Boyd's Commentary - R.H. Boyd Publishing Corporation

Скачать книгу

in this chapter after promising not to do so in 19:6).

      Interestingly, as Saul attempted to remove David’s threat to his kingdom, he was partially the cause of David’s rise to power. In 1 Samuel 18:13, Saul made David a commander of a thousand troops. This would have given David a larger power base and men who may have been more loyal to their military leader than the throne. Saul also gave his daughter Michal to David in marriage. This would have given David legitimacy if he ever challenged for the throne. Technically, this made David a member of the royal family even if he was not the crown prince. It seems Saul lived by the motto, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” He kept David close by giving him positions so he might control him, but David was larger than the king.

      Wisely, Jonathan said nothing publicly to oppose his father’s directives, but knowing there always were men eager to commit the most heinous crimes at the king’s bidding, he wasted no time in informing David of the impending danger. With sorrowful desperation and urgency, Jonathan revealed to David that his father was seeking to kill him and proceeded to formulate a plan to spare his life, telling him to be on guard until the morning and stay in a secret place and hide. With reckless abandonment, Jonathan put himself between his father, the king of Israel, and David, his true and trusted friend.

      Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul as an attempt to dissuade him from killing him. The plan was to steer his father into the field where David was hiding so David might overhear the conversation in his hiding place and Jonathan might more easily report to him the result of his conversation without having to track him down. The first-person pronoun in 1 Samuel 19:3 is emphatic, as if Jonathan was saying, “Leave this to me. I will assume the responsibility of being your advocate.”

      In speaking well of David, Jonathan provided his father several reasons why he should relent from his campaign of violence. The first was because David was innocent. He hadn’t committed any crime against the king or the nation that warranted his death. Second, David had been good to Saul. More than a great help to defeat the dreaded Philistine army, God’s hand was clearly on his life and by proxy the lives and well-being of the nation. Jonathan’s third reason for sparing David’s life was poised in a question, “Why would you sin by killing an innocent person?”

      Jonathan may have been trying to keep his father from incurring bloodguilt. Bloodguilt covers a variety of offenses within the Old Testament. One could incur bloodguilt for slaughtering an animal in the field and failing to bring it to the priest (Lev. 17:3–4) or by killing a thief during the day (Ex. 22:3–4). But most recognizably, one would incur bloodguilt for murder—killing with provocation, not in defense, and outside the confines of war. For varying offenses within the Old Testament, there are substitutes for guilt. For bloodguilt, however, there is no substitute. Blood must be shed. Death must occur. In this sense, Jonathan was not only a friend of David but also a friend to his father. He was trying to keep a curse from falling on their household from which they would not be released until a life was lost. If Saul succeeded in killing David, a set of events would have been set in motion from which they would not be able to recover.

      In this way, Jonathan taught his father a valuable lesson. Saul stood as king, meaning his power was absolute in his kingdom. Jonathan reminded Saul that though he might be sovereign within the kingdom, there was another to whom he was to be accountable. Saul at times lost sight of this seemingly minor detail, but there was a divine law that was to rule the land beyond the word of the king.

       II. JONATHAN’S INTERVENTION FOR DAVID’S LIFE (1 SAMUEL 19:5–7)

      Because of Jonathan’s respectful demeanor, cogent logic, and impassioned appeal to his father to spare his friend’s life, Saul heeded his son’s voice and swore an oath before God that he would not kill David. Oaths were statements by which a person promised or guaranteed a vow would be kept or that a statement was, in fact, true. In the Old Testament, the name of God was invoked as the One who would guarantee the results or veracity of a statement. So, Saul’s oath was in fact invoking God’s hand to ensure David’s protection, even when Saul eventually changed his mind.

      One who has read the text knows Saul was a man who broke oaths made to God (1 Sam. 14:24–46). Saul had made an oath for the entire army to fast during a battle against the Philistines. Jonathan did not know his father had made an oath and ate some honey. The penalty for breaking the fast was supposed to be death, thus Saul was supposed to kill his son. Saul did not follow through on his word. Instead he acquiesced to the crowd that pressured him to let Jonathan live. Saul gave in and they ransomed an animal in Jonathan’s place. This earlier story gives us insight to the current story in two ways. (1) As was mentioned, Saul was not a man of integrity. He broke his word. (2) Saul was a leader who lived for the approval of the crowd. He needed the praise of his people even if that caused him to be unfaithful to the oaths he swore in the name of God.

      Having negotiated the reconciliation, Jonathan went at once to inform David of his success and completed his mission by escorting him back to Saul. Because of Jonathan’s intervention, David was restored to court. David’s service to the king also was restored as in times past. David resumed his post as a military chieftain and lived within the court of the king. He also continued to be Saul’s son-in-law.

      The interaction between Saul and Jonathan demonstrated Saul had no clue Jonathan had pledged his loyalty to David. This moment between the two showed how much Saul had lost touch with the reality that the kingdom truly had been torn from his hands. Even his own son had defected to his rival. The text is fraught with tension because as Saul had no idea about his son, Jonathan still had his father’s trust. This is but one possibility.

      The other possibility is that Saul knew Jonathan and David were close friends. With his knowledge of their friendship, by agreeing to relent from his pursuit of David, he was hoping Jonathan would report back to David. Once the report reached David, David would return to the royal court, making it easier to kill David. Given the narrator’s absence of details regarding the inner worlds of the protagonists, either theory can be supported. What is clear is that David and Saul were on opposing sides with Jonathan stuck in the middle.

      THE LESSON APPLIED

      Jesus is our true friend. As believers, we recognize Jesus Christ as our Savior, our Mediator, the ultimate sacrifice for all of humanity. But do we also see Him as a friend? It’s easy to lose sight of the more practical nature of Jesus’ humanity in the light of His great works and sacrifices for the world. But regarding Him as friend implies a more intimate connection, one that involves the heart. When we consider Jesus as a friend, He makes Himself available for us to experience Him at the deepest levels of our greatest need. In other words, when we make Jesus our true friend, He intervenes in the most complex chaos of our lives and brings order. Like Jonathan intervened on David’s behalf, Christ has done so on ours. He is our true friend. The question is, are we a true friend to Him?

      Think about how you might be a better friend to Jesus. He stated in John 15:14, “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (NRSV). Friendship with Jesus is simple, but we must desire, like Jonathan, to be people of integrity and loyalty. We should be able to sing along with the hymnologists, “What a friend we have in Jesus” or “There’s not a friend like the lowly Jesus.”

      LET’S TALK ABOUT IT

       What was Jonathan’s motive for his friendship with David?

      Further evidence of Jonathan’s devotion to his friendship with David is implied when one considers what he gave up to spare David’s life. Being the rightful heir to the throne of Israel, Jonathan had more reason than his father to get rid of David as he was a more imminent threat to his future claim to the throne. Whether it was his sincere love for David or that deep down he knew God had anointed David as the next king, Jonathan’s motivation to be a true friend to David was pure. He had no ulterior motives for befriending David outside of wanting to see David do well in life. Real friends are more concerned about what’s best for you even at the expense, at times, of their own well-being.

Скачать книгу