The Tyrant's Table and the Loyal Son Text: 1 Samuel 20:24-34
Introduction: The Anatomy of a Failing Kingdom
We come now to a scene of high drama, a royal banquet where the central dish is paranoia, served with a side of murderous rage. What we are witnessing in this passage is not simply a family squabble. It is the unraveling of a kingdom. Saul's reign, which began with such promise, is now rotting from the head down. And the stench of that decay fills the king's own dining hall. The issue at hand is loyalty, but it is a loyalty that has been twisted and perverted by the incumbent king.
The world understands loyalty in terms of tribalism, in terms of blood, in terms of political expediency. You are loyal to your own, to your family, to your party, to your nation. Saul operates entirely on this horizontal plane. For him, loyalty is about preserving his dynasty, securing his throne, and eliminating any and all rivals. His entire worldview is a zero-sum game of power politics. But the Bible introduces a radical, vertical dimension to loyalty. True loyalty is first and foremost loyalty to God and to His anointed. Any loyalty that contradicts this higher allegiance is not loyalty at all; it is rebellion. It is idolatry.
Jonathan, the crown prince, is caught in the crossfire of these two competing loyalties. By every worldly standard, his allegiance should be to his father, King Saul. His own future, his inheritance, his kingdom, all depend on his father's success. But Jonathan has seen the anointing of God on David. He has made a covenant with David, a covenant that recognizes where God's favor truly lies. Jonathan understands that the kingdom of Israel does not belong to the house of Saul, but to the house of God. Therefore, his loyalty to God requires him to be loyal to David, even at the cost of his own life and kingdom. This is the central conflict of our text: the clash between a carnal, self-serving loyalty and a spiritual, covenantal faithfulness.
As we watch this scene unfold, we see the anatomy of tyranny on full display. We see how a man rejected by God becomes consumed by suspicion, how he interprets everything through the lens of his own insecurity, and how his rage ultimately turns even on his own son. This is a picture of what happens when a leader forgets that his authority is delegated from God and begins to believe it is his own possession. It is a lesson for all times, for all fathers, for all rulers, and for all who must navigate the treacherous waters of conflicting allegiances.
The Text
24 So David hid in the field; and when the new moon came, the king sat down to eat food. 25And the king sat on his seat as usual, the seat by the wall; then Jonathan rose up, and Abner sat down by Saul’s side, but David’s place was missing. 26Nevertheless Saul did not speak anything that day, for he said, “It is an accident; he is not clean; surely he is not clean.” 27Now it happened the next day, the second day of the new moon, that David’s place was missing; so Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?” 28Jonathan then answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem, 29and he said, ‘Please send me on my way, since our family has a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to attend. So now, if I have found favor in your sight, please let me get away that I may see my brothers.’ For this reason he has not come to the king’s table.” 30 Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. So now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.” 32But Jonathan answered Saul his father and said to him, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” 33Then Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him down; so Jonathan knew that his father had decided to put David to death. 34Then Jonathan arose from the table in burning anger and did not eat food on the second day of the new moon, for he was grieved over David because his father had dishonored him.
(1 Samuel 20:24-34 LSB)
The Empty Seat and the Simmering Tyrant (vv. 24-27)
The scene is set at the feast of the new moon, a religious festival. Table fellowship in the ancient world was a profound statement of unity, trust, and peace. To eat at the king's table was to be in his favor, under his protection. But this table is a trap.
"So David hid in the field; and when the new moon came, the king sat down to eat food. And the king sat on his seat as usual, the seat by the wall; then Jonathan rose up, and Abner sat down by Saul’s side, but David’s place was missing." (1 Samuel 20:24-25)
Everything appears normal. The king is in his customary seat, the seat of honor and security against the wall. His chief general, Abner, is there. His son, Jonathan, is there. But one place is conspicuously empty. David's absence is a silent sermon. It speaks volumes about the state of the kingdom. The man after God's own heart cannot safely sit at the table of God's rejected king. This empty seat is a judgment on Saul.
On the first day, Saul contains his suspicion. He rationalizes the absence. "It is an accident; he is not clean; surely he is not clean" (v. 26). Under the Mosaic law, a person could be ceremonially unclean for various reasons and thus unable to participate in a religious feast. Saul's first instinct is to find a religious, procedural explanation. This shows us the mindset of a man who still maintains the outward forms of piety while his heart is far from God. He is a legalist. He thinks in terms of ritual purity, even as his heart is filled with the moral impurity of murder.
But by the second day, the excuse wears thin. The empty seat continues to accuse him. "Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?" (v. 27). Notice the contempt in his language. He does not say "David." He does not even say "my son-in-law." He says "the son of Jesse." This is a deliberate attempt to diminish David, to frame him as an upstart from an insignificant family. Tyrants always resort to this kind of verbal degradation. They must strip their enemies of their dignity before they can strip them of their lives.
The Righteous Lie and the Unrighteous Rage (vv. 28-31)
Jonathan now delivers the pre-arranged excuse, the cover story he and David had concocted. It is, from a certain point of view, a lie. But we must be careful here. Not all falsehoods are lies in the damnable sense. The Bible is filled with instances where God's people use deception to preserve innocent life from those who have no right to the truth, such as Rahab and the spies. Saul, in his murderous rage, had forfeited his right to the truth. Jonathan's duty to protect the innocent (David) and to honor his covenant with him trumped his duty to give a straight answer to a man intent on murder.
"Jonathan then answered Saul, 'David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem...'" (1 Samuel 20:28)
Saul's reaction is explosive. The thin veneer of civility cracks, and the demonic rage underneath erupts. "Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?'" (v. 30). This is the language of utter contempt. He attacks Jonathan's very legitimacy, insulting his mother and accusing his own son of a shameful, perverse alliance.
Saul sees everything through the grid of worldly power. He cannot comprehend Jonathan's motives because they are not carnal. He assumes Jonathan is a fool, siding with his own rival. "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established" (v. 31). From a purely secular viewpoint, Saul is absolutely correct. His political analysis is spot on. The existence of David is a direct threat to the dynasty of Saul. But Saul is spiritually blind. He sees the political reality but is oblivious to the theological reality. He does not understand that Jonathan is not choosing David over himself; he is choosing God's will over his own ambition. He is submitting to the divine decree. He would rather be second in a kingdom blessed by God than first in a kingdom cursed by Him.
Saul's command is blunt and wicked: "So now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die." The Hebrew is emphatic: "he is a son of death." Saul has pronounced his own judicial sentence. He is judge, jury, and would-be executioner. This is the endpoint of all tyranny, the arrogation of the power of life and death.
The Spear of Tyranny and the Grief of the Righteous (vv. 32-34)
Jonathan, with remarkable courage, stands up to his father's insane rage. He does not cower. He asks the simple, devastating question of reason and justice.
"But Jonathan answered Saul his father and said to him, 'Why should he be put to death? What has he done?'" (1 Samuel 20:32)
This is the question that tyranny can never answer. Tyranny cannot operate on the basis of reason, evidence, or justice. It operates on the basis of will, power, and paranoia. When confronted with the simple demand for a just cause, the tyrant has only one response: violence. "Then Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him down" (v. 33). This is not the first time Saul has used his spear as an instrument of policy. He tried to pin David to the wall with it twice. Now, his rage is so complete, so irrational, that he turns his weapon on his own son and heir. In that moment, Saul ceases to be a king or a father; he is simply a murderer, lashing out at the voice of righteousness.
This act reveals everything to Jonathan. "So Jonathan knew that his father had decided to put David to death." The test is complete. The verdict is in. Saul is implacable. There is no reasoning with him. There is no appeasing him. His heart is set on evil.
Jonathan's response is one of righteous anger and deep grief. "Then Jonathan arose from the table in burning anger and did not eat food... for he was grieved over David because his father had dishonored him" (v. 34). Jonathan's anger is not a selfish tantrum; it is a holy anger. He is angry because of the injustice. And he is grieved. He is grieved for his friend David, who has been publicly shamed and dishonored by the king. In this culture, honor and shame were paramount. Saul had not just threatened David's life; he had assaulted his name, his reputation, his honor. And Jonathan, as a true covenant friend, feels that dishonor as his own.
Conclusion: Loyalty to the True King
This story is a stark illustration of the principle that our ultimate loyalty must be to God and His anointed, not to any earthly power, even that of a father or a king. Jonathan is a hero not because he was a great warrior, but because he was a man of covenant faithfulness. He rightly discerned that his allegiance to God's chosen king, David, took precedence over his natural allegiance to his rebellious father, Saul.
This puts us all to the question. Where do our loyalties lie? Jesus says, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matthew 10:37). This is not a command to be callous toward our families. It is a command of proper ordering. Our love for Christ, the true King, must be the supreme love that governs and defines all our other loves and loyalties.
Like Jonathan, we live in a world where earthly rulers, full of a Saul-like rage against the authority of Christ, demand our absolute allegiance. They tell us that loyalty to Christ is a "shame" to our family, our nation, our enlightened society. They tell us that as long as the Son of David lives and reigns in our hearts, their kingdom of secular humanism cannot be established. And when we, like Jonathan, ask the simple question, "What has He done?" they have no answer but to hurl their spears, whether they be spears of legislation, social pressure, or outright persecution.
Jonathan's loyalty to David points us to our required loyalty to the greater David, Jesus Christ. But it also points us to the loyalty of Christ to us. Jonathan was willing to risk his kingdom and his life for his friend. But Jesus actually gave His kingdom and His life for us while we were yet His enemies. He sat at a table, not with friends, but with sinners and traitors. He endured the ultimate dishonor of the cross for our sake. He took our shame so that we might receive His honor. He faced the spear of God's wrath so that we might be brought to the Father's table, not as guests, but as sons. Our loyalty to Him is but a faint echo of His unbreakable covenant loyalty to us.
Therefore, when the Sauls of this world demand that we choose their table over Christ's, let us remember Jonathan. Let us rise from the table of tyrants in a burning, holy anger, and let us grieve not for ourselves, but for the dishonor done to our King. For our place is not with the failing kingdoms of this world, but with the Son of Jesse, the Son of David, whose kingdom shall have no end.