1 Samuel 20:24 - Meaning and Application

Jonathan is now fully convinced of what he had been unwilling to believe, that his father had a settled hatred for David and would surely kill him if he could. Jonathan almost paid for that conviction with his own life. David was missed at the feast on the first day, but no one said anything about it. The king sat in his place to eat the peace offering, as he did at other times (1 Samuel 20:25), while his heart was still full of envy and hatred toward David. He should have been reconciled to David first, and then come to offer his gift. Instead, he meant to use the feast as a chance to spill David’s blood. What a terrible thing a sacrifice becomes when it is offered with such a wicked heart (Proverbs 21:27).

When the king came to his seat, Jonathan rose in respect, both as a son and as his ruler. Everyone knew his place, but David’s seat was empty. This was not normal, for David was always glad to attend holy duties. He stayed away only because going would have put his life in danger, and self-protection required him to withdraw. When danger is immediate, it is right to step back from some opportunities, and we should not rush ourselves into harm’s way. Even Christ often withdrew until the proper time came.

That day Saul did not say anything about David’s absence, but thought to himself, “He must be ceremonially unclean” (1 Samuel 20:26). In other words, some ritual impurity had happened to him, and that would keep him from eating holy food until he washed his clothes and body and waited until evening. Saul knew how carefully David kept the law, and he assumed David would rather stay away than come while unclean. Praise God, no uncleanness now keeps us from coming to him, except what faith and repentance can wash away in the fountain opened for cleansing (Psalm 26:6).

On the second day, Saul asked Jonathan, whom he knew was his close confidant, “Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal?” (1 Samuel 20:27). He speaks of David in contempt, calling him “the son of Jesse” instead of his own son-in-law. He seems to ask as though he cared about David’s absence from a religious feast. This should teach heads of families to make sure those under their care do not miss worship, whether in public or in the family. It is a serious matter to skip a set time of worship without necessity. Thomas missed seeing Christ because he was absent when the disciples met.

But Saul’s real anger was this, he had missed the chance he hoped for to harm David. Jonathan answered by giving a fair excuse for David’s absence (1 Samuel 20:28, 1 Samuel 20:29). He said David was away for a good reason, keeping the feast somewhere else after being invited by his older brother, who was now treating him more respectfully than before (1 Samuel 17:28). David had gone to visit his relatives and show proper love to his family, and no master would refuse a servant leave for that when the time was right. Jonathan also said that David had not gone without permission, but had asked leave from Jonathan and received it, since Jonathan was the proper person to appeal to as his superior officer. In this way, Jonathan showed that David had done nothing against respect or duty to the government.

Saul then erupted in a furious rage, like a lion angry that its prey has escaped. David was out of his reach, so Saul turned on Jonathan for David’s sake (1 Samuel 20:30, 1 Samuel 20:31). He used filthy and shameful language, unworthy of a gentleman or a prince, especially toward his own son, his heir, and one who had faithfully served him. He did this in front of many people, at a feast, when everyone should have been at peace, and at a sacred feast, which should have quieted wild passions. In effect, he called Jonathan three terrible things.

First, he treated him as if he were illegitimate, saying, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman.” This is the kind of crude language used by people in the grip of brutal anger. He meant, “You are a shame to your mother.” He was accusing Jonathan of acting so wrongly that people might suspect he was not Saul’s true son, since he loved the man Saul hated and supported the one who, in Saul’s mind, would bring ruin on the family. Second, he called him a traitor. The phrase means, “You rebellious man.” At other times Saul had trusted Jonathan more than any of his commanders or advisers, but anger now made him speak of him as a danger to his throne and life. Third, he called him a fool. He said Jonathan had chosen the son of Jesse as his friend to his own ruin, because David would keep Jonathan from ever being established in the kingdom.

Jonathan had in fact acted wisely for himself and his family by aligning himself with David, whom God had chosen for the throne. Yet for this, Saul labeled him unwise. It is always good to side with God’s people and walk with those who have God with them. In the end, that will prove to be our advantage, even if people now think less of us for it and see it as a loss to our worldly interests. Saul likely knew that David had been anointed king by the same hand that had anointed him. If so, then Jonathan was not the fool, Saul was, for trying to fight against God’s plan. Still Saul would not stop. He wanted David to die, and he wanted Jonathan to help bring him to execution. Saul’s rage stands as a warning to us. We should never give room to anything like it in ourselves. Anger is a kind of madness, and whoever hates his brother is a murderer.

Jonathan was deeply hurt and thrown into disorder by his father’s cruel rage, especially because he had hoped for better things (1 Samuel 20:2). He was troubled for his father, who had become so brutal. He was troubled for his friend, who was a friend of God and was being so shamefully treated. He grieved for David (1 Samuel 20:34), and he was hurt for himself too, because his father had put him to shame, and though the shame was unjust, he still had to bear it. It is moving to see how Jonathan was placed in danger on both sides. He was in danger of sin, because it took great effort for this wise and good man to keep his temper under such provocation. He did not answer his father’s insults against himself, and that was right. Inferiors should bear contempt with quietness and patience when it comes from anger. But he could not stay silent when Saul sentenced David to die. Then he answered with some heat, “Why should he be killed? What has he done?” (1 Samuel 20:32). Generous people can usually bear insults against themselves more easily than insults against their friends.

Jonathan was also in danger of death. Saul had become so wild that he threw a spear at Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:33). Saul had seemed so concerned that Jonathan would be established in the kingdom (1 Samuel 20:31), yet now he tried to kill him himself.

What fools anger can make people, and how it can turn them into something worse than wild beasts. That is why anger needs to be held back and controlled. Jonathan was now fully convinced that evil had been planned against David, and this deeply upset him. He got up from the table, feeling that it was no time to stay and eat after such a threat to David’s life.

He would not eat any food, because people were not to eat holy food while mourning. We can suppose that the whole group was disturbed, and the joy of the feast was ruined. “A cruel person harms himself” (Proverbs 11:17).