1 Samuel 20:1

Old Testament Historical ASV (1901)

What does 1 Samuel 20:1 say?

The American Standard Version records this verse as: “And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?” Read the surrounding verses and the named sources below before drawing broader conclusions.

The verse

And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
1 Samuel 20:1 — American Standard Version

Context — 1 Samuel 20

American Standard Version (1901) — public domain. Click any verse for its study page.
1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?

What do historical commentaries say?

John Gill's Exposition
John Gill (1697–1771) · Exposition of the Old and New Testament · 18th-century historical commentary
“And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, etc.] While Saul was prophesying, or lay in a trance there: and came; to Gibeah, where Saul dwelt, and had his palace, and kept his court: and said before Jonathan; whom he found there, and for whose sake he thither fled to have his advice, and to use his interest with his father, and be his friend at court: what have I done? what [is] mine iniquity? and what [is] my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life? surely, as if he should say, I must have been guilty of some very great crime, and yet I am not sensible of it; canst thou tell me what it is that has so provoked thy father, that nothing will satisfy him but the taking away of my life, which he…”
Read attributed excerpt →
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible · 19th-century historical commentary
“DAVID CONSULTS WITH JONATHAN FOR HIS SAFETY. (Sa1 20:1-10) David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan--He could not remain in Naioth, for he had strong reason to fear that when the religious fit, if we may so call it, was over, Saul would relapse into his usual fell and sanguinary temper. It may be thought that David acted imprudently in directing his flight to Gibeah. But he was evidently prompted to go thither by the most generous feelings--to inform his friend of what had recently occurred, and to obtain that friend's sanction to the course he was compelled to adopt. Jonathan could not be persuaded there was any real danger after the oath his father had taken; at…”
Read attributed excerpt →
Barnes' Notes
Albert Barnes (1798–1870) · Notes on the Whole Bible · 19th-century historical commentary
“While Saul was under the constraining influence of the spirit of prophecy, David escaped from Naioth, and, probably by Samuel’s advice, returned to Saul’s court to commune with Jonathan. Nothing could be a better evidence of his innocence than thus putting himself in Jonathan’s power. Perhaps something passed between Samuel and Saul on the subject, since it appears from 1Sa 20:5, 1 Samuel 20:25, 1 Samuel 20:27, that Saul expected David at the feast of the new moon. return to 'Top of Page'”
Read attributed excerpt →
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge
R. A. Torrey and contributors · The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge · Cross-reference reference work
“fled: Sa1 19:19-24, Sa1 23:26-28; Psa 124:6-8; Pe2 2:9 What have: Sa1 12:3, Sa1 24:11, Sa1 24:17; Psa 7:3-5, Psa 18:20-24; Co2 1:12; Jo1 3:21 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 20:2”
Read attributed excerpt →
Keil & Delitzsch
C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch · Commentary on the Old Testament · 19th-century historical commentary
“After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled thence and met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart. (Note: According to Ewald and Thenius, this chapter was not written by the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earlier source, and Sa1 20:1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the two together. But the principal reason for this conjecture - namely, that David could never have thought of sitting at the royal table again after what had taken place, and that Saul would still less have expected him to come - is overthrown by the simple suggestion, that all that Saul had hitherto attempted against David, according to Sa1 19:8., had been done in fits…”
Read attributed excerpt →

Related study paths

Sources and verification