Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Samuel 14:1 - 14:52
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
For Lange's chapter 14 passage quote and footnotes, see 1Sa_13:1 ff.
4. 1Sa_14:1-15. Jonathan’s bold attack on the Philistines.
1Sa_14:1. “On a day” ( äַéּåֹí ), on the definite day on which the following occurred. The words: And Jonathan said to his armor-bearer: Let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison, are repeated in 1Sa_14:6 for the continuation of the narrative which they introduce. What lies between [1Sa_14:2-5] is a statement of the existing special circumstances and local relations. This detailed narration shows that it is taken from the account of an eye-witness. The “garrison” of the Philistines is the advanced post mentioned in 1Sa_13:23. On the other side.
The interjacent statements introduce us into the details of the whole situation: 1) Jonathan says nothing to his father of his purpose, because he would have forbidden it as too dangerous; the undertaking is set on foot secretly, in the hope of surprising the enemy in sleep or unprepared. 2) Saul (1Sa_14:2) is encamped at the extremity of Gibeah. This is mentioned to show that Jonathan could unknown to him make such a blow. Gibeah (1Sa_14:16) is the city Gibeah in Benjamin, whither also Samuel had gone from Gilgal (1Sa_13:15) back of Geba towards the south, yet with its extremity (1Sa_14:16) not so far from the pass of the southward-trending Wady, that the movements in the ranks of the Philistines opposite could not be thence observed. Under the pomegranate-tree which is in Migron. By “rimmon” we must here understand not the name of a place, but, on account of the Art., the well-known pomegranate. According to Jdg_20:45 a rock near Gibeah bore the name “Rock of the pomegranate” [Rimmon]; and was well adapted for a fortified position. It is a natural supposition that the same place is meant here, named after the well-known pomegranate. Luther here renders Migron incorrectly suburb. Linguistically it can only signify a place, which, however, from the local relations cannot be the Migron of Isa_10:28, north of Michmash, whose name seems to be found in the ruins of Magrun, eight minutes from Beitin. Rob. II. 340 [see Am. ed. I., 463, Stanley’s Sin. and Pal. 202]. Rather this place lay south of the pass of Michmash on the northern extremity of Gibeah-Benjamin (Saul), and was marked by the well-known pomegranate. From the context it appears that Gibeah-Benjamin extended far along on the heights which stretched out (south of Geba) north-east towards the pass of Michmash, and ended in a rock on which the pomegranate stood, and on whose declivity lay the place Migron. The word means perhaps “precipice” (Then.) which is linguistically better than “threshing-floor” (Rosenm. Alterth. II., 2, 171). That two contiguous places should bear this name is, on account of the nature of the ground, as little surprising (Winer) as the frequent occurrence of the names Ramah and Gibeah (Geba).—3) Saul’s following consisted of about six hundred men and Ahiah the high-priest. We must render: And Ahiah—bare the ephod. The words “priest of Jehovah in Shiloh” belong not to Ahiah (Sept., Luth.), but to Eli. Wearing the ephod was a sign of the high-priestly office. Probably Ahiah was with Saul at Gilgal, and ministered in the offering there made by him. The name Ahiah [“Jehovah is brother” or “brother of Jehovah”] is identical with Ahimelech [“brother of the king”] under which this great-grandson of Eli, the sole survivor, (1Sa_2:33) of the house of Eli, appears (1Sa_21:2; 1Sa_22:9; 1Sa_22:11; 1Sa_22:20; 1Sa_30:7, e. a.). As to whether of the two names was the original, Ewald remarks that they may have been used without much distinction (since melech “king” might refer to God) as in Elimelech (in Ruth) and Elijah (Gesch. II. 585, Rem. 3).—The people with Saul also knew nothing of Jonathan’s purpose. This statement connects itself naturally with the remark on Saul’s following.—4) Exact description of the ground which Jonathan had to traverse in his bold secret enterprise, 1Sa_14:4-5. According to Robinson’s remarks the plural “passes” is to be explained of the several passages which were made possible by the side-valleys. It is not probable that the plural refers to a long passage over the mountain (Then.). Further the word “between” is intelligible only on the supposition of several passes. Between these passes lay opposite one another two rocky crags or projections, formed by the side-wadys opening right and left into the deep, precipitous Wady es-Suweinit. Robinson went from Jeba (Geba) through that Wady across to Michmash. In this passage (from south to north) he had on the left two hills with steep rocky sides. “Behind each,” says he, “runs up a smaller Wady, so as almost to isolate them. One is on the side towards Jeba and the other towards Mukhmas” (II. 329 [Am. ed. I. 441]). To this observation of Robinson answers exactly the description in 1Sa_14:5, according to which the one rock-ledge, Bozez, was a column on the north, the other Seneh, on the south, opposite Geba.
1Sa_14:6. Continuation of the narrative, with resumption of Jonathan’s words to his armor-bearer [1Sa_14:1], but with the difference that the Philistines are here not called by their own name, but “uncircumcised.” This expression marks the difference between them and Israel as covenant-people, which forms the basis for the following utterance of Jonathan. Ewald’s characterization of Jonathan’s feeling as “a mixture of youthful impatience and lofty courage” (III. 48) does not fully explain the inner side of this deed. Its natural basis is youthful heroic spirit and impetuous desire of achievement; but it receives high ethical value and significance from its religious root in Jonathan’s God-fearing and God-trusting heart, whose feeling is expressed in the word: Perhaps Jehovah will work for us, for there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by many or by few.—Over against the “uncircumcised” Jonathan is clearly conscious: 1) that his people is the chosen one, belonging to the Lord, with whom the Lord has made a covenant, and 2) that the Lord cannot deny His almighty help to this people as their covenant-God. This word of Jonathan expresses the genuine theocratic disposition of the liveliest consciousness of God and the firmest trust in God, whence alone could come a true deliverance of the people from their oppressive burden. The “perhaps” indicates not a doubt, but the humility which was coupled with Jonathan’s heroic spirit; he is far from tempting God. The humble and modest hope which is expressed in the word: “perhaps the Lord will work for us” is straightway grounded on the truth: there is no restraint to the Lord, that is, he is at liberty to save by many or by few; that is, the Lord’s help is not dependent on the extent or the degree of the means by which it is realized; his helping power is not conditioned, but absolute. The same thought in Psa_147:10-11; 2Ch_14:11; 1Ma_3:18-19.
1Sa_14:7. The answer of the armor-bearer contains: 1) encouragement to carry out his design, and 2) assurance that he will act with him and stand by him according to his will. Render: “do all whereto thy heart inclines.”
1Sa_14:8. Jonathan explains that, in carrying out his purpose, he proposes that they first show themselves to the Philistines.—In verses 9, 10, we are told how he would therein find a divine sign whether the Lord would grant unto them success in their design. He supposes two cases. If the Philistines at his hail should say: “keep still ! till we come to you,” they will not go up to them; for that would be a sign of courage and preparedness. But if they should say: “come up to us,” they will go up; for that would be a sign of carelessness and slackness. This he would regard as a divine sign that God had given the Philistines into his hands. The divine sign, which Jonathan proposed to find, was a fact which guaranteed the success of the enterprise on its natural-human side also.
1Sa_14:11. When Jonathan and his esquire showed themselves, the latter of the two cases occurred. The outposts of the Philistines cry scornfully: Hebrews are coming forth out of their holes, and call out to them: Come up to us, and we will tell you something. An expression taken directly from the life of the people, containing an apparently bold challenge, yet (as we may see) not meant in earnest, and concealing cowardice or careless security and neglect. Cleric.: “They hoped to have sport with them, not supposing that they could there climb the rock.” Jonathan is now sure that God has given them into his hands.
1Sa_14:13. Lively description of the execution by Jonathan and his armor-bearer of their bold undertaking and the brilliant result. On his hands and feet Jonathan climbed up the rock, and the armor-bearer after him. The text-reading: “and they fell before Jonathan and his armor-bearer,” etc., gives a very good sense, as Then. expressly admits. We need not, then, after the Sept. read: “and they turned before Jonathan and he smote them,” where Sept. incorrectly read åַéִּôְðåּ for åַéּôְּìåּ . How (as Ewald asserts) the connection favors the reading of the Sept. is not to be seen.—The armor-bearer slew completely after him.—The Sept. has ἐðåäßäïõ whence, however, we are not to read îåñִéó . [“more fully”] instead of the text “slaying;” the latter is to be retained from the connection, the narrative, from the rapidity of the affair, pressing on to describe how Jonathan, pushing on, strikes down with overwhelming might every one whom he meets, without stopping to kill completely, while the armor-bearer, following him, kills those that were struck down, that they might not rise again. The Heb. word ( îְîåֹúֵú ) means “killing completely,” as in 1Sa_17:51; 2Sa_1:9 sq.—A like bold deed in scaling a castle in the Numidian war is told in Sall. Bell. Jugurth., c. 89, 90.—[This force of “complete killing” can hardly be assigned to this Heb. form (Polel, here causative of Qal, of îåּú ). It means simply “kill,” and so in the passages cited by the author, and the statement here seems to be that not only Jonathan, but also his armor-bearer (like the feudal esquire) took part in the combat. The phrase “fell before him” fairly means “fell dead;” the words do not warrant the history gotten out of them by Dr. Erdmann. But the Heb. text, though somewhat hard, may be maintained without this. See “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.]
1Sa_14:14. The result of this first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor-bearer made: about thirty men were thus killed. In the last words of the verse the overthrow is set forth in terms taken from ploughing: in about a half-furrow of a yoke of land.—This indicates the position of the fallen, after Jonathan, pressing impetuously on, had struck them down one after another, and his armor-bearer after him had killed those that were not dead. This occurred in the space of about half a furrow in a piece of land which one could plough with a yoke of oxen in a day. In the length of about a half-yoke lay the twenty slain Philistines stretched out in a row. Cleric.: “Such apparently was the extent of the point of rock which the Philistines had occupied.” Of the translation of the Sept.: “about twenty men with darts and slings and stones of the field,” Clericus rightly says: “They translated conjecturally what they did not understand.” To Ewald’s rendering “as if a yoke of land were in ploughing” (so Bunsen, who regards this as an extract from a poet) there are, in the first place, two objections: 1) that the word ( îðòä ) means “furrow,” and not “ploughing,” and 2) that “yoke of land” means not the animals, but the land itself. Further objection to this rendering, especially in reference to the completed fact here related [Ewald represents it as an advancing act, while the first half of the verse speaks of it as finished.—Tr.], see in Thenius.—[The Sept. text may easily be gotten from the Heb., omitting the ê . å . ðåôñ . as repetition (see Then. and Wellhausen), and gives a better sense. Bib. Com.: “There is nothing remarkable in twenty men being killed in half an acre of land; and moreover the Heb. sentence is extremely obscure, without any apparent reason for its being so. … A measure of time would not be out of place, if the words could mean ‘in about half the time that a yoke of oxen draw a furrow in the field.’ ” Others, less well, understand here a space enclosed by a furrow. Philippson remarks that the ancients were accustomed to measure land by the ploughing of oxen; but the difficulty here is not in the way of stating the land-measure, but in understanding why it is stated. Kitto (Daily Bib. Ill.) gives a good narrative of the exploit of Jonathan. The text must be regarded as unsettled.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:15. The consequence of this bold deed: panic fear among the Philistines. The success of Jonathan’s deed and this consequence are to be explained by supposing that the outposts of the Philistines did not think it possible that the two men could get up, and, when they did, feared that a body of Israelites were behind them, since they could not see down the steep declivity. The camp of the field [Heb.: in the camp (or host) in the field—Tr.] is the whole camp of the Philistines; the terror, which had seized all the people of the outposts, now took possession of the principal camp also. The spoilers also, the body of plunderers, trembled. There are many examples in military history of the contagious power of such fright, extending from a few widely out. And the earth quaked is not to be understood of an earthquake, but of the trembling of the ground under the fearful uproar of the Philistines.—And became a terror of God. The phrase “and became” refers to the before-described disaster of the Philistines, all this grew into a “terror of God,” that is, the Philistines recognized herein a mighty help of the God of Israel, by which they had been thrown into this terror. [The natural rendering is “the earth quaked and became a terror of God,” that is, the trembling earth became the sign of the wrathful intervention of God (comp. Vulg.); a miraculous earthquake seems to be here described. Others regard the divine name as a superlative addition, and render “a great (a panic) terror” (Gesen., al.) like “cedars of God” Psa_80:11, but this is not probable in this prose narrative.—Tr.]
5. 1Sa_14:16-23. General flight and overthrow of the Philistines in consequence of Jonathan’s exploit.
1Sa_14:16. Gibeah of Benjamin is not the present Jeba (Then.), which rather answers to Geba. Though the former was farther from the Philistine camp, we need not be surprised that Saul’s watchmen could see thither, since from their elevated position they could with sharp eyes see what was going on at that distance (nearly five Eng. miles), or, if not, could go nearer.—And behold, the multitude or the tumult—though äַîåֹï may here mean “multitude” (Gesen. s. v.), it is better to render “tumult,” since the narrator has in his eye the crowd thrown into confusion by Jonathan’s attack. This consideration sets aside one of Thenius’ reasons for here also following the free translation of the Sept.;—dispersed hither and thither. It is better to supply “hither” ( äֲìéí before åַäֲìéí ), which might easily have fallen out from homœophony; or (with the Rabb. and Ges.) read the Inf. Abs. and render “were more and more broken up.” [For another view see “Text. and Grammat.”—Tr.] 1Sa_14:17. Saul could explain the affair only as an Israelitish attack. The numbering ordered by him showed that Jonathan and his armor-bearer were missing.
1Sa_14:18. Bring hither the ark of God. A change of text (Keil) after the Sept. so as to read: “Bring the ephod, for he wore the ephod at that time before Israel,” on the ground that the ark had been placed in Kirjath-jearim, and was not used in asking questions of God, is suspicious, because the ark, which was thought to be connected with God’s presence, was often taken along to war. Comp. 1Sa_4:4-5; 2Sa_11:11; 2Sa_15:24-25. Why could they not, in accordance with this established custom, have taken it from its usual place in decisive battles, and afterwards carried it back? But it is not said that Saul wished to inquire of God at the ark. He wished first to advance with it against the enemy. But, when he saw that the tumult increased in their camp, and that they were already as good as beaten, he desisted. [If Saul had not wished to inquire of God by the ark, he would not have said “bring hither,” (but “carry forward”), nor “withdraw thy hand.” It seems better, therefore, to read ephod, whether we adopt the whole reading of the Sept. or not.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:19. And the tumult. … and it increased more and more is a broken construction, the subject being first put absolutely, and the predicate-sentence put as relative-sentence. Withdraw thy hand; that is, from bringing the ark = desist. Instead (1Sa_14:20) of “were assembled, called together” (Niph.), read with Sept. (Alex.), Vulg., Syr., Arab., “shouted” (Qal), for there was no need of an assembly, as they were already there (Then.), and besides, what is the meaning of “and Saul was called together and all the people,” since Saul was the assembler? Translate: And Saul and all the people shouted (raised the war-cry) and advanced to the battle. From this war-cry of the advancing host under Saul that which follows is easily explained. In consequence of the terror thereby produced, the confusion in the Philistine army was very great. That every man’s sword was against his fellow in such confusion (comp. Jdg_7:22; 2Ch_20:22-23) is explained by what is related in 1Sa_14:21-22. There were Hebrews in the host of the Philistines. By this name, the usual one among foreign nations, the Philistines called the Israelites in their midst. The Art. (the Hebrews) refers to the exacter definition in the relative sentence. And the Hebrews were with the Philistines, as formerly, who had gone up with them to the camp. [It is better to insert who ( àùø ) after “Hebrews,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]. Bunsen supposes that these were prisoners, who had hitherto been compelled to fight against their countrymen. Or, they may have been levies from the part of the land which the Philistines held. To render “divided out roundabout among the Philistines” gives no good sense; the idea of “roundabout” is inappropriate to the whole situation. It is therefore better to read, with Sept., Vulg., Chald., Syr., Thenius, Buns., “turned.” The otherwise insuperable difficulty in the Infin. thus vanishes, and we render: “these also turned to be with Israel;” that is, went over to Israel. This, of course, they could not do without turning their arms against their oppressors. In addition to these (1Sa_14:22) came all the Israelites who had been in hiding on the mountains of Ephraim; when they heard of the flight of the Philistines, they too joined in the pursuit.
1Sa_14:23 1) affirms that this fortunate achievement was due to the help of the Lord, and 2) states the direction which the battle took. The battle passed over to Bethaven. Between this statement that the fight moved northeast from Michmash to Bethaven, and that in 1Sa_14:31, that the Philistines were smitten that day from Michmash to Ajalon [west], an insoluble contradiction† has been discovered, and it has been proposed to read Bethhoron (which lay west of Michmash) instead of Bethaven. But such a contradiction cannot be admitted, because the movements in such a battle are so fluctuating. Here in 1Sa_14:23 we have an account of the battle which continued, and passed, not far from Michmash indeed, over to Bethaven in a northeasterly direction; in 1Sa_14:31 is an account of the completed battle, and the final result is given, which is naturally this, that the Philistines, drawn by the Israelites from their native land towards Bethaven, fled, the greater part of them at least, westward, and were beaten as far as Ajalon. Bunsen: “In general the flight of the Philistines was naturally westward (1Sa_14:31), yet no exception can on that account be taken to our passage.”
6. 1Sa_14:24-31. Saul’s rash order. Between 1Sa_14:23 and 1Sa_14:24 the Sept. has: “And the whole people was with Saul about ten thousand men, and the battle spread in the whole city in the mountains of Ephraim. And Saul committed a great error” (that day and adjured). This is an explanatory addition to the original text with whose curtness it does not harmonize. It is not in itself improbable that the original six hundred men should grow to this large body in the course of the battle, and that the fight should extend over the mountains of Ephraim is to be expected from the dispersed condition of the Philistines, and is even indicated in the end of 1Sa_14:23. The phrase “in the whole city” has arisen from a misreading of the following word “wood” ( áéòø ).—The Masoretic text is short, sharp, and to the point, corresponding to Saul’s position and conduct as here described.—And the men of Israel were distressed that day. In 1Sa_13:6 the same word ( ðâùׁ ) is used to express the oppressed condition of the Israelites. Here it is Saul that presses and drives the people in the pursuit of the Philistines. The word means “harassed, wearied out,” and Thenius’ objection that one does not see by whom or by what the Israelites were pressed, explains itself.—The wearied condition of the people made Saul fear that the pursuit of the Philistines would thereby be interrupted, and the honor of the day for him diminished. And Saul adjured the people.—He made them swear an oath—bound them by an oath. Cursed be the man that eateth food until evening and I be avenged on my enemies.—Saul’s passionate zeal, spurred on by selfishness, self-will and personal desire for revenge causes him to lose sight of the command of nature, to act cruelly towards his brave warriors, and over and beyond to injure his cause. “Blind zeal only hurts.” Berlenb. Bible: “In this prohibition there was a secret pride and misuse of power, for he desired to force, as it were, a complete victory, and then appropriate the glory of it to himself.” The people kept the oath even under the strongest temptation to break it.
1Sa_14:25. And the whole land came into the wood.—The “land” is put for the people, as appears from 1Sa_14:26. Comp. Jer_22:29. The honey which they found in the forest on the ground flowing ( äֵìֶêְ ãְּáַùׁ ) was not that honey-like substance which is found on the leaves of certain bushes and taken off them, but real honey from bees who built on trunks of trees or in clefts of rocks, which, as Schultz (Leistungen, V. 133) has seen in the wilderness of Judea, often flows in streams on the ground from the over-full and pressed honey-structure (comp. Deu_32:13; Jdg_14:8; Ps. 81:17).
1Sa_14:26. On account of the oath no one partook of the refreshing food which thus presented itself.
1Sa_14:27. Jonathan, however, had not heard the oath of his father. He dips his staff into the honey and eats, in accordance with the haste of the pursuit—that is, into the honey-comb (Sept.: êçñßïí ; Vulg.: favum, the comb, not the liquid honey), which presented itself; into the comb, not the liquid honey, because only in this way could he get enough with the tip of his staff. Instead of “saw” (Kethib) read “were enlightened” (Qeri); see a similar transposition in Heb. in 2Sa_24:20, comp. 2Sa_5:16. The word describes the bodily and mental refreshment, the reviving of soul, which shows itself straightway in the eyes.
1Sa_14:28. The last words: “And the people are faint” are spoken by the man who tells Jonathan of the oath of his father, and at the same time stand in contrast with the refreshment which Jonathan had indulged himself in.
1Sa_14:29 sq. Jonathan’s disapproval of his father’s conduct by pointing to the injury he has thus done the land and people: “My father has troubled ( òëø , perturbare), brought disaster on the land” (Gen_34:30; Jos_6:18; Judg. 4:35). The disaster is this: that the people, wearied with the battle, had lost all strength by the lack of nourishing food ( àָáֹì àָëַì ). The defeat of the Philistines was thus less complete than it would otherwise have been (1Sa_14:29). Maurer renders as independent sentence: “for now the slaughter of the Philistines is not very great.”
1Sa_14:31. See on 1Sa_14:23. Ajalon, the present village Yâlo, in the southeast end of a valley extending westward from Bethhoron. Rob. Later Bib. Res. 188 [Am. ed. III. 145—and II. 253, 254; 14 miles out of Jerusalem, Smith’s B. D.—Tr.] The mention of the great weariness and exhaustion of the people concludes the account of Saul’s rash conduct, and leads to the statement of its consequences.
7. 1Sa_14:32-46. The consequences of Saul’s overhaste, and the end of the battle.
1Sa_14:32. And the people flew upon the prey—that is, as soon as it was evening, comp. 1Sa_14:24. The same expression in 1Sa_15:19. The people slew the animals to the earth, down to the ground, and then ate “upon (or, over) the blood,” blood being on the bodies because they were on the ground, and so “with the blood.” On the preposition ( òַì ) see Exo_12:8 [Eng. A. V.: “with”], where also it introduces the basis or accompaniments of the food. The people transgressed the command in Lev_19:26 : “Ye shall not eat on blood” [Eng. A. V.: “with”], that is, no flesh under which or on which there is blood. This is an extension of the prohibition of eating blood in Lev_3:17; Lev_17:10-11, which is based on the fact that the blood is conceived of as the seat and bearer of the life.
1Sa_14:33. The people’s eating is characterized as a sinning against the Lord. Saul calls this conduct faithlessness, because the law of the covenant was transgressed. For now the Sept. has (unnecessarily) hither. [The äַéּåֹí , “to-day,” “this day,” is here not well rendered by “now,” which would be òָúַּä ; the Sept. reading is better.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:34. Saul directs his informants to disperse themselves among the people, and announce that every one should bring his beast to him, and slay here on the great stone, that there might be no sinful eating. Saul’s command, which speaks for his careful observance of the Law, was carried out by the people. As every where before, so here the people display unconditional obedience to Saul. Only by slaughtering on the stone was it possible to separate the blood from the flesh. When the slaughtering occurred, the night had already set in. The Sept. reading: “what was in his hand” instead of “his ox in his hand” [Eng. A. V.: “with him”] is unnecessary.
1Sa_14:35. Saul built the altar to the Lord as thanksgiving for this victory over the Philistines. The same he began to build—that is, he built this as the first, comp. Gesen. § 142, A. 1. [Bib. Comm.: “began to build, but did not finish,” as 1Ch_27:24. So Abarbanel; but, according to the Midrash, Saul began among the kings the building of altars (Philippson). Wordsworth: It seems to be implied that this was the first time he had made acknowledgment to God for his successes.—Tr.] Probably he here used the great stone which he had caused to be brought. He thus established a place for the worship of God in commemoration of this victory.
1Sa_14:36. He is, however, not satisfied with the defeat of the Philistines, but proposes to spoil them that night till the morning. According to Jonathan’s statement, indeed, the defeat was not total. Saul rushes on in his wild desire of revenge, perhaps incited by the consciousness of having committed a gross folly, and thereby hindered the victory—and this he will now make good. The people are again ready immediately to carry out his desire. The priest, however, desires first to have the decision of the Lord. “Hither,” that is, to the altar which had been built. [Patrick: because it was dangerous to undertake any thing without God’s advice. Bib. Comm.: because the priest doubted whether Saul’s ardor was a righteous one, and bravely stood in its way.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:37. The inquiry of the Lord was conducted by the high-priest Ahiah through the Urim and Thummim. The Lord shall say whether the Philistines are to be pursued, and whether He has delivered them into Israel’s hands. There are therefore two questions: whether further pursuit? whether happy result? The failure of a divine answer is for Saul a sign that there is a fault somewhere, on account of which the Lord is silent and does not promise His help.
1Sa_14:38. Chief ( ôִּðָּä “corner,” “point”), the principal men, the heads of the people (Jdg_20:2), probably the elders (Num_11:30). The whole people are called by their representatives, to find out “wherein (or whereby) this sin hath been this day.” There is no need to read (with Then. after Vulg.: per quem—and Sept.: ἐí ôßíé ) “on whom ( áַּîִּé ) this sin rests,” instead of “wherein” ( áַּîָּä ). Rather the thing than the person was here first to be regarded, since the question was of an offence unatoned for,—which, however, indeed, could not be fixed without at the same time discovering the person.
1Sa_14:39. After the first ëִּé [here=“because,” “for”], which gives the ground, follows a second and a third, the former introducing the declaration, the latter resuming it after the parenthesis. The silence of the people is (as appears from 1Sa_14:45) sign of their conviction that Jonathan had done nothing wrong. [Perhaps, also, sign of their regard for Jonathan. It does not seem that Saul was here guilty of profanity (Bib. Comm.), since he may have used the divine name reverently (the expression was very common among the Israelites), but he is guilty (Bib. Comm.) of further rashness.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:40. Saul proceeds to decide what was the offence which prevented the divine answer. The means which Saul here employs reminds us of how Samuel (1Sa_10:20-21) by the lot as means of divine decision presented Saul to the people as the king chosen by the Lord. While in the great double question in 1Sa_14:37 Saul had applied to the Lord by Urim and Thummim, and by His silence received also an answer, and that a decisive one, he now, in order to discover the cause of this divine decision, employs the lot, as is clear from the words “taken” [1Sa_14:41] and “cast” [1Sa_14:42] (comp. 1Sa_10:20 sq.), which are never used in connection with Urim and Thummim. The people, who had not answered him when he swore a second rash oath in which he recognized the possibility of Jonathan’s guilt and death, now expressly approved his arrangements, but silently decided for Jonathan’s innocence and exemption from punishment. Saul (1Sa_14:41) before the casting turns to God with the cry “give (or establish) right.” úָîִéí , “unpunishable,” then “exemption from punishment,” “innocence,” “right,” “truth.” So Jdg_9:16; Jdg_9:19; Jos_24:14. The result of the trial is that Jonathan is taken, 1Sa_14:42.—The Vulgate agrees with the Heb. in 1Sa_14:41 only in the beginning and end: “and Saul said to the Lord God of Israel—and Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people went out.” The intermediate words agree in part with the Sept., which in 1Sa_14:41-42, has a long paraphrase. In this Then. and Ew. see a part of the original text, reading úֻּîִּéí [Thummim] for úָּîִéí , and finding here the complete formula which was employed in the use of Urim and Thummim. Against which Keil justly remarks, that there is no sign here of the use of Urim and Thummim, since the words in 1Sa_14:41 are provably never used of it, but always of the lot, and it is clear from passages like 1Sa_10:22 and 2Sa_5:23 that Urim and Thummim did not consist merely in answering Yes and No, but God by it gave answers, which could by no means be gotten by the lot. The Sept. reading is, therefore, nothing but a subjective and erroneous opinion of the translators.
1Sa_14:43 sq. Jonathan thinks death unavoidable: Lo, I must die.—Saul confirms this with an oath: “God do so and more also,” comp. 1Sa_3:17. Both hold the erroneous opinion that a sinful promise or oath must be kept. That the lot fell on Jonathan meant only, as a divine disposition, that the person was discovered on whom, according to Saul’s opinion, rested the fault, by reason of which God’s answer to his question was silence. Against both rises the people’s voice as the voice of God. The question [1Sa_14:45] “Shall Jonathan die?” and the answer: “Far be it,” express the sorrowful astonishment and the energetic protest of the people who were inspired by Jonathan’s heroic deed and its brilliant result. But the decisive fact for the people was the firm conviction that God was with him and carried out through him this deed of deliverance. Over against Saul’s oath the people set their own: “As the Lord liveth, there shall not a hair of his head fall to the ground.” To the second “wrought” (1Sa_14:45) supply the object of the first: “this great salvation.” “And the people rescued him,” not, as Ewald says, by putting another to die in his stead, but solely by their energetic protest, in the face of which Saul is obliged to let his oath go unfulfilled. For a similar intervention of the people see Liv. 8:35.—[Patrick: They did not rescue him by force and violence, but by their petition to Saul and the reason they gave for it. Josephus saith that “by their prayers and vows to God they delivered him.” They were too forward indeed to swear directly against Saul’s oath; but of the two, his being the most rash, God was pleased to annul it, and absolve him from it.—Wordworth: Observe the humiliation to which Saul is reduced by his disobedience.—Kitto: The enlightened consciences and generous enthusiasm of the people.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:46. The closing statement. Saul desisted from further pursuit of the Philistines, with whose overthrow as far as it could be effected under the harmful consequences of his blind zeal, he had to be contented. The Philistines went back to their own land. In spite of this serious defeat their strength was not broken (comp. 1Sa_14:52). The fact that Saul desisted from pursuit shows that he understood the Lord’s silence as a denial, and was obliged to recognize as the cause of it not Jonathan’s conduct, but his own arbitrary and rash procedure.
II. Summary account of Saul’s wars and family-relations. 1Sa_14:47-52
1Sa_14:47-48. And Saul had taken the kingdom, then he fought, or: “When Saul had taken the kingdom, he fought.” The words do not stand in pragmatical connection with the preceding narrative of the battle against the Philistines, as if the intention was to state that thus (by this victory) Saul gained royal authority (Then., Keil). His accession to the throne is mentioned merely as starting-point for the historical-statistical statement of the various wars which he carried on from the beginning of his government. The already-related war against the Ammonites is here again mentioned, and of the war against the Philistines it is said, in accordance with the design of this interposed section, at the end (1Sa_14:52), that it extended throughout his whole reign. His whole government was a warlike one. Wars are here mentioned, of which nothing is elsewhere said. What is said of his wars before and after this is determined by the theocratic point of view, and is designed to show how Saul, in fulfilling his royal calling (essentially a warlike one), came into principial conflict with the theocratic task and significance of the kingdom, and therefore incurred of necessity the judgment of God. The wars, which he had to carry on with his enemies roundabout, are the following: against the Moabites and Ammonites in the East, against the Edomites in the South, against the kings of Zobah in the Northeast (Zobah, a district of Syria, lay probably north-east of Damascus, between the Euphrates and the Orontes, see 2Sa_8:3 [“perhaps included the eastern flank of the mountain-chain which shuts in Cœle-Syria on that side, the high land about Aleppo, and the more northern portion of the Syrian desert” (Geo. Rawlinson in Smith B. D.).—Tr.]), and against the Philistines in the West. Thus the “roundabout” is pictured to us. The word éַøְùִׁéòַ [Eng. A. V. “vexed”] indicates the point of view from which these wars are to be regarded as victories: he declared guilty (Keil: by deeds), the Hiph. [causative] of the verb being often used of judges (Exo_22:8; Deu_25:1; Job_32:3), he inflicted punishment, or executed judgment against these nations, because they warred against God’s people and thus opposed the Lord’s designs with respect to Israel. They were national wars, which Saul carried on for the honor of the Lord and of His people.—Saul’s development of power against the Amalekites is made specially prominent; he “gathered strength” [ åַֹéַּòַùׂ çַéִì , Eng. A. V. incorrectly: “gathered a host”]. This war against the robbing, plundering hereditary enemy, the Amalekites, is in the next chapter described “from the theocratical point of view” (Then.).
1Sa_14:49-51. Saul’s household and family. Three sons are mentioned: Jonathan, Ishwi and Malchishua. Instead of Ishwi in 1Sa_31:2; 1Ch_8:33; 1Ch_9:39, is Abinadab. In the last two passages a fourth is named, Eshbaal, who is certainly the same with Ishbosheth, 2Sa_2:8. The daughters: Merab and Michal.—Saul’s wife: Ahinoam, a daughter of Ahimaaz.—[Bib. Comm.: “It is not improbable that Ahimaaz may have been of the priestly family (Ahimaaz was son of Zadok, 2Sa_15:36), and perhaps it may have been owing to such a connection that Ahijah was brought into prominence by Saul. If there is any truth in the above supposition, it would be an indication that Saul was not married till after his election to the throne.” But to this last there are serious objections, especially the age of Jonathan, and the whole is a mere conjecture.—Tr.]—Saul’s captain of the host, general-in-chief, Abiner, abbreviated (1Sa_14:51) Abner, his cousin; in the next verse this relationship is stated more fully: Kish, Saul’s father, and Neri, Abner’s father, were sons of Abiel.
1Sa_14:52 connects itself as to subject-matter with 1Sa_14:46, in order, after the general view of Saul’s wars, to show that he had to carry on a hard struggle with one of these peoples, the Philistines, all his life, and so give the ground for the necessity that Saul was under, of forming and maintaining a central body of markedly valiant men about him. This finishes the historical-statistical sketch of Saul as a warrior-prince, to which belongs also from this point of view the mention of his three sons, who fell in battle with him (1Sa_31:2), and of Abner, his general. The national-historical significance of Saul as a king whose mission was essentially that of a warrior is thereby definitely characterized. At the same time the description of Saul as theocratic king is here ended. In what follows is shown how the Lord transferred the theocratic mission from him to another man. Ewald: According to the prophetical perception of the Work, Saul ceases with chap. 14. to be the true king, and therefore the history of his reign is here concluded with the necessary general remarks about him.”—We cannot (with Then.) hold that the remark (1Sa_14:52) “when Saul saw any strong or valiant man, he took him,” is intended to introduce the narrative of David’s coming to Saul after the victory over Goliath (1Sa_18:2), on the ground that here it drags too much after what precedes. It would, if we accepted Thenius’ view, stand too abruptly and too far from this narrative of David. It rather concludes the foregoing account, and connects itself with the account of the first formation of a standing army by a levy from the people (1Sa_13:2).
2. Yet there shows itself in the development of Saul’s inner life (13, 14) a principle, which is directly in conflict with the theocratic principle of the Israelitish kingdom: that of human self-will, which does not subject itself in humility and unconditional believing obedience to the divine will, and fails to establish the absolute supremacy of the latter among the people of God. At the beginning of the fulfilment of his warrior-calling against the Philistines Saul was put to the proof, whether in his royal office he would master his own will and yield unconditional obedience to the word and will of God as true king of His people. This test Saul did not stand, when he was required to follow the divine directions as given him by Samuel’s mouth, which should have been for him God’s mouth. As bearer of the theocratic-royal office bestowed on him, he set himself in conflict with the theocratic-prophetic watch-office, which Samuel held that he might be the organ of the royal will and command of the covenant-God of Israel. He thus denied the principle of the unconditional sovereignty of God, which was to be set forth and unfolded in his kingdom. It was therefore certain that God’s holiness and justice could not permit his kingdom to be permanent (1Sa_13:13-14).
3. The first test of faith, which Saul had to submit to, was a theocratic necessity; for Saul must first prove to the Lord by deeds that he wished to be unconditionally subject to the Lord’s will, to yield obedience (putting down all self-will) to His word which was to be revealed to him by prophets, and to trust alone to His help. Such tests as Saul had to stand, are, in the life of princes and peoples, as of individuals, in the church as in every member of God’s people, of divine significance; failure to stand them leads away from the Lord, brings to naught the Lord’s purposes, results in misfortune and destruction. The individual elements of Saul’s probation, the typical significance of which elements for all times and circumstances of the kingdom of God is obvious, are found partly in his outward position, partly in his inner life. The external position of Saul, as to time and place, was one of extreme distress. In consequence of Jonathan’s successful coup de main, the Philistines were advancing with a powerful army. The people of Israel, whom he had summoned after Jonathan’s heroic exploit (1Sa_13:3) to battle against the Philistines, became disheartened and despondent, and dispersed themselves; even the permanent band, which he had gathered around him, lost courage and began to disband. The seventh day had come, and Samuel, who had bidden him wait till he came to Gilgal to sacrifice for the people and announce God’s will, had not yet made his appearance. This distressing and dangerous position (as he himself 1Sa_13:11-12 intimates) gave occasion in his heart to the temptation to act contrary to God’s will and command. In the first place fear of the threatening dangers seized on his heart; to fear joined itself impatience, which prevented him from waiting out the time appointed by Samuel; alongside of the impatience was doubt of the trustworthiness of the divine promise given him through Samuel; this produced unquiet in his mind, which drove him to take self-willed measures to help himself, and dissipated more and more his trust in God; then came sophistical calculation by his carnally obscured understanding; his heart-frame towards God of immovable trust and unconditional obedience was given up. It was the root of unbelief from which all this sprang.—The consequences of this unstood trial of faith show themselves straightway in two directions: 1) for Saul’s inner life: over against Samuel, or, what is the same thing, over against the holy and just God (who had addressed Himself to his conscience through Samuel’s question “what hast thou done?”) he does not follow the exhortation of his conscience, sorrowfully and penitently to confess his guilt, but, on the one hand, he seeks to excuse and justify himself by pointing to the certainly threatening dangers, as if he had done nothing but his duty, carrying his defence to the extent of an untrue reproach of Samuel (“thou camest not at the set time”), and, on the other hand, he declares his conduct to be thoroughly pious and God-fearing, affirming that he desired simply before the battle began to seek in sacrifice the Lord’s face, while in fact this sacrifice against Samuel’s express command had its deepest root in the unbelief of his heart, wherein he turned from God to his own flesh and blood, and showed himself openly disobedient to the will of God. The self-justification of the impenitent heart leads to unclearness and untruthfulness, since lies and truth are mixed together; self-justification before the Lord is inseparable from self-deceit and hypocrisy. Here begins the unsteadiness and passionate character of Saul’s inner life, as we see it afterwards (chap. 14) time and again, in all the external success of his arms, in all the prosperity of his warlike enterprises. 2) In respect to his theocratic royal calling followed the divine judgment: “Thy kingdom shall not stand, for thou hast not kept the command of the Lord.” The house of Saul, which otherwise would have held the theocratic kingdom permanently, is here declared to have lost it, because Saul had not fulfilled the fundamental condition of unconditional obedience of faith. The judicial sentence is more fully expressed after the second trial (chap. 15). There the divine judgment proceeds further to reject his person in consequence of continued disobedience; here we have first the rejection of his house, so far as, beginning from him, it might have become the permanent possessor of the theocratic royalty. The divine judgment, which is completed by this word of Samuel, was a righteous one, for “in this way Saul strove, so far as in him lay, to change the Israelitish theocracy (in which God would be King of Israel and by His servants, the prophets, rule in affairs of state and war) into such a kingdom as the heathen had, whose kings did everything according to their own pleasure. Saul strove after unrestrained freedom and authority, but thus became a slave to desire, driven by an evil spirit, and ripe for speedy destruction” (Roos, Einl. in d. bibl. Gesch. [Introd. to Bib. Hist.], 2, 271).
4. Jonathan’s second bold deed of arms (1Sa_14:1-15) is, in contrast with Saul’s failure to stand the trial of faith, an example of victorious heroic faith, which consists in unconditional but humble reliance on the almighty help of the Lord (“perhaps the Lord will, etc.,” 1Sa_14:6), does not, in this confident reliance, fearfully weigh and reckon the much or little of human means of accomplishment (“there is no restraint to the Lord, etc.,” 1Sa_14:6), but yet wisely and prudently observes the signs given by the Lord, governs its conduct by them, and then in God’s power performs great things (“there came a fright of God,” 1Sa_14:15).
1Sa_14:8-15. Doubt of the heart tempted by unbelief as to the Lord’s power and help: 1) Its root in the yet unconquered self (self-love, self-will, self-conceit). 2) Its manifestation in disobedience to the will of the Lord. 3) Its fruit the loss of the blessings of divine grace.
The question of conscience: What hast thou done? 1) What it signifies in the sight of the Lord (1Sa_14:8-10). 2) With what excuses an evil conscience answers it (1Sa_14:11-12). 3) What judicial answer the word of God gives to it (1Sa_14:13-14).
The steps in the fall from faith into unbelief: 1) Unrest through doubt and fear. 2) Sin in impatience and disobedience. 3) Excuses that have no ground. 4) Accusation by God’s Spirit. 5) Sentence by God’s word.—[It is questionable whether we should regard Saul as having had true faith in God.—Tr.]
J. Disselhoff: First steps towards the fall of an already approved servant of God: 1) From what hidden corner of the heart has come forth the stumbling-block which made him stumble. 2) What has hindered him, after stumbling, from again walking upright on his feet.—[Henry: It is not sinning that ruins men, but sinning and not repenting; falling and not getting up again.—Tr.]
[1Sa_13:14. Henry: Was not this hard, to pass so severe a sentence upon him and his house for a single error, and that seemed so small, and in excuse for which he had so much to say? No. (1) The Lord here shows that there is no sin little, because no little God to sin against. (2) He shows that disobedience to an express command, though in a small matter, is a great provocation; as in the case of our first parents. (3) He warns us to take heed of our spirits; for that which to men may seem but a small offence, yet to Him that knows from what principle, and with what disposition of mind it is done, may appear a heinous crime.—Tr.]
[1Sa_13:6-7. “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.”
1Sa_13:10. A few minutes more, and how great a calamity might have been averted, how great a blessing gained! (Saul could wait no longer, and yet Samuel came when he had just finished the burnt-offering, and had not yet offered the peace-offering, 1Sa_13:9.)
1Sa_13:12. “And I forced myself.” Reluctant and self-deceived disobedience.
1Sa_13:13. The folly of disobeying God.
1Sa_13:14. “Jehovah hath sought him a man after his own heart:” 1) A man devout, not merely by fits and starts, but profoundly and habitually. 2) A man not self-willed, who would rule according to the command of God through the prophets. 3) A man who when he had done wrong would penitently submit to God’s chastening, invincibly trust in God’s goodness, and faithfully strive to live more according to God’s will. (In these and similar points, Saul and David might be contrasted.) Maurice: This was the man after God’s own heart, the man who thoroughly believed in God, as a living and righteous Being; who in all changes of fortune clung to that conviction; who could act upon it, live upon it; who could give himself up to God to use him as He pleased; who could be little or great, popular or contemptible, just as God saw fit that he should be. … How many of us feel that those who have committed grave outward transgressions may nevertheless have had hearts which answered more to God’s heart, which entered far more into the grief and the joy of His Spirit, than ours ever did! (See the whole Sermon in “Prophets and Kings.”)—Tr.]
1Sa_14:1 sqq. S. Schmid: When God has resolved to accomplish something great and wonderful through a man, He knows how in a wonderful manner so to move his spirit that, without tempting God and with a believing heart, he attempts that which is above his nature and his power.
1Sa_14:6. Berlenb. Bible: “There is no restraint to the Lord,” etc. These words have such force that nothing can be added to them without abating their force. In so saying Jonathan goes through all apparent great perils with a spirit becoming a soul at once righteous and composed. It is true, O God, that it is no harder for Thee to deliver us by few than by many. Our strength counts for as little before Thee as our weakness.—The measure of faith is also the measure of God’s help. Such a soul undertakes everything with heartiness because it does not long consider. It knows that God can do everything, and that is enough for it. The more it doubts, too, its own powers, the more it trusts the power of God.—S. Schmid: Two points has a pious man in his performances especially to observe: one is that his faith shall confide in God’s promise; the other, that he shall not doubt God’s almightiness.—[Hope, founded on faith: 1) It is certain—a matter of faith—that the Lord can save by many or by few. 2) It may be—a matter of hope—that He will work for us. (People often say: “I have faith that we shall succeed in this enterprise.” That is not properly a matter of faith, but only of hope. We believe that God can give success when it is His will; we are persuaded that our enterprise is righteous and would have desirable results; therefore we hope that it may prove to be God’s will to give us success.)—Tr.]
1Sa_14:18-19. Starke: That is the way with all hypocrites; when a rainburst of misfortune falls upon them, they are quite devout, pray industriously and seek defence and protection from God; but when the storm is past they run off again, and ask not after God, Luk_17:17.—[Wordsworth: Saul is a specimen of that class of persons who show a certain reverence and zeal for the outward forms of religion, and even a superstitious reliance on them, but are not careful to cherish the inner spirit of vital religion.—Tr.]
1Sa_14:23. The Scriptures ascribe everything to God. And in order not to ascribe everything to the creature, they do not say: Jonathan delivered Israel, but, God saved Israel. From this we can see that a soul which truly resigns itself to God is in His hand only a poor instrument, which He is wont to use with greater advantage the less it works anything of itself, but merely follows the hand and the will of God.
1Sa_14:24. [Wordsworth: Observe his egotism. He does not call them the enemies of the Lord, but he says: “that I may be avenged on mine enemies;” and he speaks in this self-confident tone even after that the Lord had just marvellously interfered to save Israel.—Tr]—Cramer: To make a vow inconsiderately is censurable, and woe to those who deliberate without consulting God, Isa_30:1.—Hall: Hypocrisy is always covered with a blind and ungrateful zeal, Rom_10:2.—S. Schmid: The lack of foresight in those who fancy themselves quite too wise or are carried away by violent passions often lets the fairest opportunity of accomplishing something good slip between the hands.
1Sa_14:32. S. Schmid: A sin seldom remains alone, and from one error always arise several others.—Hall: A hasty vow commonly brings much mischief after it.
1Sa_14:33. Berlenb. Bible: Thus do hypocrites know how to see evil in others, but not in themselves.—Osiander: That is the way with hypocrites, they will never be guilty, but others shall always be so.
1Sa_14:35. Cramer: Hypocrites have the appearance of holiness; but the power of godliness they deny, 2Ti_3:5 : Eze_33:31.—Osiander: Hypocrites wi