Jonathan the Mediator

When his subtle plots against David backfire, Saul, in frustration, launches a much more open, direct attack, finally revealing the malice he has largely concealed within his heart until this time. He commands “all his servants” and his son Jonathan to kill David. But in giving this order, Saul greatly overestimates his servants’ loyalty to him and greatly underestimates their esteem for David. Does he not know how his servants feel toward David? He himself spoke of the esteem for David among his staff (18:22). Apparently his raging envy of David is clouding his faculties. As for Jonathan, Saul may not know of his son’s affection for David (see 18:1). Or it may be that he simply cannot imagine that, in a pinch, Jonathan will defy his wishes and support David. As Matthew Henry puts it, “He thought that because [Jonathan] was heir to the crown he must needs be as envious at David as [he] himself was.”

But Saul makes a critical error in asking Jonathan to raise his hand against David. Rather than lying in wait for David, Jonathan goes to him with a warning, telling him of Saul’s murderous intent and advising him to hide out until morning. But then Jonathan goes further, taking the step that any loving brother (but particularly one bound by a covenant) ought to take—he places himself in danger by going to Saul to plead David’s case. In the context of Saul’s madness, Jonathan’s words are extremely bold. He begins by telling Saul that sin is crouching at his door. Killing David, he says, would be a grave transgression of God’s law because David’s is “innocent blood.” Indeed, not only has David not sinned against Saul, he has done much good for Saul, especially his killing of Goliath. Then Jonathan pointedly reminds Saul of how he rejoiced when David felled the giant. Clearly, there is no cause for David to be killed.

Saul appears to heed Jonathan’s words. He rescinds his order for David’s death with an oath, and Jonathan then brings David back to the court. But is Saul’s change of heart sincere? Subsequent events will show that it is not. As Henry writes in his commentary, “As bad as Saul was … we suppose that he spoke as he thought for the present, but the convictions soon wore off and his corruptions prevailed and triumphed over them.”