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

Чтение книги онлайн.

      EXPOSITION

       I. SAUL’S PLOT TO ASSASSINATE DAVID (1 SAMUEL 19:1–5)

      Chapter 19 opens with Saul’s growing efforts to eliminate David. Although he initially loved David (1 Sam. 16:21), Saul eventually came to fear his growing reputation (18:7–9). Public adoration of David’s victory over Goliath became louder than their recognition for Saul their king. His pride couldn’t withstand the perceived rejection. His jealously led to the urgent appeal for David’s death. Saul’s hostility began with a murderous thought, then progressed to awkward homicidal acts hidden from public view (18:11). He had David assigned to military tasks virtually certain to bring about his demise (18:13, 17, 25). Saul then crafted a wider and more artful plan that involved public lies (18:22) and a small circle of people, including servants and a daughter. The circle of involvement widened when this effort failed. Dropping all ruses, Saul then spoke openly and bluntly to Jonathan and all his servants about killing David (19:1).

      The author’s statement that Jonathan delighted greatly in David was meant to emphasize the deep bond of friendship he and David had forged. It also highlighted the implied tension of loyalties between Jonathan and his father and his friend. This also pointed to the growing power base David was creating. Jonathan was not the only person in Saul’s family who was enamored with David. Michal, Saul’s daughter, also loved David so much that she helped him escape the wrath of the king (19:8–17). David’s power base was what the king feared, if not for his sake, for the sake of his legacy and possible dynasty. Though David was innocent in that he had done no harm to Saul, Saul understood David was a threat to a familial dynasty and for that reason must be eliminated. At this juncture, it is important to understand Saul was a powerful and shrewd politician rather than a stark raving mad man. His actions, while unjust, were no different than Solomon’s when he came to power. Solomon eliminated all political threats upon his ascension to the throne, including his own brother (1 Kings 2:13–46). Though Saul knew of Jonathan’s love for David, he never would have imagined his son would put the well-being of his friend over the wealth and power of becoming the monarch. Quite simply, this is what was done to consolidate power. In chapter 19, Saul attempted to kill David on four separate occasions. This was just the first.

      Saul, while acting shrewdly, was not aware of the happenings in his own house. He knew David was a threat, but not to what degree. Though he knew Jonathan loved David, it does not seem he was aware they had made a covenant with one another. Moreover, he did not know Jonathan had given David his royal vestments to solidify that covenant (1 Sam. 18:3–4). Jonathan’s gifting of vestments to David was symbolic of his releasing all claims to royal succession. Thus, as Jonathan acted to protect David, he not only acted as friend but as a man of integrity. He made a covenant and then kept it. He stood in stark contrast to his father who broke his word on several occasions throughout this narrative (he tried to kill David three more times 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, СКАЧАТЬ