“… and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul.”
Jonathan’s death was not as ignominious as the death of his father Saul, whose enemies summarily beheaded him, but his is not the storybook ending the reader expects for David’s most loyal friend and fiercest defender.
Jonathan was also a servant of God, a man of faith whose courage and leadership inspired his troops and led to miraculous victories over Israel’s enemies. Yet 1 Samuel notes his passing in the same sentence as that of his brothers, neither of whom has anything particular to commend him in scripture. He suffered the same fate as they did at roughly the same time.
Get Them Before They Get You
In ancient times, when a dynasty ended, it was usually
because all potential successors of the previous dynasty had died or been
eliminated. If they hadn’t, they shortly would. The universality of this
practice was not so much a function of the intrinsic wickedness of man — though
man is certainly wicked — but of humanity’s God-instigated inclination to build
The alternative (globalism) is infinitely worse than the temptation to a little bit of tribal or ethnic pride and preference, as we are just now discovering. While greatly undesirable in its worst forms, the “scourge of racism” is surely a lesser evil than eating bugs, owning nothing, worshiping self, and being culled and parasitized by a coterie of billionaire merchants from all over the planet.
Taking One for the Team
Anyway, after Babel, men had an incentive to preserve their unique bloodlines at the expense of anyone who threatened their “team”, not the greatest (and not the worst) thing in the world.
Benjaminites loved and trusted other Benjaminites. That was part of the package, and there was nothing wrong with that. Jonathan was a Benjaminite, and the natural heir to the throne of Israel, though God had anointed David as Saul’s replacement. So let’s start by not faulting Jonathan for something he never asked for and didn’t want. If anyone understood what God was doing by anointing David, a young man from the tribe of Judah, as king over Israel, Jonathan did. He not only accepted God’s choice of another man from another tribe to take his rightful throne, he approved it and did everything in his power to make sure it happened. He said to David, “Do not fear, for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you. Saul my father also knows this.”
I’ve already spoiled the ending for our readers: Jonathan never got to be David’s second in command. It’s not exactly a head-scratcher, but it does bring up the question “What might have happened if Jonathan had lived?”
He’s OUR Guy!
It’s no big secret to readers of the Old Testament that Israel was even more tribal than other nations of the day, and every tribe wanted the king of Israel to come from among their kindred. There was the standard reason we already mentioned: ethnic pride. To be able to say, “He’s OUR guy” was even better than being able to say, “I’ve been cheering for the Patriots since Steve Grogan’s days” in the late 2010s, when Tom Brady and New England had just won their sixth Superbowl.
Furthermore, there were massive perqs to having the king be a close relative. Like all kings in his day, Saul’s kingdom was exceedingly nepotistic. The commander of his army? A relative. All Saul’s closest servants, leaders and advisors? Benjaminites. Not only that, Saul bought the loyalty of his family and extended family with fields, vineyards and army promotions, and expected that any other king in Israel would do exactly the same for his own kindred. (Even relatively righteous David did the same thing when given opportunity.) Furthermore, the king and the ruling family got to name the capital city of Israel and build their house there. In Saul’s day, of course the capital was in Benjamin. Why wouldn’t it be?
So then, if Saul’s dynasty ended, all expected the Benjaminite gravy train would quickly come to an abrupt end along with it; therefore, all in Benjamin had multiple financial and peer pressure incentives to preserve his dynasty and to fight God’s choice of a new king from a rival tribe tooth and nail.
Nepotism Rules
That’s exactly what happened when Saul died in battle. Aware of all the political dynamics and everything Benjamin stood to lose, Saul’s army commander Abner took Ish-bosheth, the remaining son of Saul, and crowned him king over all Israel except Judah and the Simeonites and Levites who lived among them. Thus, Abner temporarily delayed God’s anointed from uniting the nation for the first time in centuries while his family duked it out with Judah and its allies for dominance.
Now, just imagine if instead of weak and unproven Ish-bosheth, propped up by his father’s general, we have charismatic, courageous Jonathan the war hero presented before all Israel as their new prospective king. Probably Judah and its allies would still have stood by David, but perhaps in smaller numbers. Most likely, the Benjaminites and their allies would have fought David to the last man to preserve Saul’s dynasty. After all, with Jonathan and even one man beside him, almost anything was possible.
Would Jonathan have gone for it? I like to think he would not. After all, he loved David with all his heart and soul, and he clearly respected the choice God had made in anointing David king to replace his father. But do not discount the temptation posed by disappointing your entire, massive extended family as they stand at your door sulking, whining and begging for favors. Many good and godly men and women have succumbed to something like this over the centuries. A covenant made in prospect of a hypothetical future where your family expects to lose looks very different than the promise of rule delivered in broad daylight with thousands of men loyally standing behind it.
David in Conflict
More importantly, imagine the dilemma for David. If anything, he may have loved Jonathan even more than Jonathan loved him. We don’t know what Jonathan might have done under sustained emotional pressure from family members, but we know exactly where David was weak. Bible history shows us: with those he loved, David was always tempted to waive the rule of law, risking not only his own life but also those of innocents, all in the interests of being gracious and loving. Absalom’s rebellion would have been impossible absent this failure of character in his father.
Thankfully, neither David nor Jonathan ever faced this temptation. Perhaps Jonathan died because he was a courageous man, and his character would not allow him to run from the enemy. Perhaps Jonathan died because he met a Philistine with a more powerful sword arm at the end of a long day on the battlefield. Perhaps Jonathan died because “the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will”, and God ruled that Jonathan’s day was done. It’s not impossible.
The Kicker
In the end, it would be presumptuous to guess why Jonathan died; scripture does not tell us. But if that godly man could see the kingdom of his father united and prosperous under his best friend — his own tribe included — I’m guessing he would have been entirely fine with the way things played out, even if it wasn’t quite the way he envisioned it, and even if that blessing for others came at the ultimate personal cost.
Okay, here’s the kicker: would you make the same deal if you knew the shortening of your life would accomplish the purpose of God and bless those you love? I hope we all would.
Let’s go just one better. Would you be willing to trust the Lord to make your exit from this scene, early or otherwise, redound to his glory, even if you had no idea how it all would play out?
Again, I hope we all would.
No comments :
Post a Comment