- 74-
Thus at the end, as at the beginning of his course, Saul is under the mighty influence
of the Spirit of God - now to warn, and, if possible, to reclaim, as formerly to qualify
him for his work. And some result of this kind seems to have been produced. For,
although David fled from Naioth on the arrival of Saul, we find him soon again near
the royal residence (20:1), where, indeed, he was evidently expected by the king to
take part in the festive meal with which the beginning of every month seems to have
been celebrated (vers. 5, 25, 27). The notice is historically interesting in connection
with Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15,^190 as also that other one (1 Samuel 20:6, 29),
according to which it appears to have been the practice in those days of religious
unsettledness for families to have had a yearly "sacrifice" in their own place,
especially where, as in Bethlehem, there was an altar (comp. 16:2, etc.).
But, whatever had passed, David felt sure in his own mind that evil was appointed
against him, and that there was but a step between him and death. Yet on that moral
certainty alone he did not feel warranted to act. Accordingly he applied to Jonathan,
whom he could so fully trust, expressly placing his life, in word as in deed, in his
hands, if he were really guilty of what the king imputed to him (ver. 8). With
characteristic generosity, Jonathan, however, still refused to believe in any settled
purpose of murder on the part of his father, attributing all that had passed to the
outbursts of temporary madness. His father had never made a secret of his intentions
and movements. Why, then, should he now be silent, if David's suspicions were well
founded? The suggestion that Jonathan should excuse David's absence from the feast
by his attendance on the yearly family-sacrifice at Bethlehem, for which he had
asked and obtained Jonathan's leave, was well calculated to bring out the feelings
and purposes of the king. If determined to evil against David, he would in his anger
at the escape of his victim, and his own son's participation in it, give vent to his
feelings in language that could not be mistaken, the more so, if, as might be
expected, Jonathan pleaded with characteristic warmth on behalf of his absent friend.
But who could be trusted to bring tidings to David as he lay in hiding, "or" tell him
"what" Saul would "answer" Jonathan "roughly" - or, in other words, communicate
the details of the conversation?
To discuss the matter, unendangered by prying eyes and ears, the two friends betook
themselves "to the field." The account of what passed between them - one of the few
narratives of this kind given in Scripture - is most pathetic. It was not merely the
outflowing of personal affection between the two, or perhaps it would not have been
recorded at all. Rather is it reported in order to show that, though Jonathan had never
spoken of it, he was fully aware of David's future destiny; more than that, he had sad
presentiment of the fate of his own house. And yet, in full view of it all, he
believingly submitted to the will of God, and still lovingly clave to his friend! There
is a tone of deep faith toward God, and of full trust in David, in what Jonathan said.
Far more fully and clearly than his father does he see into the future, alike as regards
(^)