Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 14:42
And Saul said, Cast [lots] between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.
42. And Saul said, &c.] Again the Sept. text is fuller. “And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son: whomsoever the Lord taketh by lot, let him die. And the people said unto Saul, This thing shall not be. And Saul prevailed over the people, and they cast lots between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan was taken.” The omission in the Heb. text may be accounted for by homoeoteleuton (1Sa 10:1. note), the words for my son and his son being almost identical.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 42. And Jonathan was taken.] The object of the inquiry most evidently was, “Who has gone contrary to the king’s adjuration today?” The answer to that must be JONATHAN. But was this a proof of the Divine displeasure against the man? By no means: the holy oracle told the truth, but neither that oracle nor the God who gave it fixed any blame upon Jonathan, and his own conscience acquits him. He seeks not pardon from God, because he is conscious he had not transgressed. But why did not God answer the priest that day? Because he did not think it proper to send the people by night in pursuit of the vanquished Philistines. Saul’s motive was perfectly vindictive: Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them unto the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them; that is, Let us burn, waste, destroy, and slay all before us! Was it right to indulge a disposition of this kind, which would have led to the destruction of many innocent country people, and of many Israelites who resided among the Philistines? Besides, was there not a most manifest reason in the people why God could not be among them? Multitudes of them were defiled in a very solemn manner; they had eaten the flesh with the blood; and however sacrifices might be offered to atone for this transgression of the law, they must continue unclean till the evening. Here were reasons enough why God would not go on with the people for that night.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
God so ordered the lot; not that he approved Sauls execration, 1Sa 14:24, or his oath that the transgressor should die, 1Sa 14:39, nor that he would expose Jonathan to death; (for he designed so to rule the hearts of the people, and of Saul also, that Jonathan should not die;) but because he would have the whole matter brought to light; partly, that Sauls folly might be chastised, when he saw what danger it had brought upon his eldest and excellent son; partly, that Jonathans innocency might he cleared; and partly, to stablish the authority of kings and rulers, and the obedience which subjects owe to all their lawful commands.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Saul said, cast [lots] between me and Jonathan my son,….. Which showed his regard strict justice, and that he had no consciousness of guilt in himself, and should not spare his own son if found guilty:
and Jonathan was taken: the lot fell upon him, which was so directed, that his ignorance of his father’s charge and oath might appear; and that the affection of the people might be discovered; and that a regard is to be had to the orders and commands of princes, and obedience to be yielded to them in all in which conscience is not concerned, though they may be grievous; and to bring Saul to a sense of rashness in making such an oath, which brought his own son into so much danger.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
42. Jonathan was taken But Jonathan had not knowingly transgressed, and by the victory God had set his approving seal to the young hero’s Gideon-like faith, and Saul’s oath was rash, unwise, and without divine counsel; why, then, should the cloud of divine indignation rest upon the people, and why should the Lord God of Israel designate Jonathan as the offender? We answer, This taking of Jonathan by lot was not a designation of him as the special object of the Divine anger, nor did the people so understand it, as we see from their action in rescuing him from death. But though it convicted him of no guilt before God, it did show him to be the violator of the king’s oath; and a solemn oath, made by the anointed king of God’s chosen people, though it be hasty and unwise, must be vindicated in the eye of the nation as a thing not to be treated lightly. The taking of Jonathan led to an investigation of the whole matter of the oath, and resulted in showing that he who violated this oath was not so guilty before God as he who made it. And this result would further show that the sin of the people in eating with the blood (1Sa 14:33) was a consequence of Saul’s rash adjuration. The king himself, then, had been the cause of the trouble, and of Jehovah’s refusal to answer him that day, and with a fallen countenance and a saddened heart he returned from the pursuit of the Philistines. They who hold high positions of authority among men should be exceedingly careful how they deal with solemn oaths. In Israelitish history Saul’s rash adjuration was the last relic of the age of vows.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 14:42 And Saul said, Cast [lots] between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.
Ver. 42. And Jonathan was taken. ] Not in answer to Saul’s prayers, which God valued not. But, (1.) To show that he is the disposer of lots; (2.) To humble Jonathan, who was in danger of being puffed up too much with the joy of his victory; (3.) To discover Saul’s hypocrisy. a
a Peter Martyr.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Reciprocal: Lev 16:8 – cast lots Jos 7:18 – was taken Jdg 20:9 – by lot against it 1Ch 25:8 – cast lots Pro 16:33 – General Pro 18:18 – General Jon 1:7 – and let Act 1:26 – they