Saul’s animosity toward David was rooted in fear and jealousy. The public’s adoration of David after the confrontation with Goliath seems to have initiated it (1 Sam. 18:6–9). David had not done anything to deserve being treated as an enemy by Saul. A closer examination of Scripture reveals the king’s animosity toward David was rooted in fear and jealousy. It must have made Saul feel angry to see David adored by those who lined the streets for the victorious return from his single-handed killing. Goliath’s death sparked courage in the hearts of the Israelite army to defeat the Philistines in wake of his death.
Jonathan felt differently about David. Not much is known about how the brotherhood between David and Jonathan began. Perhaps it began with Jesse’s young son David admiring King Saul’s son Jonathan. Then after David defeated Goliath, perhaps Jonathan began to admire David for his bravery and the skill it took to kill Goliath. Perhaps Jonathan overheard David telling Goliath that Israel’s God would defeat him, thus inspiring Jonathan’s faith. Nevertheless, a friendship developed over time between Jonathan and David and they became close. So close that Jonathan became an advocate for David.
|
|
LIFE.POINT As Christians we are called to act on the basis of transcendent values rather than on human loyalties. |
|
|
LESSON.POINT A true friend intervenes in a godly manner to honor his/her values and advocate on behalf of a friend. |
In 1 Samuel 18:4, Jonathan removed his robe and put it on David. This was symbolic of the transfer of the monarchy from the house of Saul to the house of David. By doing this, Jonathan did not reject himself being in line for the throne, but, having been led by God’s Spirit, Jonathan realized he was not next in line for the throne. In addition to being a transfer of the monarchy, it was also a covenant between David and Jonathan. By giving his armor, weapons, and clothing to David, Jonathan was indicating his loyalty to David. Though he had, in theory, given his loyalty to David, it would have been easy to pull back and choose to follow his father’s wishes, as opposed to honoring the covenant between himself and David. But the basis of their relationship was love, not political expediency. It’s no wonder Jonathan intervened on behalf of David to his father King Saul when the king decided David needed to be destroyed. Saul’s actions, hopes, and directives did not stop Jonathan from being a true friend and advocate for David.
As Jonathan intervened on behalf of David, Jonathan simultaneously stayed connected with David. On the one hand, he pleaded with the king, and on the other hand, he protected his friend. Despite how it may have looked, Jonathan was loyal to his father and loving toward his friend. Without him realizing it, Jonathan’s feelings and behaviors toward both his father and his friend in verses 1–3 became a type of guardian of the throne. The one occupying it was in distress, and the one who would soon occupy it would be on the run. Jonathan remained dependent on the Spirit of God to make decisions about David and Saul. Through his actions, David was able to ascend to the throne later, as ordained by God. Through Jonathan’s advocacy, he literally was able to change the course of history in a positive manner.
In most cases, we do not know the outcome when we befriend someone and work on their behalf. However, Jonathan showed us there is more than one way to be a good leader within history. Sometimes what is required is recognizing the godly potential in someone close to us and advocating on his/her behalf. Advocacy often is overlooked as godly work. However, Jonathan realized that as the crown prince, he possessed a good amount of influence. He used his influence to help someone else and open a door.
2. JONATHAN REFUSES TO REMAIN SILENT
(1 SAMUEL 19:4–7)
| King James Version | New Revised Standard Version |
| 4 And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; because he hath not sinned against thee, and because his works have been to thee-ward very good: | 4 Jonathan spoke well of David to his father Saul, saying to him, “The king should not sin against his servant David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his deeds have been of good service to you; |
| 5 For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the LORD wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause? | 5 for he took his life in his hand when he attacked the Philistine, and the LORD brought about a great victory for all Israel. You saw it, and rejoiced; why then will you sin against an innocent person by killing David without cause?” |
| 6 And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the LORD liveth, he shall not be slain. | 6 Saul heeded the voice of Jonathan; Saul swore, “As the LORD lives, he shall not be put to death.” |
| 7 And Jonathan called David, and Jonathan shewed him all those things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence, as in times past. | 7 So Jonathan called David and related all these things to him. Jonathan then brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as before. |
After the Lord rejected Saul as king, an evil spirit tormented Saul. This torment explains Saul’s homicidal outbursts directed both at David and at anyone defending him. Saul’s attempts on David’s life over the years were both overt and covert. Jonathan intervened on behalf of David to his father King Saul. While David was hiding in the field as instructed, Jonathan attempted to reason with the king. He initially spoke truth to power: “Don’t harm him. He has not harmed you.” Jonathan then appealed to the king’s leadership: “His deeds have made you look good. Goliath was killed on your watch! Some of those cheers at the parade were for you as the leader whose army returned victoriously.”
Jonathan then used logic: “David wasn’t officially sworn in as a soldier yet risked his personal safety and killed the Philistine not with weaponry but with the skill of a shepherd.” Whereas David always would receive credit for killing the Philistine, Saul would get credit as the leader for “discovering” David. Leaders do not always have to perform the task at hand. Leadership’s value is in part determined by its ability to identify talent and employ that talent toward the stated goal. Saul easily could have made the argument he was due respect because he was the one who chose to use David. Good leaders realize they do not need to do everything, nor need the credit for all things. Leadership sometimes requires a backseat approach.
#TrueFriendship
Do you have any true friends? Brag on your friends and share a picture. Tag us @rhboydco and use #rhboydco.
Jonathan then spoke spiritually to the matter: “The Lord struck a blow for Israel, working a great salvation—from trash talk and cowering to the remaining Philistines running for their lives. You rejoiced as they fled and returned home defeated for all to see.” He closed the intervention again speaking truth to power: “Why would you entertain brutality against innocent blood?” Had Saul been successful in his campaign to kill David, he would’ve had the stain of bloodguilt on his hands. Saul was guilty of betrayal against one of his loyal soldiers, but it was not necessary for it to escalate to murder. Saul’s plan, if successful, would have reified Saul’s rejection before God. It also is possible that Saul would have been rejected by his soldiers and