1 Samuel 14

eyes” (Judg. 21:25; see 17:6; 18:1; 19:1). The “nation” of Israel was a loose confederation of sovereign tribes, and each tribe was expected to seek the Lord and do His will.

Asking for a king (vv. 1–9). Knowing that Israel needed a stronger central government, the elders presented their request to Samuel and backed it up with several arguments. The first two must have cut Samuel to the quick: he was now old and had no successor, and his two sons were not godly men but took bribes (1 Sam. 8:3–5). How tragic that both Eli and Samuel had sons who failed to follow the Lord. Eli was too easy on his wayward sons (2:29), and perhaps Samuel was away from home too much as he made his ministry circuit to the cities. Samuel’s sons were miles away in Beersheba where their father couldn’t monitor their work, but if the elders knew about their sins, surely their father must have known also.

When the elders asked to have a king “like all the nations” (8:5, 20), they were forgetting that Israel’s strength was to be unlike the other nations. The Israelites were God’s covenant people and He was their King. The glory of God dwelt in their midst and the law of God was their wisdom. (See Ex. 19:3–6; 33:15–16; Lev. 18: and 20:26; Num. 23:9.) But the elders were concerned about national security and protection from the enemies around them. The Philistines were still a powerful nation, and the Ammonites were also a threat (1 Sam. 12:12). Israel had no standing army and no king to lead it. The elders forgot that it was the Lord who was Israel’s King and who gave her army the ability to defeat the enemy.

Samuel was a man of spiritual insight and he knew that this demand for a king was evidence of spiritual decay among the leaders. They weren’t rejecting him; they were rejecting God, and this grieved Samuel’s heart as he prayed to the Lord for wisdom. This wasn’t the first time the people had rejected their Lord. At Sinai, their request was “Make us gods!” (Ex. 32:1), and after their humiliating failure at Kadesh Barnea, they said, “Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt” (Num. 14:4). Whenever leadership in a church decays spiritually, that church becomes more like the world and uses the world’s methods and resources to try to do God’s work. The Jewish leaders in Samuel’s day had no faith that God could defeat their enemies and protect His people, so they chose to lean on the arm of flesh.

God is never surprised by what His people do, nor is He at a loss to know what He should do. “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:10–11 nkjv). There is every evidence in the Pentateuch that Israel would one day have a king. God promised Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob that kings would be among their descendants (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11), and Jacob had named Judah as the kingly tribe (49:10). Moses prepared the nation for a king when he spoke to the new generation preparing to enter the Promised Land (Deut. 17:14–20).

It wasn’t Israel’s request for a king that was their greatest sin; it was their insisting that God give them a king immediately. The Lord had a king in mind for them, David the son of Jesse, but the time wasn’t ripe for him to appear. So, the Lord gave them their request by appointing Saul to be king, and He used Saul to chasten the nation and prepare them for David, the man of His choice. The fact that Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin and not from Judah is evidence enough that he was never expected to establish a dynasty in Israel. “So in my anger I gave you a king, and in my wrath I took him away” (Hos. 13: niv). The greatest judgment God can give us is to let us have our own way. “And He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul” (Ps. 106: nkjv). However, the Lord wanted His people to go into this new venture with their eyes open, so He commanded Samuel to tell them what it would cost them to have a king.

Paying for a king (vv. 10–22). What’s true of individuals is true of nations: you take what you want from life and you pay for it. Under the kingship of Jehovah God, the nation had security and sufficiency as long as they obeyed Him, and His demands were not unreasonable. To obey God’s covenant meant to live a happy life as the Lord gave you all that you needed and more. But the key word in Samuel’s speech is take, not give. The king and his court had to be supported, so he would take their sons and daughters, their property, their harvests, and their flocks and herds. Their choice young men would serve in the army as well as in the king’s fields. Their daughters would cook and bake for the king. He would take their property and part of their harvest in order to feed the officials and servants in the royal household. While these things weren’t too evident under Saul and David, they were certainly obvious under Solomon (1 Kings 4:7–28). The day came when the people cried out for relief from the heavy yoke Solomon had put on them just to maintain the glory of his kingdom (12:1–4; see Jer. 22:13–17).

In spite of these warnings, the people insisted that God give them a king. Pleasing the Lord wasn’t the thing uppermost in their minds; what they wanted was guaranteed protection against their enemies. They wanted someone to judge them and fight their battles, someone they could see and follow. They found it too demanding to trust an invisible God and obey His wonderful commandments. In spite of all the Lord had done for Israel from the call of Abraham to the conquest of the Promised Land, they turned their back on Almighty God and chose to have a frail man to rule over them.

Our task isn’t an enjoyable one as we watch the character of King Saul steadily deteriorate. He has already demonstrated his unbelief and impatience (chap. 13), and now he will reveal further his disobedience and dishonesty. Saul’s history will climax with the king visiting a witch and then committing suicide on the battlefield. Sir Walter Scott was right when he wrote in his poem “Marmion,” O what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!

These chapters teach us three powerful lessons that we must heed and obey if we want the blessing of God on our lives and service.

The focus in this chapter is on Jonathan, Saul’s oldest son, who had won the first major battle against the Philistines, but his father had taken the credit (13:1–7). It’s a remarkable blessing of the grace of God that a man like Saul should have a son so magnificent as Jonathan. He was a courageous warrior (2 Sam. 1:22), a born leader, and a man of faith who sought to do the will of God. As the account progresses, it becomes clear that Saul is jealous of Jonathan and his popularity, and this jealousy increases when Jonathan and David became devoted friends.

Jonathan initiates the attack (vv. 1–15). The Philistines had sent a detachment of soldiers to establish a new outpost to guard the pass at Michmash (13:23), and Jonathan saw this as an opportunity to attack and see the Lord work. Saul was hesitating in unbelief (14:2) while his son was acting by faith. God had called Saul to begin Israel’s liberation from the Philistines, but most of the time he only followed up on what others started. In spite of all that the Lord had done for him and all that Samuel had taught him, Saul was not a man of faith who trusted the Lord and sought to glorify Him. Saul had a priest of the Lord attending him, a man named Ahijah from the rejected line of Eli (v. 3), but the king never waited for the Lord’s counsel (vv. 18–20). Saul is a tragic example of the popular man of the world who tries to appear religious and do God’s work, but who lacks a living faith in God and a heart to honor Him. Unfortunately, church history records the lives of too many gifted people who “used God” to achieve their own purposes, but in the end abandoned Him and ended life in disgrace.

Why didn’t Jonathan tell his father that he had a plan to rout the enemy? Because Saul in unbelief would have vetoed such a daring venture of faith, and Jonathan had no desire to disagree with him at such a crucial time. Jonathan may have been insubordinate to his father and commander-in-chief, but his plan was still the wisest approach to take. With their false sense of security, the Philistine troops at the new outpost wouldn’t be afraid of a couple of Jews who managed to cross the pass and climb the cliffs. Maybe the guards would see them as two Jewish men who wanted to desert the Hebrew army and find refuge with the enemy. Jonathan wasn’t about to let the enemy attack first.

You can’t help but admire Jonathan’s faith in the Lord. Perhaps as he climbed the rocks, he meditated on God’s promises of victory stated in the covenant. “You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you” (Lev. 26:7–8 nkjv; see Deut. 28:7). Action without promises is presumption, not faith, but when you have God’s promises, you can go forward with confidence. Jonathan may also have been thinking of Gideon when he told his armor-bearer, “Perhaps the Lord will help us, for nothing can hinder the Lord. He can win a battle whether he has many warriors or only a few” (1 Sam. 14: nlt; see Judg. 6—7). “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

But Jonathan’s plan of attack differed from Gideon’s in at least two ways: It was not a surprise attack at night, and he and his armor-bearer deliberately let themselves be seen by the Philistine guards. It was the guards’ response that would give Jonathan the guidance he needed. Should Jonathan wait for the Philistines to come over or should he go over and meet them on their own ground? When the two men disclosed themselves to the enemy, the Philistines only laughed and mocked them. They treated them like frightened animals that had emerged from their burrows or like soldiers who were deserting the Hebrew cause and joining the Philistine army.

This kind of arrogant self-confidence was exactly what Jonathan wanted to see, because this gave him and his armor-bearer opportunity to get close to the guards before attacking. Who would fear one soldier and his armor-bearer? But these two men had almighty God on their side! “One of you routs a thousand, because the Lord your God fights for you, just as he promised” (Josh. 23:10). The two courageous Jews quickly killed twenty men, and then the Lord honored their faith by sending an earthquake, “a very great trembling”! “But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed” (Deut. 7:23). Terror and confusion gripped the enemy camp and prepared the way for a great victory of the army of Israel.

Saul watches the battle (vv. 16–19). Saul and his 600 men were back at Gibeah where Saul lived, and the watchmen on the walls could see the Philistine forces retreating and couldn’t explain why. Did part of the Israeli army plan a sneak attack without Saul’s permission? Who was missing? Jonathan and his armor-bearer! This was the second time that Jonathan had acted on his own (13:3), and it probably irritated Saul that his own son should be so independent. As we study the life of Saul, we will see more and more evidence that he was what some people call a “control freak.” He envied other people’s success, he was suspicious of any strategy he didn’t originate or at least approve, and he was ruthless when it came to removing people who challenged his leadership or exposed his folly.

Saul asked the priest to bring him the ark of the Lord and probably also the ephod. He was probably planning to take the ark to the battlefield with the army, a foolish tactic that had brought judgment in Eli’s day (chap. 4), and the priest could use the ephod to determine God’s will in the matter. But the priest never had a chance to determine God’s will, for when Saul heard the noise of the battle increasing, he interrupted the divine proceedings and made his own decision. Once again, Saul’s impatience and self-confidence got the best of him and he acted without knowing God’s will or receiving God’s blessing (Deut. 20:4–5). He was desperately anxious to prove himself as good a soldier as Jonathan, and he desperately wanted to avenge himself against his enemies (1 Sam. 14:24). It was to fulfill his own personal agenda, not to honor God, that he rushed into the battle spiritually unprepared.

Israel enters the battle (vv. 20–23). As Saul and his army moved toward the battlefield, they were joined by Israelites who had deserted to the enemy camp (v. 21) and by men who had fled the battle and hidden away (v. 22). We wonder what kind of soldiers these quitters turned out to be. The fact that Saul accepted these men may indicate that he was trusting his army and not trusting the Lord. Six hundred soldiers don’t make a large army, so he welcomed even the weakest man to return. Yet in a few hours, Saul would be willing to kill his own son for eating some honey and breaking his father’s foolish vow! Saul’s emotional unbalance and contradictory thinking will show up again and again and do great damage to the kingdom. One day he will rush ahead like the horse, and the next day he will hold back like the mule (Ps. 32:9).

It was not Saul and his army who won the battle, but the Lord who used Jonathan and his armor-bearer (1 Sam. 14:23, see vv. 6, 12, and 45). The Israelite army followed the Philistines for the next fifteen miles, from Michmash to Beth Aven, and the Lord enabled them to defeat the enemy. But Saul had joined the battle so late, and his men were so weak and famished, that he couldn’t achieve the kind of victory that would have been decisive (v. 30). One of the marks of a true leader is knowing when to act, and Saul had wasted time watching the battle from a distance and failing to seek the mind of the Lord.

The spiritual conditions of our hearts are revealed not only by the actions we perform but also by the words we speak. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34). When you read King Saul’s words recorded in Scripture, they often reveal a heart controlled by pride, foolishness, and deceit. He would say foolish things just to impress people with his “spirituality,” when in reality he was walking far from the Lord.

A foolish vow (vv. 24–35). Saul’s heart was not right with God and he foolishly forced his army to agree to a vow of fasting until evening (v. 24). He didn’t impose this fast because it was the will of God but because he wanted his soldiers to think he was a man wholly dedicated to the Lord. But this command was only more evidence of Saul’s confused and superstitious faith. He thought that their fasting plus the presence of the ark would impress the Lord and He would give them victory. But Jonathan and his armor-bearer were already enjoying victory without either the ark or the fast!

No sensible commander would deprive his troops of food and energy while they were fighting the enemy. If the Lord commands it, then He would give the strength needed, but God gave Saul no such commission. Moses had fasted for forty days and nights when he was on the mountain with the Lord (Ex. 34:28), for the Lord sustained him. But Saul’s soldiers were “distressed” (1 Sam. 14:24), “faint” (v. 28), and “very faint” (v. 31) because of this unnecessary fast. When we obey God’s commands, we walk by faith, but when we obey unnatural human regulations, we only tempt the Lord. The first is confidence but the second is presumption. All of us need to heed the admonition given in Eccl. 5:2—“Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart utter anything hastily before God” (nkjv).

When Jonathan and his armor-bearer joined the Israelite army in their march, they knew nothing about the king’s foolish command, and Jonathan ate some honey from a honeycomb that had dropped to the ground. Then one of the soldiers told him that his father had put a curse on any soldier who ate any food that day. Why hadn’t somebody warned Jonathan sooner? Perhaps they hoped that his innocent “disobedience” would open the way for all of them to eat! We wonder if Saul wasn’t deliberately putting his son’s life in jeopardy. However, Jonathan wasn’t too worried, and he even dared to admit that his father’s leadership had brought trouble to the land (v. 29).

Saul’s foolish vow not only weakened the soldiers physically and hindered their ability to pursue the enemy, but it also created in the men an abnormal craving for food. When the sun set and ushered in a new day, the vow was no longer in force, and the men acted like animals as they fell on the spoils, killing the sheep and oxen and eating the meat with the blood. When Jews slaughtered their animals, they were required to drain out the blood before preparing the meat, for blood was never to be used as food (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10–14; 22:28; Deut. 12:23–24; see Gen. 9:4). A truly spiritual vow brings out the best in people, but Saul’s carnal vow brought out the worst.

As he often did, the king assumed “spiritual leadership” and commanded the men to bring the animals to a great rock to be slain and the blood easily drained out. He then built an altar so that the animals could be offered as fellowship offerings (Lev. 3; 7:11–34), parts of which the people were allowed to eat in a fellowship feast. Saul was feebly trying to turn a gastronomical orgy into a worship service, but he didn’t succeed too well. The men were famished and more interested in eating than in worshipping the Lord.

A foolish judgment (vv. 36–52). Surely Saul realized that his delay at Gibeah and the imposing of the foolish vow had already cost the Israelites a great victory, so he tried to make amends. He decided to move the army that very night and be ready to surprise the Philistines early the next morning. The army gave no resistance, but Ahijah the priest wisely suggested that they pause long enough to seek the will of the Lord. We aren’t told what method Ahijah used to ascertain God’s will, but whatever it was, God didn’t answer. Even though Saul was not a godly man, his oath made in the Lord’s name was legitimate, and if the Lord had ignored it, He would have dishonored His own name. Furthermore, the Lord was using this event to rebuke Saul as well as to honor Jonathan. Saul would discover that his men loved Jonathan and were prepared to defend him.

Saul already knew that Jonathan had been missing from the ranks (v. 17) and therefore he assumed that his son knew nothing about the vow. But if he had learned about the vow and still violated it, that made him an even greater sinner. Either way, Jonathan would be guilty and could be slain. We get the impression that Saul was almost determined that he would demote or destroy his own son, and it’s clear that Jonathan didn’t agree with his father’s policies and practices. Hence, Saul made another oath (v. 39), and because his heart wasn’t right nor his motive holy, he was taking the Lord’s name in vain (Ex. 20:7).

This time they cast lots and the lot pointed to Saul and Jonathan. The second lot fell upon Jonathan. God could have changed the results (Prov. 16:33), but He wanted to bring the whole thing out in the open and humiliate King Saul, whose pride had caused the problem to begin with. The people praised Jonathan, not Saul, as the man who had brought the great victory to Israel, and if the Lord had used Jonathan in such a wonderful way, why should he be executed? By the time this matter was settled, it was too late to follow the Philistine army, so Saul and his men retreated. The victory did send the Philistines back home for a time, but they repeatedly threatened Israel (1 Sam. 14: 52). This victory did enhance Saul’s reputation and helped him consolidate his kingdom. In verses 47–48 and 52, the writer summarizes some of Saul’s major victories and informs us that he drafted every good man he met.

The facts about the royal family are summarized in vv. 49–51, but when they are compared with other texts (1 Sam. 9:2; 2 Sam. 21:8; Chron. 8:29–33; 9:39), they reveal some problems. Saul’s grandfather was Abiel and his father Kish (1 Sam. 9:1–2). Ner was his uncle and Abner (“son of Ner”) was captain of the army (14:51). Only three sons are mentioned (Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchishua), while later texts speak also of Abinadab and Esh-Baal (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39). He had two daughters, Merab and Michel, and all of these children were by his wife Ahinoam. His concubine Rizpah bore him Armoni and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 21:8).

Jonathan, Malchishua, and Abinadab all died with their father at Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:1–2), and Abner made Ish-bosheth king (2 Sam. 2:8ff.). Ishbosheth is probably the Esh-Baal of 1 Chronicles 8: and 9:39, for it wasn’t unusual for Jewish men to have more than one name. But what happened to Ishvi? Was this also another name for Esh-Baal (Ishbosheth), for the two names are not found together in any text. If so, then Saul had four sons by Ahinoam—Jonathan, the eldest, and then Ishhvi/Esh-Baal/Ishbosheth, Malachishua, and Abinadab. Since the eldest and two youngest sons were killed in battle, this left Ish-Bosheth/ Ishvi/EshBaal, Saul’s second-born, to claim the crown. Of course, it’s possible that Ishvi had died earlier, and this would have left Esh-Baal/Ishbosheth to reign, or if EshBaal died, then Ishvi/Ishbosheth survived to rule briefly.