David’s absence at the royal feast signified his urgent need to flee Saul’s lethal intentions.
Saul’s court was gathered to celebrate the second day of the festival, when “it came about the next day, the second day of the new moon, that David’s place was empty” (v.27). This feast was likely a continuation of the same gathering they had observed the day before, a customary feast at the start of each new month in ancient Israel. The empty seat did not go unnoticed, for David had chosen not to be present due to the rising tension with Saul (1 Samuel 19:1-3). Jonathan had agreed to shield David from his father’s potential wrath, showing deep loyalty to his friend while also trying not to betray his father.
Saul’s suspicion grew, and the verse continues with his demand for an explanation: “so Saul said to Jonathan his son, ‘Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?’” (v.27). Saul is deliberately withholding David's name, referring to him as “the son of Jesse,” which hints at his escalating hostility. This is a reminder of how strained relations can consume even royal families, and how unchecked suspicion can push leaders to rash actions. David, hiding away from Saul’s threats, underscores the perilous environment in which he lived—one where a jealous king threatened his very life, and where Jonathan had to carefully navigate his loyalty between father and friend.
This verse introduces a pivotal detail in the narrative: David’s absence is now open knowledge at the king’s table. Geographically, this was taking place near Gibeah of Benjamin, Saul’s hometown, around the late 11th century BC (approximately 1010-970 BC for David’s rise to prominence). The family meal was no longer just a celebration; it had become a place where Saul’s suspicions gave way to potential violence. Jonathan’s intercession in this secret arrangement foreshadows the covenant relationship that echoes Christ’s own words about sacrificial love (John 15:13).
Set to dark mode
1 Samuel 20:27 meaning
Saul’s court was gathered to celebrate the second day of the festival, when “it came about the next day, the second day of the new moon, that David’s place was empty” (v.27). This feast was likely a continuation of the same gathering they had observed the day before, a customary feast at the start of each new month in ancient Israel. The empty seat did not go unnoticed, for David had chosen not to be present due to the rising tension with Saul (1 Samuel 19:1-3). Jonathan had agreed to shield David from his father’s potential wrath, showing deep loyalty to his friend while also trying not to betray his father.
Saul’s suspicion grew, and the verse continues with his demand for an explanation: “so Saul said to Jonathan his son, ‘Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?’” (v.27). Saul is deliberately withholding David's name, referring to him as “the son of Jesse,” which hints at his escalating hostility. This is a reminder of how strained relations can consume even royal families, and how unchecked suspicion can push leaders to rash actions. David, hiding away from Saul’s threats, underscores the perilous environment in which he lived—one where a jealous king threatened his very life, and where Jonathan had to carefully navigate his loyalty between father and friend.
This verse introduces a pivotal detail in the narrative: David’s absence is now open knowledge at the king’s table. Geographically, this was taking place near Gibeah of Benjamin, Saul’s hometown, around the late 11th century BC (approximately 1010-970 BC for David’s rise to prominence). The family meal was no longer just a celebration; it had become a place where Saul’s suspicions gave way to potential violence. Jonathan’s intercession in this secret arrangement foreshadows the covenant relationship that echoes Christ’s own words about sacrificial love (John 15:13).