1 Samuel 20:28

KJV

And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked [leave] of me [to go] to Bethlehem:

KJV (with Strong's)

And Jonathan {H3083} answered {H6030} Saul {H7586}, David {H1732} earnestly {H7592} asked {H7592} leave of me {H5978} to go to Bethlehem {H1035}:

Complete Jewish Bible

Y'honatan answered Sha'ul, "David begged me to let him go to Beit-Lechem.

Berean Standard Bible

Jonathan answered, “David urgently requested my permission to go to Bethlehem,

American Standard Version

And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Beth-lehem:

Commentary

### SUMMARY
1 Samuel 20:28 captures a critical moment of deception rooted in profound loyalty, as Jonathan fabricates an excuse for David's absence from the new moon feast. This strategic falsehood, offered to his volatile father King Saul, serves to protect David from Saul's escalating murderous intent, simultaneously highlighting the unwavering bond between Jonathan and David and the perilous circumstances surrounding David's life.

### CONTEXT
* **Literary Context:** This verse is situated at the climax of a deeply strained and dangerous period in David's life, following King Saul's repeated attempts to kill him, fueled by intense jealousy and paranoia (e.g., [1 Samuel 18:11](/1-samuel/18-11 "Saul's Attempts on David's Life")). David, now fully aware of Saul's murderous intentions, has fled. Jonathan, Saul's son and David's closest friend, has entered into a solemn covenant with David, pledging to protect him and keep him informed of Saul's plans (e.g., [1 Samuel 18:3](/1-samuel/18-3 "Jonathan and David's Initial Covenant")). The new moon feast, a significant religious and social gathering, provides the perfect setting for Saul to expose his true feelings about David's absence, making Jonathan's fabricated explanation a pivotal act of intervention. The immediate verses following this one ([1 Samuel 20:30-34](/1-samuel/20-30-34 "Saul's Violent Outburst Against Jonathan")) vividly depict Saul's furious reaction, confirming the wisdom of Jonathan's protective deception.

* **Historical & Cultural Context:** The new moon festival (Rosh Chodesh) was an important monthly religious observance in ancient Israel, marked by special sacrifices and communal meals (e.g., [Numbers 28:11-15](/numbers/28-11-15 "New Moon Offerings")). It was customary for prominent figures, especially those within the royal court, to attend. David's absence would therefore be conspicuous and require an explanation. The cultural context also includes the strong emphasis on filial loyalty to a king and father, making Jonathan's decision to deceive Saul a profound act of defiance and a testament to his higher loyalty to David and, implicitly, to God's chosen king. Bethlehem, David's hometown, was a plausible destination for a family gathering or sacrifice, making Jonathan's lie believable within the cultural framework.

* **Key Themes:** The passage powerfully underscores several key themes. Firstly, it highlights **Jonathan's unwavering loyalty and self-sacrificial friendship**, demonstrating a bond that transcends political ambition, familial duty, and personal risk. His actions here are a testament to his covenant with David (as seen in [1 Samuel 20:42](/1-samuel/20-42 "Jonathan and David's Enduring Covenant")). Secondly, it vividly portrays **Saul's escalating paranoia and tyrannical rule**, revealing the extent to which his jealousy had consumed him, making him a danger to his own family and the kingdom. Thirdly, the narrative emphasizes **David's precarious situation and God's providential protection**. Despite being hunted and in constant peril, David is consistently protected by divine intervention, often through human agents like Jonathan, foreshadowing his eventual ascension to the throne.

### EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

#### Key Word Analysis
* **earnestly asked leave (Hebrew, _nish'al nish'al'_):** This phrase employs a Hebrew infinitive absolute construction, where the verb "to ask" (שאל, _sha'al_) is repeated. This grammatical form serves to intensify the verb's meaning, emphasizing the urgency, persistence, or earnestness of David's request. Jonathan's use of this strong phrasing is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to make his fabricated excuse more convincing to Saul, implying that David's need to go to Bethlehem was not casual but compelling and unavoidable.

#### Verse Breakdown
* **"And Jonathan answered Saul,"**: This sets the scene, indicating Jonathan's direct response to Saul's inquiry about David's absence. It highlights Jonathan's courage in facing his volatile father and his commitment to protecting David, even at personal risk.
* **"David earnestly asked [leave] of me"**: This is the core of Jonathan's fabricated excuse. By stating that David *personally* and *urgently* requested permission from *him*, Jonathan takes responsibility for David's absence, making the story more credible and deflecting Saul's immediate suspicion from David's true whereabouts. The "earnestly asked" (as analyzed above) adds a layer of urgency and legitimacy to the feigned request.
* **"[to go] to Bethlehem:"**: Specifying Bethlehem, David's hometown, provides a plausible and culturally understandable reason for David's absence. It suggests a family obligation or a participation in a local sacrifice, making the excuse difficult for Saul to immediately refute without further investigation, buying David crucial time.

#### Literary Devices
The verse employs several significant literary devices. **Irony** is prominent, as Jonathan, the king's son, lies to his own father to protect the man destined to replace him. This act of deception, though morally complex, is presented as a righteous one, serving a higher purpose of protecting God's anointed and upholding a sacred covenant. There is also an element of **foreshadowing**, as Jonathan's courageous and self-sacrificial act hints at the severe consequences he will face from Saul in the subsequent verses, ultimately leading to Saul's attempt on Jonathan's life. Furthermore, the narrative uses **contrast** to highlight the stark difference between Jonathan's selfless loyalty and Saul's consuming, paranoid self-interest, underscoring the moral decay of Saul's kingship against the backdrop of Jonathan's noble character.

### THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This verse, though brief, is rich with theological implications. It speaks to the profound nature of covenantal loyalty and friendship, even in the face of immense personal danger and conflicting loyalties. Jonathan's actions, while involving deception, are presented within the broader narrative as an act of righteousness, prioritizing the life of God's anointed and the sacred bond he shared with David over blind obedience to a tyrannical and unrighteous king. It implicitly raises questions about the limits of human authority and the moral imperative to protect the vulnerable. Theologically, it underscores God's providential care for David, using human agents like Jonathan to preserve him for his divine calling, even amidst the machinations of a jealous ruler.

* [Proverbs 17:17](/proverbs/17-17 "A friend loves at all times")
* [John 15:13](/john/15-13 "Greater love has no one than this")
* [Romans 13:1](/romans/13-1 "Submission to Governing Authorities")

### REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
1 Samuel 20:28 challenges us to consider the depth and cost of true loyalty, particularly when it conflicts with other duties or societal expectations. Jonathan's willingness to risk his own life and standing to protect David, even by means of a lie, forces us to grapple with complex ethical dilemmas where a higher moral good might necessitate difficult choices. It prompts us to examine our own friendships: are we willing to stand by those we love, especially when they are vulnerable or persecuted, even if it means personal discomfort or sacrifice? The narrative also serves as a stark reminder of the destructive power of jealousy and unchecked anger, as seen in Saul, and the importance of discerning when to distance ourselves from toxic relationships or situations that threaten our well-being or the well-being of others. Ultimately, it encourages us to cultivate relationships built on genuine covenantal love and integrity, reflecting God's own faithfulness.

#### Questions for Reflection
* **What does Jonathan's loyalty to David, even to the point of deception, teach us about the nature of true friendship and covenant?**
* **How do we navigate situations where our loyalty to one person or principle conflicts with another, such as family duty versus protecting the innocent?**
* **In what ways might we be called to "protect the vulnerable" in our own lives, and what personal costs might that entail?**

### FAQ

**Why did Jonathan lie to his father, King Saul, in this verse?**

Answer: Jonathan lied to his father, King Saul, to protect David from Saul's murderous intentions. Saul had become consumed by jealousy and paranoia, repeatedly attempting to kill David. Jonathan, aware of his father's volatile state and David's extreme peril, had made a solemn covenant with David to protect him. David's absence from the new moon feast would undoubtedly provoke Saul's wrath and reveal David's location. Jonathan's fabricated story about David earnestly asking leave to go to Bethlehem was a desperate but necessary measure to deflect Saul's suspicion, buy David time, and ultimately save his life. Jonathan understood that telling the truth would have directly endangered David, and given Saul's irrationality (as seen in [1 Samuel 20:30-31](/1-samuel/20-30-31 "Saul's Rage Against Jonathan") where Saul violently lashes out at Jonathan for even suggesting David's innocence), a direct confrontation or truthful explanation would have been futile and dangerous for both David and Jonathan himself.

### CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Jonathan's self-sacrificial loyalty in 1 Samuel 20:28, where he risks his own life and standing to protect David, powerfully foreshadows the ultimate act of friendship and love demonstrated by Jesus Christ. Just as Jonathan interceded for David and even bore the wrath of his own father for David's sake, Christ, the true Son, willingly bore the wrath of God the Father on our behalf (as described in [Romans 5:8](/romans/5-8 "God Demonstrates His Own Love")). Jonathan's lie, while morally complex, was an act of love to preserve the life of God's anointed king; Christ, however, is the truth (as stated in [John 14:6](/john/14-6 "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life")), whose perfect obedience and sacrifice truly delivers us from death and the tyranny of sin. Jonathan's bond with David, described as "love as his own soul" ([1 Samuel 18:1](/1-samuel/18-1 "Jonathan's Love for David")), pales in comparison to the divine love of Christ, who laid down His life for His friends (as Jesus Himself declared in [John 15:13](/john/15-13 "Greater Love")). Furthermore, David, as the hunted and unjustly persecuted future king, serves as a type of Christ, who was also rejected by His own people and pursued by earthly powers, yet ultimately preserved by God's providence to establish His eternal kingdom (as seen in [Acts 2:23-24](/acts/2-23-24 "God's Plan for Jesus' Death and Resurrection")).

Note: Commentary is generated by AI with a directive for Biblical fidelity. Always rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. The Scripture text and cross-references are from verified, non-AI sources.

Cross-References

1 Samuel 20:6

If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked [leave] of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for [there is] a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.