Jonathan stands before his father, King Saul, to fiercely defend David's life. He challenges the death sentence hanging over his friend, questioning both the moral and legal grounds of the king's decision.
His defense operates on several levels. Looking at the situation through the lens of divine providence, commentators [מצודת דוד, אברבנאל] explain that Jonathan wants to establish David's absolute innocence. If God has chosen to make David the next king, David himself has taken no action to rebel or seize power by force. Because David is completely passive in God's overarching plan, he carries no guilt and certainly does not deserve to die.
The confrontation also involves a strict legal argument [חומת אנך]. Saul viewed David's absence from the New Moon feast as an act of open rebellion. From Saul's perspective, David stayed away to make a legal statement that attending the meal was not a biblical obligation, thereby committing the severe offense of issuing a ruling in the presence of his teacher. Jonathan counters this accusation with two points. First, he argues that even if David had overstepped by making a ruling in front of his teacher, such an offense is punishable only by heaven, not by a human court or a king's executioner. Furthermore, David committed no physical act; he merely stayed away. A person cannot be legally convicted and executed for a simple lack of action.
Another legal perspective [חומת אנך] frames the conflict as a clash between a royal decree and an ancient family vow. According to this view, David's family celebrated a long-standing holiday established in gratitude for a past miracle. When attending this family event conflicted with the king's public decrees, Jonathan, acting in his capacity as the head of the court, issued a formal ruling. He determined that the family vow took priority over the royal decree and granted David permission to attend. Therefore, Jonathan argues that David acted entirely within the law by simply following the instructions he was given. Even if Jonathan's legal ruling was incorrect, David remains completely innocent, as he acted in good faith by listening to the guidance of a recognized legal authority.