now to warn, and, if possible, to reclaim, as formerly to qualify him for his work. And some result of this kind

seems to have been produced. For, although David fled from Naioth on the arrival of Saul, we find him soon

again near the royal residence (20:1), where, indeed, he was evidently expected by the king to take part in the

festive meal with which the beginning of every month seems to have been celebrated (vers. 5, 25, 27). The

notice is historically interesting in connection with Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15,190 as also that other one (1

Samuel 20:6, 29), according to which it appears to have been the practice in those days of religious

unsettledness for families to have had a yearly "sacrifice" in their own place, especially where, as in

Bethlehem, there was an altar (comp. 16:2, etc.).

But, whatever had passed, David felt sure in his own mind that evil was appointed against him, and that

there was but a step between him and death. Yet on that moral certainty alone he did not feel warranted to

act. Accordingly he applied to Jonathan, whom he could so fully trust, expressly placing his life, in word as

in deed, in his hands, if he were really guilty of what the king imputed to him (ver. 8). With characteristic

generosity, Jonathan, however, still refused to believe in any settled purpose of murder on the part of his

father, attributing all that had passed to the outbursts of temporary madness. His father had never made a

secret of his intentions and movements. Why, then, should he now be silent, if David's suspicions were well

founded? The suggestion that Jonathan should excuse David's absence from the feast by his attendance on

the yearly family -sacrifice at Bethlehem, for which he had asked and obtained Jonathan's leave, was well

calculated to bring out the feelings and purposes of the king. If determined to evil against David, he would

in his anger at the escape of his victim, and his own son's participation in it, give vent to his feelings in

language that could not be mistaken, the more so, if, as might be expected, Jonathan pleaded with

characteristic warmth on behalf of his absent friend. But who could be trusted to bring tidings to David as

he lay in hiding, "or" tell him "what" Saul would "answer" Jonathan "roughly" - or, in other words,

communicate the details of the conversation?

To discuss the matter, unendangered by prying eyes and ears, the two friends betook themselves "to the

field." The account of what passed between them - one of the few narratives of this kind given in Scripture -

is most pathetic. It was not merely the outflowing of personal affection between the two, or perhaps it would

not have been recorded at all. Rather is it reported in order to show that, though Jonathan had never spoken

of it, he was fully aware of David's future destiny; more than that, he had sad presentiment of the fate of his

own house. And yet, in full view of it all, he believingly submitted to the will of God, and still lovingly clave

to his friend! There is a tone of deep faith toward God, and of full trust in David, in what Jonathan said. Far

more fully and clearly than his father does he see into the future, alike as regards David and the house of

Saul. But there is not a tinge of misunderstanding of David, not a shadow of suspicion, not a trace of

jealousy, not a word of murmur or complaint. More touching words, surely, were never uttered than this

charge which Jonathan laid on David as his part of their covenant, in view of what was t o come upon them

both: "And not only if I am still alive - not only shalt thou do with me the mercy of Jehovah" (show towards

me Divine mercy) "that I die not; but thou shalt not cut off thy mercy from my house - not even" (at the

time) "when Jehovah cutteth off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth" (20:14, 15).191

The signal preconcerted between the friends was, that on the third day David should lie in hiding at the

same spot where he had concealed himself "in the day of business" - probably that day when Jonathan had

formerly pleaded with his father for his friend (19:2-7) - beside the stone Ezel, perhaps "the stone of

demarcation," marking a boundary. Jonathan was to shoot three arrows. If he told the lad in attendance that

they lay nearer than he had run to fetch them, David might deem himself safe, and come out of hiding. If, on

the contrary, he directed him to go farther, then David should conclude that his only safety lay in flight. The

result proved that David's fears had been t oo well grounded. Saul had evidently watched for the

opportunity which the New Moon's festival would offer to destroy his hated rival. On the first day he

noticed David's absence, but, attributing it to some Levitical defilement, made no remark, lest his tone might

betray him. But on the following day he inquired its reason in language which too clearly betokened his

feelings. It was then that Jonathan repeated the false explanation which David had suggested. Whether or

not the king saw through the hollowness of the device, it certainly proved utterly unavailing. Casting aside