TRV
Translation
King James Version
And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?
KJV (with Strong's)
And it came to pass on the morrow H4283, which was the second H8145 day of the month H2320, that David's H1732 place H4725 was empty H6485: and Saul H7586 said H559 unto Jonathan H3083 his son H1121, Wherefore cometh H935 not the son H1121 of Jesse H3448 to meat H3899, neither yesterday H8543, nor to day H3117?
Complete Jewish Bible
The day after Rosh-Hodesh, the second day, David's place was empty; and Sha'ul said to Y'honatan his son, "Why hasn't Yishai's son come to the meal either yesterday or today?"
Berean Standard Bible
But on the day after the New Moon, the second day, David’s place was still empty, and Saul asked his son Jonathan, “Why hasn’t the son of Jesse come to the meal either yesterday or today?”
American Standard Version
And it came to pass on the morrow after the new moon, which was the second day, that David’s place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to-day?
World English Bible Messianic
On the next day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was empty. Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why doesn’t the son of Jesse come to eat, neither yesterday, nor today?”
Geneva Bible (1599)
But on the morowe which was the second day of the moneth, Dauids place was emptie againe: and Saul sayde vnto Ionathan his sonne, Wherefore commeth not the sonne of Ishai to meate, neither yesterday nor to day?
Young's Literal Translation
And it cometh to pass on the second morrow of the new moon, that David's place is looked after, and Saul saith unto Jonathan his son, `Wherefore hath the son of Jesse not come in, either yesterday or to-day, unto the food?'
See also
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 7,758 of 31,102
Study This Verse
Commentary on 1 Samuel 20 verses 24–34
24 ¶ So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
25 And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul's side, and David's place was empty.
26 Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean.
27 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?
28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem:
29 And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table.
30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
32 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
33 And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.
34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
Jonathan is here effectually convinced of that which he was so loth to believe, that his father had an implacable enmity to David, and would certainly be the death of him if it were in his power; and he had like to have paid very dearly himself for the conviction.
I. David is missed from the feast on the first day, but nothing is said of him. The king sat upon his seat, to feast upon the peace-offerings as at other times (Sa1 20:25), and yet had his heart as full of envy and malice against David as it could hold. He should first have been reconciled to him, and then have come and offered his gift; but, instead of that, he hoped, at this feast, to drink the blood of David. What an abomination was that sacrifice which was brought with such a wicked mind as this! Pro 21:27. When the king came to take his seat Jonathan arose, in reverence to him both as a father and as his sovereign; every one knew his place, but David's was empty. It did not use to be so. None more content than he in attending holy duties; nor had he been absent now but that he must have come at the peril of his life; self-preservation obliged him to withdraw. In imminent peril present opportunities may be waived, nay, we ought not to throw ourselves into the mouth of danger. Christ himself absconded often, till he knew that his hour had come. But that day Saul took no notice that he missed David, but said within himself, "Surely he is not clean, Sa1 20:26. Some ceremonial pollution has befallen him, which forbids him to eat of the holy things till he has washed his clothes, and bathed his flesh in water, and been unclean until the evening." Saul knew what conscience David made of the law, and that he would rather keep away from the holy feast than come in his uncleanness. Blessed be God, no uncleanness is now a restraint upon us, but what we may by faith and repentance be washed from in the fountain opened, Psa 26:6.
II. He is enquired for the second day, Sa1 20:27. Saul asked Jonathan, who he knew was his confidant, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat? He was his own son by marriage, but he calls him in disdain, the son of Jesse. He asks for him as if he were not pleased that he should be absent from a religious feast; and so it should be example to masters of families to see to it that those under their charge be not absent from the worship of God, either in public or in the family. It is a bad thing for us, except in case of necessity, to omit an opportunity of statedly attending on God in solemn ordinances. Thomas lost a sight of Christ by being once absent from a meeting of the disciples. But that which displeased Saul was that hereby he missed the opportunity he expected of doing David a mischief.
III. Jonathan makes his excuse, Sa1 20:28, Sa1 20:29. 1. That he was absent upon a good occasion, keeping the feast in another place, though not here, sent for by his elder brother, who was now more respectful to him than he had been (Sa1 17:28), and that he had gone to pay his respects to his relations, for the keeping up of brotherly love; and no master would deny a servant liberty to do that in due time. He pleads, 2. That he did not go without leave humbly asked and obtained from Jonathan, who, as his superior officer, was proper to be applied to for it. Thus he represents David as not wanting in any instance of respect and duty to the government.
IV. Saul hereupon breaks out into a most extravagant passion, and rages like a lion disappointed of his prey. David was out of his reach, but he falls upon Jonathan for his sake (Sa1 20:30, Sa1 20:31), gives him base language, not fit for a gentleman, a prince, to give to any man, especially his own son, heir apparent to his crown, a son that served him, the greatest stay and ornament of his family, before a great deal of company, at a feast, when all should be in good humour, at a sacred feast, by which all irregular passions should be mortified and subdued; yet he does in effect call him, 1. A bastard: Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman; that is, according to the foolish filthy language of men's brutish passion now a day, "Thou son of a whore." He tells him he was born to the confusion of his mother, that is, he had given the world cause to suspect that he was not the legitimate son of Saul, because he loved him whom Saul hated and supported him who would be the destruction of their family. 2. A traitor: Thou son of a perverse rebellion (so the word is), that is, "thou perverse rebel." At other times he reckoned no counsellor or commander that he had more trusty and well-beloved than Jonathan; yet now in this passion he represents him as dangerous to his crown and life. 3. A fool: Thou hast chosen the son of Jesse for thy friend to thy own confusion, for while he lives thou shalt never be established. Jonathan indeed did wisely and well for himself and family to secure an interest in David, whom Heaven had destined to the throne, yet, for this, he is branded as most impolitic. It is good taking God's people for our people and going with those that have him with them. It will prove to our advantage at last, however for the present it may be thought a disparagement, and a prejudice to our secular interest. It is probable Saul knew that David was anointed to the kingdom by the same hand that anointed him, and then not Jonathan, but himself, was the fool, to think to defeat the counsels of God. Yet nothing will serve him but David must die, and Jonathan must fetch him to execution. See how ill Saul's passion looks, and let it warn us against the indulgence of any thing like it in ourselves. Anger is madness, and he that hates his brother is a murderer.
V. Jonathan is sorely grieved and put into disorder by his father's barbarous passion, and the more because he had hoped better things, Sa1 20:2. He was troubled for his father, that he should be such a brute, troubled for his friend, whom he knew to be a friend of God, that he should be so basely abused; he was grieved for David (Sa1 20:34), and troubled for himself too, because his father had done him shame, and, though most unjustly, yet he must submit to it. One would pity Jonathan to see how he was put, 1. Into the peril of sin. Much ado that wise and good man had to keep his temper, upon such a provocation as this. His father's reflections upon himself made no return to; it becomes inferiors to bear with meekness and silence the contempts put upon them in wrath and passion. When thou art the anvil lie thou still. But his dooming David to die he could not bear: to that he replied with some heat (Sa1 20:32), Wherefore shall he be slain? What has he done? Generous spirits can much more easily bear to be abused themselves than to hear their friends abused. 2. Into the peril of death. Saul was now so outrageous that he threw his javelin at Jonathan, Sa1 20:33. He seemed to be in great care (Sa1 20:31) than Jonathan should be established in his kingdom, and yet now he himself aims at his life. What fools, what savage beasts and worse does anger make men! How necessary it is to put a hook in its nose and a bridle in its jaws! Jonathan was fully satisfied that evil was determined against David, which put him out of frame exceedingly: he rose from table, thinking it high time when his life was struck at, and would eat no meat, for they were not to eat of the holy things in their mourning. All the guests, we may suppose, were discomposed, and the mirth of the feast was spoiled. He that is cruel troubles his own flesh, Pro 11:17.
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 24–34. Public domain.
Copy as
John ChrysostomAD 407
HOMILY TO THOSE WHO HAD NOT ATTENDED THE ASSEMBLY 6
As for Saul, he hated and abhorred David so much after the countless good services which he had done, after his brilliant triumphs, and the salvation which he had wrought in the matter of Goliath, that Saul could not bear to mention him by his own name but called him after his father. For once when a festival was at hand, and Saul, having devised some treachery against him and contrived a cruel plot, did not see him arrive—“where,” said he, “is the son of Jesse?” He called him by his father’s name because he thought to damage the distinguished position of that righteous man by a reference to his low birth—a miserable and despicable thought. For certainly, even if he had some accusation to bring against the father this could in no way injure David. For each man is answerable for his own deeds, and by these he can be praised and accused. But, as it was, not having any evil deed to mention, Saul brought forward his low birth, expecting by this means to throw his glory into the shade, which in fact was the height of folly. For what kind of offence is it to be the child of insignificant and humble parents? Saul, however, did not understand true wisdom in these things.
BedeAD 735
Commentary on Samuel
And when the second day after the Kalends dawned, etc. When in the hearts of the faithful the radiance of new grace happily grew after the silence of listening to the word until the time arrived to act on what was taught, nevertheless, the brazenness of the unfaithful celebrated empty sustenance without Christ and the rites of the flesh blindly performed sacred rituals. Traitorous parents of those chosen for Christ sought from their children, of whom it is said: “By whom do your sons expel them?” (Luke 11:19). Why did the Christians not flock to the carnal works of the law, I mean circumcision, sacrifices, and various solemnities, to hear or perform them along with the others? Why could Jesus himself, whom they believed incarnate from the root of Jesse, dead, and resurrected, as Christ God, not be found anywhere in prophetic reading?
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying 1 Samuel 20:27 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
1 Samuel 20:27 captures a pivotal and highly charged moment in the escalating conflict between King Saul and David, revealing the king's deepening paranoia and murderous intent. David's calculated and conspicuous absence from the royal New Moon feast for a second consecutive day removes any lingering doubt for Saul, confirming his suspicions of betrayal and igniting a furious, public confrontation with his loyal son, Jonathan. This scene irrevocably seals David's fate as a fugitive and underscores the irreconcilable chasm that has opened between the reigning monarch and God's anointed successor.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The verse employs several potent Literary Devices to heighten the drama and convey its profound meaning. Foreshadowing is prominent, as Saul's pointed question and the conspicuous absence of David clearly presage the violent outburst that immediately follows, confirming the king's murderous intent and the irreversible break between him and David. The scene is imbued with Dramatic Irony, as the audience is fully privy to the secret pact and detailed plan between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:1-23), understanding the true, life-saving reason for David's absence, while Saul remains tragically ignorant of the full extent of their loyalty and only perceives betrayal. Saul's deliberate use of "the son of Jesse" is a powerful example of a Derogatory Epithet or Insult, serving as a means of Characterization, revealing the depth of his contempt, jealousy, and the extent of his psychological and spiritual deterioration. The stark contrast between the expected communal harmony and festive atmosphere of a royal feast and the underlying tension, suspicion, and impending violence creates a palpable sense of Pathos and highlights the tragic unraveling of Saul's reign and the destruction of familial bonds.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This pivotal moment in 1 Samuel 20:27 profoundly illustrates the clash between human treachery and divine protection. Saul's escalating rage and his contemptuous reference to David as "the son of Jesse" reveal the depth of his spiritual decline and his futile attempts to thwart God's sovereign plan. Yet, David's strategic absence, orchestrated through Jonathan's unwavering loyalty and discernment, serves as a powerful testament to God's faithfulness in preserving His anointed one, even amidst intense persecution and life-threatening danger. It underscores the biblical principle that while human wickedness may plot destruction, the Lord's purposes will ultimately prevail, safeguarding those He has chosen for His service. This narrative reminds believers that discernment, reliance on God's guidance, and the cultivation of faithful friendships can be crucial instruments of God's providence in times of severe trial and opposition.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
1 Samuel 20:27 serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of spiritual discernment and the courage to act upon it, even when it means deviating from social expectations or enduring misunderstanding and false accusation. David's decision to absent himself, guided by Jonathan's intelligence and their shared trust in God's plan, illustrates the profound wisdom of avoiding unnecessary confrontation when danger is clear and present. In our own lives, this might translate to setting healthy boundaries, discerning when to withdraw from toxic relationships or environments, or understanding when to speak and when to remain silent in the face of hostility or manipulation. Furthermore, the unwavering loyalty of Jonathan, who risked his own life and royal standing for David, challenges us to cultivate and cherish friendships rooted in integrity, covenant faithfulness, and sacrificial commitment—friendships that reflect God's own steadfast love. Ultimately, this passage encourages us to place our deepest trust in God's sovereign protection, knowing that He can use various means—including the discernment of His servants and the unwavering loyalty of true friends—to preserve us through trials and fulfill His divine purposes in our lives, even when circumstances seem dire.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What was the significance of David's absence on the "second day of the month"?
Answer: The "month" refers to the New Moon festival, a significant religious and social celebration in ancient Israel, typically observed over two days. David's absence on the first day was explained by Jonathan as a visit to Bethlehem for a family sacrifice (1 Samuel 20:6). However, his continued absence on the second day made it impossible to maintain the deception. It signaled to Saul that David's non-attendance was deliberate and not merely a temporary commitment, confirming Saul's suspicions of a deeper conspiracy or defiance, and ultimately provoking his full wrath. This prolonged absence transformed a potential oversight into a undeniable act of perceived rebellion in Saul's eyes.
Why did Saul refer to David as "the son of Jesse" instead of by his name or title?
Answer: Saul's use of "the son of Jesse" was a deliberate and deeply insulting derogatory epithet, laden with contempt. By refusing to use David's name or acknowledge his well-deserved status as a national hero, the king's son-in-law, or a high-ranking military commander, Saul was attempting to strip David of his honor, reduce him to his humble, common origins, and publicly express his profound disdain. It was a verbal act of dehumanization, reflecting the depth of Saul's jealousy and his refusal to recognize David's God-given prominence and anointing, which he perceived as an illegitimate threat to his own throne (1 Samuel 18:8-9).
What does this verse reveal about Saul's character?
Answer: This verse is highly revealing of Saul's character in his spiritual decline. His question, filled with suspicion, anger, and contempt, demonstrates his escalating paranoia, his deep-seated jealousy of David, and his increasing instability. He is no longer concerned with justice, rational inquiry, or the welfare of his kingdom, but is consumed by a personal vendetta against David. His immediate assumption of David's guilt and his public display of anger, even before hearing an explanation, show a king who has lost his capacity for rational judgment and is driven by uncontrolled malice, foreshadowing his violent outburst against Jonathan in the verses that follow (1 Samuel 20:30). His character is marked by an inability to accept God's sovereign choice and a descent into tyranny.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The dramatic tension in 1 Samuel 20:27, where David, God's anointed but persecuted king, is forced to absent himself from the royal table due to the murderous intent of the reigning monarch, powerfully foreshadows the experience of Jesus Christ. Like David, Jesus was God's chosen King, the true Son of David, yet He was rejected and persecuted by the very religious and political leaders of His own people (John 1:11). The intense hostility Saul harbored against David finds its ultimate, most heinous expression in the unjust hatred directed at Christ, who continually faced plots against His life (John 7:1, John 8:59). Just as David's life was providentially preserved through divine intervention and the unwavering loyalty of Jonathan, so too was Christ's life protected until His appointed time, and He was sustained by the Father's will and the devotion of His true disciples. Ultimately, David's strategic withdrawal from Saul's table points to Christ, the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, who willingly "absented" Himself from the glory of heaven to come to earth, not to avoid a feast, but to become the ultimate sacrifice for humanity. His "absence" from the world through death was a temporary one, leading to His glorious resurrection and ascension, where He now sits at the right hand of God, awaiting the day when all His enemies will be made a footstool for His feet (Hebrews 10:12-13). The empty seat at Saul's table for David prefigures the empty tomb of Christ, signifying not defeat, but ultimate victory, the triumph over death, and the establishment of an eternal kingdom where the true King reigns forevermore.