◄ Why did Jonathan lie to Saul? ►
Why did Jonathan lie to Saul about David's absence in 1 Samuel 20:28?

Historical Setting

The conversation in 1 Samuel 20 takes place during the New Moon festival in Gibeah, early in the second half of the 11th century BC, only a few years after Saul’s coronation (cf. 1 Samuel 13:1). New Moon gatherings were God-ordained covenant meals (Numbers 10:10; 28:11–15), requiring the presence of Israel’s leadership. David, already anointed by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13) and victorious over Goliath (1 Samuel 17), is now the object of Saul’s jealousy (1 Samuel 18:8–12; 19:1). Jonathan—Saul’s heir apparent—has entered a sworn covenant with David before the LORD (1 Samuel 18:3; 20:16–17).

The Immediate Narrative Flow

1. David warns Jonathan that Saul seeks to kill him (1 Samuel 20:1).

2. Jonathan devises a two-day test: David will be absent from the feast; Saul’s reaction will reveal his intent (vv. 5–7).

3. Jonathan will relay Saul’s disposition by pre-arranged signals (vv. 18–23).

4. On the second day Saul explodes in murderous rage (vv. 30–33).

5. Jonathan, now certain of the threat, rushes to protect David (vv. 35–42).

At the feast, Saul asks, “Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?” (v. 27). Jonathan replies, “David urgently requested my permission to go to Bethlehem. He said, ‘Please let me go, for we are holding a family sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there…’ ” (vv. 28–29). The statement is not factually accurate; David is hiding in the countryside (v. 24).

Jonathan’S Motives

1. Covenant Loyalty

• Jonathan had “made a covenant with David, for he loved him as himself” (1 Samuel 18:3).

• Covenant faithfulness (hesed) demanded protecting David’s life, even against Jonathan’s own royal prospects (20:13, 17).

2. Preservation of Innocent Life

• Saul had already flung a spear at David twice (18:11; 19:10). Proverbs 24:11 commands, “Rescue those being led away to death.” Jonathan’s action aligns with that higher moral imperative.

3. Submission to Divine Choice

• Jonathan recognized that “the LORD would cut off every one of David’s enemies” (20:15) and that David, not Saul, was God’s chosen king (23:17). Defending David was aligning with God’s revealed will.

4. Testing Saul for Possible Repentance

• The agreed-upon ruse served as a diagnostic, giving Saul opportunity to demonstrate remorse or restraint. Sadly, his violent response confirmed hard-heartedness.

Ethical Evaluation Of Jonathan’S Deception

1. Hierarchy of Moral Duties

Scripture condemns lying (Exodus 20:16; Ephesians 4:25) yet records cases where deception preserved covenant promises (Exodus 1:17–21; Joshua 2:4–6; 2 Kings 6:19). In each instance, the lie protected innocent lives in a context of violent hostility. Jonathan’s scenario parallels those wartime-like circumstances.

2. War-Time Context

Saul is waging personal war against God’s anointed. Protective subterfuge is a recognized element of just defense (cf. 2 Samuel 17:19–20; 1 Kings 22:30).

3. The “Greater Command” Principle

Jesus affirmed “the weightier matters of the law” (Matthew 23:23). Saving an innocent life is weightier than strict disclosure to a murderous tyrant. Jonathan acts in the spirit of mercy and justice.

4. Not Self-Serving but Other-Serving

Unlike self-protective lies condemned in Acts 5, Jonathan’s word seeks no personal gain and risks his own safety (1 Samuel 20:33).

Theological Implications

1. God’s Providence

Jonathan’s action fits a larger redemptive pattern: preserving the Davidic line leading to Messiah (Matthew 1:1).

2. Foreshadow of Christ’s Mediation

Jonathan stands between an offended king and the future king, absorbing wrath (20:33), prefiguring Christ who mediates for believers (1 Titus 2:5).

3. Demonstration of Covenant Love

Jonathan’s self-sacrificing loyalty illustrates the covenant love God extends to His people, fully displayed in the resurrected Christ (Romans 5:8).

Character Insights

• Jonathan: embodiment of self-denying faith, choosing God’s agenda over dynastic ambition.

• Saul: tragic warning of hardened rebellion, illustrating Proverbs 29:1.

• David: trusting God’s timing, refusing to seize the throne by force (cf. 1 Samuel 24:6).

Archaeological And Cultural Corroboration

• The “new moon” banquet mirrors Ugaritic sacrificial calendars (KTU 1.91) showing early Near-Eastern practice of royal-cultic feasts.

• Gibeah excavation (Tell el-Ful) unearthed Iron I defenses consistent with Saul’s fortress.

• Ketef Hinnom amulets (7th c. BC) containing the priestly blessing (Numbers 6:24–26) verify early textual stability of Torah ethical standards that formed Jonathan’s worldview.

Practical Application For Modern Readers

1. Allegiance to God’s Word may compel costly decisions that conflict with human authority.

2. Protection of innocent life remains a sacred, higher-order duty.

3. Covenant relationships demand truth-telling, yet also discerning strategies that oppose murderous injustice.

4. Jonathan’s example urges believers to prioritize God’s kingdom above personal advancement—echoing Christ’s call to “deny himself” (Luke 9:23).

Conclusion

Jonathan’s answer in 1 Samuel 20:28 is a calculated, covenant-motivated deception employed to protect the innocent, uphold God’s revealed choice of king, and expose Saul’s murderous intent. In the biblical ethic, such an act, grounded in love and self-sacrifice, occupies a unique moral category where preserving life and honoring God’s redemptive plan supersede strict verbal accuracy to an unrepentant aggressor.

What other biblical examples show loyalty similar to Jonathan's in 1 Samuel 20:28?
Top of Page
Top of Page