When we left the story of Jonathan and David, we saw the two of them in the field, with Jonathan again pleading for David’s life before his father. In this article, we will see that tragically, Jonathan’s attempt wasn’t quite as successful as it had been earlier (1 Sam 19:1-6).
The feast
It was the feast of the new moon. It was time to put the plan into action. Thus, David hid out in the field, and Jonathan returned home, awaiting the beginning of the feast. When that time came, Saul prepared himself and took a seat:
“And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s place was empty” (1 Sam 20:25).
It was time for the feast to begin and time for all of those who were going to have the privilege of eating at the king’s table to take their seats. It would appear to have been a fairly small table — one which only had four seats, and based off of the details of Saul’s seat, it would appear to be square. Saul’s seat was the seat that allowed him to sit up against the wall — again showing the paranoia of the king. By placing his seat against the wall, he gave himself the security of knowing that it was impossible for anyone to sneak up behind him. This way, he could see everything going on around him. To each of his sides there would have also been a seat, and then there would have been one across from him.
Thus, the guests of the feast entered into the room and took their seats. Saul sat against the wall, and Jonathan at first sat next to Saul. However, something made Jonathan change his mind, so “Jonathan arose” and Abner took his place instead — Jonathan presumably then took the place across from Saul. On the king’s other side was an empty seat. This was the seat reserved for David.
Such was the setting for the feast of the new moon — a small square table, with the king’s uncle sitting next to him, his eldest son sitting across from him, and an empty spot on his other side for one of his son in laws. It was a sad testament, again, just as sitting up against the wall, to Saul’s paranoia. Unlike David and Solomon, whose tables would be filled with his sons and honored guests (2 Sam 9:11; 1 Kgs 2:7). Indeed, kings would generally want to have their tables filled with their family and with others who were special to them. As a contrast, Saul’s feast of the new moon was celebrated at a small square table, surrounded by his generals — only those with whom he needed to interact for the purpose of running the kingdom. All others were not invited.
This small setting would have made David’s absence extremely conspicuous. There were four seats at the table, and one of them wasn’t filled — everyone would have clearly known whose seat it was and who it was that was missing. Nevertheless, on the first day of the feast, Saul didn’t say anything about David’s empty spot at the table:
“Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean” (1 Sam 20:26).
Why was David absent?
David’s empty position at the table led Saul, and likely Abner as well, to wonder why it was that he hadn’t come. Surely David knew that he was expected, and it wasn’t like to him to simply ignore an invitation from the king. Saul hadn’t been told that he wasn’t going to be able to come, thus, something must have suddenly happened to him that prevented him from being able to come on the first day. Saul’s mind immediately jumped to uncleanness — at times, this type of uncleanness could be a rather embarrassing thing that David wouldn’t have wanted to share with everyone else, especially with the king. As a result, Saul assumed, David didn’t tell anyone and waited to come to the feast the next day, when his period of uncleanness would be finished:
“If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: but it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again” (Deut 23:10-11).
The man who had a bodily discharge by night (cp. Lev 15:16-17) was required by God to set himself apart from the rest of the camp. He had become unclean and was not to come in contact with the rest of Israel. When the evening of the next day had come, he would then cleanse himself by washing in water and once the sun had gone down, his period of uncleanness was over and he could come into the camp once more. Perhaps this scenario crossed Saul’s mind when he said of David, “he is not clean; surely he is not clean.” It was a bit of an embarrassing type of situation, and it would be over in one day, allowing David to come to the rest of the feast. If this wasn’t specifically what Saul was considering, there were a few other scenarios under the law that would have made David unclean “until the even” as well; if he touched the dead body of an unclean animal (Lev 11:24), if he touched the dead body of a clean animal (Lev 11:39), if he stepped into a house that had been closed off due to a plague, and there were even more reasons as well. It was one of these, or perhaps any choice of these, upon which Saul’s mind settled — he decided that David must be unclean, and he would present himself at the feast the next day.
Therefore, when the next day came, and David’s seat was empty once again, Saul knew that his assumption had been wrong — David couldn’t have missed the feast because of uncleanness, since that only lasted for one day. Now he knew that David was absent for some other reason, and he wanted to know what it was. Would his attempt to kill David be foiled again? If David didn’t come to the feast, he would have missed another opportunity to capture his enemy — all of David’s narrow escapes were beginning to get frustrating! Turning to Jonathan, whom he knew had a strong friendship with the young shepherd, Saul asked him where David was:
“And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?” (1Sam 20:27).
It would have appeared to have been an innocent question — as far as Saul knew, Jonathan still believed that he was going to keep his oath and spare David’s life. On top of that, David’s open seat truly was quite conspicuous, and it would have seemed fairly natural for the king to wonder why it was that David was absent. Jonathan’s answer to the question, however, soon revealed Saul’s true intention. No matter how innocently the question had been asked, Saul’s murderous hatred was still alive and well:
“And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem: and he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favor in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table” (1 Sam 20:28-29).
Jonathan spoke almost the exact same words to his father that David had originally rehearsed to him — but there were a few major changes:
- David had originally told Jonathan to tell his father that it was a “yearly sacrifice” to which David had gone (1 Sam 20:5). Jonathan instead changed the event to a “sacrifice.”
- David originally made it sound as though the desire for him to be at the sacrifice came from him (1Sam 20:5). Jonathan changed the reason for David going to the sacrifice; it wasn’t simply because he desired to be there, but because his brother had “commanded” him to be there!
- Jonathan used a very different word to describe David’s journey up to Bethlehem. David originally said that he wanted to “run to Bethlehem his city.” Jonathan changed the word and instead of saying “run to Bethlehem,” Jonathan said “let me get away” — and this word, Strong’s H4422, is most often translated as “escape”!
Jonathan’s changes to David’s words could have perhaps simply been his version of relaying what David had said — he might not have consciously changed what David had originally spoken to him. However, some of these changes seem fairly blatant — and Jonathan always seemed to be careful about his choice of words (cp. 1 Sam 19:4-5). Where did Jonathan develop this idea of David’s brother commanding him to be at the sacrifice — David said nothing of the sort to him?! As well, Jonathan’s word choice of “escape” is almost a loaded word; David had been fleeing from Saul for the past few days, surely the word “escape” wasn’t a lackadaisical choice. Rather, all of these changes would seem to indicate that Jonathan had carefully chosen his words about David’s absence for the purpose of giving an excuse that would have seemed entirely unjustified to his father! Essentially, Jonathan took the framework of David’s words, and added to them, specifically so that what he said would have the effect of provoking his father and forcing him to drop his “innocence” and show his true intentions. Just consider the weakness that Jonathan’s changes added to David’s excuse:
- No longer was David going to his family’s house to celebrate a “yearly sacrifice,” which would have seemed to be fairly important to the tradition of the family. Instead, Jonathan made the reason for David’s absence less important by merely saying that it was a “sacrifice.”
- Jonathan said that David had been commanded by his brother to be at the sacrifice — who was his brother to command David, the son in law to the king, to leave the king’s table and come home? That would be completely unacceptable!
- Because David had “escaped” from Saul’s last few attempts to take his life, again, this word would have triggered Saul’s anger — when Jonathan said that David asked to “escape,” Saul would have become furious, realizing that he had escaped from his grasp once again!
Truly, it would appear as though Jonathan had purposefully added to what David had told him to say, just so that he could really see if his father had kept his promise about David. Jonathan specifically weakened David’s excuse and added the word “escape” — just to see if Saul would react or if his calmness would continue.
Jonathan’s calculated response did exactly what it was meant to do. When Saul heard Jonathan’s words, he could no longer feign innocence. His true motives and intentions violently came forth.
Saul’s wrath
“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die” (1Sam 20:30-31).
Hearing Jonathan’s response, Saul’s cool composure gave way to that of a mad man — looking straight at his firstborn across the table, Saul shouted out insults about Jonathan and his mother. Jonathan had forsaken him, he knew that — and how it must have pained Jonathan to hear that accusation, considering his loyalty to his father all throughout the record. Yet Saul’s anger was uncontrollable, and in his response his true intentions were clearly shown. David needed to die because he was the one of whom Samuel had prophesied. He was the king who would be captain over God’s people and who had a heart like God’s (1Sam 13:14). As long as he lived, Saul’s kingdom would be threatened and Jonathan’s would never exist — such was Saul’s vain appeal to his son. Nevertheless, with that as his reasoning, Saul commanded Jonathan to send to Bethlehem and call David back — because David’s fate was sealed.
It was the first time that Saul’s reason for wanting to kill David was put out into the open. Ironically, this revelation first proceeded from his lips at the feast of the new moon — a time of renewal and of rekindling faith. Instead, Saul revealed his resolute hatred of David and his determination to do whatever he needed to do in order to stand against the will of God. Samuel had proclaimed that David would be the next king, Saul knew it, and he was prepared to stand against it. Such was the hypocrisy of this man — at the very time that he should have been thinking on God’s glory and greatness, his mind was on nothing but his own kingdom and his own honor. But Jonathan didn’t think like his father. For him, the kingdom had already been given to David — he had given the young man his robe and his armor and his bow! He had just made a covenant with David and that covenant revolved around David’s future kingship! In Jonathan’s eyes, Saul’s reason for David’s death was ridiculous — and so it was that Jonathan pushed his father further. Never mind the fact that he would be the future king, that was by God’s appointment — Jonathan wanted his father to tell him what David had actually done that was worthy of death? Just as he had said to his father in the field, was not David a loyal servant of the king?
“And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?” (1Sam 20:32).
With this response from Jonathan, Saul’s anger exploded even further. If his son would foolishly give up his kingdom to the son of Jesse, if he would continue to ally himself with the king’s enemy, and if he would continue to argue with his father, then Saul would end his disrespect and dishonor at that very moment! Grabbing his javelin, which was no doubt ready to take the life of David, Saul hurled the weapon across the table at his son:
“And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David. So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame” (1 Sam 20:33-34)
With that, Jonathan knew that Saul’s oath had been broken. The murderous streak had come back, and David’s life was no longer safe. Filled with a righteous anger, Jonathan left the javelin on the floor beside him and arose from the table. With Saul fuming at one end of the table and his son standing at the other end, Jonathan dismissed himself — knowing that this was a situation in which he was better not to stay. For the rest of the day he ate nothing, mourning over the shameful things that his father had said about his friend. Beautifully, that was the depth of Jonathan’s anger towards Saul; he wasn’t concerned about the insults that his father had said about him and about his loyalties — he was concerned for David and his own reputation. Oh that we too could learn to think like Jonathan — to learn to think of others above ourselves and to esteem their needs above our own (Phil 2:4)! Truly and so often, he demonstrated the way to have this selfless attitude and the way to serve our brethren.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One