TRV
Translation
King James Version
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?
KJV (with Strong's)
Then Saul's H7586 anger H639 was kindled H2734 against Jonathan H3083, and he said H559 unto him, Thou son H1121 of the perverse H5753 rebellious H4780 woman, do not I know H3045 that thou hast chosen H977 the son H1121 of Jesse H3448 to thine own confusion H1322, and unto the confusion H1322 of thy mother's H517 nakedness H6172?
Complete Jewish Bible
At that Sha'ul flew into a rage at Y'honatan and said, "You crooked rebel! Don't I know that you've made this son of Yishai your best friend? You don't care that you're shaming yourself and dishonoring your mother, do you?
Berean Standard Bible
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the disgrace of the mother who bore you?
American Standard Version
Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of a perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother’s nakedness?
World English Bible Messianic
Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman, don’t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?
Geneva Bible (1599)
Then was Saul angrie with Ionathan, and sayde vnto him, Thou sonne of the wicked rebellious woman, doe not I know, that thou hast chosen the sonne of Ishai to thy confusion, and to the confusion and shame of thy mother?
Young's Literal Translation
And the anger of Saul burneth against Jonathan, and he saith to him, `Son of a perverse rebellious woman! have I not known that thou art fixing on the son of Jesse to thy shame, and to the shame of the nakedness of thy mother?
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
Ambrose of MilanAD 397
On the Duties of the Clergy 3.21.124
For that commendable friendship which maintains virtue is to be preferred most certainly to wealth or honors or power. It is not apt to be preferred to virtue indeed, but to follow after it. So it was with Jonathan, who for his affection’s sake avoided neither his father’s displeasure nor the danger to his own safety.
Ambrose of MilanAD 397
On the Duties of the Clergy 2.7.36
Who would not have loved him [David], when they saw how dear he was to his friends? For as he truly loved his friends, so he thought that he was loved as much in return by his own friends. No, parents put him even before their own children, and children loved him more than their parents. Therefore Saul was very angry and strove to strike Jonathan his son with a spear because he thought that David’s friendship held a higher place in his esteem than either filial piety or a father’s authority.
John ChrysostomAD 407
HOMILIES ON 1 CORINTHIANS 33.2
For love “does nothing unseemly,” but as it were with certain golden wings covers up all the offenses of the beloved. Thus also Jonathan loved David and heard the scorn of his father as one … “who has nothing of a man, but lives to the shame of himself and the mother who bore you.” What then? Did he grieve at these things, and hide his face and turn away from his beloved [David]? No, quite the contrary; he displayed his fondness as an ornament. And yet the one was at that time a king, and a king’s son, even Jonathan; the other a fugitive and a wanderer, David. But not even in this circumstance was he ashamed of his friendship. “For love does not act inappropriately.” This is its remarkable quality that it not only does not suffer the injured to grieve and feel irritated but even disposes him to rejoice. Accordingly, the one of whom we are speaking, after all these things, just as though he had a crown put on him, went away and fell on David’s neck. For love does not know what sort of thing shame is. Therefore it glories in those things for which another hides his face. The shame is in “not knowing how to love” rather than “incurring danger and enduring all for the beloved” when you do love.
BedeAD 735
Commentary on Samuel
But Saul, angry against Jonathan, etc. The elders of the Synagogue, angry against the assembly of spiritual people, call his mother the Church by the name of an adulteress, because she has nobly taken Christ instead of Moses, the bridegroom instead of the friend of the bridegroom, the Lord instead of the servant, to be governed. "Do we not know," they say, "that you love Jesus to your own confusion, and to the confusion of Christian doctrine?" Which is deservedly called disgraceful, because, carrying the sacred law, it gleefully abandons even the most august and widely glorified gathering of the temple, and prefers to gather its congregations in secret places despised. For as long as faith in Jesus is on earth, you will not be stable, nor will your kingdom. So now, send teachers, and even those who believe and confess Jesus Christ as God, let them rather listen to us, follow our teachings, because the assembly serving this name is the son of death. Indeed, these things were said by the perfidious; yet it turned out far otherwise than they complained, because those who, out of love for an earthly kingdom, were persecuting the citizens of heaven wandering on earth, lost both the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom together: both of which they could have had if they preferred not to impiously drive away the one Lord of both by persecuting, but to piously receive by following.
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 20:30 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 20:30 vividly portrays King Saul's explosive and abusive rage directed at his son, Jonathan, during a New Moon feast. This pivotal verse dramatically exposes the depth of Saul's paranoia and consuming jealousy concerning David, whom he perceives as an existential threat to his throne, and tragically underscores the complete deterioration of his relationship with his own son. Saul's public shaming of Jonathan serves as a desperate, tyrannical attempt to sever the profound bond between Jonathan and David and coerce his son into aligning with his murderous intentions against God's anointed.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The passage is replete with Irony, as Saul, the king who should embody honor, stability, and righteous leadership, descends into irrational, abusive, and self-destructive behavior, while Jonathan, the loyal heir, demonstrates true integrity, unwavering loyalty, and spiritual discernment. Saul's furious accusation of "rebellion" against Jonathan is deeply ironic, given Saul's own well-documented history of Rebellion against God's explicit commands, as detailed in 1 Samuel 15. The language employed by Saul is characterized by extreme Hyperbole and vicious Vituperation, utilizing exaggerated and abusive terms ("perverse rebellious," "confusion of thy mother's nakedness") to inflict maximum psychological, emotional, and social damage. The scene also serves as powerful Foreshadowing, signaling the irreparable break between Saul and Jonathan, and ultimately, Saul's tragic downfall and the divine transfer of the kingdom to David. The public setting of the New Moon feast adds a layer of Symbolism, transforming a sacred communal meal into a stage for royal dysfunction, paternal tyranny, and a son's profound public humiliation.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Saul's explosive outburst in 1 Samuel 20:30 serves as a stark and tragic illustration of the devastating consequences when human will defiantly opposes divine sovereignty. Having been definitively rejected by God for his persistent disobedience, Saul's heart has become fertile ground for unchecked envy, paranoia, and unbridled rage. His inability to accept God's sovereign choice of David as the next king leads him to lash out violently at those closest to him, demonstrating how sin, when allowed to fester unchecked, can utterly corrupt even the most fundamental human relationships. Jonathan, in profound contrast, embodies faithfulness, not only to his friend David but, more profoundly, to God's revealed will. His steadfast loyalty highlights the crucial spiritual principle that true allegiance ultimately belongs to God and His anointed, even when it means defying human authority or risking immense personal loss. This passage serves as a powerful and timeless warning against the dangers of allowing bitterness, insecurity, and a lust for power to consume one's soul, leading to destructive actions and words that dishonor both God and humanity.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
This intensely dramatic scene from 1 Samuel 20:30 offers profound and enduring lessons for contemporary life. Saul's unchecked anger, consuming jealousy, and desperate need for control serve as a potent warning against allowing such destructive emotions to fester in our own hearts. When we permit fear, insecurity, or envy to dictate our actions and words, we risk inflicting deep and lasting wounds on those we claim to love, just as Saul did to Jonathan. The passage calls us to a rigorous self-examination of our own responses when our authority is challenged, our desires are thwarted, or our perceived status is threatened. Do we lash out in anger, seeking to shame, control, or dominate others, or do we seek understanding, humility, and reconciliation? Jonathan's steadfast loyalty to David, despite his father's tyrannical wrath and the immense personal danger, models extraordinary courage, integrity, and faithfulness. It challenges us to consider where our ultimate loyalties truly lie—are we committed to God's truth, justice, and His divine purposes, even when it puts us at odds with powerful figures, societal expectations, or deeply ingrained familial traditions? Finally, Saul's verbal abuse serves as a stark reminder of the immense, often devastating, power of words. Our words possess the capacity to build up or tear down, to heal or to wound, to bring life or to inflict lasting scars. This passage compels us to exercise profound self-control and compassion in our speech, recognizing that angry, shaming, and abusive words can leave indelible marks on the souls of others.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why does Saul insult Jonathan's mother so severely?
Answer: Saul's insult against Jonathan's mother ("Thou son of the perverse rebellious [woman]... unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness") is a deliberate, calculated, and deeply malicious act designed to inflict the deepest possible public shame and dishonor upon Jonathan. In ancient Near Eastern culture, one's honor and social standing were inextricably tied to the honor of one's family, especially the mother. By attacking Jonathan's mother, Saul was directly assaulting Jonathan's legitimacy, character, and standing in society. It was a way to delegitimize Jonathan's actions and loyalty to David by implying he inherited his "rebellion" or "perversity" from a morally corrupt or sexually improper mother. This extreme verbal abuse was intended to isolate Jonathan, break his spirit, and force him to abandon David, aligning himself instead with his father's murderous agenda. It reveals the terrifying depth of Saul's desperation and his willingness to use any means, no matter how cruel or dishonorable, to maintain his perceived power and control over the kingdom.
What does "confusion of thy mother's nakedness" literally mean and imply?
Answer: The phrase "confusion of thy mother's nakedness" (Hebrew: בֹּשֶׁת עֶרְוַת אִמֶּךָ, boshet 'ervat 'immekha) is a profoundly offensive and shaming expression. "Confusion" (boshet) signifies shame, disgrace, or public humiliation. "Nakedness" ('ervah) often refers to sexual impropriety, public exposure, or vulnerability in a deeply shameful way. While not necessarily a literal accusation of a specific sexual act by the mother, it implies a public disgrace or dishonor brought upon the mother that is so profound it is akin to her being publicly exposed or shamed in a deeply intimate and vulnerable manner. By extension, this ultimate shame on the mother would bring extreme and irreparable dishonor upon her son, Jonathan. It is a rhetorical device used to strip Jonathan of his honor and standing, suggesting that his association with David brings such an unspeakable disgrace upon his lineage that it is as if his mother's most private parts have been exposed to public scorn. Saul employs this language to inflict maximum psychological and social damage, aiming to utterly humiliate Jonathan before the entire court and compel his submission.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The tragic scene of Saul's rage against Jonathan, driven by his bitter rejection of God's anointed, David, powerfully foreshadows the world's ultimate rejection of God's perfect Anointed One, Jesus Christ. Saul's failed kingship, marked by profound insecurity, consuming jealousy, and a destructive propensity for violence, stands in stark and illuminating contrast to the perfect, righteous, and eternal reign of Christ. While Saul desperately sought to destroy the one God had chosen to succeed him, Jesus, the true Son, perfectly embodied obedience and unwavering loyalty to His Father's will, even unto the ultimate humiliation and death on a cross, as described in Philippians 2:8. Jonathan's steadfast loyalty to David, despite immense familial pressure and grave personal danger, reflects a profound shadow of Christ's own unwavering love for His people and His unyielding commitment to the Father's redemptive plan. The verbal abuse and public shaming directed at Jonathan resonate deeply with the insults, false accusations, and profound humiliation that Jesus endured, being called a "son of Beelzebul" by His accusers (Matthew 10:25) and suffering ultimate public shame on the cross, despising its disgrace for the joy set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). Ultimately, Saul's desperate, violent attempt to secure his earthly kingdom through human power and shame highlights the utter futility of human efforts apart from God, pointing us unequivocally to the eternal, unshakable kingdom established by the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, a kingdom founded not on human power or pride but on divine love, perfect obedience, and redemptive sacrifice.