1 Samuel 20 27

1 Samuel 20:27 kjv

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?

1 Samuel 20:27 nkjv

And it happened the next day, the second day of the month, that David's place was empty. And Saul said to Jonathan his son, "Why has the son of Jesse not come to eat, either yesterday or today?"

1 Samuel 20:27 niv

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?"

1 Samuel 20:27 esv

But on the second day, the day after the new moon, David's place was empty. And Saul said to Jonathan his son, "Why has not the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?"

1 Samuel 20:27 nlt

But when David's place was empty again the next day, Saul asked Jonathan, "Why hasn't the son of Jesse been here for the meal either yesterday or today?"

1 Samuel 20 verses

1 Samuel 20 27 Meaning

1 Samuel 20:27 reveals Saul's escalating suspicion concerning David's continued absence from the king's table during the New Moon feast. On the second day of the festival, with David's seat noticeably vacant for two consecutive days, Saul directly confronts Jonathan, using a dismissive title for David, and questioning why he has not appeared to eat as expected. This marks a critical moment where Saul's hidden hostility begins to overtly surface.

1 Samuel 20 27 Context

1 Samuel 20 centers on the deepening animosity between King Saul and David, and the strong bond of loyalty between David and Saul's son, Jonathan. Recognizing Saul's relentless desire to kill David, Jonathan devises a plan for David's absence from the traditional New Moon feast. The absence was designed to test Saul's true intentions towards David, and this verse marks the moment the test is engaged. David's absence on the first day was overlooked or dismissed by Saul (v. 26), possibly attributed to a ceremonial impurity. However, his absence on the second day could no longer be excused, signaling a deliberate and prolonged non-appearance that prompted Saul's direct confrontation with Jonathan, ultimately revealing Saul's murderous hatred and ending any hope for peaceful reconciliation with David. Historically, the New Moon feast (Rosh Chodesh) was an important family, social, and religious occasion, often involving feasting and offerings, making David's non-attendance particularly conspicuous and potentially interpreted as a sign of rebellion or disrespect by a king as paranoid as Saul.

1 Samuel 20 27 Word analysis

• It happened the next day, the second day of the month: This phrase emphasizes the progression of time and highlights the deliberate and extended nature of David's absence. The "New Moon" was a significant religious and social festival (Num 10:10; 2 Ki 4:23), celebrated over multiple days, making absence particularly notable and conspicuous, escalating Saul's suspicion from the initial day (v. 26) to definite concern.
• that David's place was empty: The Hebrew word for empty is riq (רֵק), meaning "empty, vacant, hollow." It highlights not just physical absence, but a noticeable void in a position where someone was expected to be. This visibility underscores the public nature of David's planned disappearance and the immediate attention it drew at a formal royal gathering.
• and Saul said to Jonathan his son: Saul directs his question to Jonathan, his natural heir and David's close confidant, underscoring the trust (albeit misplaced) Saul still has in his son's direct knowledge and loyalty, setting the stage for Jonathan's later test of his father.
• "Why has not the son of Jesse come to eat, either yesterday or today?":
  • son of Jesse: This is a contemptuous, derogatory address from Saul. Instead of using David's name, Saul refers to him by his humble lineage from Bethlehem (1 Sam 16:1, 16:11-13). This title serves to diminish David's status, refuse to acknowledge his anointing, and reject any royal claim. It reveals Saul's inner scorn and unwillingness to accept David as anything more than a common shepherd's son, a subtle indication of his hostility.
  • come to eat, either yesterday or today: Saul's explicit mention of both days signifies that David's continued absence has passed the point of mere ritual impurity and now warrants a direct explanation. It points to a deliberate pattern, confirming the growing suspicion in Saul's mind and laying the groundwork for his enraged outburst.

1 Samuel 20 27 Bonus section

• The meticulous detailing of "the second day of the month" reinforces the traditional calendar (lunisolar calendar) and ritual life of ancient Israel, where the new moon was indeed a distinct and recognized time marker and a occasion for assembly.
• The dramatic tension is amplified by the contrast between the familial, celebratory setting of the king's table and the underlying, deadly conspiracy unfolding around it. The king's dinner becomes a stage for espionage and a life-or-death confrontation rather than peaceful fellowship.
• Saul's repeated attempts on David's life, foreshadowed here, highlight a broader biblical theme: those whom God chooses for His purposes often face intense persecution from worldly powers or those who have lost favor.

1 Samuel 20 27 Commentary

1 Samuel 20:27 is a pivotal verse in the escalating drama between Saul and David, succinctly capturing the moment Saul's smoldering jealousy ignites into open hostility. David's pre-arranged absence at the royal table, initially excused as possible ritual impurity (v. 26), becomes unequivocally deliberate after two days, forcing Saul to address it. Saul's choice of "son of Jesse" instead of David's name is highly significant; it’s a dismissive, derogatory label revealing his resentment and attempt to strip David of honor, status, and any legitimacy. This linguistic choice telegraphs Saul's internal rage and unwillingness to acknowledge David as anything more than a low-born upstart. His query to Jonathan, layered with false concern ("Why has he not come to eat?"), functions as a thinly veiled demand for information and a subtle test of Jonathan’s loyalty, setting the stage for the dramatic revelation of Saul’s murderous intent in the subsequent verses. This feast, meant for communal rejoicing and fellowship, becomes the crucible where the destructive nature of Saul’s paranoia and the unwavering fidelity of Jonathan are starkly exposed.