Jonathan had just presented his plea to Saul, that David be not slain (article 14, The Tidings, July 2014). It was a heartfelt plea — one which begged his father to reconsider his feelings toward David, but even more, to reconsider his life towards God.
In this article, we’ll consider Saul’s reaction to that petition, and we’ll look a bit more at Jonathan’s tactics, searching for what we can learn for our own conflicts.
Saul’s answer
There must have been a wave of silence as Jonathan finished his petition, looking at his father with concern in his eyes. Then, the silence was broken by Saul, a man who had struggled for so long with his pride:
“And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the LORD liveth, he shall not be slain” (1Sam 19:6).
David would live. In a decision of humility and in a moment of his old character, Saul threw his pride behind and quietly gave up his will for the will of his God — all at the gentle prompting of his son. “As the LORD liveth, he shall not be slain.”
It was an echo of the words that he had proclaimed after that fateful battle with the Ammonites! “There shall not a man be put to death this day.” What welcome words these would have been to Jonathan, and how relieved he would have felt as he heard them come from the mouth of his father! He had listened — and it was as though he had caught Jonathan’s reference to the earlier battle and had remembered the better, more faithful times. But not only did Saul’s mind go back to the faithful times, and not only did he say that David would live, but he in fact swore by God that he would. This was a serious oath which Saul made — it was one which he was then required by law to keep. If he broke it, he was specifically breaking Yahweh’s command:
“And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD” (Lev 19:12).
An oath to God
Under the law, God had commanded His people to make their oaths in His name — such was the way in which they could truly prove that they meant what they said; God’s name was the greatest thing upon which they could swear (Deut 6:13). Nevertheless, with this serious of an oath came an equally serious obligation to follow through with what had been said. If someone swore to the truth of a matter or swore to perform an action, they were then bound to perform it:
“And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth” (Num 30:1-2).
Thus, the law was clear. When a man made an oath to God, he was entirely and fully bound to do what he had promised — there was no compromise and there was no going back. Even if the situation was such that following through with the oath would actually end up being detrimental to the individual who swore it, the righteous and faithful thing was for them to still seek to perform what they had sworn. This was what happened in the case of the Gibeonites. They were an indigenous tribe to the land, they were supposed to have been destroyed by Joshua and Israel, but because the princes of the land had sworn to them that they would not be killed, Israel was forced to allow them to live (Josh 9:18-20). Again, in another situation, David had a similar type of experience with Shimei. He had sworn to Shimei that he would not kill him (2Sam 19:23) — yet Shimei was a wicked man who was a snare to David’s reign. Thus, once David passed on the kingship to Solomon, David told Solomon to take care of Shimei and his wickedness — but David himself refused to do so, specifically because he had made an oath to Shimei that he would not kill him. Throughout the Old Testament, if someone made an oath or swore by God that they would do something or wouldn’t do something, then they were bound to perform the oath. The law was clear and the principle was straightforward.
When Saul spoke these words to Jonathan and swore by Yahweh that David would not be slain, he full well knew what he was doing (remember, he seems to have known the law quite well) — and both he and Jonathan would have likely taken the oath very seriously. Considering Saul’s behavior just a few verses later, in which he once more sought to pin David to the wall with his javelin, this is perhaps hard to believe — but nevertheless, keeping in mind the seriousness of the law towards oaths, notice the way in which Saul fervently stuck to the things which he swore all throughout his life:
During the battle against the Philistines, just after Jonathan smote their garrison, Saul made an oath that none of the people would eat until the evening:
“And the men of Israel were distressed that day: for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So none of the people tasted any food” (1Sam 14:24).
Saul swore that anyone who ate food until the evening would be cursed — and he was extremely serious about this oath. He was so serious, that none of the men of Israel dared to break it for fear of what his response might have been.
Just a few verses after making the oath about his army fasting, Saul swore again. This time, it was when Saul realized that someone had broken his command and had eaten food during the period in which the people were supposed to be fasting:
“And Saul said, Draw ye near hither, all the chief of the people: and know and see wherein this sin hath been this day. For, as the LORD liveth, which saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die. But there was not a man among all the people that answered him” (1Sam 14:38-39).
When Saul realized that someone had broken his oath, Saul swore again, saying that even if the offender had been his son Jonathan, he would slay them. There is no doubt that Saul seriously planned on sticking with what he had sworn in this case — very soon after he had uttered these words, the people had to prevent him from killing his own son.
Even later in his life, Saul once again was very serious about his oaths. When God would not respond to Saul’s pleas for His insight, Saul decided to consult a medium. She — knowing that her divination was forbidden under the law — was afraid to practice before him, thinking that it could possibly lead to serious consequences for her. Thus, Saul swore to her that she would not be punished:
“And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing” (1Sam 28:9-10)
Despite the fact that this woman should have been killed according to the law (Lev 20:27), Saul stayed true to his oath. He had sworn to her that she would not be punished, and knowing the seriousness of his oath, he didn’t break it.
To Saul, if he made an oath or if he swore by God’s name that he would do something, he planned on doing it. He knew the seriousness of an oath. When he swore an oath, he planned on keeping it. Thus, when he swore that he wasn’t going to kill David, it would seem as though he truly meant what he said. At the time, he full well planned on sparing David’s life and on turning from following his violent emotions.
What a relief this would have been to Jonathan — who likely knew how seriously his father took his oaths. As Jonathan and his father parted ways after that conversation, the young prince was perhaps convinced that Saul was going to act upon what he said and cease from any vain attempts to kill David. In Jonathan’s mind, his courageous action based off of principle had truly gone the absolute best that it could have. Thus, with a firm belief in the fulfillment of Saul’s oath, Jonathan went to David to tell him that the danger was past.
Debriefing and aftermath
“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” (1 Sam 19:7).
After the two men — the king and his son — parted ways, Jonathan called David to him in order to tell him exactly what he saw. Certainly David would have come to Jonathan with a much relieved heart, and Jonathan would have been able to confirm that relief as he reinforced what David had heard in the field by telling him the seriousness of his father’s expression and the earnestness which he had seen. Truly, the two men believed that the danger was past and that Saul had ceased from his evil intentions — and as it would seem, Saul believed that his hatred of David was past as well. David was brought into his presence and everything was as it had been before. David came before Saul and played the soothing music — and Saul loved him for it. For some length of time, everything was as it had been in times past.
The power of gentleness
Regardless of Jonathan’s specific results, there is truly value in examining the way in which Jonathan spoke to his father — not just because it worked, but because it was truly a Godly way to “instruct” a man who was “opposing himself” (2 Tim 2:25). Jonathan knew that his love for his father compelled him to speak to him — but he could have come and presented his plea in a number of different ways. Jonathan could have censured Saul for his wickedness and desire to kill an innocent man! He could have shouted at him and given him a list of all of his sins, telling him that he needed to reform his life before God tore the kingdom from his hands. On the other hand, Jonathan could have merely said that Saul needed to rethink the idea about killing David, but not really carefully considered his words and ideas.
Essentially, the way in which Jonathan came to his father was the absolute best way in which to approach an erring brother. Just notice the steps which Jonathan took:
- He didn’t constantly correct his father. He stood back during the battle with the Amalekites and with Goliath, but when the issue was such that it required his intervention, he willingly did so. In more modern terms, Jonathan chose his battles.
- He carefully considered what he was going to say — using terms like “the king” and “his servant.” He didn’t throw his ideas together haphazardly. He pondered what would be most effective.
- He approached his father with an attitude of gentleness. He wasn’t there to harshly reprimand Saul, but presented this to Saul for Saul’s sake. Jonathan took steps so that his father wouldn’t feel defensive, but rather felt as though he was speaking to someone who was looking out for his best interests.
- Though he was gentle, he spoke openly and honestly. He wasn’t afraid to speak the truth and tell Saul that killing David would be a “sin’ and that he would be spilling “innocent blood.’
- He logically presented his argument and had strong proofs for his points. When he said that David risked his life for Saul, he was able to back that up by reminding Saul about David fighting against the giant.
- He focused his father’s mind on to spiritual things. He reminded Saul of the great security which he had once had when following Yahweh, back in the time when Yahweh wrought a great salvation through him. Back then, Saul had not been afraid to have those around who appeared to be his opponents.
With those six elements — and with a strong belief that he was following the principle of love for his father — Jonathan won over his father’s heart. It was a beautifully put together plea, and it is a way of communication which could greatly benefit ecclesial life. How often is it that when we hear an erring brother say something from the platform that we simply want to take him aside after his address and blast him with all of the reasons why he is wrong? How often is it that we hear about a brother and a sister struggling because of some type of lifestyle issue, and we simply want to ignore the situation because it would be less complicated for us if we didn’t get involved?
We are presented with situations like the one faced by Jonathan all of the time! Ecclesial life is made up of times in which we must be driven by principle to speak to a brother or sister — regardless of what we think the results may be. Perhaps there is a brother or sister who continually is set on doing something that is clearly a sin. If only we could approach them as Jonathan approached his father! If only we could do so in gentleness tempered by speaking the Truth. If we could have that type of attitude, the soft answer which proceeded from our lips would turn away the wrath which so often is generated from these types of situations.
Conclusion
Thus, in the story of Jonathan pleading for David, there develops a picture of a man who was dedicated to living by God’s principles — even to the point of putting himself in a situation where he could have lost his life — but who recognized that there was still a large importance in the way that those principles were applied. Jonathan approached his father with an attitude which was focused on spiritual matters, which spoke the truth in love, and which made it clear that he was speaking to his father because he cared about him. Through Jonathan’s wisdom and faith, there was a brief moment in which his father was pricked and earnestly swore that he wouldn’t act despite his murderous feelings towards David. It was a beautiful moment — and one over which Jonathan must have rejoiced with David. Sadly, though Saul sought to stay true to his oath, the pressure was too strong, and the moment of peace was not to last. As the situation became more and more desperate, Jonathan would sadly hear from David that his father had broken his oath, and he would approach the king once more to plead for his friend.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One