I Samuel 20:33 · Bible study
1 Samuel 20:33 Commentary: The Spear That Exposed Saul's Soul
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
When Saul throws his spear at his own son, Jonathan's hope shatters. He knows his father is resolved to murder David, revealing a king consumed by jealousy.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Saul’s homicidal attack on Jonathan proves his settled intention to murder David, ending any hope of reconciliation.
- Key words: “cast” (Hiphil of טול, to hurl forcefully); “determined” (Qal of כלה, finished/plotted).
- Main debate: Whether Saul actually threw the spear or only brandished it as a threat (most favor an actual cast; Cambridge Bible notes the possibility of brandishing).
- Theological theme: The destructive power of unchecked sin and the cost of covenant loyalty.
- Best use: A warning against jealous anger and a demonstration of God’s preservation of David through Jonathan’s faithful friendship.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Then Saul hurled his spear at Jonathan to kill him; so Jonathan knew that his father was determined to kill David.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Saul cast his spear at him to strike him. By this Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death.
KJV King James Version 1769
And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him; whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to put David to death.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And Saul casteth the javelin at him to smite him, and Jonathan knoweth that it hath been determined by his father to put David to death.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Then Saul cast the spear at him to smite him; and Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to put David to death.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And Saul caught up a spear to strike him. And Jonathan understood that it was determined by his father to kill David.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Entonces Saúl le arrojó una lanza por herirlo: de donde entendió Jonathán que su padre estaba determinado á matar á David.
Então Saul lhe lançou uma lança para feri-lo: de onde entendeu Jônatas que seu pai estava determinado a matar a Davi.
Et Saül dirigea sa lance contre lui, pour le frapper. Jonathan comprit que c’ était chose résolue chez son père que de faire mourir David.
Da schoß Saul den Spieß nach ihm, daß er ihn spießte. Da merkte Jonathan, daß bei seinem Vater gänzlich beschlossen war, David zu töten,
Toen schoot Saul de spies op hem, om hem te slaan. Alzo merkte Jonathan, dat dit ten volle bij zijn vader besloten was, David te doden.
E Saul brandì la lancia contro a lui per colpirlo. Allora Gionathan riconobbe che suo padre avea deciso di far morire Davide.
I cisnął Saul włócznią na niego, aby go przebił. Tedy poznał Jonatan, że koniecznie ojciec jego umyślił zabić Dawida.
Тогда Саул бросил копье в него, чтобы поразить его. И Ионафан понял, что отец его решился убить Давида.
掃羅 向約拿單 掄 槍 要刺他，約拿單 就知道 他父親 決意 要殺 大衛。
And Saul, pointing his spear at him, made an attempt to give him a wound: from which it was clear to Jonathan that his father's purpose was to put David to death.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Samuel 20:33
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse marks the moment Jonathan can no longer deny the truth. Wesley observes that Saul, who moments earlier spoke of establishing Jonathan's kingdom, now aims at his life, “what fools, what worse than savage beasts does anger make.” Gill notes that kings in antiquity carried spears as ensigns of royalty, so Saul’s act is not only violent but a perversion of his office. The attempt to strike his own son proves, Gill writes, “settled wrath and malice” against David. The Hebrew verb for “cast” (וַיָּטֶל) is a Hiphil form of טול, meaning to hurl forcefully, not merely brandish. The phrase “to strike him” confirms intended harm. Cambridge Bible raises the possibility that Saul only brandished the spear, but the word and context support an actual cast. All commentators agree: this act shows Saul consumed by jealousy, irrational and beyond reason.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Saul's violent attempt to strike his own son demonstrates his settled determination to kill David.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The spear: actual throw or threatening brandish | Both readings recognize violent intent. The verb and context indicate a real attempt to strike. | The Cambridge Bible notes it may have been a threatening brandish rather than a full cast, while most commentators (Gill, JFB, Wesley) read it as an actual throw. |
| Saul's mental state: demonic influence or personal sin | Saul acts out of consuming jealousy and irrationality. The text shows a man beyond reason. | Some emphasize the evil spirit from God (1 Sam 16:14) as a primary cause; others focus on Saul’s own sinful choices and pride. |
| Jonathan's responsibility: confront or withdraw | Jonathan's loyalty to David is commendable and leads to the covenant that preserves David's life. | Some argue Jonathan should have confronted his father more directly; others see his silent departure in grief as the only wise course when words fail. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The new moon feast was a sacred day in Israel, marked by a sacrificial meal at the king’s table (cf. Num 28:11-15). The seating arrangement described by Keil and Delitzsch, Saul by the wall, Jonathan standing, Abner by Saul’s side, reflects the formal hierarchy of a royal state meal.
Gill explains that ancient kings often carried a spear in place of a scepter, citing Justin and Pausanias. The spear symbolized authority and protection. For Saul, who had twice before hurled this same weapon at David (1 Sam 18:11; 19:10), it became a tool of murderous intent. Now he turns it against his own son and heir.
Jonathan, as the crown prince, had every reason to expect his father to act with justice. Instead, the man who should protect the innocent attempts to kill his own child. This attack shatters not just Jonathan’s loyalty, but the social and moral fabric of the kingdom. A king who attacks his family has lost all claim to righteous rule.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts.
Reception History
Throughout church history, this verse has been read as the tragic climax of Saul’s decline. Early Christian writers often highlighted Jonathan’s grief as a model of faithful lament. In the medieval period, Saul’s rage was moralized as a warning against envy and the madness it brings. Protestant commentators such as Matthew Henry and Wesley used it to show how anger destroys a leader’s judgment. In modern preaching, the verse is often paired with the theme of covenant friendship: Jonathan’s knowledge becomes a call to act faithfully even when loyalty costs everything.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The spear from royal emblem to murder weapon, Saul uses the symbol of his kingship to assault his own son. Jealousy corrupts not only a man but an office.
- Jonathan’s painful awakening, Until this moment, Jonathan hoped his father would relent. The spear proves evil has been “determined,” as the verb כלה (finished, plotted) implies. Hope for reconciliation ends.
- Sin’s collateral damage, Saul’s anger does not only target David. It devours his own household and devastates the son who tried to be faithful to both.
Five-point outline
- The question (v.32), Jonathan risked everything to ask “What has he done?” A plea for reason.
- The rage (v.33a), Saul answers not with words but with a spear. He cannot be reasoned with.
- The knowledge (v.33b), Jonathan knows. The Hebrew וַיֵּדַע (and he knew) marks a moment of certain, painful awareness.
- The grief (v.34), Jonathan leaves the table in fierce anger and eats nothing. He is grieved, not just for David, but for what his father has become.
- The covenant (v.35-42), Jonathan goes to the field, keeps his word to David, and solidifies the friendship that will outlast Saul’s rage.
Illustration hooks
- A parent who, in a fit of fury, hurls a family heirloom across the room, breaking it, and with it, a relationship.
- A manager or boss who turns on their most loyal employee when challenged, showing that trust was never real.
- The moment you realize that someone you loved has become dangerous, and you can no longer pretend everything is fine.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why does God let evil leaders harm the innocent, even in families?
- How do I know when a relationship has passed the point of repair?
- What does loyalty to God require when a parent or authority figure demands commitment to something unjust?
Leading a Discussion
This verse is the turning point in the new moon scene. Jonathan had hoped his father might change, but Saul’s attack proves the danger is real and settled. The covenant between David and Jonathan (v.16-17) now calls for action, not hope.
Discussion questions
- What does Saul do in this verse? What does Jonathan realize as a result?
- Why does Saul attack his own son? What does this show about his internal state?
- The Hebrew word for “determined” (כלה) can mean finished or plotted. How does this deepen the sense of Saul’s intent?
- How does Jonathan’s response in v.34 (fierce anger, fasting) reflect the weight of what he learned?
- In what ways does this incident connect to Saul’s earlier attacks on David (1 Sam 18:11; 19:10)?
- When have you experienced a moment when a trusted person’s actions shattered your hope for reconciliation? How did you respond?
- What can this passage teach us about the limits of loyalty and when it is right to break away from an authority who has become destructive?
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)
| I Samuel 18:11 | and Saul threw the spear, for he said, “I will pin David to the wall!” David escaped from his presence twice. |
| I Samuel 19:10 | Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear, but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence; and he stuck the spear into the wall. David fled and escaped that night. |
| I Samuel 20:7 | If he says, ‘It is well,’ your servant shall have peace; but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by him. |
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
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible notes that this passage was read as a special Haphtarah when the New Moon fell on the first day of the week. It clarifies that “cast a javelin” means Saul brandished it as a threat without actually throwing it.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights that Jonathan's certainty came from witnessing his father's violent action, not from words alone. The spear being cast at David proved to Jonathan that Saul's determination to kill David was final and irreversible.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill draws attention to the ancient custom of kings carrying a spear as a royal scepter, explaining that Saul's javelin was not merely a weapon but an emblem of his authority. He notes that Saul's attempt to strike even his own son Jonathan with it made clear his settled intention to kill David.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB reads Saul's javelin throwing as clear proof of the mad frenzy that had taken over the king. The commentator portrays Saul not as a calculating enemy but as a pitiable figure driven by a disordered mind beyond rational control.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch explain the seating at Saul's table as a key to the scene: Jonathan gave up his place of honour to Abner, a gesture that highlights the tension. They also note that Saul's insult to Jonathan, calling him "son of a perverse woman," was actually a deliberate slur against Jonathan's mother, making the rebuke far more cutting.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights Jonathan's painful position between loyalty to David and obedience to his father the king. Saul's outburst, calling Jonathan a traitor and throwing a javelin at him, exposes the depths of his envy. Jonathan's grief and fasting show his righteous sorrow at his father's wickedness.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights the shocking contradiction in Saul: he was once anxious to secure Jonathan's place as king, but now he tries to kill his own son. Anger, Wesley observes, makes a person more foolish and savage than wild animals.