Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

25-42.

the Lord might be with him, as he had been with his father. But not, if I yet live, and thou wilt not show me the mercy of the Lord, that I die not: and that thou wilt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earthm. This covenant of friendship between Jonathan and David, and their respective families, being thus renewed and solemnly sworn to by both, Jonathan appoints both time and place where he would meet him, and the token by which David might be fully assured of Saul's disposition towards him.

The morning after this solemn engagement between the two 1 Sam. xx. friends, which was the festival of the new moon, the king sat at table, accompanied by Jonathan and Abner; but David, who, as the king's son-in-law, was to have been there, was absent. Saul not knowing but that some accident might have prevented his coming, took no notice of his absence the first day; but finding his place empty the second day, he inquired of Jonathan, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor to day? Jonathan then answered, that upon David's earnest request he had permitted him to go to Bethlehem, to partake of a sacrifice to which his brethren had invited him, and so he could not be present at the king's table. This put Saul into an outrageous passion, that made him break out into the most indecent reproaches against Jonathan's mother, and against Jonathan himself, for the friendship that he had entered into with David; telling him that it would turn Ver. 30, 31. Out to his own confusion and ruin. Thou son of the perverse

rebellious woman, do I not 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, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

m The 14th verse in our version is injudiciously rendered, And thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord, &c. In the foregoing verse Jonathan swears that if his father had determined evil he would show it him, that he, David, might go in peace, and that the Lord might be with him; adding,

show to me the mercy of the Lord that I die not, i. e. I permit you to depart in peace, and wish you the protection of the Lord, only on this condition, that you secure my life and preserve my family. Our version leaves out one of the negative particles, and thereby alters the sense, and greatly detracts from the em

.if I get phasis of the passage עם עודני חי but not ולא

live, wrn R, and thou dost not

Jonathan, who had still his friend's safety at heart, and willing to pacify his father, calmly remonstrates, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? This put Saul into such a fury, that he only replied to him by endeavouring to pierce him through the heart with a dagger. This abundantly convinced him that his father was determined to destroy David, and he accordingly kept his appointment with him, gave him the signal agreed on, and after most tenderly embracing one another, Jonathan takes his leave of him: Go in peace, forasmuch as 1 Sam. xx. we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. Thus parted the two royal friends; David into banishment, and Jonathan into the city.

And what is there criminal in this friendship between them inconsistent with Saul's interest, or unbecoming men of integrity and honour? It can never be inferred from this transaction that Jonathan was seduced by the arts of David from his allegiance and filial duty, to engage in David's cause against his own father by covenant; for the only two things they here covenanted and swore to were, that if Jonathan should be alive when David had the power in his hands, David would not put him to death; and that David should not cut off his kindness from Jonathan's house and family for ever; no, not when the Lord should have cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth. But where is the conspiracy against Saul in all this? Or how can David be said to have seduced Jonathan in this transaction from his filial duty, when it was Jonathan himself who proposed the covenant, and caused David to swear to it?

Jonathan did, I confess, when Saul ordered him to kill David, absolutely refuse obedience to his command, and instead of murdering him, as his father ordered, turns his advocate, and affectionately pleads his innocence and merits, even to the immediate hazard of his own life. He did also discover his father's design and fixed resolution to cut him off, once and again, and advised him to take care of his own safety. And in my judgment neither was inconsistent with his duty and allegiance to his father and his king. He who knows of a conspiracy against an innocent person's life and doth not discover it, or who kills such a one, knowing him to be such, by another's

42.

32.

instigation and command, is himself a murderer; and no dutyn to a father nor allegiance to a prince can oblige any one to shed innocent blood, or justify him in doing it. Jonathan therefore was so far from acting contrary to his duty and allegiance, in refusing to become his father's instrument in destroying David, as that he gave a noble proof of his filial piety, affection, and duty, in his repeated endeavours to preserve him from so unnatural and atrocious a crime; and humanity and virtue will ever applaud him for the generous concern he expressed for the honour of his father and the preservation of his own injured friend.

The reader will observe, that Jonathan ever considers David as an innocent person, and pleads for him to his father, not as for a rebel or notorious offender, to obtain his pardon, but as never having done any thing to forfeit Saul's favour or 1 Sam. xx. his own life. Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? is Jonathan's language; and Saul himself, even in the height of his rage against Jonathan for endeavouring to protect David, neither intimates any suspicion of, nor charges David with any rebellious treasonable practices against him, nor reproaches Jonathan with being privy to or a sharer in them; but only tells him, as the cause of his anger to him, and what lay

1 Sam. xxi. 1, &c.

Alta mente repostum,

that as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom: wherefore now send, and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. But the princely friend scorned a crown that was to be purchased by treachery and murder.

CHAP. VII.

David's flight to Achish, and escape from him to Adullam. WHEN David took his leave of Jonathan he went immediately to Nob, a city belonging to the priests, in his way to the Philistines, amongst whom he intended to take refuge from the persecutions of Saul. As he passed through the town he went

n Non facere ea quæ non facienda sunt, laudem meretur, non dedecus. Si igitur quis aut patri, aut magistratui, aut domino, turpia aut iniqua factu imperanti, non paret, is nec

inobediens est, nec injuriam facit, nec peccat. Muson. apud Stob. Serm. 77, as translated by Grotius, de J. B. et P. II. xxvi. 2. i.

to Ahimelech the priest, who seeing him without his proper attendants, which David had left in some neighbouring place, was greatly surprised and afraid, and therefore asked him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? David, unwilling to tell the priest the reason of his flight, and to prevent as much as he could any suspicion that there was any confederacy between them against Saul, only tells him in general, that he was intrusted with a secret commission from the king, and that he had appointed his attendants to meet him at an appointed time and place. David's flight was so sudden, as that he had not had time to provide himself and his few servants with any provisions for their journey, nor to take any arms with him for his own defence; and he therefore asks the priest to spare him five loaves of bread, or any other provision that he had in hand. Ahimelech, having no other, took the showbread that was taken from the table of the Lord in order to be replaced by fresh bread; which David very readily took, and in which he is vindicated by our blessed Saviour, because it was Matt. xii. real necessity that forced him to it.

And as David had no weapon to defend him, he further asked the priest whether he had either sword or spear. The priest answered, that he had only the sword of Goliah, whom he himself had slain with it; to which David replied, There is none like it; give me that. He then took it, and being thus

• David, I doubt not, thought this his recovering Goliah's sword was a very fortunate accident; but little thought this circumstance would ever be alleged against him by his enemies to prove him a rebel and a traitor. And yet unfortunately this hath been the case; for it hath been alleged, that "his resuming the sword with which he slew Goliah is to be considered as a manifestation of hostile intentions, or a declaration of war against Saul." David, who had no arms, wanted a sword. Now supposing some other sword had been there, and not Goliah's, would the taking of that have been also a declaration of war against Saul? If so, then it will follow that every man who takes up a sword in his own defence discovers hostile intentions, and makes a declaration of

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

3.4.

provided with a few necessaries for his journey, made the best of his way, and went to Achish, king of Gath. His arrival there threw him into fresh difficulties; for as soon as ever it was known, the servants of that prince informed the king, and said to him, Is not this David the king of the land? Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands? Thus representing him as a very obnoxious and dangerous person, who deserved to be narrowly guarded, and whom it might be necessary to secure for the public safety. When this was reported to him, probably by some of his own servants, David was afraid of Achish, and apprehensive of the dangerous situation in which he here found himself; and as he was strictly watched, so that he could not possibly make his escape, he took the only method that he thought was left him to prevent his destruction; a method that hath been successfully practised by other P great and wise men on particular emergencies, which

crated Goliah's sword to God, he says nothing of his arms; and the Bible says nothing about the dedication of either; and the sword might be left with Ahimelech to be forthcoming upon occasion : and that it was so seems probable, because, had it been dedicated as a trophy, it would have been placed, trophy-like, in some conspicuous view; whereas this sword was wrapped up in a cloth, and seems to have been carelessly thrown out of the way behind the ephod. Besides, though it was customary amongst the heathens to hang up the armour of their slain enemies in the temples of their gods, 1 Sam. xxxi. 10, yet this doth not appear to have been customary amongst the Jews; and as the armour of an uncircumcised infidel was unclean, it could not be admitted into any sacred place. Nor was Nob a sacred place, for neither the ark nor tabernacle were there. And though Ahimelech the priest dwelt there, and had the ephod with him to inquire of the Lord by, yet these two circumstances made Nob no more sacred than it did Keilah, where David called for the ephod, and inquired of the Lord by the

hands of Abiathar. But Keilah was never taken for a sacred place.

But supposing the sword had been consecrated, how doth this circumstance prove an hostile intention, and a declaration of war? He took the sword for the same reason of necessity as he did the consecrated bread, because there was no other, and he wanted both; and the taking the consecrated bread to keep himself and his men from starving, may with as much reason be looked on as a declaration of war against Saul, as his taking the consecrated sword to defend himself against the attack of his enemies; and as our Saviour expressly vindicates David in taking the one, he doth also in the other, because the same necessity might be pleaded for both. And indeed the objection is so trifling as that it scarce deserves an answer.

P David feigned himself mad, 1 Sam. xxi. 13, and acted the madman so well as to impose on the king and his nobles, and make them take his feigned madness for a real one. And he is not the only instance of this kind. Among the easterns, Baihasus the Arabian, surnamed Naama, had several of his brethren

« AnteriorContinuar »