1 Samuel 20 34

1 Samuel 20:34 kjv

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.

1 Samuel 20:34 nkjv

So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully.

1 Samuel 20:34 niv

Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the feast he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father's shameful treatment of David.

1 Samuel 20:34 esv

And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him.

1 Samuel 20:34 nlt

Jonathan left the table in fierce anger and refused to eat on that second day of the festival, for he was crushed by his father's shameful behavior toward David.

1 Samuel 20 verses

1 Samuel 20 34 Meaning

This verse details Jonathan's profound emotional response to his father Saul's unrighteous anger and murderous intent towards David. He arises from the royal feast in fierce indignation and deep sorrow, refusing to eat as a protest and a sign of his acute distress. His grief stems directly from David's public humiliation and the threat against his life by Saul. Jonathan's actions demonstrate his unwavering loyalty to David, his friend and God's anointed, prioritizing this covenant over familial duty to his erring father.

1 Samuel 20 34 Context

Chapter 20 of 1 Samuel narrates the pivotal moment where Jonathan definitively ascertains Saul's malicious intent to kill David. Despite David's anointing as the future king, Saul's deep-seated jealousy and paranoia consume him, turning him against his loyal son Jonathan as well. The setting is a new moon feast, a time for familial gathering and communion, but it becomes a stage for Saul's wrath. After David's strategic absence, Saul demands Jonathan reveal his whereabouts, eventually erupting in a violent tirade (1 Sam 20:30-33). Saul denounces Jonathan, accusing him of shaming himself by befriending David and attempting to kill him with a spear. Jonathan's response in verse 34 follows this direct threat and revelation of Saul's wicked heart. Culturally, dining together signified peace and fellowship; abruptly leaving a royal table, especially during a festival, was a profound act of protest and extreme displeasure.

1 Samuel 20 34 Word analysis

• So Jonathan (וַיָּקָם יוֹנָתָן - vayyāqām yônātān): Jonathan, whose name means "Yahweh has given" or "Gift of God," acts decisively. His action is an immediate physical response to the profound emotional shock and moral indignation caused by his father's words and actions. It signifies a sharp break from the false normalcy of the feast.
• arose from the table (מֵעַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן - mēʿal haššulḥān): A highly significant cultural act. Sitting at a table, especially the king's, symbolized peace, fellowship, and acceptance. To rise and leave abruptly conveyed deep rejection of the present company and situation. It was a public and profound declaration of his anger and distress, breaking communion with his father and the atmosphere of false celebration.
• in fierce anger (בָּחֳרִי אַף - baḥărî ʾap̄): This phrase denotes an intense, boiling, burning anger. ḥărî implies heat or burning, while ʾap̄ literally means "nose" and often signifies "anger" when associated with heat (as anger often causes flushed nostrils). This was not merely annoyance but a righteous indignation, a boiling point reached due to Saul's profound injustice, treachery, and an attempt on David's life, and by extension, Jonathan's own. It distinguishes from Saul's sinful rage.
• and ate no food (וְלֹא־אָכַל לֶחֶם - wəlōʾ-ʾāḵal leḥem): This is an expression of deep grief, mourning, or solemn protest. Refusing food indicates intense emotional turmoil where physical needs are overridden by spiritual or psychological pain. It's a non-verbal act mirroring a deep crisis of the soul.
• the second day of the month (בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי - bəyôm haḥōḏeš haššēnî): The specific mention of "the second day" implies this distress extended beyond the initial incident, solidifying its depth. The New Moon festival typically lasted two days. The humiliation continued and deepened, emphasizing the ongoing agony of the situation.
• for he was grieved (כִּי נֶעְצַב - kî neʿṣaḇ): neʿṣaḇ is a Niphal form of the verb ʿāṣaḇ, meaning "to be pained, grieved, vexed, distressed." It denotes being afflicted by sorrow or suffering. Jonathan was "caused to be grieved" or "made to suffer inwardly." This grief wasn't just anger; it was a deep, aching sadness.
• over David (עַל־דָּוִד - ʿal-dāwīḏ): The clear object of his distress. Jonathan's primary concern and pain were not for his own humiliation (though he suffered it too) but for David's plight and the injustice meted out to him. It highlights his selfless devotion.
• because his father had humiliated him (כִּי־הֹבִישׁוֹ אָבִיו - kî-hōḇîšô ʾāḇîw): Hōḇîšô is a Hiphil (causative) form of bôš, meaning "to cause shame," "to put to shame," or "to dishonor." It indicates a deliberate act of public disgrace. The humiliation referred here is primarily directed at David, but by attempting to kill David and insulting Jonathan for supporting him, Saul also deeply humiliated Jonathan, making him an accessory in the family shame if he were to side with his father. Jonathan’s grief stemmed from David being publicly disgraced by his own father. This phrase succinctly captures the cause of Jonathan’s anguish: not merely that David was insulted, but that his father had been the one to inflict such shame and injustice upon David, who was innocent and anointed by God.

Words-group Analysis

• arose... in fierce anger and ate no food: These actions paint a vivid picture of a deep moral stand. Jonathan's physical acts demonstrate his complete internal break from Saul's agenda and an intense spiritual and emotional agony that overrode physical need. It's an act of lament, protest, and fasting wrapped into one.
• grieved over David, because his father had humiliated him: This group of phrases reveals the profound conflict of loyalties Jonathan faced. His distress stemmed from David's mistreatment, particularly at the hands of his own father, placing a devastating wedge between filial duty and his divinely aligned covenant with David. This underscores Jonathan's moral clarity and the righteousness of his sorrow.

1 Samuel 20 34 Bonus section

• The Conflict of Loyalties: Jonathan's dilemma is profound: loyalty to his king/father versus loyalty to his friend (who is God's anointed successor). His choice reveals a superior spiritual discernment, choosing God's will (as seen in David's anointing) over human lineage or temporary kingship.
• A Prototype of Righteous Indignation: Jonathan's "fierce anger" serves as a biblical example of anger that is not sinful, but rather a righteous response to profound injustice and moral evil. It is devoid of personal offense but filled with concern for another and for God's purposes.
• Disruption of Sacred Space: The New Moon festival was a religious observance, and Saul's violent outburst desecrated this sacred time and space, demonstrating his spiritual decline and complete disregard for holiness. Jonathan's response is a recoil from this desecration.

1 Samuel 20 34 Commentary

1 Samuel 20:34 encapsulates the moral integrity and steadfast loyalty of Jonathan amidst his father Saul's deepening wickedness. Jonathan's sudden departure from the feast in "fierce anger" signifies not uncontrolled rage, but righteous indignation against the egregious injustice Saul was inflicting upon David, God's chosen one, and by extension, attempting to corrupt Jonathan's own conscience. His refusal to eat on the second day underscores the profound, agonizing nature of his grief; it was a physical manifestation of a spiritual crisis. The ultimate source of his sorrow was the public humiliation and death threat leveled against David by Saul. This verse portrays Jonathan as a man who valued truth, covenant, and righteous friendship above personal safety or loyalty to an unrighteous authority figure, even his own father, illuminating his noble character against the backdrop of Saul's escalating depravity.