1 Samuel 20 30

1 Samuel 20:30 kjv

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?

1 Samuel 20:30 nkjv

Then Saul's anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

1 Samuel 20:30 niv

Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?

1 Samuel 20:30 esv

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

1 Samuel 20:30 nlt

Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. "You stupid son of a whore!" he swore at him. "Do you think I don't know that you want him to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?

1 Samuel 20 verses

1 Samuel 20 30 Meaning

This verse records King Saul's explosive wrath directed at his son Jonathan. Fueled by intense jealousy and fear concerning David's rising prominence and Jonathan's deep friendship with him, Saul verbally assaults Jonathan. He labels Jonathan the "son of a perverse, rebellious woman," a deeply demeaning insult intended to shame both Jonathan and his mother by implying their moral degeneracy and insubordination. Saul accuses Jonathan of choosing David—disparagingly referred to as "the son of Jesse"—an act that, in Saul's eyes, brings profound personal dishonor upon Jonathan and familial disgrace upon his mother. This outburst vividly displays Saul's deteriorating mental state and his complete rejection of God's anointing upon David.

1 Samuel 20 30 Context

The setting for this verse is a pivotal moment during the New Moon festival, a significant religious and social event in ancient Israel, where the king, his family, and chief officers were expected to partake in a celebratory feast. David, fearing Saul, was absent from this feast, having prearranged with Jonathan that his absence would be attributed to a family sacrificial ceremony in Bethlehem. This feast was orchestrated by Jonathan as a test to discern his father Saul's true intentions towards David. For the first two days of the feast, Saul did not question David's absence, possibly due to social expectations or initial restraint. However, when Jonathan offered the prepared excuse on the second day, Saul's deeply entrenched jealousy, paranoia, and rage—already fueled by an evil spirit and his rejection by God—exploded. His outburst here is the decisive confirmation of his murderous intent towards David, revealing that his hatred extended even to his own son for supporting the man God had chosen to replace him. This verbal assault is not merely an emotional outburst but a desperate attempt by Saul to assert his diminishing authority and discredit his son for choosing loyalty to God's chosen king over an earthly, corrupt dynasty.

1 Samuel 20 30 Word analysis

• Then Saul's anger was kindled: (וַיִּחַר אַף־שָׁאוּל – wayyihar 'af-sha'ul)
  • `kindled` (חָרָה – charah): Signifies a burning, fiery anger, often intense and destructive. This isn't just annoyance; it's a consuming rage, indicative of Saul's escalating instability and internal turmoil. It highlights a state of extreme agitation and wrath that mirrors the destructive power often associated with divine anger when directed against sin. Saul's anger is unrestrained and overwhelming.
• against Jonathan: (בִּיהוֹנָתָן – biyhonatan)
  • This preposition indicates direct targeting. The focus shifts the object of Saul's fury from the general situation to his own son. It demonstrates a breakdown of family ties and a prioritization of Saul's twisted ambitions over natural affection.
• and he said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!': (וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בֶּן־נַעֲוַת מַרְדּוּת – wayyomer lo ben-na'avat mardut)
  • `son of` (בֶּן – ben): Emphasizes direct lineage and connection to the mother. In ancient Israelite society, one's honor and identity were intrinsically linked to their family and especially their parents. Being called a "son of..." insultingly points back to the parents.
  • `perverse` (נַעֲוָה – na'avah, from עָוָה ‘avah "to bend, to twist, to pervert"): Describes someone morally distorted, crooked, or twisted in character and judgment. It implies a deviation from what is right and upright. It is a severe moral indictment, not merely an intellectual disagreement. Saul projects his own moral perversion and deviation from God's path onto his wife, blaming her for what he sees as Jonathan's treachery.
  • `rebellious` (מַרְדּוּת – mardut): This word signifies a strong act of rebellion, insubordination, or defiance against authority. Saul, who was himself rebellious against God's commands (1 Sam 13:13-14, 15:23), paradoxically labels Jonathan's mother and, by extension, Jonathan as "rebellious." This reveals Saul's self-deception and the depth of his distorted perception, where loyalty to God's anointed is deemed rebellion against himself.
  • Words-group significance: This is a profoundly cutting insult, aimed not just at Jonathan but directly at his mother (presumably Ahinoam, though unnamed here). In a patriarchal society, insulting the mother’s character was a way to utterly demean and disgrace the son. It implies that Jonathan’s character flaws (in Saul's view) are due to his mother's moral defects, and by extension, Jonathan’s perceived 'rebellion' comes from a perverse, disloyal lineage.
• 'Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame': (הֲלוֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־בֹחֵר אַתָּה לְבֶן־יִשַׁי לְבָשְׁתְּךָ – halo' yada'ti ki-bocher attah leven-yishai levoshtekha)
  • `Do I not know?`: A rhetorical question conveying Saul's absolute conviction and scorn, implying the truth is obvious to him.
  • `chosen` (בֹּחֵר – bocher): Jonathan's actions are interpreted by Saul as a deliberate, calculated decision to align with David, not simply friendship. Saul views it as a choice of allegiance that undermines his own reign.
  • `the son of Jesse`: A dismissive, contemptuous way to refer to David, highlighting his humble, non-royal origins. Saul refuses to acknowledge David's divine anointing or inherent worth, seeking to reduce him to his perceived lowly status. This is a deliberate slight, intended to belittle David in contrast to the royal lineage of Saul.
  • `to your own shame` (לְבָשְׁתְּךָ – levoshtekha): Saul asserts that Jonathan's association with David will ultimately result in his own dishonor, ruin, and public disgrace. From Saul's perspective, Jonathan's actions are self-destructive.
• 'and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?': (וּלְעֶרְוַת אִמֶּךָ – ule'ervat 'immekha)
  • `shame of your mother's nakedness` (עֶרְוָה – 'ervah): This is a very strong expression. While 'ervah literally means "nakedness," it often refers metaphorically to disgraceful exposure, moral impurity, or shameful actions that bring discredit. In a broader sense, it can mean the complete exposure of one’s family's dishonor, disgrace, or defilement.
  • Words-group significance: This phrase elevates the insult to its highest degree. Saul is not merely stating that Jonathan's actions bring personal shame, but that they deeply violate and expose the integrity and honor of his mother and the entire family. It implies that the "rebellious" choice of Jonathan is so egregious that it "uncovers" and reveals an underlying disgrace or moral defect in his mother, thus permanently staining the family name. It suggests an act so contemptible it renders one's own mother, the source of one's honor, nakedly exposed to ridicule and contempt. It's a primal, devastating curse aimed at the very foundations of Jonathan's existence and dignity within that society.

1 Samuel 20 30 Bonus section

Saul's accusations highlight a key theological tension: Jonathan's allegiance was not against his father personally, but against his father's rebellion against God. By aligning with David, Jonathan was, in essence, aligning with God's stated will, demonstrating true fidelity beyond familial or political ambition. Saul's language about "shame" and "nakedness" reflects a deep-seated fear of dishonor and a warped sense of honor, which was tied to human perception and power, rather than divine approval. His outburst during the New Moon festival also suggests a desecration of a holy time with unholy wrath. This outburst paves the way for the further descent of Saul and the eventual confirmation of God's covenant with David. Jonathan's response (1 Sam 20:34) demonstrates remarkable restraint and clarity, contrasting his righteousness with Saul's wickedness.

1 Samuel 20 30 Commentary

Saul's tirade against Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:30 is a climactic moment that encapsulates the depth of his depravity and the tragic deterioration of his kingship. His intense, burning anger reveals a mind consumed by paranoia and jealousy, where loyalty to God's chosen successor is perversely viewed as ultimate rebellion. The deeply insulting attack on Jonathan's mother as "perverse" and "rebellious" reflects Saul's own inner rebellion against God's will and his inability to cope with the reality of David's divine anointing. This vicious verbal assault serves as Saul's ultimate attempt to dominate and coerce Jonathan into abandoning his true loyalties. It exposes the destructive nature of unchecked anger and envy, contrasting sharply with the covenantal loyalty displayed by Jonathan to David and to God's plan. Saul's desperate struggle to cling to power blinds him to justice, wisdom, and even familial love, leading him further down a path of self-destruction and moral corruption.