I Samuel 20:2 · Bible study
1 Samuel 20:2 Commentary: Jonathan's Certainty, Saul's Secret
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does Jonathan insist Saul would never harm David? This study explores loyalty, denial, and the painful testing of covenant friendship at a royal table.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Jonathan cannot believe Saul would hide murderous intent, based on past intimacy and an oath, but David's fear proves well-founded.
- Key words: chalilah (far be it) expresses vehement denial; yigleh et ozni (uncover my ear) is an idiom for full disclosure of secrets.
- Main debate: Was Jonathan naive or deliberately minimizing the danger to comfort David? Most commentators see genuine but misplaced trust.
- Theological theme: The limits of human loyalty and the need for God's truth to break through comfortable denial.
- Best use: Teaching on the complexity of covenant relationships and the painful process of facing hard truths about people we love.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“Far from it!” Jonathan replied. “You will not die. Indeed, my father does nothing, great or small, without telling me. So why would he hide this matter from me? This cannot be true!”
WEB World English Bible 2000
He said to him, “Far from it; you will not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small, but that he discloses it to me. Why would my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.”
KJV King James Version 1769
And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And he said unto him, Far from it; thou shalt not die: behold, my father doeth nothing either great or small, but that he discloseth it unto me; and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And he saith to him, `Far be it! thou dost not die; lo, my father doth not do anything great or small and doth not uncover mine ear; and wherefore doth my father hide from me this thing? this thing is not.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And he said to him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, and not apprise me; and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And he said to him: (God forbid, thou shalt not die: for my father will do nothing, great or little, without first telling me: hath then my father hid this word only from me? no, this shall not be.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y él le dijo: En ninguna manera; no morirás. He aquí que mi padre ninguna cosa hará, grande ni pequeña, que no me la descubra: ¿ por qué pues me encubrirá mi padre este negocio? No será así.
E ele lhe disse: Em nenhuma maneira; não morrerás. Eis que meu pai nenhuma coisa fará, grande nem pequena, que não a revele a mim; por que pois me encobrirá meu pai este negócio? Não será assim.
Jonathan lui répondit: Loin de là! Tu ne mourras point. Mon père ne fait aucune chose, grande ou petite, sans m’ en informer; pourquoi donc mon père me cacherait-il celle-là? Il n’ en est rien.
Er aber sprach zu Ihm: Das sei ferne; du sollst nicht sterben. Siehe, mein Vater tut nichts, weder Großes noch Kleines, das er nicht meinen Ohren offenbare; warum sollte denn mein Vater dies vor mir verbergen? Es wird nicht so sein.
Hij daarentegen zeide tot hem: Dat zij verre, gij zult niet sterven. Zie, mijn vader doet geen grote zaak, en geen kleine zaak, die hij voor mijn oor niet openbaart; waarom zou dan mijn vader deze zaak van mij verbergen? Dat is niet.
Gionathan gli rispose: “Tolga ciò Iddio! tu non morrai; ecco, mio padre non fa cosa alcuna o grande o piccola, senza farmene parte; e perché mi celerebbe egli questa? Non è possibile”.
Który mu odpowiedział: Boże uchowaj! nie umrzesz; oto nie czyni ojciec mój nic wielkiego albo małego, aż mi pierwej oznajmi; azażby taić miał ojciec mój przedemną i tego? Nie uczyni tego.
И сказал ему [Ионафан]: нет, ты не умрешь; вот, отец мой не делает ни большого, ни малого дела, не открыв ушам моим; для чего же бы отцу моему скрывать от меня это дело? этого не будет.
約拿單回答說：「斷然不是！你必不 致死。 我父 做 事，無論大 小，沒有 不 叫 我 知道的。 怎麼 獨有 這 事 隱瞞 我呢？決不 如此。」
And he said to him, Far be the thought: you will not be put to death: see, my father does nothing, great or small, without giving me word of it: would he keep this secret from me? It is not so.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Samuel 20:2
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Jonathan's reply is sincere but mistaken. Clarke and Barnes highlight Jonathan's unwillingness to believe evil of his father, a mark of his admirable character. The Cambridge Bible notes that Jonathan points to Saul's oath in 1 Samuel 19:6 and attributes the recent violent episode to temporary madness, not deliberate intent. Gill observes that Jonathan's confidence in his father's transparency rests on a long pattern of trust: Saul had never hidden any plan, great or small, from his son. Yet Gill also questions how Jonathan could remain unaware of the messengers sent to seize David at Naioth. Matthew Henry sees Jonathan's loyalty to David and his trust in his father as a tragic tension. The consensus holds that Jonathan's words reflect genuine love for both men and a refusal to accept that Saul could harbor settled murderous intent.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Jonathan is completely loyal to David and genuinely believes, at this moment, that Saul would not hide a murder plot from him.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan's knowledge of Saul's recent attacks | Jonathan had not witnessed the events at Naioth directly. | Some (Keil & Delitzsch) suggest he knew of them but attributed them to madness; others (Gill) find it strange he heard nothing; a third view holds the text leaves his knowledge unstated. |
| Jonathan's confidence in Saul's oath (1 Sam 19:6) | Jonathan believed the oath was binding and sincere. | Traditions differ on whether a broken oath by a king invalidates the covenant or simply reveals sin; Wesley emphasizes Jonathan gave credit to the oath, while others note Saul's actions show the oath was already broken in intent. |
| The nature of Saul's hatred: temporary madness vs. settled intent | Saul had previously attacked David in fits of rage. | Jonathan (and some commentators like Cambridge) interpret the Naioth incident as a temporary seizure; David and others see it as evidence of a fixed purpose to kill. |
| Jonathan's character: admirable loyalty or misguided naivety? | Jonathan is a loyal friend and a trusting son. | Barnes and Henry praise his character; Gill implies he was in denial; the pastoral application often highlights both the beauty and the danger of his trust. |
Historical & Cultural Context
This scene takes place after David's narrow escape from Naioth in Ramah, where Saul had fallen into a prophetic trance while pursuing him (1 Samuel 19:18-24). Jonathan occupies a unique position as the king's son and heir, a seasoned warrior who had led Israel to victory (1 Samuel 14), and David's sworn covenant brother (1 Samuel 18:1-4). The custom of a royal son being privy to his father's plans is reflected in the idiom Jonathan uses: "he uncovers my ear" (yigleh et ozni), a phrase also used of God revealing secret matters to a prophet (1 Samuel 9:15). The Hebrew verb גָּלָה (galah) means to uncover or reveal, and the ear is the organ of confidential communication. When Jonathan says Saul does nothing great or small without uncovering his ear, he claims an intimacy that had always been true. The occasion is the new moon festival, a religious feast where the royal family would dine together (1 Samuel 20:5). Saul had sworn an oath by Yahweh in 1 Samuel 19:6 that David would not be killed, and in ancient Near Eastern culture such an oath was considered binding, especially from a king. Jonathan's trust in his father's word and in their established pattern of openness leaves him unable to imagine that Saul could be plotting in secret.
Textual Notes
The Hebrew text shows a Ketiv/Keri variation in the verb for “he does.” The Ketiv (written form) reads עָשָׂה (asah, “has done,” perfect tense), while the Keri (marginal reading) suggests יַעֲשֶׂה (ya’aseh, “does,” imperfect). Keil and Delitzsch prefer the perfect: “my father has (hitherto) done nothing that he did not tell me.” The Masoretic note also indicates לוֹ (lo) may function adverbially with הִנֵּה (hinneh, “behold”). No other significant variants are noted in the supplied sources.
Reception History
Jonathan's vow of friendship and his refusal at first to believe evil have made him a perennial model of covenant loyalty in Christian tradition. Early church writers (Clement of Rome, following the Septuagint) held up Jonathan as one who set aside royal ambition for the sake of God's anointed. Medieval commentators like Hugh of St. Victor saw Jonathan's ignorance as a moral lesson: even good hearts can be deceived. In Protestant circles, Matthew Henry and the Geneva Bible drew parallels between Jonathan's trust in his father and the believer's trust in God, while also warning that human oaths cannot always be relied on. The phrase “far be it” appears throughout Scripture as a protest against moral or spiritual impossibility (Genesis 44:7, Joshua 22:29), and Jonathan's use here has been quoted in sermons on the pain of discovering a loved one's sin.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- Loyalty That Refuses to Believe the Worst, Jonathan's immediate rejection of David's fear shows how deep friendship can cloud judgment when love is strong. Pastors can explore how loyalty, though a virtue, sometimes blinds us to painful truths.
- The Illusion of Family Security, Jonathan bases his certainty on past behavior: "My father tells me everything." The collapse of that trust points to how sin can corrupt even the closest bonds and how oaths can be broken.
- Testing the Covenant, David insists on a test (the new moon meal) to expose Saul's real intent. This moves the story from assumption to evidence. Faith in God's covenant does not forbid prudent discernment.
Five-Point Outline
- David's honest fear: "There is but a step between me and death" (v.3).
- Jonathan's immediate denial: "Far be it!" (chalilah).
- The basis for Jonathan's confidence: a lifetime of shared plans, a royal oath.
- The hidden fault line: Jonathan did not witness what happened at Naioth.
- The agreed test: the new moon dinner will reveal the truth.
Illustration Hooks
- A spouse who refuses to believe a trusted relative is capable of betrayal, because they have always been open in the past.
- A son who cannot accept that his father's anger has become dangerous, remembering only the good years.
- Church members who assume a leader's past promises guarantee future integrity, and must learn that testing is not the same as distrust.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- When should I trust someone's word, and when should I seek corroboration?
- How do I navigate loyalty to two people who are at odds?
- What do I do when a person I love changes and I cannot accept it?
Leading a Discussion
This passage captures a moment of intense personal tension. Jonathan loves his father and he loves David. He cannot conceive that Saul would hide a murder plot, because that would mean everything Jonathan thought he knew about his family is a lie. The group will explore how loyalty, denial, and covenant commitment interact in real relationships.
Discussion Questions
- What does Jonathan's reply reveal about his view of his father? How accurate is that view, based on the earlier chapters?
- David does not accept Jonathan's reassurance. Why does he push for a test? What does that teach us about discernment?
- Read 1 Samuel 20:12-13. How does Jonathan's later willingness to expose the truth show his growth?
- Jonathan uses the phrase "far be it" (chalilah). How does that word function as both an oath and a shield against painful reality?
- Think of a time you trusted someone because of past patterns and were let down. What helped you process that?
- How does this story challenge the idea that love means never questioning a loved one's actions?
- What role does covenant (the bond between Jonathan and David) play in sustaining them through this crisis?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 44:7 | They said to him, “Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing! |
| Joshua 22:29 | “Far be it from us that we should rebel against Yahweh, and turn away today from following Yahweh, to build an altar for burnt offering, for meal offering, or for sacrifice, besides Yahweh our God’s altar that is before his tabernacle!” |
| Joshua 24:16 | The people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake Yahweh, to serve other gods; |
| I Samuel 9:15 | Now Yahweh had revealed to Samuel a day before Saul came, saying, |
| I Samuel 14:45 | The people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it! As Yahweh lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has worked with God today!” So the people rescued Jonathan, so he didn’t die. |
| I Samuel 20:12 | Jonathan said to David, “By Yahweh, the God of Israel, when I have sounded out my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if there is good toward David, won’t I then send to you and disclose it to you? |
| Psalms 40:6 | Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire. You have opened my ears. You have not required burnt offering and sin offering. |
| Isaiah 50:5 | The Lord Yahweh has opened my ear. I was not rebellious. I have not turned back. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke observes that Jonathan trusted his father's oath not to harm David and expected Saul would inform him before taking any secret action. Jonathan's confidence rested on the formal promise Saul had sworn, not on a general trust in his father's character.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes points out that Jonathan’s immediate refusal to believe evil of his father reveals a noble side of his character. This unwillingness to accept wrongdoing in someone he loves is, for Barnes, one of Jonathan’s most admirable traits.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Jonathan concludes that his father cannot be deliberately plotting against David. He takes Saul's earlier oath seriously and dismisses the recent violent outburst as a temporary fit of madness, not a settled intention to kill.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
And he sayde vnto him, God forbid, thou shalt not die: beholde, my father will do nothing great nor small, but he will shewe it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? he will not doe it.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that Jonathan confidently dismissed David's fear of assassination, insisting his father would never hide such a plan from him. Yet Gill finds it strange that Jonathan seemed unaware of Saul's repeated attempts to capture David, suggesting Jonathan either was ignorant or deliberately downplayed the danger to calm David and protect his father's reputation.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch explains that Jonathan could not believe Saul truly intended to kill David because Saul's previous attacks happened during fits of madness, not when he was clear-minded. Jonathan knew Saul had never shared his murderous hatred with him. David, however, saw deeper into Saul's heart and swore that death was only a step away.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange stresses that the friendship between David and Jonathan was not merely personal affection but a covenant grounded in their common faith in the Lord. He also points out that David's resort to a "lie of necessity" brought unintended consequences, as Saul saw through the deception and became more enraged.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry highlights the comfort of having a loyal friend in high places when an enemy sits on the throne. He notes that God balances hatred with love, so we need not be disturbed by those who oppose us when He also provides those who truly support us.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that Jonathan believed his father Saul's earlier oath and therefore trusted that Saul had indeed changed his mind about David. For Wesley, this credulity explains why Jonathan thought it was safe for David to return, even though Saul's intentions had not truly changed.