Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 14:36
And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Then said the priest, Let us draw near hither unto God.
36 46. The consequence of Jonathan’s transgression
36. Let us draw near hither unto God ] Ahijah checks Saul’s impulse, reminding him that it was necessary first to ascertain the will of God. Perhaps he felt that Saul’s neglect to wait for God’s answer in the morning ( 1Sa 14:19) had already borne evil fruit.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then said the priest … – Ahijah, with equal courage and faithfulness, worthy of his office as the priest, when every one else yielded to Sauls humor, proposed that they should draw near to God to inquire of Him. (Compare 1Ki 22:7.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 36. Then said the priest] It is evident that Ahiah doubted the propriety of pursuing the Philistines that night; and as a reverse of fortune might be ruinous after such a victory, he wished to have specific directions from the Lord.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Remembering Sauls contempt of Gods ordinance the last time, and the in consequence of it; and perceiving Saul ready to run into the same error again, even though he had not now the same pretence of the necessity of haste as before, and that the people were forward to comply with the motion; he gives them this pious and prudent advice.
Hither unto God, to wit, to the ark, as above, 1Sa 14:18.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Saul said,…. To his son Jonathan, or to some of the principal officers of his army:
let us go down after the Philistines by night; or tonight, that same night; which is another hardship he laid his troops under; as he had restrained them from eating all that day until evening, now he proposed they shall take no sleep that night, but proceed on in their pursuit of the Philistines, having eaten, and drank, and refreshed themselves. The Arabic version is, “let us go down to the Philistines”; and so Noldius e chooses to render the words; which I pretty much wonder at, and especially at what he observes in favour of it, and against the common rendering; that at this time the Philistines had not turned their backs, so that the Israelites could not be said to go after them, but were in a camp opposite to them; but that they had fled, and were pursued, is most certain from 1Sa 14:22,
and spoil them until the morning light; or kill of them, as the Targum, and so the Arabic version; for spoiling must be meant of killing; for as for the spoil of their provisions, riches, c. that had already fallen into their hands, 1Sa 14:30, and this is confirmed by what follows:
and let us not leave a man of them great numbers had been slain already, partly by their falling upon one another, and partly by the swords of Jonathan and his armourbearer at the first onset, and by Saul and his men in the pursuit of them; and so intent was Saul in the utter destruction of them, that he was for following and cutting them off, that none of their prodigious army might return home:
and they said, do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee; they had religiously observed his oath, in refraining from food all the day, and now they were as willing to be obedient to his command in denying themselves refreshing rest in sleep:
then said the priest, let us draw near hither unto God; Ahiah the priest, Josephus f calls him Ahitob, who was present with the ark, agreed to the proposal of Saul, only moved, that before they set forward they would seek the Lord; perhaps reflecting upon the abrupt manner in which Saul departed from Gibeah, just as he was consulting the Lord, and not staying for an answer from him; which the priest might fear would be resented by him, and therefore proposes first to draw nigh to God; not to the altar Saul had built, or had just begun to build, but to the ark, with which the high priest was, and was a symbol of the divine Presence: the Targum is,
“let us draw near hither, and inquire by the word of the Lord.”
e Ebr. Concord. Part. p. 15. No. 92. f Antiqu. l. 6. c. 6. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Jonathan Condemned to Die; Jonathan Rescued. | B. C. 1067. |
36 And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Then said the priest, Let us draw near hither unto God. 37 And Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel? But he answered him not that day. 38 And Saul said, Draw ye near hither, all the chief of the people: and know and see wherein this sin hath been this day. 39 For, as the LORD liveth, which saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die. But there was not a man among all the people that answered him. 40 Then said he unto all Israel, Be ye on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul, Do what seemeth good unto thee. 41 Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped. 42 And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken. 43 Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die. 44 And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. 45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not. 46 Then Saul went up from following the Philistines: and the Philistines went to their own place.
Here is, I. Saul’s boasting against the Philistines. He proposed, as soon as his soldiers had got their suppers, to pursue them all night, and not leave a man of them, v. 36. Here he showed much zeal, but little discretion; for his army, thus fatigued, could as ill spare a night’s sleep as a meal’s meat. But it is common for rash and foolish men to consider nobody but themselves, and, so that they might but have their humour, not to care what hardships they put upon those that are under them. However, the people were so obsequious to their king that they would by no means oppose the motion, but resolved to make the best of it, and, if he will go on, they will follow him: Do whatsoever seemeth good to thee. Only the priest thought it convenient to go on with the devotions that were broken off abruptly (v. 19), and to consult the oracle: Let us draw near hither unto God. Princes and great men have need of such about them as will thus be their remembrancers, wherever they go, to take God along with them. And, when the priest proposed it, Saul could not for shame reject the proposal, but asked counsel of God (v. 37): “Shall I go down after the Philistines? And shall I speed?”
II. His falling foul on his son Jonathan: and the rest of this paragraph is wholly concerning him: for, while he is prosecuted, the Philistines make their escape. We know not what mischief may ensue upon on rash resolve.
1. God, by giving an intimation of his displeasure, put Saul upon searching for an accursed thing. When, by the priest, he consulted the oracle, God answered him not, v. 37. Note, When God denies our prayers it concerns us to enquire what the sin is that has provoked him to do so. Let us see where the sin is, v. 38. For God’s ear is not heavy that it cannot hear, but it is sin that separates between us and him. If God turns away our prayer, we have reason to suspect it is for some iniquity regarding our hearts, which we are concerned to find out, that we may put it away, may mortify it, and put it to death. Saul swears by his Maker that whoever was the Achan that troubled the camp, by eating the forbidden fruit, should certainly die, though it were Jonathan himself, that is, though ever so dear to himself and the people, little thinking that Jonathan was the man (v. 39): He shall surely die, the curse shall be executed upon him. But none of the people answered him, that is, none of those who knew Jonathan had broken the order would inform against him.
2. Jonathan was discovered by lot to be the offender. Saul would have lots cast between himself and Jonathan on the one side, and the people on the other, perhaps because he was as confident of Jonathan’s innocency in this matter as of his own, v. 40. The people, seeing him in a heat, durst not gainsay any thing he proposed, but acquiesced: Do as seemeth good unto thee. Before he cast lots, he prayed that God would give a perfect lot (v. 41), that is, make a full discovery of this matter, or, as it is in the margin, that he would show the innocent. This was with an air of impartial justice. Judges should desire that truth may come out, whoever may suffer by it. Lots should be cast with prayer, because they are a solemn appeal to Providence, and by them we beg of God to direct and determine us (Acts i. 24), for which reason some have condemned games that depend purely upon lot or chance as making too bold with a sacred thing. Jonathan at length was taken (v. 42), Providence designing hereby to countenance and support a lawful authority, and to put an honour upon the administration of public justice in general, reserving another way to bring off one that had done nothing worthy of death.
3. Jonathan ingenuously confesses the fact, and Saul, with an angry curse, passes sentence upon him. Jonathan denies not the truth, nor goes about to conceal it, only he thinks it hard that he must die for it, v. 43. He might very fairly have pleaded his invincible ignorance of the law, or have insisted upon his merit, but he submitted to the necessity with a great and generous mind: “God’s and my father’s will be done:” thus he showed as much valour in receiving the messengers of death himself as in sending them among the Philistines. It is as brave to yield in some cases as it is in other cases to fight. Saul is not mollified by his filial submission nor the hardness of his case; but as one that affected to be thought firm to his word, and much more to his oath; even when it bound him hardest, with another imprecation he gives judgment upon Jonathan (v. 44): “God do so and more also to me if I do not execute the law upon thee, for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.” (1.) He passed this sentence too hastily, without consulting the oracle. Jonathan had a very good plea in arrest of the judgment. What he had done was not malum in se—bad in itself; and, as for the prohibition of it, he was ignorant of that, so that he could not be charged with rebellion or disobedience. (2.) He did it in fury. Had Jonathan been worthy to die, yet it would have become a judge, much more a father, to pass sentence with tenderness and compassion, and not with such an air of triumph, like a man perfectly divested of all humanity and natural affection. Justice is debased when it is administered with wrath and bitterness. (3.) He backed it with a curse upon himself if he did not see the sentence executed; and this curse did return upon his own head. Jonathan escaped, but God did so to Saul, and more also; for he was rejected of God and made anathema. Let none upon any occasion dare to use such imprecations as these, lest God say Amen to them, and make their own tongues to fall upon them, Ps. lxiv. 8. This stone will return upon him that rolleth it. Yet we have reason to think that Saul’s bowels yearned toward Jonathan, so that he really punished himself, and very justly, when he seemed so severe upon Jonathan. God made him feel the smart of his own rash edict, which might make him fear being again guilty of the like. By all these vexatious accidents God did likewise correct him for his presumption in offering sacrifice without Samuel. An expedition so ill begun could not end without some rebukes.
4. The people rescued Jonathan out of his father’s hands, v. 45. Hitherto they had expressed themselves very observant of Saul. What seemed good to him they acquiesced in, 1Sa 14:36; 1Sa 14:40. But, when Jonathan is in danger, Saul’s word is no longer a law to them, but with the utmost zeal they oppose the execution of his sentence: “Shall Jonathan die–that blessing, that darling, of his country? Shall that life be sacrificed to a punctilio of law and honour which was so bravely exposed for the public service, and to which we owe our lives and triumphs? No, we will never stand by and see him thus treated whom God delights to honour.” It is good to see Israelites zealous for the protection of those whom God has made instruments of public good. Saul had sworn that Jonathan should die, but they oppose their oath to his, and swear he shall not die: “As the Lord liveth there shall not only not his head, but not a hair of his head fall to the ground;” they did not rescue him by violence, but by reason and resolution; and Josephus says they made their prayer to God that he might be loosed from the curse. They pleaded for him that he has wrought with God this day; that is, “he has owned God’s cause, and God has owned his endeavours, and therefore his life is too precious to be thrown away upon a nicety.” We may suppose Saul had not so perfectly forgotten the relation of a father but that he was willing enough to have Jonathan rescued, and well pleased to have that done which yet he would not do himself: and he that knows the heart of a father knows not how to blame him.
5. The design against the Philistines is quashed by this incident (v. 46): Saul went up from following them, and so an opportunity was lost of completing the victory. When Israel’s shields are clashing with one another the public safety and service suffer by it.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Saul’s Second Major Error, vs. 36-46
Saul’s second major error which lead to disenchantment of the people with their king grew out of his foolish ban. It showed up when, after the people had at last appeased their hunger, Saul proposed a night engagement with the Philistines. His enthusiasm appears to have been the desire for self advancement and pride. The reluctance of the tired men is hardly concealed in their docile reply, “Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee.”
At this juncture the non-priest Ahiah also entered the scene by proposing an inquiry from the Lord whether they should pursue the enemy further that night. So Saul agreeably inquired of the Lord through Ahiah whether he should go down after the Philistines, and whether the Lord would deliver them into his hand. Not surprisingly the Lord did not answer the inquiry, just as he had not given a message through this priest at the beginning of the battle. The Lord had dismissed Ahiah and his family from the priesthood.
Nevertheless Saul concluded that someone was guilty of a great transgression which prevented the Lord from answering. The fact is that God may always be reached when problems arise, if He is sought through the right intercessor, (e.g., Joshua, after the sin of Achan, Jos 7:6 ff). But Samuel seems not to have been present at this time, and again Saul is guilty of making his own determination in matters of worship.
So Saul decided on a lot-casting, to determine the guilty person. He called the leaders of the people together and announced his intent and again secured their less than enthusiastic agreement. Perhaps by this time he suspected something had happened with reference to Jonathan since he proposed to place himself and Jonathan on one side of the lot and the people on the other. He also swore an oath by the life of the Lord that if the fault should be in Jonathan he would die. The people, knowing what Jonathan had done, protected him by their silence.
The lot was cast and fell on Saul and Jonathan. Then when another was cast Jonathan was taken. Saul demanded to know what Jonathan had done and he told how he had taken the honeycomb, “and, lo, I must die.” Saul was determined to slay his son. Again he swore, “God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.” But it was not to be. The people defied their king, saying, “God, forbid,” and themselves swearing by the Lord that not a hair of Jonathan’s head should fall, for it was he who had set in motion their victory, and “had wrought with God this day.”
Saul was evidently not pleased and seems to have poutingly pulled up stakes and headed homeward, abandoning the pursuit of the Philistines. Once again the “people’s choice” has failed.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(36) Let us go down after the Philistines by night.In the depth of the night, when the rough feasting on the captured beasts was over, King Saul would have had the bloody work begun afresh, and would have hurried after the flying Philistines, and with a wild butchery have completed the great and signal victory. With the implicit obedience which his soldiers seem ever to have shown himwhether a vow of total abstinence, or a desperate charge, or a wild night attack, or a ruthless bloodshed, was enjoined on them by their stern and gloomy kingthe army professed themselves at once ready again to fight. Only one man in that army flushed with victory dared, with the bravery which alone proceeds from righteousness, to withstand the imperious sovereign. The high priest, Ahiah, doubted whether such a wholesale bloodshed as would surely have resulted from the conquering troops of Saul pursuing a dispersed and vanquished enemy, was in accordance with the will of God. No command to exterminate these Philistines had ever been given, and that day, so glorious in the annals of Israel, was wholly due to the special interposition of the Eternal Friend of Israel. Ahiah said, Let us first inquire of the oracles of Godalluding, of course, to the jewels of Urim and Thummim on his high-priestly ephod.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
36. Let us draw near hither unto God Ahiah, the priest, doubted the propriety of the thing proposed by Saul, and would therefore seek counsel of God. Hither unto God does not imply that the ark was there among them, but has reference to the altar on which the sacrifices had been offered, and also to the urim and thummin on the breastplate of the priest.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Continuation Of The Defeat Of The Philistines By Raiding Their Territory Is Aborted And Jonathan Is Nearly Executed, And All Due To Saul’s Foolish Curse ( 1Sa 14:36-46 ).
This passage (1Sa 14:1-46) began with the depiction of Jonathan, the man of faith, bringing about the defeat of the Philistines (1Sa 14:1-15), and it now ends with Jonathan, the man of faith, almost being executed because of Saul’s foolish oath. The whole section is designed to demonstrate Saul’s downward slide and folly. The writer clearly has little interest in Saul from any positive viewpoint (although he will shortly very briefly list his attainments), but is concentrating on how by his foolishness and disobedience he had begun to lose his hold on the kingship and was proving YHWH’s warning about the dangers of the appointment of a king to be correct. And as we have seen all this was shown to be the result of his attitude towards Samuel.
Analysis.
a
b And they said, “Do whatever seems good to you.” Then said the priest, “Let us draw near here to God” (1Sa 14:36 b). And Saul asked counsel of God, “Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will you deliver them into the hand of Israel?” But He did not answer him that day (1Sa 14:36-37).
c And Saul said, “Draw nigh here, all you chieftains of the people; and know and see in what this sin has been this day For, as YHWH lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he will surely die.” But there was not a man among all the people who answered him.’
d Then he said to all Israel, “You be on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side.” And the people said to Saul, “Do what seems good to you. Therefore Saul said to YHWH, the God of Israel, “Show the right.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped (1Sa 14:40-41).
e And Saul said, “Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken (1Sa 14:42).
d Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.” And Jonathan told him, and said, “I certainly tasted a little honey with the end of the rod which was in my hand, and, lo, I must die” (1Sa 14:43).
c And Saul said, “God do so and more also, for you shall surely die, Jonathan” (1Sa 14:44).
b And the people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has wrought this great salvation in Israel? Far from it. As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has wrought with God this day.” So the people rescued Jonathan, with the result that he died not (1Sa 14:45).
a Then Saul went up from following the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place (1Sa 14:46).
Note that in ‘a’ Saul aims to follow after the Philistines, and in the parallel he ceases from following the Philistines as a result of his own folly. In ‘b’ the people say that Saul may do what seems good to him and the priest suggests consulting God, and in the parallel the people refuse to let Saul do what he wants, for they believe that YHWH is on Jonathan’s side because he has ‘wrought with God’. In ‘c’ Saul says that even if the marked man is Jonathan he will surely die, and in the parallel Saul tells Jonathan that he will surely die. In ‘d’ Saul begins to seek the culprit, and says to God, ‘show the right’, and in the parallel, believing that the right has been shown, Saul asks Jonathan what it is that he has done. Centrally in ‘e’ Jonathan is selected out.
1Sa 14:36
‘ And Saul said, “Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and take spoil among them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them.” And they said, “Do whatever seems good to you.” Then said the priest, “Let us draw near here to God.” ’
A great victory having been achieved Saul was now eager to follow it up by a night raid on the fleeing Philistines in order to obtain further spoils and destroy their army. It was, of course, describing an unachievable ideal in the exultancy of the moment, but war fever had taken hold of him and at least the spoils might be achievable. The people, equally excited, were prepared to do whatever he asked. To them he had achieved a great victory. The Priest, however, was more cautious and suggested rather that they should draw near to God and seek His guidance. Had he been with Saul Samuel would not have needed to have hesitated like this. He would have known the mind of YHWH.
1Sa 14:37
‘ And Saul asked counsel of God, “Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will you deliver them into the hand of Israel?” But he did not answer him that day.’
So Saul sought counsel from God, and asked whether they should continue the chase into Philistine territory. The question was, would God deliver them into their hands? This question was probably put to God by means of the Urim and Thummim which could probably give the answers ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘no answer’ (we are not sure precisely how it worked, but there are indications to this end). In this particular case he received the response, ‘no answer’.
It is thought that possibly the Urim and Thummim would be tossed down and if they both ended the same way up the answer was seen as ‘no reply’, while ‘yes’ and ‘no’ would be indicated by which lay one way and which the other.
Note Saul’s assumption that someone must be at fault. He will not believe that God will not answer him. (A similar situation arises near the end of his reign (1Sa 28:6) which may suggest that here the fault did not really lie with Jonathan in God’s eyes.
1Sa 14:38
‘ And Saul said, “Draw nigh here, all you chieftains of the people; and know and see in what this sin has been this day.” ’
Saul did not consider the possibility that this failure to obtain an answer might lie at his door and immediately assumed that it must be because of sin in the camp. His mind no doubt went back to the incident of Achan (Joshua 7). So he called all his chieftains together and demanded of them whether they knew of any reason why God was not answering. What sin had been committed among them that day that had resulted in this situation?
1Sa 14:39
“ For, as YHWH lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he will surely die.” But there was not a man among all the people who answered him.’
And he swore that whoever had so sinned would die, even if it should be Jonathan his own son. Note his words, ‘as YHWH lives who saves Israel’. He still recognised that their victory was due to YHWH, and still swore by His Name. The problem was that his life did not live up to his words. However, later the people will use a similar oath about Jonathan not dying. The writer probably intends us to see that the people were right.
No one answered Saul. They were feeling that this was not quite right, and no one was prepared to give Jonathan away. Or perhaps those who were there did not know what Jonathan had done.
1Sa 14:40
‘ Then he said to all Israel, “You be on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side.” And the people said to Saul, “Do what seems good to you.”
Recognising that the failure of the leadership would be the main thing likely to have an effect on God’s response, Saul decided first of all that he would eliminate himself and his son. So he called on the people (no doubt represented by their leaders) and declared that the first lot would determine whether the guilt lay with himself and Jonathan or whether it lay with the people. The reply of the people was that he must do what seemed right to him. Compare 1Sa 14:36 where they had said a similar thing. But what follows suggest that this time the words were wrung out of them with reluctance, for in the last analysis they did not let him do what seemed good to him.
1Sa 14:41
‘ Therefore Saul said to YHWH, the God of Israel, “Show the right.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped.’
Then Saul called on ‘YHWH, the God of Israel’ (indicating the seriousness of the process) to ‘show the right’. In other words to indicate whether they were innocent or guilty. And when the lot was cast, to Saul’s surprise, and no doubt horror, the use of the lot indicated that it was either he or his son. The people were shown to be free from blame.
1Sa 14:42
‘ And Saul said, “Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken.’
Then Saul called for the lot to be cast between him and Jonathan. And the result was that Jonathan was indicated. This was what we have been waiting for, because we have known all along what Jonathan has done. But as we know Jonathan was the hero of the day. And in view of how it had happened (Jonathan had not known about the vow) it is clear that there is something wrong here.
1Sa 14:43
‘ Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.” And Jonathan told him, and said, “I certainly tasted a little honey with the end of the rod which was in my hand, and, lo, I must die.” ’
Meanwhile Saul demanded that Jonathan tell him what he had done, and Jonathan, now knowing of the oath, admitted that he had eaten a little honey from the end of the staff that he was carrying, and recognised that as a result he must die. No one seems to have queried the circumstances. A rash oath may have been uttered by the king, but the consequences had to follow. Such was the power and responsibility of kings. We are, however, probably justified in thinking that to YHWH the culprit was not Jonathan but Saul.
1Sa 14:44
‘ And Saul said, “God do so and more also, for you shall surely die, Jonathan.” ’
At his words Saul confirmed the death sentence. He declared that before God Jonathan must assuredly die. As far as he was concerned there was no alternative. It was the king’s oath. This was the extreme to which his religious activity had taken him. The death of his own son for something that had not been done with sin in the heart.
The writer wants us to know that Saul’s arrogance had reached such a stage that the thought of his oath being violated was seen by him as sufficient to warrant a death sentence being passed even on his own son. It was the arrogance of the absolute monarch. (We should note in this regard that there is no hint that any enquiry was made into the circumstances, nor had God been consulted as to the verdict. Saul just assumed that he was right).
1Sa 14:45
‘ And the people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has wrought this great salvation in Israel? Far from it. As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has wrought with God this day.” So the people rescued Jonathan, with the result that he died not.’
The people, however, were not prepared for this to happen. Was it not Jonathan whom YHWH had used to bring about His great deliverance? How then could he be put to death on the day of that victory? Thus they would not allow it and declared equally strongly in YHWH’s Name that as God’s champion not a hair of his head would be allowed to fall to the ground. And the consequence was that he was delivered from death.
The writer clearly sees the people as in the right and Saul as in the wrong, and sees YHWH’s response to Saul’s questions as His attempt also to prove Saul in the wrong. The people similarly saw it in the same way, for they swore by YHWH’s life. Thus in the writer’s view they recognised the heart of God better than Saul. What Saul was proposing therefore was not YHWH’s will. His exposure as no longer knowing the mind of God was complete.
Note the contrast with 1Sa 11:13. The magnanimous Saul has now become the callous Saul. He no longer sees YHWH’s victory as a cause for forgiveness. His heart has become rigid in its religious inflexibility. It is a further indication of his downward slide.
1Sa 14:46
‘ Then Saul went up from following the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place.’
The final result was that Saul ceased the pursuit of the Philistines, and they were allowed to return home and reorganise themselves. It was recognised that it was an opportunity lost, and all due to Saul’s folly.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
EXPOSITION
JONATHAN‘S DANGER AND DELIVERANCE (1Sa 14:36-46).
1Sa 14:36
Let us go down after the Philistines by night. Saul, conscious that he had prevented the victory from being so decisive as it would otherwise have been, proposes to repair his fault, now that the people have taken food, by continuing the pursuit during the night. The people render the same unquestioning obedience as before, but Ahiah gives counsel that they should first ask the approval of God. Let us draw near hither. I.e. to the altar which Saul had just set up. Ahiah may have done this because he disapproved of Saul’s project, or because generally God ought to be consulted before undertaking anything of importance. Already the neglect of this had led to no good results (see 1Sa 14:19).
1Sa 14:37, 1Sa 14:38
He answered him not. From this silence Saul concludes that some sin has been committed, and therefore calls together all the chief of the peopleliterally, “the corner stones” (Jdg 20:2)to inquire who was the guilty person, and wherein he had sinned.
1Sa 14:39
He shall surely die. With despotic violence, without waiting to learn what the offence was, and judging simply by consequences, because he was delayed in following up the pursuit, he takes a solemn oath that the offending person shall be put to death. Thus twice in the same day he was guilty of the sin of rash swearing. The people condemn him by their silence. They had obeyed him with ready devotion; but now they listen in terror to the rash and violent words which condemn to death the young hero by whom God had that day wrought deliverance for them.
1Sa 14:40, 1Sa 14:41
As God also condemned Saul by his silence, the Urim and Thummim giving no answer, he places himself and Jonathan on one side, and the people on the other, and determines to cast lots. He then prays, Give a perfect lot, or, as in the margin, “Show” (literally, give) “the innocent.” This is undoubtedly the meaning of the Hebrew, while the rendering of the text is taken from Kimchi. There are few mistranslations of the A.V. which have not some good Jewish authority for them, as King James’s translators were singularly well versed in Jewish literature, while they seem strangely to have neglected the still higher authority of the ancient versions. These generally translate “Give holiness,” a phrase equivalent to “Show the truth.” The Septuagint and Vulgate add explanations, which, however, throw no light upon the passage.
1Sa 14:44
God do so, etc. Again Saul takes an oath to put Jonathan to death, supposing himself bound by his former words. But he must have been pained beyond measure at the miserable consequences of his rashness, and have bitterly reproached himself for thus twice marring the happiness of the day by unhallowed oaths. Jonathan’s trespass, committed unwittingly, required nothing more than a trespass offering for its expiation, nor did the silence of the Urim and Thummim imply any fault in him. The fault lay in Saul having imposed an oath upon the army; that oath had been broken, and a formal expiation must be made. But Saul was by nature a despot, and could endure nothing that seemed even for the moment to stand in his way.
1Sa 14:45
The people said. They had hitherto shown their disapproval of Saul’s conduct by their silence; now they decide that Jonathan shall not die, and their decision was right and godly. Saul might feel bound by his rash oath, but the consciences of the people told them that an oath to commit a crime is an oath to be repented of as a sin, and not to be performed as a duty. They do not say, however, God forbid, but “Far be it.” The name of the Deity is constantly taken in vain in the A.V. without adding either beauty or energy to the word of God. But even if it did, what right have translators to add energy to the word of God? He hath wrought with God this day. The argument of the people is wise and good. Jonathan’s whole conduct on that day proved an especial presence of God with him. It would be morally wrong and an offence against religion to condemn that which God approved, and the people therefore set their oath against the king’s oath, and prevail.
1Sa 14:46
Saul went up, etc. Thus, as the final result of his self-will, Saul had to discontinue his pursuit of the Philistines, and their power, though weakened by the overthrow, remained unbroken.
SUMMARY OF SAUL‘S WARS, AND ACCOUNT OF HIS FAMILY (1Sa 14:47-52).
1Sa 14:47
So Saul took the kingdom. Instead of so the Hebrew has and, rightly; for this is no result or consequence of Saul’s victory over the Philistines, but a mere historical introduction to the summary of his wars. The more correct translation would be, “When Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel, he fought,” etc. Saul’s reign was valiant and full of military glory. He was, in fact, in war all that the people had longed for, and not only. did he gain independence for Israel.. but laid the foundation of the vast empire of David and Solomon. But it is not the purpose of Holy, Scripture to give us the history of all Saul s valiant exploits, but only of his moral probation and failure. Of wars we read more than enough in profane history; here we read of the formation of character, and how a hero in the midst of noble and worthy feats of arms may yet lose something nobler and worthierthe favour of God. On every side. Moab and Ammon were on the east, Edom on the south, Zobah on the northeast, and the Philistines on the west. Zobah lay beyond Damascus, and, from the accounts given in 2Sa 8:3-8; 2Sa 10:6, must have been a powerful state. He vexed them. The verb is a judicial one, used of punishing the guilty, and might be translated “he chastised them.” The Syriac and Vulgate give the real sense”he was victorious.”
1Sa 14:48
He gathered a host. So the Syriac and Vulgate, but the margin is probably the true meaning, “He wrought mightily,” or valiantly.
1Sa 14:49
Saul’s family and kindred. Three sons only of Saul are here mentioned, apparently those slain at the battle of Mount Gilboa, where, however, Ishui is named Abinadab (1Sa 31:2, as also in 1Ch 8:33; 1Ch 9:39). A fourth son, Esh-baal, subsequently called Ishbosheth, is omitted. The daughters, Merab and Michal, are mentioned because of the history in 1Sa 18:17-21.
1Sa 14:50
Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz. We have noticed on 1Sa 14:3 the fondness of the family of Eli for names beginning with Ah, “brother.” It does not justify us in concluding that Ahinoam was a descendant of Eli, but she may possibly have been so. Abner, whose name is here given in its strictly proper form, Abiner, was Saul’s first cousin, both Kish and Ner being sons of Abiel.
1Sa 14:51
The son of Abiel. There can be little doubt that the right reading is sons, and not son. We thus get an intelligible statement”And Kish the father of Saul and Ner the father of Abner, were sons of Abiel.”
1Sa 14:52
The summary ends with two important particulars respecting Saul’s kingdomthe first, that the Philistines were powerful and dangerous enemies to Israel all his days; the second, that in order to carry on the war with them he ever kept around him the nucleus of a standing army. In thus forming a “school of heroes” he raised the whole spirit of the people, and took an essential and necessary step for maintaining Israel’s freedom. With much of the despot in him, Saul had grand qualities as a soldier, and for many years admirably fulfilled the primary object for which he was chosen. And while he was thus giving the nation internal security, Samuel was teaching it how to use its growing prosperity, and was raising it in the scale of intellectual worth. If in the time of the judges we have Israel in its boyhood, as in the Sinaitic desert we have it in its infancy, under Saul and Samuel it reached its manhood, and became a powerful, vigorous, and well ordered community, able to maintain its freedom, and with means for its internal development in the schools of the prophets, which ended in making it not merely enlightened itself, but the giver of light to the rest of mankind.
HOMILETICS
1Sa 14:36-46
Seeking counsel of God and keeping one’s word.
The facts are
1. Saul, following his own impulse, desires to pursue the Philistines during the night, but is restrained by the priest advising to seek counsel of God.
2. No answer coming from God, Saul concludes that sin has been committed, and resolves that the sinner when discovered shall die.
3. A lot being taken, it falls on Jonathan, who admits having tasted honey, and submits to the sentence.
4. Saul, again solemnly consigning his son to death, is confronted by the people, who claim and rescue Jonathan’s life on the ground that he was doing God’s work that day. Rash impulse was the besetting sin of Saul. Being by Divine arrangement more than a military leader, it was his duty to seek guidance from God in times of uncertainty. Men of cooler judgment doubted whether it was wise to urge on all through the night men who had been worn down by fasting all day, and were scarcely free from their evening meal. The priest evidently saw that Saul’s haste and the unexpressed hesitation of the people could be best dealt with by consulting the Urim. The Divine silence at once indicated that something was wrong, and according to precedent it was necessary to ascertain where it lay. The ceremonial wrong was Jonathan’s, the moral Saul’s. The moral degeneracy of Saul was not only seen in his impulsive neglect of God’s counsel, but also in the self-complacent zeal with which he sought out the breach of his own rash command, and in the unnatural harshness of his sentence. People are sometimes better than their rulers, and hence the popular sense of justice demanded that in this instance royal authority and national custom should give way before the manifest will of God. Jonathan must not die, even though a king’s word be broken. The three prominent matters of the narrative are seeking counsel, keeping one’s word, and safety in God.
I. SEEKING COUNSEL. It is the part of wisdom in life’s affairs to seek counsel of God; and although sometimes no counsel is given, its absence is very instructive, and the causes of it are ascertainable. In the case of Saul both duty and privilege demanded a frequent appeal to God. On the occasion before us the need was real, the method was at hand, and response was possible, and a lack of response was itself of value. Our common human relation to God is not unlike that of Israel’s king.
1. There is forevery one frequent need of Divine counsel. Life, even under the direction of the clearest reason and purest natural impulses, is not safe; for sin has disturbed the nature of the best of men. It is not always that that which at first seems good and safe turns out in the end to be so. What to do in private, domestic, and public affairs, and what proportion of time and strength to give to various claims, are questions pressing on every conscientious mind. In matters pertaining to religious belief, culture, and enterprise, we each, if life be not stagnant, require more than earthly wisdom. The heart of man is sensible that it is not in him infallibly and safely to “direct his steps,” and hence in all lands it instinctively though often in ignorance, cries out for the living God (Pro 16:9; Jer 10:23).
2. There is a method at hand. The Urim was not far from Saul. By a study of God’s will as seen in his word, his providence, the yearnings of a sanctified heart, and the voice of his peoples we may gain guidance in addition to that private illumination which unquestionably comes in answer to true prayer. No rule can be laid down for individuals. Each day’s circumstances must suggest the means we use to ascertain the will of God.
3. There is reason for looking for a response to our seeking. It was a tacit understanding with Saul on the settlement of the kingdom (1Sa 9:25-27; 1Sa 10:24, 1Sa 10:25) that he might count on the guidance of God. Samuel’s exhortations and instructions all through proceeded on this assumption. Nor was God’s silence on the present occasion contrary to this; for it was of itself a significant indication of the mind of God. Saul knew its meaning. The exhortations to us to “seek the Lord,” the distinct promises that he will “hear,” the many instances on record in which men sought and followed the Lord, raise an assurance that the seed of Jacob shall not seek his face in vain (Isa 19:1). The answer may come in unlooked for forms,in the clearing of our moral perceptions, the secret bent given to the purified heart, the opening up of courses of action, or a concurrence of events and influences,but come it will some time if we are sincere and earnest.
4. The absence of response is often accountable. We know why Saul’s seeking for counsel was in vain. There are frequent instances in which the silence of God is conspicuous. He was silent when the Psalmist cried unto him to awake (Psa 35:22-24); when defiled men cried unto him (Isa 1:12-15); when amidst the storm men were in fear (Mat 8:24-26); when in presence of a wounded heart be would not heed captious men (Joh 8:6, Joh 8:7); and when questioned by one who had no right to assume a tone of authority (Joh 19:9). Even though our holiness of life, or at least consistency, be real, and our supposed need be urgent, it is possible that the discipline of faith and patience is the reason for no response.
II. KEEPING ONE‘S WORD. Saul felt bound in honour to keep his word, even at the cost of his son’s life. He found himself in an awkward position, for it would reveal an irresolution unfavourable to authority if he should overlook his son’s deed under a plea of ignorance which any one might make; and, on the other hand, as the people did believe Jonathan’s plea, and held him to be the real victor of the day, it would expose Saul’s folly and injustice if he should take away so valuable a life. Such was Saul’s sense of the importance of keeping his word, that all must be sacrificed to it.
1. There is a fictitious truthfulness. The bare doing as he had said, and merely because he had said it, was Saul’s ideal of truthfulness. Here, then, was a vague apprehension of a grand virtue, and a crude presentation of moral obliquity as being identical with it. Truth is a virtue entering into the depths of life; and had Saul been really a man of truth, he would have considered Jonathan’s case on its own merits, have honestly admitted the folly and sin of his own rash declaration, and have sacrificed his own repute to the general interests of righteousness. There is much fictitious truthfulness in the world. Some men, by sheer obstinacy of disposition, will do as they say simply because they said it, heedless of the injury it may do. To keep to what one has acknowledged to be binding is supposed to be truthfulness in act, and yet many will be rigorous in the observance of some moral obligations and careless of others. To avoid theft and murder is coincident with deeds of lying and selfishness. A similar fictitious truthfulness is seen in the careful outward observance of days without cherishing the spirit in accordance with them, and in the performance of acts of worship as a substitute for the homage of the soul.
2. Real truthfulness is a quality of extreme importance. Saul confessed this in his zeal for the fictitious; as do all men in their devices to secure an appearance of it, and their instinctive homage to the reality when presented in word or deed. Real truthfulness does not apply merely to correspondence of statement with occurrence. It is another name for reality in thought, feeling, life; and it applies to our relation both to man and God. The conformity of our nature with what is befitting a creature of the Holy One is the real truthfulness. Hence, nothing enters the New Jerusalem that “maketh a lie.” Hence, regeneration is a renewal “in the image of him” who created us. Hence, also, in so far as we are like unto him who is “the Truths” all our relations to men are pure, lovely, honestthe natural outcome of “truth in the inward parts.” This quality is essential to the most perfect social confidence; for it renders fraud, deceit, selfishness, dissimulation, distrust impossible, and the reverse virtues real, whenever it is dominant in human nature. Attention to this in education is supremely important.
III. SAFETY IN GOD. Jonathan’s life was safe in God’s care in spite of zeal for a fictitious regard for truth on the part of his father. The voice of the people demanding his release was the voice of God, and the honour put on Jonathan during the previous day was evidence to all but the obstinate king of a favour much to be desired. He who had gone forth in the service of the Lord with true, honest heart, and had been shielded in the dangerous enterprise, was not forsaken by his God when now the rashness of man encompassed his life with peril. Thus, the custom of Eastern rulers keeping their word when once uttered (Jdg 11:30-39; Mat 14:9), personal consistency, and royal authority must give place where God makes manifest his approval. Does not the position of Jonathan lead our thoughts on to our own in a greater day of trial? We are not to be tried by the variable impulse of man or established custom, hut by impartial justice. What God declares shall be done when our day’s battle is over will be done in truth. If he acquits us then, who is he that condemneth? His favour will save from a worse calamity than any that threatened Jonathan; and the practical question is how to come into such relation to God that the universal demand of justice shall be for our not perishing. The answer is”There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1); “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth” (Rom 8:33).
General lessons:
1. We are consistent with our privileges when not only our calamities and great affairs, but our ordinary actions, are made subject to Divine guidance (Php 4:6).
2. It is especially desirable to seek counsel of God when we are conscious of restlessness and ill-regulated impulse.
3. Faithfulness requires that, a promise or engagement being made, we keep our word even at much personal cost; but when such loss would occur, generosity requires of the gainer that it be not wholly insisted on (Psa 15:4; LuLuk 6:31; Eph 4:32).
4. Truthfulness in character is the opposite of sinfulness, for sin is a practical lie (Gen 3:1-5; 1Jn 2:4).
5. Our final safety rests not on the past untarnished purity of life (Rom 3:10; 1Jn 1:8), but on our being identified with Messiah’s life and purpose (Joh 14:19; Rom 8:35-39).
1Sa 14:47-52
Gradation in service.
The facts are
1. Saul’s warlike efforts issue in the general discomfiture of his enemies.
2. The domestic relations of Saul are incorporated in the record of facts pertaining to gradual unfolding of the Divine purpose.
3. During all his conflicts with the Philistines Saul shows prudence in strengthening his military position. The section gives a summary of the military operations of Saul’s reign and of the success of his efforts, and also places on the page of sacred history the names of the members of his family. Judged by rules applicable to ordinary historical records, the brief reference to his wars may appear to have little or no moral significance, and the allusion to his father, his wife, and children to be merely a matter of Jewish antiquarian interest. But the Bible was composed under the guidance of a higher than human wisdom; and both in what it includes and omits there is a relation to the higher spiritual issues in which the events of Jewish history culminated. There had been given to Saul the opportunity of rendering service to Israel, both by setting them free from the oppression of enemies and by inspiring the nation with a spirit conformable to the great Messianic purpose for which they existed. He failed to enter into the high spiritual aspirations suitable to a ruler of the chosen race, and therefore history simply records the fact that his life was spent in the rendering of the lower kind of service. Repression of the foe was service, but of an inferior type. He missed a chance of doing a more glorious and enduring work.
I. THERE IS A GRADUATED SERVICE POSSIBLE TO MEN. The possibilities of Saul’s life when entering on his public career are manifest. They were not realised, though he, using certain natural abilities, succeeded in rendering valuable service as a warrior. Of every human being it may be said, as he enters on life, there is a possibility of conferring few or many, small or great, benefits on his kind. The conditions of rising to the higher grade of service are the possession of appropriate natural abilities and an occasion for employing them. These conditions being given, it rests with his will to rise to the higher level or to be content with the lower. Secular and spiritual are not always good terms to indicate spheres of activity, because every act can and ought to be spiritual in its tone and principle. But for our present purpose we may use the terms in the common acceptation. There are grades of service
1. In the secular sphere. It may not be easy to construct a scale that shall in detail exhibit the relative value of labour, but there are broad outlines which are always recognised in civilised society. Manual toil is not comparable with mental. That service which relates to the material condition of mankind is inferior to that which bears on the moral. Whatever produces temporary effects is of less value than that which issues in the enduring. There are men who remain all their days on the lowest level, and there have been some who rose from that position to almost, if not quite, the highest in the scale. No man’s contribution to the common weal is to be despised, but every man is bound to rise as high as possible in the scale of valuable service.
2. In the spiritual sphere. As in ancient times there were “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” subordinate, in the common work of the chosen race, to men of loftier aspiration and more refined occupation, so in the Christian Church there are diversities in gifts and service. Generically all true Christians are equal in privilege of position and in function as witness bearers for Christ. And there is no room for boasting or invidious comparisons, as it is the “grace of God” which worketh all in all. Yet as a matter of fact, arising partly from great diversity in natural capacity and partly from causes in the individual will, there are distinct gradations in kind and value of service rendered, as tested by the strength of principle involved and the enduring character of the effect. There are men who devote time and means only to the preservation of the outward organisations of the Church. Others, nourishing their own piety with care, minister consolation and instruction to the sick and ignorant. Others, again, by a wonderfully holy and beautiful life at home, as well as quiet zeal outside, train souls for Christ, and leave an imperishable impress on the world.
II. The GRADE OF SERVICE ATTAINED TO DEPENDS CHIEFLY ON A WISE USE OF EARLY OPPORTUNITIES. Had Saul cherished the spirit awakened by his converse with Samuel and the subsequent inspiration from God (1Sa 9:25-27; 1Sa 10:9), and strengthened it by obedience in the hour of trial (1Sa 13:13), far nobler service would have been recorded of him than that he made war with the Philistines all the days of his life. His successor David entered on a higher sphere. Of course both in the secular and spiritual spheres natural capacity and education are important determinants, as also the occurrence of favourable opportunities. But, as a rule, the position we occupy depends on our disposition to improve such opportunities as now and then fall to the lot of most persons. Hundreds are “hewers of wood and drawers of water” all their days because in early life they failed to seize the chance of developing their own powers. In science and literature there are men who, when raw youths of meagre education, laid hold of some passing opportunity for self-improvement which opened the way to still higher advantages. In the Church there are and have been noble men who, carefully nourishing the sacred gift of a new spirit and availing themselves of some chance of doing good, rose from obscurity to the distinction of ambassadors for Christ, “whose praise is in all the Churches.” There are Sauls and Davids still.
General lessons:
1. While thankful for being permitted to render the smallest service to the Church and the world, we should “covet earnestly the best gifts” 1Co 12:31).
2. Youths and persons young in the Christian life should be repressed with the importance of the due improvement of their position.
3. Whenever possible we should look favourably upon any effort to enter on a wider range of usefulness.
4. The standard of service, as to aim, method, and spirit, by which our aspirations should be regulated, is the life of Christ.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 14:36, 1Sa 14:37. (AJALON.)
Drawing near to God.
Of the fallen house of Eli, one at least, Ahiah (Ahimelech1Sa 21:1), the grandson of Phinehas, appears to have been a faithful servant of God. When the people, having ended their pursuit of the Philistines and satisfied their hunger, rested around their gleaming camp fires, and Saul proposed a nocturnal expedition against the enemy so as “not to leave a man of them, he devoutly and courageously interposed with the words, “Let us draw near hither unto God.” He had already witnessed the effects of the king’s rashness, feared its further results, and felt that “it was dangerous to undertake anything without asking counsel of God” (see 1Sa 14:19). His language is suggestive of
I. THE EXERCISE OF A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE in prayer. It is
1. A possibility. For God is “nigh at hand, and not afar off” (Deu 4:7; Psa 145:18; Jer 23:23). He has provided a way of accessan altar (Heb 13:10), a sacrifice, and a high priest (Heb 7:19; Heb 10:20-22; Eph 2:18). The throne of God is not only a throne of glory and of judgment, but also a throne of grace. “The Lamb is in the midst of the throne.”
2. A privilege. What higher privilege or honour can be conferred than to hold intercourse with so glorious a Being? What greater benefit than his fellowship, counsel, and aid? (Psa 73:28).
3. An obligation, arising out of his relationship to men, and indicated by his word, by conscience, and the deepest needs and impulses of the soul. “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (Jas 4:8; Psa 43:4). “Ye people, pour out your heart before him” (Psa 62:8).
II. THE VOCATION OF A FAITHFUL MINISTER with respect to this exercise. It is
1. To bear a fearless testimony concerning it before the people: setting forth the supreme claims of God upon their homage, reminding them of their want, reproving their forgetfulness, and teaching them the good and right way (1Sa 12:23).
2. To exhibit a devotional spirit in his intercourse with them. He who exhorts others to pray should be himself a man of prayer, and speak to them by his example as well as by his words. Exhortation to them is often less beneficial than intercession for them. “We will give ourselves continually to prayer” (Act 6:4).
3. To invite them to sincere union with him in seeking the face of God. “Let us draw near.” “Let us pray”not merely with the lips or in outward form, not regarding iniquity in the heart; but humbly and sincerely, with one accord, with a true heart, and in full assurance of faith (Psa 66:18; 1Ti 2:8).
III. THE INFLUENCE OF TIMELY INTERVENTION On the part of a good man. “Then (when both king and people were about to set forth without seeking Divine counsel) said the priest,” etc.; and he did not speak in vain (1Sa 14:37). Such advice and prayer are generally effectual
1. In restraining from the pursuit of a wrong coursea doubtful or dangerous enterprise, devotion to worldly objects, following selfish and revengeful inclinations, etc. A single “word in season” sometimes prevents much mischief.
2. In constraining to the performance of neglected duty. The inquiry which Saul had broken off was now formally resumed, though not on his part in a right spirit.
3. In obtaining the possession of needful good. It is not always what is sought. There may be delay or refusal in granting a definite answer; but the experience thereby gained is itself beneficial, and the necessary condition of obtaining the highest good.
IV. THE INSTRUCTIVENESS OF UNANSWERED PRAYER. “He answered him not that day” (1Sa 28:6, 1Sa 28:15). The silence of God is significant. It indicates
1. The presence of sin, which hinders the communications of Heaven, as a cloud intercepts the beams of the sun (Isa 59:2; Lam 3:44; Hos 5:15; Jas 4:2, Jas 4:3).
2. The duty of its discovery, by means of diligent inquiry and self-examination (Jos 7:13; Psa 139:23, Psa 139:24; Lam 3:40).
3. The necessity of humiliation, removing “the accursed thing,” and turning to God with full purpose of heart, so that he may cause his face to shine upon us. “Praying will either make a man leave off sinning or sinning will make him leave off praying.” In the former case his path is upward into the light, in the latter it is downward into darkness and despair.D.
1Sa 14:45. (AJALON.)
Remonstrance with rulers.
The obedience which subjects owe to the commands of a ruler is not absolute, but limited by their obligation to a higher law. When he determines on measures which are not good they have a right to remonstrate, and are sometimes bound to do so. Concerning the remonstrance of the people with Saul (after yielding notable obedience in other things1Sa 14:26, 1Sa 14:34, 1Sa 14:36), observe that it was
I. JUST; in opposition to an unreasonable, arbitrary, and cruel decision (1Sa 14:44), in defence of the innocent, and impelled by “an enlightened conscience and generous enthusiasm.”
II. DEVOUT; recognising the hand of God in the victory of Jonathan, testifying their gratitude for the deliverance wrought through him, and obeying a higher will, thereby indicated, in preference to that of the king.
III. RESOLUTE; whilst stating the ground of their determination, manifesting a disposition to carry it into effect, and binding themselves by a united and solemn oath to do so.
IV. SUCCESSFUL. They prevailed, Jonathan was rescued, a great crime was prevented, and Saul was checked and warned in his despotic career. When the people remonstrate in the same manner they may expect the same success.D.
1Sa 14:45. (AJALON.)
Cooperation with God.
“He hath wrought with God this day.” Apart from the power of God man can do nothing. In opposition to it he is defeated and crushed. Only in cooperation with it can he accomplish anything great or good. As in the material, so in the moral and spiritual world it is our wisdom, strength, and dignity to be “labourers together with God” (1Co 3:9; 2Co 6:1). Notice
I. THE AIM of this cooperation.
1. To overcome sin and misery amongst men.
2. To promote righteousness and happiness in ourselves and others.
3. To extend the kingdom and glory of God.
II. THE MEANS.
1. Studying the laws or modes of God’s working (Ecc 3:14) and the manifold intimations of his will.
2. Trusting in him, firmly resting on his promises, and patiently waiting their fulfilment. Oftentimes “our strength is to sit still.”
3. Using with diligence the strength he gives, still depending on him “who worketh all in all” (1Co 12:6; Php 2:13; Isa 26:12).
III. THE RESULT.
1. Conscious approbation of God.
2. Effectual aid.
3. Certain achievement. “In due season we shall reap if we faint not.”D.
1Sa 14:47-52. (GIBEAH.)
Saul’s sovereignty and wars, his army and family.
From this summary observe that
I. THE PEOPLE OF GOD ARE BESET BY NUMEROUS ADVERSARIES. Moab, Ammon, etc.”on every side,” of varied character, imbued with the same enmity, and threatening their existence. Conflict is necessary to self-preservation.
II. THE CHASTISEMENT OF THE WICKED IS INFLICTED BY SUITABLE AGENTS, “And Saul took the kingdom,” etc. “Whithersoever he turned himself he chastised them. For this work he was well qualified by warlike courage and skill, indomitable energy and zeal, and in it he met with success. God often employs men to carry out his purposes who possess little of the spirit of obedience.
III. DIVERSITY OF CHARACTER IS OFTEN MANIFESTED IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. “Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, and Ishui (Abinadab), and Melchishua.” The fourth, Esh-baal (Ishbosheth), is not here mentioned. “And the names of his two daughters were Merab and Michal,” etc. (1Sa 14:49-51). What a contrast of character is presented in this familye.g. between Jonathan and his father and sister (Michal). Hidden hereditary influences and special associations may have contributed to the difference, but much more the voluntary use or abuse of preliminary conditions, outward circumstances, and spiritual gifts.
IV. THE MISUSE OF POWER IS the RUIN OF ITS POSSESSOR. “He gathered a host” (1Sa 14:48), or acquired power. He formed a standing army, as it had been predicted (1Sa 8:11, 1Sa 8:16; 1Sa 22:7). He employed his power for his own aggrandisement. “If he could have done as he wished, there would have been an end to the supremacy of God in Israel. Rude despotism would have usurped its place” (Hengstenberg). Samuel’s antagonistic working preserved the principle of the theocracy, and Saul’s kingdom departed from him (Dan 4:31).
V. THE PERVERSITY OF MEN INVOLVES THEM IN SORE DISTRESS. “There was sore war,” etc. (1Sa 14:52). “Very different had been the state of things when Samuel ruled Israel (1Sa 7:13). And the people who looked for protection to an arm of flesh rather than to God, who was their King, were punished by that instrumentSaulwhich they had chosen for themselves in order that they might be saved by it” (Wordsworth’s ‘Com.’).
VI. THE KINGDOM OF GOD MUST PREVAIL OVER ALL OPPOSITION, whether from open adversaries or disloyal adherents. That which seems to hinder it is often made a means of its furtherance. The Divine purpose concerning it cannot be defeated. It endured, wrought, and was developed amidst all the vicissitudes of Israel’s history until the advent of “the King Messiah,” and it is still advancing toward its perfect and eternal consummation (1Co 15:24, 1Co 15:25).D.
HOMILIES BY D. FRASER
1Sa 14:47, 1Sa 14:48
The restless king.
When a locomotive engine slips off the rails, it would do little harm if it could stop at once; but its momentum carries it forward. It ploughs up the way, it dashes over an embankment, and drags ever so many carriages and passengers to destruction. So is it with the deflection of a man of force and influence from the right course. If he would stop at once, or if he should soon die, the mischief might be small. But the momentum of his character and position drives him on; he goes further and further from the straight lines of righteousness, and in the end not only hurls himself on ruin, but pulls many after him to their hurt. It was so with king Saul. He sinned, and the prophet Samuel intimated to him the Lord’s displeasure. Had the king stopped there, no great damage might have been done; but he could not stop. The vehemence of his nature, and what seemed to be the necessities of his position, drove him on. He became more and more arbitrary. So we see him in this chapter of the history issuing the most unreasonable restrictions and commands, lenient when he should have been strict, and severe when he should have been lenient. By his rashness he very nearly turned to mourning the signal triumph over the Philistines which crowned the faith and valour of Prince Jonathan, and from that day he fell even below his own subjects in his perception of right and wrong, forfeited their respect, and became more and more wayward and unreasonable. Yet he had successesgreat successes as a warrior. His martial temper and skill did not leave him, and all the surrounding nations felt his heavy hand. Not content with defending the territory, Saul organised and disciplined the army of Israel, so as to be able to use it in aggressive war, and smite the nations which had at various periods oppressed his country. Whithersoever he turned himself he was victorious. And yet Saul did not conduct those wars or win those victories in a manner worthy of a servant of Jehovah. There is no trace of his having command or counsel from God. There is no reference to the fulness of Divine promise regarding the land such as one sees in the thoughts of David when he enlarged the territory of Israel till they possessed all that the Lord had assigned to the posterity of Abraham. Saul struck right and left as the mood seized him, and “whithersoever he turned himself” he conquered. This is worth noting. A man may have many successes in life; nay, may have them in the Church, and in vindication of sacred truth, yet not have them as a Christian ought, and so not please God. Especially may this be the case in ecclesiastical and theological controversy. One may be quite on the right side, and may strike heavy blows at errorists and heretics all round, just as he “turns himself,” and yet have no communion with the God of truth whom he seems to sense, obey motives unworthy of a servant of Christ, and indulge a harsh and wilful temper such as God cannot approve. Restlessness indicates an undisciplined, unhallowed energy. Restfulness belongs to those who submit all their plans to God, and lay all their energies at his feet. No men are so deaf to expostulation and so hard of recovery as those who try to keep an accusing conscience quiet by ceaseless activity. They turn hither and smite, thither and smite again. Perhaps they attack what deserves to be smitten; but it is a bad sign of themselves that they are never still before the Lord, letting his word search them. Under ever so much noise of debate and controversy, what hollowness may lurk, what degeneracy! Alas, it is so easy to go wrong, and having gone wrong once, easier to do it again. And then it is so hard to accept blame before God or man, and to submit to correction. Why not brandish our swords, and show ourselves brave Christian soldiers? Will not this compensate for our faults? O foolish Saul! O more foolish followers of the restless, haughty king! Lord, keep us back from all presumptuous sin!F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Sa 14:36 And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Then said the priest, Let us draw near hither unto God.
Ver. 36. Let us not leave a man of them. ] Here he expresseth, say some, his excessive desire of revenge, his arrogancy, and his cruelty. He had an express command not to leave a man of the Amalekites, and yet he could spare many of them. 1Sa 15:7-8
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the Man Who Wrought with God Rescued
1Sa 14:36-52
In this case the voice of the people was the voice of God. If a man dares to stand alone with God, he cannot be put to shame. If he says of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust. Ten thousand voices answer: He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shall thou trust. Thou shalt not be afraid. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn, One with God is always on the stronger side.
How safe are they who do Gods commandments, hearkening to the voice of His wind! When our Lord was arrested, He stood boldly before His captors and, interposing between them and His timid disciples, said, If ye seek me, let these go their way. This is His invariable method. As the mother-bird interposes for her helpless young; as the ring-fence of fire intercepts the night attack of the wild beast: as the broad river and its streams bar the progress of the foe; as the arm of masonry protects the ships from the storm, so the Lord is round about His people forever!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Let us go: Jos 10:9-14, Jos 10:19, Jer 6:5
let us not leave: 1Sa 11:11, Jos 11:14
Then said the priest: It is evident that Ahiah, who had before been interrupted by Saul’s impatience, doubted of the propriety of pursuing the Philistines that night, and properly counselled them to enquire of the Lord. Num 27:21, Psa 73:28, Isa 48:1, Isa 48:2, Isa 58:2, Mal 2:7, Jam 4:8
Reciprocal: Gen 27:13 – Upon 1Sa 14:40 – Do what seemeth 1Sa 23:6 – an ephod 2Ki 3:27 – they departed 1Ch 13:3 – we inquired Ecc 9:18 – sinner Joh 10:35 – unto
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 14:36-37. Let us go down after the Philistines by night Having thus refreshed themselves in the evening, Saul proposes to them to renew the pursuit, hoping to cut off the whole army of the Philistines when they were asleep in the night. Then said the priest, Let us draw near hither unto God To the ark, in order to inquire of God. It is probable he stood before the altar, and wished to remind them that it was dangerous to undertake any thing without Gods direction. He answered him not that day Though the priest, it seems, often asked an answer, yet he received none.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 14:36-46. The next episode strikingly illustrates the primitive religious faith and practice of Israel. Saul proposed to make a night-attack upon the Philistines, and asked the priest to obtain an oracle as to whether Yahweh would approve. The silence of the oracle showed that some sin had roused the Divine displeasure. Saul proceeded to discover the sinner by lot, and in the first instance the lot was to be cast between Israel generally on the one hand, and Saul and Jonathan on the other. And Saul said; O Yahweh, God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If this iniquity be in me or in my son Jonathan, O Yahweh, God of Israel, give Urim; but if it be in thy people Israel give Thummim. And Jonathan and Saul were taken and the people escaped. A further casting of lots showed that Jonathan was the culprit. Saul sought to put him to death, but the people rescued him. There was no more fighting.
1Sa 14:41. The rendering of this verse is from the text as reconstructed in SBOT on the basis of the LXX. Urim and Thummim were the sacred lots, perhaps stones kept in the ephod. The Jewish scholars who added the vowels to the text, interpreted the words as Lights and Perfection, but their meaning is uncertain (pp. 100f., Exo 28:30*).
1Sa 14:42. In the LXX, the people make an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the lot being cast between the king and his son.
1Sa 14:43. and, lo, I must die: rather, Here I am, let me die, i.e. (Cent.B) I am ready to die.
1Sa 14:45. wrought this great salvation: rather, won this great victory.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
14:36 And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Then said the priest, Let us {q} draw near hither unto God.
(q) To ask counsel from him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Saul’s blindness to his guilt 14:36-46
Evidently Saul would not have inquired of God if Ahijah (cf. 1Sa 14:18) had not suggested that he do so (1Sa 14:36). Probably God did not answer his prayer immediately because Saul wanted this information to vindicate himself rather than God (1Sa 14:37). Saul thought God did not answer him because someone had violated his rule (1Sa 14:24), which he confused with God’s Law, calling violation of it sin (1Sa 14:38; cf. Jos 7:14). Really, God did not answer him because Saul was disloyal to Yahweh. The king boldly vowed that anyone who had sinned, which was only breaking his rule, even Jonathan, would die (1Sa 14:39). God identified Jonathan rather than Saul as the guilty party. Jonathan had violated the king’s command though he had not violated God’s command. Actually, Jonathan was executing God’s will.
Jonathan would have had to die if he had broken Yahweh’s command, as Achan did. However, Saul’s oath was not on that high a level of authority, though Saul thought it was, as is clear from his insistence that Jonathan die. The soldiers who had gone along with Saul’s requests thus far (1Sa 14:36; 1Sa 14:40) refused to follow his orders when he called for Jonathan’s execution (1Sa 14:45). They recognized that Saul’s rule about abstaining from eating (1Sa 14:24) was not divine law. They correctly saw that even though Jonathan had violated Saul’s rule, he had obeyed God’s order to drive Israel’s enemies out of the land. Saul’s failure to see his role under God and the difference between the Word of God and his own commands resulted in confusion and disunity. Saul’s preoccupation with Jonathan’s eating against his wishes cost him a great victory over the Philistines.
The writer pointed out the reason for Saul’s ultimate failure as Israel’s king and the reason for his own personal destruction in this section (1Sa 13:1 to 1Sa 14:46). Essentially Saul refused to put the will of God above his own personal desires. Careful attention to the text shows that Saul showed great concern about the observance of religious rituals, but he failed to appreciate the indispensable importance of submitting his will to Yahweh. He sought to use God rather than allowing God to use him. He thought he was above the Mosaic Law rather than under it. He put himself in the position that God alone rightfully occupied.
To illustrate the seriousness of Saul’s sin, suppose two parents have two children. The first child has a real heart for what pleases his parents. On rare occasions when this child disobeys his parents, his conscience bothers him, he confesses his offense to his parents, and he tries to be obedient from then on. This was how David responded to God. Even though David sinned greatly by committing adultery and murder, these sins broke his heart, he confessed them to God, and he returned to following God faithfully. His heart was one with God’s. He wanted to please God and honor God even though he failed miserably occasionally.
The second child in the family in this illustration really wants to run his own life. He submits to parental authority when it seems to him to be to his advantage to do so, but his heart is really not with his parents. He wants to control his own life and believes he can do a better job of it on his own than by following his parents’ instructions. He thinks, "What’s right for me is right." This was Saul’s attitude. Saul never submitted to divine authority unless he felt it was to his advantage to do so. He always wanted to maintain control over his own life.
Which of these two children has the more serious problem of disobedience? The second child does. Saul’s sin was worse than David’s. Even though David committed a few great sins, God did not cut off his dynasty or his rule prematurely since he really wanted to glorify God. However, David suffered severe consequences for his sins even though God forgave him. God did cut off Saul’s dynasty and his rule prematurely because Saul would not yield to Yahweh’s control, which was crucial for Israel’s king. Failure to yield control to God is extremely important, even more important than individual acts of disobedience (cf. Rom 6:12-13; Rom 12:1-2).
Saul’s pride led him to make foolish decisions that limited his effectiveness. Many believers experience unnecessary confusion and complications in their lives because they will not relinquish control to God.