Читать книгу Boyd's Commentary - R.H. Boyd Publishing Corporation - Страница 47

Because of Jonathan’s respectful demeanor, cogent logic, and impassioned appeal to his father to spare his friend’s life, Saul heeded his son’s voice and swore an oath before God that he would not kill David. Oaths were statements by which a person promised or guaranteed a vow would be kept or that a statement was, in fact, true. In the Old Testament, the name of God was invoked as the One who would guarantee the results or veracity of a statement. So, Saul’s oath was in fact invoking God’s hand to ensure David’s protection, even when Saul eventually changed his mind.

One who has read the text knows Saul was a man who broke oaths made to God (1 Sam. 14:24–46). Saul had made an oath for the entire army to fast during a battle against the Philistines. Jonathan did not know his father had made an oath and ate some honey. The penalty for breaking the fast was supposed to be death, thus Saul was supposed to kill his son. Saul did not follow through on his word. Instead he acquiesced to the crowd that pressured him to let Jonathan live. Saul gave in and they ransomed an animal in Jonathan’s place. This earlier story gives us insight to the current story in two ways. (1) As was mentioned, Saul was not a man of integrity. He broke his word. (2) Saul was a leader who lived for the approval of the crowd. He needed the praise of his people even if that caused him to be unfaithful to the oaths he swore in the name of God.

Having negotiated the reconciliation, Jonathan went at once to inform David of his success and completed his mission by escorting him back to Saul. Because of Jonathan’s intervention, David was restored to court. David’s service to the king also was restored as in times past. David resumed his post as a military chieftain and lived within the court of the king. He also continued to be Saul’s son-in-law.

The interaction between Saul and Jonathan demonstrated Saul had no clue Jonathan had pledged his loyalty to David. This moment between the two showed how much Saul had lost touch with the reality that the kingdom truly had been torn from his hands. Even his own son had defected to his rival. The text is fraught with tension because as Saul had no idea about his son, Jonathan still had his father’s trust. This is but one possibility.

The other possibility is that Saul knew Jonathan and David were close friends. With his knowledge of their friendship, by agreeing to relent from his pursuit of David, he was hoping Jonathan would report back to David. Once the report reached David, David would return to the royal court, making it easier to kill David. Given the narrator’s absence of details regarding the inner worlds of the protagonists, either theory can be supported. What is clear is that David and Saul were on opposing sides with Jonathan stuck in the middle.