I Samuel 20:34 · Bible study
1 Samuel 20:34 Commentary: Jonathan's Fierce Anger
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why did Jonathan rise in fierce anger and refuse to eat? Explore his grief for David and his father's shameful treatment.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Jonathan's fierce anger and fasting are expressions of grief over David's unjust treatment and his father's shamefulness.
- Key words: "fierce anger" (חֳרִי־אָף, burning of nose/face), "grieved" (נֶעְצַב, to be pained, grieved), "shameful treatment" (הִכְלִמוֹ, to insult, put to shame).
- Main debate: Is Jonathan's anger righteous loyalty to David or a violation of honor toward his father?
- Theological theme: Covenantal loyalty and the cost of standing with the innocent against family power.
- Best use: Preaching or teaching on boundaries of honoring parents, righteous anger, and friendship that risks everything.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger and did not eat any food that second day of the month, for he was grieved by his father’s shameful treatment of David.
WEB World English Bible 2000
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.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no food the second day of the month; for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And Jonathan riseth from the table in the heat of anger, and hath not eaten food on the second day of the new moon, for he hath been grieved for David, for his father put him to shame.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no meat the second day of the new moon; for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
So Jonathan rose from the table in great anger, and did not eat bread on the second day after the new moon. For he was grieved for David, because his father had put him to confusion.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y levantóse Jonathán de la mesa con exaltada ira, y no comió pan el segundo día de la nueva luna: porque tenía dolor á causa de David, porque su padre le había afrentado.
E levantou-se Jônatas da mesa com exaltada ira, e não comeu pão o segundo dia da lua nova: porque tinha dor por causa de Davi, porque seu pai lhe havia afrontado.
Il se leva de table dans une ardente colère, et ne participa point au repas le second jour de la nouvelle lune; car il était affligé à cause de David, parce que son père l’ avait outragé.
und stand auf vom Tisch mit grimmigem Zorn und aß des andern Tages nach dem Neumond kein Brot; denn er war bekümmert um David, daß ihn sein Vater also verdammte.
Daarom stond Jonathan van de tafel op in hittigheid des toorns; en hij at op den tweeden dag der nieuwe maan geen brood, want hij was bekommerd om David, omdat zijn vader hem gesmaad had.
E, acceso d’ira, si levò da mensa, e non mangiò nulla il secondo giorno della luna nuova, addolorato com’era per l’onta che suo padre avea fatta a Davide.
I wstał Jonatan od stołu z wielkim gniewem, i nie jadł dnia wtórego po nowiu miesiąca chleba; bo się zafrasował o Dawida, a iż go zelżył ojciec jego.
И встал Ионафан из-за стола в великом гневе и не обедал во второй день новомесячия, потому что скорбел о Давиде и потому что обидел его отец его.
於是約拿單 氣忿忿地 從 席上 起來，在這初 二 日 沒有 吃 飯。他因 見父親 羞辱大衛，就 為 大衛 愁煩。
So Jonathan got up from the table, burning with wrath, and took no part in the feast the second day of the month, being full of grief for David because his father had put shame on him.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · I Samuel 20:34
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Jonathan's anger and fasting flow from deep grief, both for David and at his father's injustice. Adam Clarke notes the text presents grief more than anger, with the second clause explaining the first. The Cambridge Bible emphasizes that Jonathan resented not the injury to himself but the wrong done to his friend. Gill expands on this: Jonathan's grief over David's danger and the loss of his friendship, combined with indignation at Saul's attempt to strike him and the public insults (vv.30-33), led him to refuse the sacrificial meal. Matthew Henry points to the cost of Jonathan's loyalty, seeing his anger as a natural, godly response to unmerited hatred. Across traditions, Baptist, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, the consensus is that Jonathan's fierce anger arises from righteous grief and a commitment to covenant friendship, not from personal resentment.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Jonathan was deeply grieved for David and acted out of loyalty and love, not selfish anger.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Jonathan's anger | Jonathan's anger is directly connected to his grief for David and his father's injustice. | Some see this anger as wholly righteous, a model of standing against evil. Others caution that any anger, even righteous, can border on sin, especially toward a parent. |
| Did Jonathan dishonor Saul? | Jonathan's actions (rising angrily, leaving the meal) broke normal rules of filial respect. | Catholic and Orthodox traditions often stress the duty to honor parents except when they command sin. Most Protestants see Jonathan's response as justified. Some Anabaptist traditions might emphasize nonresistance even in such moments. |
| Meaning of 'grieved' (ne'etzav) | The word denotes deep emotional pain, not mere sadness. | Interpreters differ on whether the primary object of grief is David's danger or the broken relationship with Saul. The Hebrew 'concerning David' leaves room for both. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The new moon festival was a monthly religious and social occasion in ancient Israel, marked by a sacrificial meal and family gathering (Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15). Saul's table included the king, his son Jonathan, and the commander Abner, with David's usual place empty (vv.25-27). Keil and Delitzsch describe the seating arrangements: Saul at the corner seat of honor, Jonathan rising to yield his place to Abner. David's absence on the first day was excused by a presumed ritual impurity (v.26), but when it continued a second day, Saul's suspicion flared. Verse 30 shows Saul's explosive rebuke, calling Jonathan a 'son of a perverse rebellious woman' and accusing him of choosing David to his own shame. Then Saul cast a javelin at Jonathan (v.33), making clear his intent to kill David. This public humiliation and attempted violence form the immediate backdrop to Jonathan's response. The covenant between Jonathan and David (vv.14-17, 42) frames the entire episode: Jonathan had sworn loyalty to God's anointed, even over against his own father. In a culture where honor and shame governed social relations, Saul's words and actions brought disgrace not only on David but on the family name. Jonathan's reaction, rising from the table in fierce anger and refusing food, was a dramatic breach of etiquette that publicly signaled his break with Saul's injustice, while also fulfilling his covenant obligations to David.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for 1 Samuel 20:34. The verse is stable across Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions. Translation differences (e.g., "meat" vs. "food") reflect lexical range of lechem (bread/food), not textual variation.
Reception History
Throughout church history, this verse has been read as a poignant example of righteous indignation and costly friendship. Early Christian writers like Augustine saw Jonathan as a type of Christ's faithful friend, one who leaves his father's table for the sake of the beloved. Medieval moralists used the passage to teach that anger against sin can be virtuous when directed at injustice. The Reformation commentators treated Jonathan's grief as evidence of a regenerate heart that loves God's purposes more than family approval. Modern interpreters have explored the psychological cost of Jonathan's loyalty, reading the verse as a study in competing allegiances. The verse appears in many lectionaries for feasts of friends and martyrs, and it has been cited in sermons on family conflict and the courage required to side with God's anointed.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Source of Anger: Jonathan's anger is not impulsive rage but a response to clear injustice. His father had publicly accused an innocent man, attempted murder, and insulted Jonathan himself.
- The Shape of Grief: Jonathan's fasting is an act of mourning, he is grieved for David and for the brokenness in his family. His refusal to eat is a physical expression of a shattered heart.
- The Cost of Loyalty: Standing with David costs Jonathan his place at the table, his honor before the court, and the safety of his family relationship. He chooses covenant love over comfort.
Five-point outline
- Setting: The new moon feast, a time for celebration, becomes a scene of revelation.
- Confrontation: Saul's cross-examination (v.27), Jonathan's defense (v.28-29), and Saul's violent outburst.
- Climax: Jonathan rises in fierce anger, publicly breaking from his father's injustice.
- Expression: He refuses food, turning his body into a testimony of solidarity with David.
- Resolution: Jonathan goes out to the field to warn David (v.35ff), completing his act of covenant faithfulness.
Illustration hooks
- A teenager who defends a classmate against false accusations from a teacher, knowing the social cost.
- An employee who refuses to participate in a cover-up at work, choosing honesty over promotion.
- A parent who stands with an adult child against unfair treatment by the other parent.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it ever right to be angry at a parent? And where is the line between honoring and enabling injustice?
- What does “righteous anger” look like in practice, how is it different from bitterness or revenge?
- How do I navigate divided loyalties when someone I love is hurting someone else I love?
Leading a Discussion
This verse sits at a moment of rupture. A father's rage, a friend's danger, a son's torn heart. Jonathan's response shows us what it looks like to choose covenant loyalty when family ties are used for harm. As you discuss, notice the raw emotion, anger, grief, shame, and let the text ask you how you navigate such moments.
Discussion questions
- What do you observe about Jonathan's actions in verse 34? What does it mean that he arose “in fierce anger” and “ate no food”?
- Why do you think Jonathan was “grieved for David” rather than angry for himself? What does this tell you about their friendship?
- How does the surrounding context (vv.30-33) explain the phrase “his father had treated him shamefully”? What specific shaming did Saul do?
- Jonathan was caught between obeying his father and protecting his friend. In what modern situations might believers face a similar conflict?
- Read Ephesians 4:26 and Mark 3:5. How do these verses help you evaluate whether Jonathan's anger was righteous or sinful? What marks “righteous anger” in your experience?
- Jonathan’s refusal to eat is a kind of protest. When have you expressed loyalty or grief through actions rather than words? Was that effective?
- How can we support someone who feels torn between loyalty to a family member and loyalty to what is right?
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)
| Ecclesiastes 7:20 | Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and doesn’t sin. |
| Mark 3:5 | When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other. |
| Ephesians 4:26 | “Be angry, and don’t sin.” Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath, |
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
6 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke reinterprets Jonathan's "fierce anger" as grief rather than rage, since the passage explains he was grieved for David. He notes that Jonathan's sorrow was twofold: grief for his father's cruelty and grief for his friend's suffering, making the outburst one of pain, not fury.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights Jonathan's remarkable selflessness: he did not resent the personal insult and injury Saul directed at him, but was more troubled by the wrong done to his friend David. This reveals the depth of Jonathan's generous character.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note explains why Jonathan stalked away and fasted the second day of the month: he felt both grief for David's danger and personal outrage at Saul's insult. His anger was not mere temper but real distress for his friend combined with wounded honor at his father's cruel words.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill points out that Jonathan's anger and fasting are driven by two intertwined griefs: sorrow over David's danger and the deep shame of being publicly humiliated by his own father. He may also have refrained from eating the sacrificial meat because he was effectively in mourning.
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.