had far more wisdom and discernment than Jonathan (2 Sam. 14:17, 20).

(20:5-7) So David said, “Look, tomorrow is the New Moon festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. ⁶ If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’ ⁷ If he says, ‘Very well,’ then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me.”

David sets up a test to reveal Saul’s motives. David must know that Saul would view his absence as disloyalty.

David and Jonathan reaffirm their covenant

(20:8) “As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the LORD. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?”

The terms “show kindness” (hesed) is a translation of the Hebrew word “lovingkindness,” which is a repeated term for God’s loyal love. David would rather have Jonathan kill him than be disloyal to his covenant.

(20:9-10) “Never!” Jonathan said. “If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn’t I tell you?”

¹⁰ David asked, “Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?”

The focus of the disagreement is over whether Jonathan would keep loyalty to his father, rather than to David.

(20:11-13) “Come,” Jonathan said, “let’s go out into the field.” So they went there together.

¹² Then Jonathan said to David: “By the LORD, the God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? ¹³ But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away safely. May the LORD be with you as he has been with my father.”

Jonathan promises to keep his word. David and Jonathan’s friendship was built on the foundation of God.

(20:14-15) “But show me unfailing kindness like that of the LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, ¹⁵ and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth.”

Jonathan knows that David will become king, and he asks David to keep him safe if (or when) this happens. Again, the term “unfailing kindness” (hesed) is used to describe their covenant with one another. David makes good on this promise, sparing Jonathan’s physically handicapped son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:7, 10).

(20:16) So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD call David’s enemies to account.”

If Saul is truly an enemy of David, then Jonathan is willing to see his own father cut off and killed to fulfill this covenant.

(20:17) And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

They renew the covenant that they made earlier in the account (1 Sam. 18:3).

Jonathan creates a way to communicate to David

(20:18-23) Then Jonathan said to David: “Tomorrow is the New Moon festival. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. ¹⁹ The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. ²⁰ I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. ²¹ Then I will send a boy and say, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to him, ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,’ then come, because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe; there is no danger. ²² But if I say to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the LORD has sent you away. ²³ And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the LORD is witness between you and me forever.”

Jonathan creates a way to communicate whether or not it is safe for David to return. If Jonathan tells his arrow bearer that the arrows are beside him, then David is safe (v.21). But if he says that the arrows are beyond him, then David is in mortal danger (v.22).

Where is Ezel? The location of this stone (Ezel) is unknown.^[20]

“The LORD has sent you away.” Jonathan understood that God could take this friendship away from him. He loved David enough to accept this in advance.

David doesn’t come to the New Moon festival

(20:24-29) So David hid in the field, and when the New Moon festival came, the king sat down to eat. ²⁵ He sat in his customary place by the wall, opposite Jonathan, and Abner sat next to Saul, but David’s place was empty. ²⁶ Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, “Something must have happened to David to make him ceremonially unclean—surely he is unclean.”

²⁷ But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again. Then Saul said to his son Jonathan, “Why hasn’t the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?”

²⁸ Jonathan answered, “David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. ²⁹ He said, ‘Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.’ That is why he has not come to the king’s table.”

“He sat in his customary place by the wall.” Saul wanted his back to the wall to avoid any assassination attempts.^[21] This shows his paranoia. David was the one risking his life time and time again—not Saul.

“But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again.” It made sense for David to miss a holy day for being unclean. But two days in a row? Saul knew something was suspicious.

“Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?” This is the first time Saul calls David the “son of Jesse.” This was his son-in-law, but he calls him the “son of Jesse.” This slip of the tongue shows that Saul viewed David as being outside of his household. In Saul’s mind, David would always be gutter trash from a poor shepherding family.

Saul reveals his motives

(20:30) Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?”

“You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!” Saul refuses to call Jonathan his own son. Instead, he verbally disowns him. Youngblood^[22] states that this is “foul-mouthed anger,” which can be rendered “You bastard!” or “You son of a rebellious slut!”

(20:31) “As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!”

Saul pretends that he is wanting to kill David… for Jonathan’s sake. To paraphrase, he is arguing, “If I don’t kill David, then your line will disappear. Son, I’m only doing this to help you!” But Jonathan doesn’t fall for this.

(20:32) “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father.

Jonathan had asked his father this question before (1 Sam. 19:5), and it worked to calm down his father (1 Sam. 19:6). Jonathan must be holding out hope that it will work again.

(20:33) But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.

This rage-filled act tells Jonathan more about Saul’s motives than his words could ever communicate. If Saul was so intent on preserving Jonathan’s line (v.31), then why would he try to kill him?

(20:34) Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the month he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father’s shameful treatment of David.

“Fierce anger” describes “the highest levels of disappointed human fury.”^[23] Jonathan is filled with both rage and grief—two emotions that often go hand in hand. Yet, his heart is filled with anger and grief for David’s sake—not his own.

Jonathan reports back to David

(20:35-40) In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, ³⁶ and he said to the boy, “Run and find the arrows I shoot.” As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. ³⁷ When the boy came to the place where Jonathan’s arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, “Isn’t the arrow beyond you?” ³⁸ Then he shouted, “Hurry! Go quickly! Don’t stop!” The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. ³⁹ (The boy knew nothing of all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) ⁴⁰ Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town.”

Jonathan picked a little kid to go with him (“small boy”), so that he wouldn’t have to worry about the boy asking any questions.

Jonathan shoots the arrows far away, so that his voice will carry to David in his hideout (see v.19).

(20:41) After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

We might expect David to rub this in Jonathan’s face. Instead, he can only break down and weep “more” than Jonathan.

David and Jonathan “kissed each other” (1 Sam. 20:41). We shouldn’t project our cold, Western view of physical affection back onto this ancient Near Eastern culture. It was common for men to greet each other with a kiss—presumably on the cheeks. Consider just a few examples:

• Isaac “kissed” his own son Gen. 27:26).
• Laban “kissed” his nephew Jacob (Gen. 29:13).
• Laban “kissed” his grandchildren and daughters (Gen. 31:55).
• Esau “kissed” his brother Jacob (Gen. 33:4).
• Joseph “kissed” his brothers (Gen. 45:15).
• Jacob “kissed” his grandsons (Gen. 48:10).
• Joseph “kissed” his dead father (Gen. 50:1).
• Moses “kissed” his brother Aaron (Ex. 4:27) and his father-in-law Jethro (Ex. 18:7).
• Samuel “kissed” Saul (1 Sam. 10:1).
• Absalom “kissed” everyone who approached him (2 Sam. 15:5).
• David “kissed” an old man Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:39).
• Joab “kissed” Amasa (2 Sam. 20:9).
• In the NT, believers should greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:13),

Men at this time expressed brotherly love in different ways. There are cultures today where men walk down the street holding hands, but this is not a sign of sexual attraction. Furthermore, look at the context: David and Jonathan kissed “and wept together, but David wept the more.” This does not refer to a sexual encounter! It describes deep sadness and despair. The emotion expressed is sorrow—not erotic pleasure.

“Bowed down before Jonathan three times with his face to the ground.” This is the most amount of times anyone is said to bow before someone else in the Bible, and this action was a way of “expressing subservience and loyalty to an authority.”^[24]

(20:42) Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, ‘The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.

These two men would only see each other one more time—shortly before Jonathan’s death. After this scene, David would be on the run for 10-15 years, running from Saul.

What do we learn about Saul, Jonathan, and David?

Saul allowed his emotions to control him. He was a man of jealousy (18:6), anger, (18:8), suspicion (18:9), and most of all fear (18:12, 15, 29).

He allowed his homicidal thoughts to quickly turn into attempted homicide (18:11), lying (19:6-7), and conspiracy (18:22).

His allowed his emotions to get so out of control that he even turned on his own son, trying to kill him (20:30-33).

Jonathan is a model of loyalty (20:12-13). He stood up for his friend, David, on multiple occasions (19:3-5; 20:32). Jonathan was willing to make a covenant with David despite the fact that this would anger his father. Indeed, Saul had tried to execute Jonathan for less. (cf. 1 Sam. 14:39ff). Jonathan was more committed to God’s will than he was to his father’s commands.

He was a model of sacrificial love. Jonathan had the most to gain from David’s death. It would’ve secured his own throne. But he did what was right instead.

He was a deeply loving man (20:17).

He was loyal to a fault (20:2). He knew that his dad made rash commands (14:29-45), and all of the evidence pointed to the fact that his dad was guilty. However, when it comes to family and close friends, our discernment can often be skewed.

David was widely loved and respected by the people (18:6, 30), but he didn’t let this go to his head. Instead, he continued to defend the nation (19:8) and the king. He was innocent of any crime against the crown (20:1).

He was a deeply emotional man (20:41-42).

He trusted God deeply. If it wasn’t for God’s protection, David would’ve become just another case of roadkill on the highway of history. However, God wouldn’t allow his plan or promise to be thwarted. God protects David through multiple means: Jonathan, Michal, and direct divine intervention when Saul and his messengers prophesy instead of killing him.

What can we learn about spiritual friendships from the example of David and Jonathan?

They could recognize that both of them were following God (1 Sam. 18:1).

Jonathan was self-sacrificial, while Saul was self-aggrandizing.

They had an emotional relationship (1 Sam. 20:41; 2 Sam. 1:25-26; cf. 1 Thess. 2:7; Acts 20:36-38).

They had a sacrificial relationship. Jonathan was willing to give up the kingdom to David, and it even cost him his life (31:1-2).

C.S. Lewis: “To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it. We admit of course that besides a wife and family a man needs a few ‘friends’. But the very tone of the admission, and the sort of acquaintanceships which those who make it would describe as ‘friendships’, show clearly that what they are talking about… is something quite marginal; not a main course in life’s banquet; a diversion; something that fills up the chinks of one’s time. How has this come about? The first and most obvious answer is that few value it because few experience it.” C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

[1] Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and Christian? (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine Publisher, 2014), p.98.

^[2] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 706.

^[3] Elmer B. Smick, “282 ברה,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 128.

^[4] Elmer B. Smick, “282 ברה,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 129.

^[5] David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 8, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Nottingham, England; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2009), 208.

^[6] Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, vol. 10, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 182.

^[7] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 201.

^[8] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 710.

^[9] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 204.

^[10] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 207.

^[11] See footnote. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 208.

^[12] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 716.

^[13] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 209.

^[14] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 142.

^[15] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 210.

^[16] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 210.

^[17] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 717.

^[18] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 143.

^[19] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 719.

^[20] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 723.

^[21] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 217.

^[22] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 724.

^[23] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 724.

^[24] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 219.