Chapter 14

1 Jonathan, unwitting to his father, the priest, or the people, goeth and miraculously smiteth the Philistines’ garrison. 15 A divine terror maketh them beat themselves. 17 Saul, not staying the priest’s answer, setteth on them. 21 The captivated Hebrews, and the hidden Israelites, join against them. 24 Saul’s unadvised adjuration hindereth the victory. 32 He restraineth the people from eating blood. 35 He buildeth an altar. 36 Jonathan, taken by lot, is saved by the people. 47 Saul’s strength and family.

1. He told not his father. Jonathan was first introduced into the narrative in ch. 13, where he was entrusted with a third of the national guard located at Gibeah. Saul, with the other two thirds, encamped to the northeast at Michmash. At the appearance of the Philistines to avenge Jonathan’s defeat of the garrison at Geba, Saul retreated to Gilgal, while it seems that Jonathan remained at Geba and the Philistines occupied Michmash (ch. 13:16). The text is not clear as to whether Samuel returned to Ramah or remained at Gibeah (v. 15), but it is most certain, as the narrative unfolds in this chapter, that God was seeking to convince the Israelites of the need of strict dependence on Him. Jonathan’s secrecy is clear evidence of his faith in God despite Saul’s rejection at Gilgal. That which would ordinarily be classed as foolhardiness becomes strong proof of the operation of divine providence. The Lord made use of every material evidence possible to convince an illiterate people of His love for them, and of the fact that all things are possible to those whose hearts yearn for deliverance from the bondage of sin.

4. Between the passages. Josephus says, “Now the enemy’s camp was upon a precipice which had three tops, that ended in a small but sharp and long extremity, while there was a rock that surrounded them, like lines made to prevent the attacks of an enemy” (Antiquities vi. 6. 2). Those who have visited the site, on the north side of the precipitous wadi, say the residents still speak of it as “the fort.” This crag was named Bozez, which may mean “white” or “shining,” but more probably “soft” or “tender.” On the southern face of the wadi is another crag of about equal height called “Seneh,” or “thornbush,” far easier to scale than that on the northern side. The topographical information in this passage of Scripture is said to have been utilized by Allenby in taking Michmash from the Turks in 1917.

6. The Lord will work. Jonathan did not depend so much on his armor as on the unlimited power of God. He simply used that which he had at hand, and God blessed his humble dependence on Heaven. Even if the king should turn aside from the path of obedience, God proposed to prove to all Israel that salvation is a matter of individual choice and action, and not so much a mass movement. How tragic the situation would have been had God rejected all Israel when the king chose not to obey.

10. If they say. Gideon had asked for an almost impossible sign, humanly speaking, when he requested that the dew be on the ground but not on the fleece (Judges 6:39). Similarly, Jonathan made the call of the enemy to “come up” a sign that God would fight for them. To scale the perpendicular walls of the northern crag was a seemingly impossible feat, especially with armor. God is honored when men expect great things of Him and attempt great things for Him.

13. Jonathan climbed up. Josephus thinks that it was at break of day that Jonathan and his armor-bearer approached the Philistine outpost, and reached it when most of the men were yet asleep (Antiquities vi. 6. 2). The narrative of ch. 14 confirms the idea that it was early morning (see vs. 15, 16, 20, 23, 24–28, 30, 31, 45). Whether the two Israelites waited till night to make the ascent or whether it took them but a few minutes to climb the precipice is not stated. They evidently took the fortress completely by surprise, for the utmost confusion reigned in the Philistine garrison.

15. A very great trembling. Literally, “a trembling of God [Хelohim]” (see KJV margin). The word Хelohim here refers to the intensity of the quake, and reflects the terror and confusion that prevailed. The word Хelohim is occasionally used thus as a superlative (see on Gen. 23:6; 30:8). The earthquake was, to be sure, an act of divine intervention (see PP 623). God often interposed by making use of the forces of nature, as at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:21–28), at the Valley of Aijalon (Joshua 10:11–14), at Ebenezer, when the Philistines were worsted (1 Sam. 7:10), and upon other occasions.

16. Gibeah of Benjamin. Gibeah and Geba (Gaba), feminine and masculine forms of a word meaning “hill,” or “height,” were both towns of Benjamin (Joshua 18:24, 28; 1 Sam. 13:16). It seems that the masculine and feminine forms of the name were sometimes used interchangeably. The distinction between the two places is clear from Isa. 10:29, where they are mentioned in the order in which an invader from the north would reach them. A village by the name of Jeba exists today on the old site, 1 3/8 mi. (2.2 km.) southwest of Michmash, and about 6 mi. (9.6 km.) northeast of Jerusalem. The modern village Tell elРFuµl is commonly identified as Saul’s Gibeah, 3 1/2 mi. (5.6 km.) north of Jerusalem. Recent excavations carried on there have unearthed what is though to be the palace of Saul (see Vol. I, p. 124; Vol. II, p. 72). The “Gibeah” of 1 Sam. 14:16 is Geba, across the wadi from Michmash (see v. 5; PP 622), not Gibeah the home of Saul, if the latter is correctly identified as Tell elРFuµl (see on ch. 13:2, 3). From Saul’s Gibeah, 4 3/8 mi. (7 km.) southwest of Michmash and with two ranges of hills in between, it would hardly seem possible to observe what was going on in Michmash, but from Geba, directly across the wadi, this would have been relatively easy.

19. Withdraw thine hand. Saul’s impetuosity was developing rapidly. The apparent confusion in the enemy’s camp threw him into such excitement that he could not even wait for counsel from the Lord. For days he and his fellows had stood by and heard reports of raids by the enemy upon nearby towns, and though he did not know the reason for the flight of forces across the wadi, he abruptly gave the order to attack. Had he taken time to seek divine guidance, he would probably have avoided many of the problems that confronted the army of Israel during the next few hours, and his victory over the enemy would have been far more complete. Clearly, this was a case of haste making waste. Jesus’ times of meditation and of prayer brought Him the calm judgment necessary to endure with patience the ordeal awaiting Him; Jacob’s night of wrestling with the angel at Jabbok strengthened him not only to face Esau but to face the years of perplexing problems that followed.

21. The Hebrews. See on ch. 13:3.

23. The Lord saved Israel. Here is a noteworthy example of divine power cooperating with human effort. Jonathan longed for deliverance from the incursions of the Philistines. Events of the day leave no doubt but that his aspiration was born of the Holy Spirit. Jonathan saw the impulsive fit of depression that afflicted his father, but this only inspired him with greater confidence in the divine Ruler, who had called Saul in the first place. With every advance step Jonathan felt a surge of power, born of faith, that strengthened him for the next. That day he was proving Jehovah to be a covenant-keeping God—One who was able to make the wrath of man to praise Him.

How much is packed into these words, “The Lord saved Israel”—the aggressive strength and courage of the young warrior, the companionship and loyal support of the armor-bearer, the self-complacency of the watchmen on the crag, the exact timing of the assault, the panic created by the surprise attack, the earthquake, the rout of a confused host, the liberation of slaves who, under the stimulus of Jonathan’s exploit, felt free to turn against their captors, and the return of a king and his army, formerly humiliated beyond measure before his foes Now, everyone seemed anxious to demonstrate his eagerness to make the defeat of the enemy complete.

Beth-aven. The name Beth-aven probably means “the house of idols,” possibly, “the house of emptiness.” It is thought to refer to a locality in the district north of Michmash and east of Bethel. The main route of the Philistines was to the west toward their homeland, but their confusion was evidently so great that they fled in all directions.

24. Saul had adjured the people. Saul was evidently trying to “save face,” for he no longer thought of victory as being the Lord’s (see ch. 11:13), but only that he might be avenged of his enemies. This is the second instance within the one day that he turned away from seeking counsel of the Lord; now he forced his own will upon the people as he had earlier upon the priest (ch. 14:19). Perhaps his feelings still smarted from Samuel’s rebuke at Gilgal. The presence of the priest Ahiah (v. 3) as his counselor implies that the prophet had returned to Ramah, instead of remaining with Saul at Gibeah (ch. 13:15).

Jonathan was as careful in heeding God’s word as his father was careless, probably, in no small part, as a result of Samuel’s influence (see PP 623). It may possibly have been an earlier word of encouragement from Samuel that now inspired Jonathan to think in terms of this daring exploit. Even as Saul had been forewarned of the experience at Gilgal months before the event took place (chs. 10:8; 13:8), a similar message from Samuel may have prepared Saul’s son for his part in the events of this memorable day. However this may be, Jonathan was humble, as his father had originally been, in waiting for divine guidance, in following it, and in willingness to give God credit for the results (ch. 14:10, 12). Saul’s arbitrary and rash demand for a day’s fast contrasts sharply with the faithful compliance of the people with their instructions, irrespective of personal desire and need.

Saul’s humility had forever taken flight, it seemed, and in its place there appeared a false zeal, a secret pride, and an abuse of authority that was to mature through the years till he took his own life. Like Judas, Saul ran well for a season. Had he died before calling Israel to Gilgal, he would have been regarded as worthy of the highest place in the kingly roll of honor. Now he had betrayed his sacred trust, yet was permitted to live on that all might see the fruitage of selfishness and perversity.

29. My father hath troubled. Upon learning of his father’s rash command, Jonathan immediately recognized the handicap imposed upon the army, and did not hesitate to let the people know that he did not agree to such restrictions. This is most interesting in view of the repeated statements concerning the unquestioning devotion of the soldiery. The Hebrew implies that Saul made the people swear the oath. Having done so, they of course would feel personally bound to keep it, whereas Jonathan, not having made it, would feel under no personal obligation to do so.

The land. That is, the people (see v. 25).

31. Michmash to Aijalon. A distance of 13 mi. (21 km.) over the high mountainous plateau of central Palestine and down to the rolling country of the Shephelah, 1,000 ft. (305 m.) lower than Michmash, through such canyons as the Wadi Selman. The most direct route from Lydda to Michmash would run through the Wadi Selman after crossing the road north to Shechem 5 mi. (8 km.) north of Jerusalem. An ordinary march over terrain such as that between Michmash and Aijalon would be considered a full day’s journey. The context implies that Jonathan’s attack was very early in the morning (see on v. 13). If so, Israel pursued the enemy for a full day, hardly stopping to pick up the spoil, which in this case must have been great. The Philistines had assembled a large number of chariots and horses at Michmash. Added to these were the spears, shields, food, and various other supplies an army must carry. The military achievement of Saul’s men would have been a great task for a well-fed army, and was much greater for an ill-fed throng of undisciplined country folk such as he led. What a lesson this experience could have been to Saul, still smarting under rebuke, and jealous only for his own reputation. But once he had set foot in the quicksand of pride, each feeble and indecisive attempt to extricate himself only caused him to sink deeper.

32. Flew upon the spoil. It was evening and the people were released from their vows (see v. 24). In their hunger they slew both oxen and calves, and in their haste neglected to dispose of the blood properly (Lev. 17:10–14).

34. Bring me hither. Like the Pharisees in Christ’s day, Saul was punctilious about the observance of outward forms, even though he himself was neglecting far weightier matters. The people were again loyal to their king’s command. How sin blinds the soul How changed the record might have been had Saul reflected for a few moments on the extent to which the transgressions of the people might be due to his own sin. How many opportunities the Lord gives a man, who chooses to reject divine counsel, to turn back and seek God’s face in all humility How hard it is for that soul, blinded by sin, to accept such opportunities and do as the prodigal did—come home to the Father’s house

35. The same was the first altar. Literally, “it he began to build an altar” (see KJV margin). Some think this means that he started an altar but did not finish it; others, that this was the first altar he ever built. The translators evidently accepted the latter rendering and therefore translated hechel as “the first” instead of “began,” thinking this rendering conformed better to idiomatic Hebrew. This is the only instance in the OT that such a translation of hechel is made.

36. Draw near hither unto God. Realizing that great opportunity was slipping away, Saul proposed that, having eaten, they press on during the night. Such maneuvers were not unheard of. Saul had executed a night march from Bezek to Jabesh-gilead to deliver that city from Nahash the Ammonite (ch. 11:11). Gideon followed much the same procedure in his campaign against the Midianites (Judges 7:19–23). The people readily agreed to Saul’s proposal, but Ahiah the priest suggested making inquiry of the Lord. Evidently he felt the king had erred in not seeking divine counsel earlier in the day (1 Sam. 14:18, 19).

39. Though it be in Jonathan. Why did Saul not say, “though it be in the king”? Had someone told Saul that Jonathan had tasted food? The silence of the Lord meant divine disapproval, and Saul decided that there was sin in the camp. The people had demonstrated their loyalty again and again during the day, and Saul’s conscience doubtless pointed an accusing finger at his own heart. But perhaps to cover up his own sense of guilt he virtually accused his son, who under God had wrought a great victory. Even as he had strongly implied at Gilgal that the fault was not his but God’s, so now he implied that he, as king, was free from fault. He probably sensed that the people were not guilty; therefore, the only one who could possibly be in error would be his son. Even so, the leaders in Christ’s day felt themselves above reproach, and voted for the great Hero of our salvation to bear the curse for the entire nation. Stunned beyond measure at the rash violence of Saul, the men of Israel answered him not a word. When God was silent, and the people were silent, what could Saul do but cast lots?

42. Jonathan was taken. The inquiring mind might well ask, Why did God permit the lot to fall on Jonathan instead of Saul, seeing the former was innocent and the latter had many times shown clear evidence of his guilt? Certainly God had not approved of the oaths Saul had taken (vs. 24, 39), and most certainly He was not agreeing to the execution of Jonathan after so miraculously directing him during the day. But as in Christ’s day, by permitting the innocent One to be condemned, God exposed the evil course of Israel’s leaders, so now, by permitting the lot to fall on the innocent Jonathan, God most effectively exposed the evil course of the king. Saul, who had begun his reign in all humility, had now fallen into a hopeless state of self-justification. Unless some extraordinary experience should expose him in such a way as to shake him out of his delusion that a king could do no wrong, Saul would soon ruin his usefulness as a leader.

43. I must die. Jonathan had excellent justification for his acts, yet he spoke the truth and submitted himself to the mandates of the king. In what better way could he have condemned his father for disobeying the mandates of the King of kings? Saul, before Samuel, had justified his actions in open rebellion, but Jonathan had justified his day’s conduct by submission to the rash judgment of his father.

44. Thou shalt surely die. With what apparent ease Saul pronounced the verdict Whereas Jonathan admitted his ceremonial error—a thing for which a trespass offering would have been sufficient—Saul had committed a moral wrong, which was now publicly demonstrated in the harshness of the sentence on his son. Saul’s conscience condemned him for requiring the people to abstain from food, but he hoped by the manner in which he uttered his oath to hide his misgivings. Instead, he succeeded only in condemning himself.

45. The people rescued Jonathan. The people had faithfully followed Saul all day long. They had heard him giving the most unreasonable commands, yet they obeyed. They had seen him hold out for minute ceremonial restrictions, but they yielded. They had seen him smart under the silence of the Urim and the Thummim, yet they consented to the casting of lots. They had seen the lot fall on Jonathan, when they knew him to be innocent. Then they remembered the mighty deeds of the hero of the day, and how God had given them the victory through his bravery and faith. The same God who had impressed Jonathan to make his famous exploit, now inspired the army to cry out as one man, “There shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground.”

Jonathan had a most difficult role yet to fill, and until his work was done none could touch him. Regardless of how he was treated, he was loyal to his father. At times this loyalty led him to appease his father’s impulsiveness, and again to fight by his side—which he did to the very last. Jonathan’s honesty, integrity, and faith were attributes sorely needed in this hour of Israel’s history. Even Saul could not break through the bounds set by the Holy Spirit.

47. He vexed them. The emphasis in the last few verses of this chapter is placed on the material, rather than the spiritual, advancement of the kingdom. Saul seemed to exult in his military genius. Instead of protecting the rights of his people he took the offensive against his neighbor nations, with the purpose of enhancing his own reputation as king. He imitated these nations, when he might have presented to the world a new and more perfect method of administration.

49. Ishui. Evidently Ishbaal, or Ishbosheth (see on 2 Sam. 2:8).

50. Abner, the son of Ner. This verse alone does not make it entirely clear whether Abner or Ner was Saul’s uncle. Ner is called the son of Abiel (v. 51) and also of Jehiel (1 Chron. 9:35, 36); therefore it is probable that Abiel and Jehiel are two names for the same man (see on Ex. 2:18). Since Kish, the father of Saul, is also called “the son of Abiel” (1 Sam. 9:1), it might seem that Kish and Ner were brothers, but the record says that “Ner begat Kish” (1 Chron. 9:39). This apparent contradiction involves a difference not merely of names but of generations, for Ner is also called the son of Abiel. Yet this does not necessarily mean a conflict between the books of Samuel and Chronicles. As elsewhere in the Scriptures, independent accounts seem to differ in the details presented, but are found to harmonize when examined in the light of Hebrew customs and modes of thought and expression. There are two possible situations that might explain these differing names: (1) The list in 1 Sam. 9:1 may have omitted the name of Ner and recorded Kish as the (grand)son of Abiel, for “son” is sometimes used of a grandson or even a more remote descendant, and Bible genealogies do not always include every link in the chain (see on 1 Kings 19:16; Dan. 5:11, 13, 18; see also Vol. I, pp. 181, 186). (2) Kish the son of Ner may have become his grandfather’s son by adoption, as Joseph’s children Manasseh and Ephraim became the sons of Jacob and were listed among his sons as heads of tribes (Gen. 48:5, 6; Num. 1:10; Joshua 14:4). Either of these explanations, which would be in harmony with the facts given, would make Abner the uncle of Saul. For similar cases, see on Num. 10:29 and Matt. 1:12.

Ellen G. White comments

1–46PP 622–626

2     PP 622

6–15PP 623

16, 17  PP 624

18, 19  PP 622

20–24, 27, 32, 33PP 624

44–46PP 625

47, 48  PP 628