Author: Charlie Garrett

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

1 Samuel 14:31-45
And Saul, He Caught the Kingdom, Part I

(Typed 29 September 2025) In these verses, the people transgress by eating meat with blood in it. This prohibition is something that predates the law, going back to the time of Noah after the flood. It was later mentioned in Acts 15 during the Council of Jerusalem.

Paul clarifies what is acceptable and unacceptable in the church age in his epistles. He mentions nothing about consuming blood. So why was it included in Acts 15? It was an accommodation to the Jewish believers who would not have understood the freedoms found in Christ. Blood pudding, anyone?

There had to be a transition time for people to understand what was going on in redemptive history. God moved from the time of law to the time of grace, and from the headship of His governance of Israel as the stewards of the law to Gentiles being the predominant force during the church age. The reason for the prohibition first given to Noah was stated by the Lord…

Text Verse: “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Genesis 9:4

This prohibition was repeated in the law, several times. In Deuteronomy 12:23, it says, “Only you must seize to failure of eating the blood. For the blood, it the soul, and not you will eat the soul with the meat” (CG).

The blood is directly equated to the soul. This bears on a multitude of other verses in Scripture. It carries theological weight concerning the role of the Messiah. Eating blood was forbidden because of this. The anticipation of the Messiah is what the Bible is focusing on when this tenet is brought up, such as in these verses from 1 Samuel 14.

Pay attention to what is being conveyed. This wasn’t a legalistic mandate being held over Israel to see how poorly they would perform while living under the law. It is information being conveyed about what God is doing in Christ.

Such great things as this are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. You Dealt Covertly! (verses 31-35)

³¹ Now they had driven back the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon.

vayaku bayom ha’hu bap_elishtim mimikhmas ayalonah – “And they will cause to strike in the day, the it, in the Philistines from Michmash Aijalon-ward.” The heroic faith and engagement of the enemy by Jonathan have been highlighted so far in Chapter 14. That led to a massive victory, driving the Philistines from where they were stationed in Michmash, 15-20 miles away to Aijalon.

As that is west of Michmash in the Shephelah, one can see that this wasn’t just a battle where the Philistines were beaten back slowly. Instead, they were in retreat, heading downward to their coastal enclave with Israel pursuing them and cutting them down.

Philistines means Weakeners. Michmash is derived from kamas, to store away, and figuratively, storing, as in the memory. Jones’ agrees and defines it as Treasure or Treasury.

Aijalon comes from ayyal, deer. Hence, it signifies Place of the Deer. However, that comes from the same as ayil, ram, which is derived from a word indicating strength. Thus, in Joshua, it means Place of Strength.

Because of the heat of the battle, the length of the pursuit, and the lack of food as they continued, it next says…

^{31 (con’t)} So the people were very faint.

vayaaph ha’am m_eod – “And he dimmed, the people, very.” Jonathan’s efforts led to Israel seizing the initiative was, unfortunately, hindered by Saul’s rash command not to eat during the day. Jonathan tasted a little honey, and his eyes were able to see, but the opposite effect took place among the people. One can see the contrast in the words of this clause –

Vs. 27 – And they saw, his eyes.
Vs. 31 – And he dimmed, the people, very.

Because of the expenditure of energy, the men were famished at the end of the day’s battle…

³² And the people rushed on the spoil,

vayaas ha’am el shalal – “And he made [k.], the people, unto booty.” The written and the oral Hebrew are different. The written says, vayaas ha’am el shalal – “And he made, the people unto booty.” The oral says, vayaat ha’am el ha’shalal – “And he swooped, the people, unto the booty.”

The reason for this is that the grammar as written is clunky. To correct it, they went to verse 15:19, where it notes the people swooped (iyt) unto the booty. There is no need for this, but this is what people do in their attempt to outsmart the Giver of the word.

One can see how things were in these ancient battles. Once the Philistines were beaten back, the Israelites would have immediately seized the goods in their camp.

Even if the Philistines were to regain the initiative against the battle lines, they would still have to contend with either fighting the camp to regain their supplies or accept the victory but retire without them. In Israel’s case, they secured the supplies and also retained the victory on the battle lines.

^{32 (con’t)} and took sheep, oxen, and calves, and slaughtered them on the ground;

vayiqkhu tson u-vaqar u-vene vaqar vayishkhatu ar_etsah – “And he took flock and cattle and sons cattle, and they slaughtered earthward.” As the men returned, they were spent and needed to strengthen themselves. Therefore, they went right to the spoils of the enemy. The spoil they came to is specifically noted as tson, flock, coming from a root signifying to migrate, and baqar, cattle, coming from a word indicating to seek or inquire.

Saying they slaughtered them earthward explains the next clause. The men didn’t bother to cut the animals in a way that would bleed them out. Instead, they butchered them in a fit of hunger, the animals fell to the ground, and the people began slicing and dicing. Though they had been disobedient, Saul’s ridiculous edict led them to this point…

^{32 (con’t)} and the people ate them with the blood.

vayokhal ha’am al ha’dam – “And he ate, the people, upon the blood.” The words “upon the blood,” mean that they are eating over the animals that haven’t been properly bled. As the blood is the life, they are essentially consuming its life. This was forbidden in the law in several places. For example –

“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. ¹¹ For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:10, 11

Eating the blood is a definite transgression of the law. But it appears there is a second transgression based on the previous clause, which said, “And he took flock and cattle and sons cattle.” The way that is worded may imply that they also violated this precept –

“And bullock or sheep, it and its son, not you will slaughter in day one.” Leviticus 22:28 (CG)

Without regard to the law, the men came upon the booty and tore into it…

³³ Then they told Saul, saying, “Look, the people are sinning against the Lord by eating with the blood!”

vayagidu l_eshaul lemor hineh ha’am khotim l_eY_ehovah leekhol al ha’dam – “And they caused to declare to Saul, to say, ‘Behold! The people sinning to Yehovah to eat upon the blood.’” To understand some of what is being conveyed from a biblical perspective, a review of Deuteronomy 12 is necessary.

First, to say that they were sinning against Yehovah could simply mean they were violating the law, something which is true. But it doesn’t explain why the law was given. In Deuteronomy 12:16, it said, “Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it on the earth like water.”

This was based on what was cited from Leviticus 17. Included also in that chapter, it says –

“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; ¹⁴ for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’” Leviticus 17:13, 14

The reason is complicated and should be supplemented by reviewing the sermon from Leviticus 17. In short, the prohibition on eating blood was given because it is the vehicle of life. For this reason, the Lord reserved all blood to Himself.

To eat blood was to assimilate into oneself something that belonged to God alone. It was, therefore, idolatrous to use it in any other way than as designated by Him. If it was not used in the rites of the tabernacle, it was to be poured out and covered with earth.

In pouring out the blood like water and then covering it with dust, the typology points directly to Christ. From the dust, man was made. But he wasn’t yet alive. Only when the Lord breathed into the nostrils of man did he become a nephesh khayah, or “soul living.” In man or animal, when the life is poured out, the dust reclaims ownership over it.

This is true with only one exception. It is Jesus, the Lord God, who breathed life into man. And yet, He then descended from the man He breathed life into. When His blood was shed upon the ground from which His earthly body came, He gave up His soul. And yet the ground found no victory over Him.

His life returned, His soul reanimated, and by the power of the Lord God, He walked out of the tomb. Atonement for us was made when He poured out His soul. And yet now, He lives. Only in Him is true and eternal life. The typology must be maintained, even when not a part of the sacrificial rites at the altar.

As the Bible says that the blood is the soul, it gives insight into one of the doctrines of theology taught by Scripture: What is the soul, and where does it come from? There are several views on this, and this is the perfect time to learn them. Three basic views are:

The Preexistence View. Of this, there are two separate divisions. The first is the Platonic view, which says the soul was never created. The second is the Christian (created) view. This says the soul was created from eternity. Without explaining all the details of it or the reasons why, it is a heretical view.

The Creation View. This assumes God directly creates a new individual soul for everyone born into this world. The body is generated through the parents, but the soul is created by God. It says that the soul is created at the moment of conception.

One reason for holding to this view is that all genetic information is present at conception. However, one reason why this view is wrong is that God completed His work of creation on Day 6. Another obvious reason is that the blood, which carries all the genetic information, is called the soul right in this verse.

Last, is the Traducian View. This comes from the Latin word tradux, the branch of a vine. This view says that each human being is a branch of the parents. Both soul and body are naturally generated by father and mother.

There is abundant biblical evidence for this third view. Eve was made from Adam, not separately. There is the fact noted by Paul that both males and females come from a union of males and females. Eve is called the mother of all the living. The Bible says that Adam had children in his image, thus natural generation is implied.

The Greek word for flesh, sarx, can mean both a physical body and a whole person with a body. Acts 17 says that all humans are derived from one man (“one blood”). Hebrews says that Levi was in Abraham’s loins, implying a physical transmission. In the Bible, the body in a womb is considered a person.

Paul says that all men sinned through one man, demonstrating that sin is transmitted by natural process – something that would not occur with a created soul. David even says that man is conceived in sin. Jesus is said to come from the loins (or body) of David, demonstrating a genetic connection. Paul shows that humans are a soul-body unity. The soul is “naked” without the body (2 Corinthians 5:3).

These and many other reasons from Scripture and from thinking the matter through clearly demonstrate the importance of the precept.

Understanding the matter of these men drinking blood, and what that means in relation to the greater truths found in Scripture, we can better see why this is such a grievous sin…

^{33 (con’t)} So he said, “You have dealt treacherously; roll a large stone to me this day.”

vayomer b_egadtem golu elay ha’yom even g_edolah – “And he said, ‘You dealt covertly! You must roll unto me, the day, stone whopping.’” The word bagad signifies to cover. Their act is covert, or hidden, and Saul is exposing it. Having a whopping stone rolled over was so that the animals could be laid on it, allowing the blood to flow out rather than pooling in the body as the animal lay on the ground…

³⁴ Then Saul said, “Disperse yourselves among the people, and say to them, ‘Bring me here every man’s ox and every man’s sheep, slaughter them here, and eat;

vayomer shaul putsu va’am vaamartem lahem hagishu elay ish shoro v_eish s_eyehu u-sh_ekhatem bazeh vaakhaltem – “And he said, Saul, ‘You must scatter in the people, and you said to them, ‘You must cause to approach unto me man, his ox, and man, his sheep.’ And they slaughtered in this, and they ate.” Saul uses the terms shor, bullock, coming from a word signifying to turn, and seh, sheep, coming from a root believed to mean “to rush,” and thus to be or make desolate.

His instructions are to go throughout the camp and make his stone the sole spot for slaughtering the animals. He wanted to personally observe compliance with this law…

^{34 (con’t)} and do not sin against the Lord by eating with the blood.’” So every one of the people brought his ox with him that night, and slaughtered it there.

v_elo tekhetu l_eY_ehovah leekhol el ha’dam vayagishu khal ha’am ish shoro v_eyado ha’laylah vayishkhatu sham – “‘and not they will sin to Yehovah to eat unto the blood.’ And they caused to approach, all the people, man, his ox, in his hand the night. And they slaughtered there.” Now, only the shor, ox, is mentioned. Saul’s instructions were obeyed, and the people came to the stone designated for this purpose. With this done, it next says…

³⁵ Then Saul built an altar to the Lord. This was the first altar that he built to the Lord.

vayiven shaul mizbeakh l_eY_ehovah otho hekhel livnoth mizbeakh l_eY_ehovah – “And he built, Saul, altar to Yehovah. It, he caused to begin to build, altar to Yehovah.” There are a multitude of speculations concerning the meaning of these words –

Saul began to build, but did not finish.
Saul began to build altars to Yehovah, this being the first.
Saul began, among the kings of Israel, the building of altars.
Saul made the first public acknowledgment to the Lord for the victories and care He doted on them.
Etc.

None of these reflects the simple words of the Hebrew. The word otho is a direct object marker. It is normally left untranslated, but because the form is accompanied by the 3^rd person marker, it signifies “it.” That then is used to describe something. In this case, it is the repeated words “altar to Yehovah.”

And he built, Saul, altar to Yehovah.
It, he caused to begin to build, altar to Yehovah.

The meaning is, “Saul built an altar to Yehovah. He used this whopping stone as the foundational stone of this altar to Yehovah.

When in the battle with your foes
There is no need to vow or adjure
The conflict is one of which the Lord knows
And if you are His, He will guide you, for sure

To make a vow about something you should do
Will only complicate the path you’re on
Just get to the task without a lot of todo
No regrets will exist, after it’s done and gone

There is no need to get others involved, also
When your words could trap them too
Pray for the Lord to guide you, and then go
Keep it simple! This you should do

II. Dying, He Will Die (Verses 36-40)

³⁶ Now Saul said, “Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and plunder them until the morning light; and let us not leave a man of them.”

vayomer shaul ner_edah akhare ph_elishtim laylah v_enavozah vahem ad or ha’boqer v_elo nasher bahem ish – “And he said, Saul, ‘Let us descend after Philistines – night, and let us plunder in them until light, the morning. And not may we cause to leave in them man.’” What a difference a meal makes! It is the night of the same day.

After eating and getting a bit of rest, Saul impetuously determines to go after the Philistines. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is a rather rash decision, especially when considering that he has already made one blunder that cost them a greater victory. As for the reaction…

^{36 (con’t)} And they said, “Do whatever seems good to you.”

vayom_eru kal ha’tov b_eenekha aseh – “And they said, ‘All the good in your eyes you must do.’” Ever obedient to the desires of Saul, as is traditionally the case with military men, they anticipate a greater slaughter. Therefore, they rally behind the king. However…

^{36 (con’t)} Then the priest said, “Let us draw near to God here.”

vayomer hakohen niqr_evah halom el ha’elohim – “And he said, the priest, ‘Let us near, here, unto the God.’” This would be Ahijah, noted in verses 3 & 18. It is likely that his words are the reason for the otherwise inexplicable mention of the altar in the previous verse. With an altar to the Lord, Ahijah may have thought, “Why would you build an altar to the Lord and not stop to ask Him for His direction concerning such a great matter?’’

Saying “near, here” refers to the altar. Saying “the God” signifies that he is referring to the Lord. Using the article is expressive. It refers to the one true God in relation to man. It is used to reveal those who are in a right relationship with Him, or to contrast those who are not in a right relationship with Him. Ahijah is ensuring the former through his petition.

³⁷ So Saul asked counsel of God, “Shall I go down after the Philistines?

vayishal shaul belohim ha’ered akhare ph_elishtim – “And he asked, Saul, in God, ‘I will descend after Philistines?’” The word shaal, to ask, is common. But in this case, it makes a punny, “And he asked, Asked, in God.” Saul petitions as Ahijah suggested. To not do so, especially after it was suggested to him, would have been unconscionable, especially when the law has already been violated.

Saul, however, doesn’t just ask if he should descend after the enemy…

^{37 (con’t)} Will You deliver them into the hand of Israel?”

khatit_enem b_eyad Yisrael – “You will deliver them in hand Israel?” The question is actually a prudent afterthought. Saul may have thought, “The Lord may say to pursue the Philistines, but He may not deliver them in our hands because we have offended Him when the men failed to drain the animals’ blood.” Hence, the additional thought will provide the full scope of what should be expected.

^{37 (con’t)} But He did not answer him that day.

v_elo anahu bayom ha’hu – “And not He answered in the day, the it.” We are left to guess why an answer was not given. The continued narrative seems to answer the matter, but does it? For all we know, Saul’s double question, “shall we descend after,” and “will you deliver,” may have been the reason no answer was given. It may be the Lord would have taught him a lesson if only the first question was asked.

It also could be that the Lord was upset because the people ate blood, and this was a way of getting that rectified. Or perhaps Saul figured someone had violated the oath he had made. If so, then he wanted to know. The latter option seems to be what Saul is thinking…

³⁸ And Saul said, “Come over here, all you chiefs of the people, and know and see what this sin was today.

vayomer shaul goshu halom kol pinoth ha’am u-d_eu u-r_eu bamah hay_ethah ha’khatath ha’zoth ha’yom – “And he said, Saul, ‘You must approach here, all corners the people, and you must know, and you must see in what it was the sin, the this, the day.’” The word pinnah signifies a corner.

As a corner provides strength, support, and stability to a wall or a side of something, so does the leader to a group of people. Saul calls these leaders to determine why the Lord has not responded. This word, pinnah, is used to describe Christ –

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone [pinnah].
²³ This was the Lord’s doing;
It is marvelous in our eyes.” Psalm 118:22, 23

These corner supports from among the men are called to stand and participate in order to hopefully obtain a decision concerning the matter at hand.

³⁹ For as the Lord lives, who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.”

ki khai Y_ehovah ha’moshia eth Yisrael ki im yeshno b_eyonathan beni ki moth yamuth – “For alive Yehovah the ‘causing to save Israel,’ for if it exists in Jonathan, my son, for dying, he will die.” When Saul mentions Jonathan by name, which would lead one to otherwise think he suspects him, he is probably saying, “I don’t care whose fault it is, even to my own son Jonathan, that person will die.”

Thus, Saul is actually certain that it cannot be him. However, because of his words, the reaction is…

^{39 (con’t)} But not a man among all the people answered him.

v_eein onehu mikal ha’am – “And not he answering from all the people.” It seems unlikely that every leader in the camp except Saul knew that Jonathan ate honey, but something prompted them not to respond. Maybe they had no idea what their men had done during the battle and didn’t want to speak about what they didn’t know.

Maybe they were embarrassed about how the men fell on the animals without draining the blood. Whatever the reason for their silence, Saul has spoken and now he has to follow through…

⁴⁰ Then he said to all Israel, “You be on one side, and my son Jonathan and I will be on the other side.”

His words are emphatic: vayomer el kal Yisrael atem tihyu l_eever ekhad vaani v_eyonathan b_eni nihyeh l_eever ekhad – “And he said unto all Israel, ‘You, you will be to side one, and I and Jonathan, my son, we will be to side one.’” In order to establish the parameters he set, he has to first take this action. Only after can he pare down the offender based on the side chosen.

^{40 (con’t)} And the people said to Saul, “Do what seems good to you.”

vayom_eru ha’am el shaul ha’tov b_eenekha aseh – “And they said, the people unto Saul, ‘The good in your eyes you must do.’” The imperative verb is an indication that they fully support Saul’s idea. If he thinks it’s a good idea, then he must do accordingly…

When you are wrong about something you’ve done
Don’t project it on others, as if that is okay
Why would you put them under the gun
When it’s your lips that started the fray

This is the kind of thing lefties are famous for
Not acknowledging the wrong they have caused
Instead, they pin it to someone else’s door
This unholy attitude must be permanently paused

Just let your pride go, and then press on
No need to try to justify yourself
For you, a bright new day will dawn
When you put such things on the shelf

III. Behold Me, I Will Die (verses 41-45)

⁴¹ Therefore Saul said to the Lord God of Israel, “Give a perfect lot.”

vayomer shaul el Y_ehovah elohe Yisrael, habah tamim – “And he said, Saul, unto Yehovah God Israel, ‘You must give-ward spotless.’” The meaning is, “Give a spotless lot.” It seems that the Lord was consulted earlier by the Urim and Thummim. When the Lord didn’t respond, Saul decided to cast lots instead.

Some translate this as innocent instead of spotless. That is somewhat the idea, but it doesn’t convey the sense of the word. The word tamim signifies entire, coming from tamam, to be complete. It speaks of something being perfect or without blemish. Thus, it is something blameless. But blameless does not necessarily extend to innocent.

A newborn may be blameless, but he still bears original sin and is thus not innocent. Saul isn’t asking who is innocent, but for the Lord to extend a blameless, or spotless, lot. However, the result of the lot may also provide what is spotless. In asking to “give spotless,” what is given may not be what is at fault, but what is not at fault. Understanding this…

^{41 (con’t)} So Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped.

vayilakhed Yonathan v_eshaul v_eha’am yatsau – “And he was caught, Jonathan and Saul. And the people went out.” If it was innocence that was being looked for, the lot wouldn’t have taken Saul and Jonathan. The sense of them being caught is reflected in Job –

“He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them.” Job 5:13

Because Saul’s side was caught, he has to figure out the reason for that. To do so, he must identify the supposed culprit…

⁴² And Saul said, “Cast lots between my son Jonathan and me.” So Jonathan was taken.

vayomer shaul hapilu beni u-ven Yonathan b_eni vayilakhed Yonathan – “And he said, Saul, ‘You must cause to fall between me and between Jonathan my son.’ And he was caught, Jonathan.” The use of the word fall means “as the lot falls.” Saul is imploring throughout the whole process by using imperative verbs.

In response to the petition, it notes that the lot caught Jonathan. The issue is whether the Lord deems Jonathan’s actions as wrong, or if He is just answering the lot as requested. Saul, not the Lord, is the one who brought up the issue of sin. When Achan did wrong, the Lord explained it to Joshua.

Saul appears certain that the problem is disobedience, but that needs to be read into the account. Despite this, he is asking to identify what he feels is the cause. With the lots having done so…

⁴³ Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”
And Jonathan told him, and said, “I only tasted a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand.

vayomer shaul el Yonathan hagidah li meh asitah vayaged lo Yonathan vayomer taom taamti biqtseh ha’mateh asher b_eyadi m_eat d_evash – “And he said, Saul unto Jonathan, ‘You must cause to declare-ward to me what you did.’ And he caused to declare to him, Jonathan. And he said, ‘Tasting, I tasted in extremity the branch which in my hand little honey.’”

It is apparent that Saul believes the lot has identified Jonathan as the one who sinned, despite that not being exactly what he asked. There is a fault against his adjuration, and he wants to know who committed it. Jonathan, having been identified, confesses that he ate honey. Because of that, he commits himself to Saul’s hand…

^{43 (con’t)} So now I must die!”

hin_eni amuth – “Behold me, I will die.” Some translations render this as a question. But with the 1^st person interjection, that seems unlikely. Jonathan essentially says, “Here I am. I submit to death according to your words.”

⁴⁴ Saul answered, “God do so and more also; for you shall surely die, Jonathan.”

vayomer shaul koh yaaseh elohim v_ekhoh yosiph ki moth tamuth Yonathan – “And he said, Saul, ‘Thus He will do, God, and thus He will cause to add. For dying you will die, Jonathan.’” The words are a proverbial expression well paraphrased by the NKJV. Saul is saying that because Jonathan broke his ridiculous oath, God should not only agree and execute the sentence, but He should add even more ruinous heaps upon Jonathan in the process.

However, the people in attendance have had enough. They can clearly see Saul’s decision is rash, unacceptable, and contrary to the very thing that brought about the victory in the first place…

⁴⁵ But the people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has accomplished this great deliverance in Israel? Certainly not!

The words are unusual: vayomer ha’am el shaul ha’yonathan yamuth asher asah hayshuah ha’g_edolah hazoth b_eyisrael khalilah– “And he said, the people unto Saul, ‘The ‘Yah Has Given’ will die? Who – he did the salvation, the whopping, the this, in Israel? Profane-ward!’” The response of the people concerning Jonathan includes the definite article before the name. This is either unprecedented or a very unusual thing in the Bible.

Normally, when a definite article is used, it calls for an explanation of the name rather than stating the name. For example, the Gilead means the Perpetual Fountain. Jonathan means Yah Has Given. The article implies they are asking, “The ‘Yah Has Given’ will die?”, rather than, “The Jonathan will die?”

The people are flabbergasted that Saul would even consider such an outrage. Jonathan had trusted in the Lord alone for the salvation, even stating explicitly that it is the Lord who provides it. Therefore, he was the instrument of the Lord in the process.

How can it be that the Lord would use him in this manner if he were not the Lord’s to use? The choice was not Saul’s to make, and the Lord had already provided His blessing upon Jonathan.

^{45 (con’t)} As the Lord lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.”

khai Y_ehovah im yipol misarath rosho artsah ki im elohim asah ha’yom ha’zeh – “Alive Yehovah if it will fall from hair his head earthward. For with God he did, the day, the this.” Because of the obvious error on Saul’s part in his decision-making, the people have jointly overridden his word. Not only will Jonathan not die, but not a hair will be clipped or plucked from his head.

*^{45 (fin)} So the people rescued Jonathan, and he did not die.

Rather: vayiphdu ha’am eth Yonathan v_elo meth – “And they redeemed, the people, Jonathan. And not he died.” To translate this as rescue diminishes the intent of the word. It is padah, to sever, and thus to redeem. As the Topical Lexicon says –

“The verb appears about fifty-nine times and consistently features God, or one acting on His behalf, stepping in at personal cost to liberate the helpless.”

It is as if they bought back Jonathan from the sentence spoken through Saul’s continued obstinacy. Nothing in the narrative, or at any later time, indicates that Jonathan did anything wrong. He acted in innocence, relied on the Lord, gave honor to the Lord, etc.

Saul, on the other hand, vowed rashly, failed to consider the implications of his vow, and then continued to make rash statements and decisions that only further highlighted his own foolish stand.

This is a great place to stop for the day. Despite the next verses forming their own complete thought, analyzing them together will show how they complement each other as the narrative continues to move forward.

As for the events in this passage, when we look at how Saul handled things, we can see that instead of stopping, considering what took place, and then relenting in his failed choice of words, acknowledging he was wrong, Saul continued to make himself look foolish.

Eventually, his flippant attitude towards what is morally right will cost him the kingdom. It is a high price to pay for moral weakness. But it is what defined him and how we remember him.

When we are approached about a matter of moral integrity, it can be hard to stand up and say, “this is what is right” without a basis for doing so. But if we are going to defend what we believe, we can always appeal to the source of our faith, be it in the church, in our political choices, or for any other stand we must make.

In the church, the Source of our faith is God. But that must be more fully defined, or it can mean many things. Buddhists have their view, even if they don’t actually believe in God. Rather, their view of religion forms its own “god.”

Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc., have their view of God (or gods) as well. To say, “This is what God expects,” leaves the door open for too much. For the Christian, our faith in God is in how He has presented Himself. That is found in His word. Therefore, to appeal to a particular religious stand, we should appeal to the Bible when stating a claim about God.

Go to the source, and you will be much stronger in your argument. Saul did not appeal to Scripture, and his vow failed to consider what Scripture says about vows. Rather, it was his own vow as the king that he imposed upon the people.

That reduced the entire concept of what God expects to what Saul alone expected. From there, he backed the authority up to God as if that is what God expected. Politicians and military leaders do this all the time, claiming that their view on a matter is God’s view. That is not a smart place to be.

Instead, let us stand on the word, in its proper context, when we refer to such things. In this, we will be conducting ourselves properly in His presence. This is what will glorify God as we live our lives before Him.

Closing Verse: “The Lord redeems the soul of His servants,
And none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned.” Psalm 34:22

Next Week: 1 Samuel 14:46-52 Grasping for all, and then some, yes, it’s true… (And Saul, He Caught the Kingdom, Part II) (29^th 1 Samuel Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He is the One who abases the haughty and exalts the humble. He regards the lowly, and the proud He knows from afar. So yield yourself to Him, trust Him, and believe His word. In this, He will do great things for you and through you.

1 Samuel 14:31-45 (CG)

³¹ And they will cause to strike in the day, the it, in the Philistines from Michmash Aijalon-ward. And he dimmed, the people, very. ³² And he made [k.], the people, unto booty [k.]. And he took flock and cattle and sons cattle, and they slaughtered earthward. And he ate, the people, upon the blood. ³³ And they caused to declare to Saul, to say, “Behold! The people sinning to Yehovah to eat upon the blood.”

And he said, “You dealt covertly! You must roll unto me, the day, stone whopping.” ³⁴ And he said, Saul, “You must scatter in the people, and you said to them, ‘You must cause to approach unto me man, his ox, and man, his sheep.’” And they slaughtered in this, and they ate, and not they will sin to Yehovah to eat unto the blood. And they caused to approach, all the people, man, his ox, in his hand the night. And they slaughtered there. ³⁵ And he built, Saul, altar to Yehovah. It, he caused to begin to build, altar to Yehovah.

³⁶ And he said, Saul, “Let us descend after Philistines – night, and let us plunder in them until light, the morning. And not may we cause to leave in them man.”

And they said, “All the good in your eyes you must do.”

And he said, the priest, “Let us near, here, unto the God.”

³⁷ And he asked, Saul, in God, “I will descend after Philistines? You will deliver them in hand Israel?” And not He answered in the day, the it. ³⁸ And he said, Saul, “You must approach here, all corners the people, and you must know, and you must see in what it was the sin, the this, the day. ³⁹ For alive Yehovah the ‘causing to save Israel,’ for if it exists in Jonathan, my son, for dying, he will die.” And not he answering from all the people. ⁴⁰ And he said unto all Israel, “You, you will be to side one, and I and Jonathan, my son, we will be to side one.”

And they said, the people unto Saul, “The good in your eyes you must do.”

⁴¹ And he said, Saul, unto Yehovah God Israel, “You must give-ward spotless.” And he was caught, Jonathan and Saul. And the people went out. ⁴² And he said, Saul, “You must cause to fall between me and between Jonathan my son.” And he was caught, Jonathan. ⁴³ And he said, Saul unto Jonathan, “You must cause to declare-ward to me what you did.”

And he caused to declare to him, Jonathan.

And he said, “Tasting, I tasted in extremity the branch which in my hand little honey. Behold me, I will die.”

⁴⁴ And he said, Saul, “Thus He will do, God, and thus He will cause to add. For dying you will die, Jonathan.” ⁴⁵ And he said, the people unto Saul, “The ‘Yah Has Given will die?’ Who – he did the salvation, the whopping, the this, in Israel? Profane-ward! Alive Yehovah if it will fall from hair his head earthward. For with God he did, the day, the this.” And they redeemed, the people, Jonathan. And not he died.

 

1 Samuel 14:31-45 (NKJV)

³¹ Now they had driven back the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon. So the people were very faint. ³² And the people rushed on the spoil, and took sheep, oxen, and calves, and slaughtered them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. ³³ Then they told Saul, saying, “Look, the people are sinning against the Lord by eating with the blood!”

So he said, “You have dealt treacherously; roll a large stone to me this day.” ³⁴ Then Saul said, “Disperse yourselves among the people, and say to them, ‘Bring me here every man’s ox and every man’s sheep, slaughter them here, and eat; and do not sin against the Lord by eating with the blood.’” So every one of the people brought his ox with him that night, and slaughtered it there. ³⁵ Then Saul built an altar to the Lord. This was the first altar that he built to the Lord.

³⁶ Now Saul said, “Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and plunder them until the morning light; and let us not leave a man of them.”

And they said, “Do whatever seems good to you.”

Then the priest said, “Let us draw near to God here.”

³⁷ So 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. ³⁸ And Saul said, “Come over here, all you chiefs of the people, and know and see what this sin was today. ³⁹ For as the Lord lives, who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” But not a man among all the people answered him. ⁴⁰ Then he said to all Israel, “You be on one side, and my son Jonathan and I will be on the other side.”

And the people said to Saul, “Do what seems good to you.”

⁴¹ Therefore Saul said to the Lord God of Israel, “Give a perfect lot.” So Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped. ⁴² And Saul said, “Cast lots between my son Jonathan and me.” So Jonathan was taken. ⁴³ Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”

And Jonathan told him, and said, “I only tasted a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand. So now I must die!”

⁴⁴ Saul answered, “God do so and more also; for you shall surely die, Jonathan.”

⁴⁵ But the people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has accomplished this great deliverance in Israel? Certainly not! As the Lord lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.” So the people rescued Jonathan, and he did not die.