1 Samuel 20:29

KJV

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.

KJV (with Strong's)

And he said {H559}, Let me go {H7971}, I pray thee; for our family {H4940} hath a sacrifice {H2077} in the city {H5892}; and my brother {H251}, he hath commanded {H6680} me to be there: and now, if I have found {H4672} favour {H2580} in thine eyes {H5869}, let me get away {H4422}, I pray thee, and see {H7200} my brethren {H251}. Therefore he cometh {H935} not unto the king's {H4428} table {H7979}.

Complete Jewish Bible

He said, 'Please let me go, because our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother demanded that I come. So now, if you look on me favorably, please let me get away and see my brothers.' That's why he hasn't come to the king's table."

Berean Standard Bible

saying, ‘Please let me go, because our clan is holding a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has told me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, please let me go and see my brothers.’ That is why he did not come to the king’s table.”

American Standard Version

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 favor in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he is not come unto the king’s table.

Commentary

### SUMMARY
1 Samuel 20:29 captures Jonathan's strategic explanation to King Saul for David's absence from the new moon feast. This pivotal verse serves as the pre-arranged alibi—a supposed urgent family sacrifice in Bethlehem, commanded by David's brother—designed to test Saul's true intentions toward David. It masterfully highlights the intricate interplay of loyalty, deception, and escalating danger that defines David's relationship with Saul, setting the stage for Saul's violent outburst and the confirmation of his murderous designs against God's anointed.

### CONTEXT
* **Literary Context:** This verse is deeply embedded within the dramatic narrative of David and Jonathan's profound covenant friendship and their desperate attempt to discern the extent of King Saul's murderous intent toward David. Following Saul's repeated, unprovoked attempts on David's life and David's subsequent flight, Jonathan devises a perilous plan outlined in [1 Samuel 20:5-8](/1_samuel/20-5-8 "1 Samuel 20:5-8 - David and Jonathan's Secret Plan"). David is to conceal himself while Jonathan observes Saul's reaction to his conspicuous absence from the royal new moon feast. Jonathan's words in [1 Samuel 20:29](/1_samuel/20-29 "1 Samuel 20:29 - Jonathan's Strategic Excuse for David") represent the precise execution of this plan, meticulously crafted to provoke a clear and undeniable response from Saul. The immediate subsequent verses, [1 Samuel 20:30-34](/1_samuel/20-30-34 "1 Samuel 20:30-34 - Saul's Violent Rage Against Jonathan"), vividly portray Saul's furious and violent reaction, confirming the very danger David sought to escape. This tense exchange marks the climax of their test, irrevocably leading to David's permanent flight from Saul's court.

* **Historical & Cultural Context:** The "new moon feast" (Hebrew: _rosh chodesh_) was a significant religious and social occasion in ancient Israel, observed at the beginning of each lunar month (cf. [Numbers 28:11-15](/numbers/28-11-15 "Numbers 28:11-15 - New Moon Offerings and Rituals")). It was a time for communal worship, special sacrifices, and often a royal banquet, making David's absence from such a prominent gathering highly noticeable and requiring a compelling explanation. The "family sacrifice" (Hebrew: _zevach mishpachah_) refers to a private, annual communal offering and meal held by a specific family or clan, typically in their hometown (in David's case, Bethlehem). Such an obligation was considered legitimate and binding within Israelite society, providing a culturally plausible and religiously sanctioned reason for David's temporary departure from courtly duties. The detail about David's "brother" commanding his presence further emphasizes the familial authority and obligation, lending additional credibility to the fabricated excuse in a society where family ties and patriarchal authority were paramount.

* **Key Themes:** The passage powerfully underscores the theme of **unwavering loyalty and sacrificial friendship**. Jonathan, despite being King Saul's son and heir apparent, prioritizes his covenant with David over his filial duty to his increasingly erratic and malevolent father, even risking his own life (as dramatically shown in [1 Samuel 20:33](/1_samuel/20-33 "1 Samuel 20:33 - Saul Attempts to Kill Jonathan")). Another prominent theme is the **desperate use of deception for protection**. In a life-or-death situation, Jonathan employs a strategic untruth to shield David from Saul's escalating paranoia and murderous intent. This highlights the moral complexities faced by individuals under tyrannical rule, where conventional ethics may be challenged by the dire need to preserve innocent life. Finally, the verse, through Saul's explosive reaction to it, serves to **reveal Saul's true, unredeemable character**. His inability to tolerate David's popularity and God's favor, coupled with his violent outbursts, confirms his rejection by God and his unsuitability for kingship, contrasting sharply with David's anointing as the future king (cf. [1 Samuel 16:1-13](/1_samuel/16-1-13 "1 Samuel 16:1-13 - Samuel Anoints David")).

### EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

#### Key Word Analysis
* **Sacrifice (Hebrew, _zebach'_):** From H2077, this term refers to a slaughter, specifically the flesh of an animal, and by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act). In this context, it denotes a communal peace offering, often followed by a shared meal, which was a significant religious and social event binding families and clans together. The mention of a "family sacrifice" (זֶבַח מִשְׁפָּחָה, _zevach mishpachah_) suggests an annual, traditional gathering unique to David's clan in Bethlehem. By using this specific type of offering, Jonathan presents an excuse that is not only religiously legitimate but also deeply rooted in familial obligation, making David's absence appear both necessary and respectful of cultural norms.
* **Commanded (Hebrew, _tsâvâh'_):** From H6680, this primitive root means "to constitute, enjoin; appoint, (for-) bid, (give a) charge, (give in, send with) command(-er, -ment), send a messenger, put, (set) in order." When Jonathan states that David's "brother, he hath commanded me [to be there]," it implies a strong, authoritative directive. This is not a mere invitation but an instruction that carries significant weight and obligation within the family structure. It elevates the importance of David's supposed presence at the sacrifice, making it difficult for Saul to dismiss without appearing to disrespect sacred familial duties. This detail adds a layer of credibility and urgency to the fabricated excuse.
* **Favour (Hebrew, _chên'_):** From H2580, this word signifies graciousness, kindness, or goodwill, and can also refer to beauty or pleasantness. The phrase "if I have found favour in thine eyes" (אִם־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, _im-matzati chên b'eyneykha_) is a common deferential request in biblical Hebrew, meaning "if I have found grace/goodwill in your sight." Jonathan uses this polite, submissive language to couch David's request for permission to leave. It is an appeal to Saul's benevolence, attempting to elicit a positive response by framing the request as a humble plea for the king's gracious allowance rather than a demand. This polite phrasing ironically precedes Saul's explosive display of disfavor.

#### Verse Breakdown
* **"And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city;":** Jonathan initiates the deception by presenting David's supposed request for leave. The "city" refers to Bethlehem, David's ancestral home, where his family resided. The "sacrifice" is the annual family ritual, a plausible and culturally significant reason for absence. This opening clause establishes the premise of David's legitimate, unavoidable obligation.
* **"and my brother, he hath commanded me [to be there]:":** This clause significantly strengthens the excuse by introducing a layer of familial authority. The "brother" (likely a senior family member or clan head, not necessarily a literal sibling of David) has "commanded" David's presence, implying a non-negotiable obligation. This detail is meticulously designed to make the excuse more compelling and less easily dismissed by the king, emphasizing the binding nature of the familial duty.
* **"and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren.":** This is the formal request for permission, carefully framed in deferential language. David (through Jonathan) seeks Saul's "favour" or grace to be allowed to depart. The phrase "see my brethren" reinforces the familial nature of the obligation, emphasizing the desire to be with his kin for this important, traditional event, thereby making the request seem personal and sincere.
* **"Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table.":** This concluding statement directly addresses David's absence from the royal feast, providing the pre-arranged explanation. It explicitly links David's non-attendance to the "family sacrifice," making the excuse clear, concise, and seemingly unassailable. This is the crucial information Jonathan delivers to observe Saul's reaction and confirm his murderous intentions.

#### Literary Devices
The passage employs several potent literary devices that amplify its dramatic impact. **Irony** is prominently featured, as Jonathan delivers a meticulously crafted lie—a "truthful" lie, given David's actual absence and the underlying danger—in a desperate attempt to uncover the truth of Saul's murderous intentions. The polite, deferential language used by Jonathan ("if I have found favour in thine eyes") stands in stark **contrast** to the violent, ungracious response it immediately elicits from Saul, highlighting the king's deep-seated rage and irrationality. Furthermore, the very act of presenting this excuse serves as a powerful form of **foreshadowing**, as Saul's subsequent furious outburst (described in [1 Samuel 20:30-34](/1_samuel/20-30-34 "1 Samuel 20:30-34 - Saul's Attempt to Kill Jonathan")) confirms David's gravest fears and necessitates his permanent flight, thus propelling the narrative toward its tragic resolution of Saul's downfall and David's eventual rise. The **dialogue** itself is a masterfully constructed device, designed to be plausible and to elicit a definitive reaction, serving as the dramatic pivot point of the chapter.

### THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
This verse, though seemingly a simple explanation, is rich with profound theological implications. It showcases the extraordinary depth of covenantal friendship, reflecting a bond that transcends familial and political loyalties, echoing the divine faithfulness that undergirds God's covenants with His people. Jonathan's willingness to risk everything for David, even deceiving his own father, raises complex ethical questions about truth-telling in the face of tyranny and mortal danger. While the Bible generally upholds truthfulness, this narrative illustrates the desperate measures taken by those seeking to protect innocent life from an unrighteous authority. Ultimately, the passage subtly points to God's providential hand, orchestrating events even through imperfect human actions, to protect His anointed one and fulfill His sovereign plan for the kingdom of Israel, demonstrating that His purposes will prevail despite human opposition.

* [1 Samuel 18:1-4](/1_samuel/18-1-4 "1 Samuel 18:1-4 - The Soul of Jonathan Knit with David")
* [Proverbs 17:17](/proverbs/17-17 "Proverbs 17:17 - A Friend Loves at All Times")
* [Psalm 18:1-3](/psalms/18-1-3 "Psalm 18:1-3 - David's Song of Deliverance")

### REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
1 Samuel 20:29 invites us to reflect deeply on the nature of true friendship and the agonizing choices individuals sometimes face when confronted with injustice and oppression. Jonathan's unwavering loyalty to David, even at immense personal cost and risk to his own life, serves as a powerful and enduring example of self-sacrificing love and commitment. In our own lives, we are called to cultivate friendships that are marked by faithfulness, unwavering support, and a courageous willingness to stand with others, especially in times of profound trial and adversity. This passage also prompts us to consider the profound complexities of navigating relationships with those in authority who may be consumed by jealousy, malice, or irrationality. While deception is not generally condoned by biblical principles, the extreme circumstances faced by David and Jonathan highlight the desperate measures sometimes taken to preserve innocent life when all righteous avenues are closed. It encourages us to pray for divine wisdom and discernment when confronting ethical dilemmas, trusting that God's sovereign providence can work through even the most challenging and morally ambiguous situations to achieve His ultimate purposes. Ultimately, it reminds us that genuine love and loyalty, even in the face of grave danger, are virtues that profoundly reflect God's own faithful and compassionate character.

#### Questions for Reflection
* **How does Jonathan's extraordinary loyalty to David challenge or affirm your understanding of true friendship and its boundaries?**
* **In what specific ways might we be called to stand by friends or loved ones who are facing unjust persecution or danger, even if it involves personal risk or difficult ethical choices?**
* **What complex ethical considerations arise when the principle of truth-telling conflicts directly with the urgent need to protect innocent life, as vividly illustrated in this passage?**
* **How does King Saul's explosive reaction to Jonathan's carefully crafted excuse reveal the destructive and self-defeating power of unchecked jealousy, paranoia, and a refusal to acknowledge God's sovereign will in leadership?**

### FAQ

**Was it right for Jonathan to lie to his father, King Saul, in this situation?**

Answer: This question presents a complex ethical dilemma that has been debated by theologians for centuries. While the Bible consistently upholds truthfulness as a divine virtue and a cornerstone of righteous living (e.g., [Exodus 20:16](/exodus/20-16 "Exodus 20:16 - The Ninth Commandment") and [Proverbs 12:22](/proverbs/12-22 "Proverbs 12:22 - Lying Lips Are Abominable to the Lord")), this passage illustrates a situation of extreme duress where a lie is employed to protect an innocent life from an unrighteous, murderous authority. Jonathan's primary motivation was not self-gain, malice, or personal convenience, but the preservation of David, God's anointed, from Saul's irrational and homicidal rage. Some theological perspectives argue for a "hierarchy of ethics," suggesting that in dire circumstances, protecting innocent life takes moral precedence over strict adherence to truth-telling. Others maintain that a lie is always a sin, but acknowledge that God can still work through imperfect human actions and even bring about His purposes despite them. Regardless of one's specific ethical framework, the narrative clearly portrays Jonathan as a hero whose actions, though ethically fraught, are driven by a deep love and covenant loyalty that God ultimately honors and uses within His sovereign plan.

**What was the significance of the "new moon feast" and the "family sacrifice" in ancient Israel?**

Answer: The "new moon feast" (ראשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, _rosh chodesh_) was a significant monthly religious observance in ancient Israel, marked by special sacrifices, the blowing of trumpets (cf. [Numbers 10:10](/numbers/10-10 "Numbers 10:10 - Trumpets for New Moons")), and often a communal meal. It was a time for national and familial gathering, and for the royal court, it was a prominent occasion where the king and his key officials would be present. David's absence from such a visible event would be immediately noticed and require a compelling explanation. The "family sacrifice" (זֶבַח מִשְׁפָּחָה, _zevach mishpachah_) was a private, annual communal offering and feast held by a specific family or clan, typically in their hometown. These events were deeply ingrained in Israelite culture, representing both religious devotion and strong familial bonds and obligations. Jonathan's use of this specific excuse was strategically chosen because it was a legitimate, compelling, and culturally respected reason for David to be absent from his duties at court, making the fabricated story believable and difficult for Saul to dismiss without appearing to disrespect sacred traditions.

### CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
1 Samuel 20:29, while detailing a moment of human deception and desperate loyalty, ultimately points forward to the greater King and the ultimate act of self-sacrificial friendship. Jonathan's unwavering commitment to David, the anointed king-in-waiting who was unjustly pursued, powerfully foreshadows the perfect loyalty of Christ to His Father's will and His unparalleled, self-giving love for His people. Just as David was persecuted and sought refuge from a jealous king, Jesus, the true Son of David, was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, rejected by His own people, and relentlessly pursued by those in power (cf. [Isaiah 53:3](/isaiah/53-3 "Isaiah 53:3 - The Suffering Servant")). Jonathan's willingness to risk his very life for David's safety finds its ultimate and perfect fulfillment in Jesus, who, though utterly innocent, voluntarily laid down His life for His friends (cf. [John 15:13](/john/15-13 "John 15:13 - Greater Love Has No One Than This")) and for His enemies (cf. [Romans 5:8](/romans/5-8 "God Demonstrates His Own Love")). The "sacrifice" mentioned in the verse, a temporary, earthly offering for a specific family, pales in comparison to the once-for-all, perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which truly takes away the sin of the world and establishes a new and eternal covenant of peace (cf. [Hebrews 9:26](/hebrews/9-26 "Hebrews 9:26 - Christ's Sacrifice Once for All") and [Hebrews 10:10](/hebrews/10-10 "Hebrews 10:10 - Sanctified Through Christ's Offering")). Thus, Jonathan's loyalty, David's persecution, and the very concept of a life-saving "excuse" all echo the grand divine narrative of redemption, where Christ's perfect obedience and ultimate sacrifice provide the only true and eternal "way out" from the judgment we deserve, securing everlasting favor and reconciliation with God for all who believe in Him.

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 17:28

And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle.