1 Samuel 14:1–52

14:2 Background information is provided in verses 2–5. Saul is “in the outskirts of Gibeah,” probably at the limit of the town’s area of influence, and so closer to Geba and Michmash (as required by verse 16). The footnote rendering of the ESV, “under the pomegranate [tree]”—which might be as tall as 30 feet (9 m)—captures the sense better than does “the pomegranate [cave].” Trees provide welcome shade for transacting official business (cf. the tamarisk in 22:6 or the palm in Judg. 4:5). Although there was a place called Migron north of Michmash (Isa. 10:28), Migron here is probably a common noun for “threshing-place,” where an open area would provide a suitable site for a public assembly (cf. 1 Kings 22:10). While Saul is no doubt engaged on official business, the point is that he is not fighting, and neither are his men (1 Sam. 13:15).

14:3 Saul’s entourage includes the priest Ahijah (see vv. 18–19), a great-grandson of Eli. Unusually, Ahijah’s genealogy mentions his uncle Ichabod (4:21–22), a reminder that this attendant of a king who has been rejected comes from a priestly line that has also been rejected. “The priest of the Lord in Shiloh” refers to Eli, but “wearing [lit., “bearing”] an ephod” seems to apply to Ahijah. The high priest’s ephod was used to ascertain the will of God, as subsequent events make clear (14:41; cf. comment on 2:18). Some commentators favor identifying Ahijah with Ahimelech (21:1), but more probably they are brothers, with Ahijah dying in the interval before chapter 21.

“The people” are again “the army.” Jonathan has left so unobtrusively that no one has noticed.

14:4–5 The challenge posed by the rugged territory adds to the bravery of Jonathan’s action. The two camps are separated by a main east–west valley into which various ravines run, providing cover for moving toward the valley floor. “Rocky crag” (lit., “tooth of rock”) describes precipitous terrain. “Bozez” (“shining” or “slippery”) and “Seneh” (“thorny”) have not been identified but clearly are formidable crags between the towns and the valley, with “Geba” to its south.

14:6 When the narrative resumes with recapitulation from verse 1, Jonathan’s name is given in its longer form (yehonatan rather than yonatan; cf. comment on 14:10). Another change is that Jonathan refers to the Philistines by the contemptuous expression “these uncircumcised” (cf. 17:26). The Philistines did not practice circumcision, as most Semitic peoples did. More significantly, for Israel circumcision was a mark of God’s covenant, and so the uncircumcised were those not in a proper covenant relationship with the Lord.

Jonathan’s proposal is an expression of his confident faith that the Lord will assist them against his enemies and those of his people (cf. David in 17:37). “It may be that the Lord will work for us” expresses not doubt but carefulness not to presume. Jonathan leaves God free to act as he determines best, but he is certain that if the Lord decides to intervene, it will be sufficient to establish the outcome (Deut. 20:1)—a decided contrast with Saul’s attitude in 1 Samuel 13:11–12. “Saving” anticipates the result in 14:23 and recalls previous occasions where superior numbers did not lead to victory (e.g., Judg. 7:7, 14).

14:7 Jonathan’s armor-bearer encourages him to go ahead with his proposal. The colloquial expressions “Do as you wish” (lit., “Reach out for yourself”) and “Behold, I am with you heart and soul” (lit., “Behold, I am with you according to your heart”) confirm his support, which comes from a faith similar to Jonathan’s. There are still those in Israel who trust in the Lord.

14:8 Jonathan’s approach is a mixture of military pragmatism and a desire for divine approval of his venture to cross the valley. He proposes a test as to whether they should go further by seeing what the reaction will be when they reveal their presence to their opponents. Jonathan is not forcing the Lord’s hand but seeking to know his will and be guided toward what is prudent.

14:9 Two sorts of response might be anticipated from the Philistines. “Wait until we come to you” would be a sign not to proceed, as it would indicate the wariness of his opponents. “Go up” shows the Philistines to be camped near the top of the slope, commanding a view down over the valley.

14:10 If, however, there is an invitation from the Philistines, “Come up to us,” then they will proceed, because this would show that the enemy is overconfident and that the Lord is indicating he will grant them success. In “the Lord has given them,” Jonathan plays on his own name, which means “the Lord has given”; this is probably why it is spelled out in full in verses 6 and 8.

14:11 Having used the rocky terrain to disguise their descent, Jonathan and his companion let themselves be seen by the Philistine sentries, who mockingly dismiss them as “Hebrews” (cf. 4:6) and vermin, venturing into daylight from their lairs (cf. 13:6).

14:12 The Philistine soldiers call down to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, taunting them and daring them to ascend the other side of the valley, “Come up to us, and we will show you a thing.” “Teach you a lesson” (NIV) displays their overconfidence, as they say in effect: “We will show you what real fighting involves.” This encourages Jonathan to proceed as he has outlined, assured that the Lord will assist them. “Into the hand of Israel” indicates that Jonathan views his exploit not as an act of bravado to gain personal renown but as carried out on behalf of the people as a whole.

14:13 The Philistines did not expect the Hebrews to take up their challenge, but “Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet,” scrambling up a precipitous slope followed by his armor-bearer. Their approach is unseen, and Jonathan uses the element of surprise to overwhelm the sentries. His armor-bearer, coming up behind him, “killed them after him,” either dispatching the wounded or, more probably, standing back-to-back with Jonathan and killing those attacking from the rear.

14:14 In this initial foray they kill about twenty men, and it is implied that more are slain later. “Made” repeats the same root as “strike.” “Half a furrow’s length in an acre of land” is an estimate of how restricted the space was in which this slaughter occurred, but even so the Philistines are unable to mount an effective counterattack.

14:15 Instead, panic spreads among the Philistines, both those “in the camp” and those “in the field,” either in forward positions outside the camp or in raiding parties (13:17–18). “Panic” is repeated twice, and the root occurs also in “trembled.” The term describes involuntary shuddering at an unusual and unexpected occurrence—not just the sudden appearance of the Israelite pair but also divine intervention in the form of an earthquake, which leads to a “very great panic” (lit., “panic of God,” that is, caused by him, rather than a superlative expression; cf. ESV mg.). This is what the Lord promised he would precipitate among Israel’s enemies (Ex. 23:27; Deut. 7:23).

14:16 Meanwhile, the Israelite lookouts on the edge of Gibeah’s territory (v. 2) are astonished to observe the Philistine forces scattering and moving off in all directions. It is no orderly maneuver—the term “multitude” is the same Hebrew word as “tumult” (v. 19), often portraying the noise and turmoil of a confused mass of people.

14:17 Saul must wonder if the Philistines are using subterfuge to get him to abandon his position. He also suspects that some of his own troops are involved—does he have Jonathan in mind?—and orders his officers to conduct a head count. Perhaps the focus particle “behold” here does not denote surprise but rather a sense of inevitability that it is Jonathan and his armor-bearer who are absent. This was the sort of thing he was prone to do.

14:18 Two textual traditions differ as to what Saul commands Ahijah (v. 3) to bring. The Hebrew text refers to the “ark of God,” whereas the Septuagint reads, “Bring the ephod” (ESV mg.). The Hebrew text (which is the more difficult, and thus perhaps more likely, reading) implies that Saul has resumed the practice of taking the ark into battle (4:3), probably as a talisman to ensure success against the enemy following the withdrawal of Samuel’s counsel.

14:19 Two actions occur simultaneously: Saul speaks to Ahijah while the chaos in the Philistine camp becomes steadily more evident. “Withdraw your hand” requires the priest to stop the ritual he is performing to obtain divine guidance for Saul (cf. comment on 14:41). With a sudden sway from indecision to reckless impetuosity, Saul decides it more important to join battle immediately than to ascertain the Lord’s mind.

14:20 “All the people who were with him” now includes more than the officers (v. 17), encompassing the six hundred of verse 2 and probably also the contingent under Jonathan. “Rallied” does not suggest that their spirits have been flagging. Literally the verb could be translated “They were cried together,” that is, summoned to battle stations. There is little for the ill-equipped Israelites to do, however, because “confusion” (rendered “panic” in 5:9, 11) is rampant in the Philistine ranks and they are attacking their own men (cf. Judg. 7:22; 2 Chron. 20:23).

14:21 Two further groups are mentioned. “The Hebrews who had been with the Philistines before that time” may refer to mercenaries (whether Israelites of doubtful loyalty or members of marginalized groups in the land) or to Israelites pressed by the Philistines to serve as camp attendants. When they see how the battle is going, they throw in their lot with Saul and Jonathan.

14:22 There is a similar change of heart on the part of those Israelites who had gone into hiding (13:6) in the hill country of Ephraim. When they become aware of what is happening, they too join in close pursuit of the Philistines.

14:23 But for all the extra manpower that comes to assist Saul and his son, the decisive factor is the Lord’s contribution. “So the Lord saved Israel that day” is the language of a war of the Lord (Ex. 14:30; 2 Chron. 32:22). He has worked through Jonathan to grant the victory (1 Sam. 14:45) and vindicate his claim (v. 6). “And the battle passed beyond Beth-aven” (cf. 13:5), which was probably 2.4 miles (3.9 km) northwest of Michmash (cf. comment on 14:31).

14:24 The narrative returns to the point at which Saul had desisted from seeking the Lord’s advice and instead had engaged in battle (vv. 19–20). The Israelite forces were “hard pressed that day,” an expression usually conveying harassment from an enemy (13:6). Here, however, the Philistines are in disarray. The Israelites’ exhaustion is the consequence of a requirement Saul had imposed on the army not to eat before evening. Perhaps he had thought that taking time to eat would hamper the pursuit, or that fasting would earn the Lord’s favor. But his prohibition turns out to have been most unwise, as the troops are exhausted.

Saul is utterly self-centered: “I am avenged on my enemies” views the conflict as a personal affair against forces who have humiliated him by wreaking havoc on his kingdom. He does not see the enemy and the battle as being the Lord’s.

14:25–26 When the army enters a wooded area in the hill country of Ephraim, they find a plentiful supply of wild honey oozing to the ground from beehives on trees and bushes. It would have been natural for the famished soldiers to taste it. The moments spent doing so would have reinvigorated them for the pursuit. But no one tastes the honey because of the oath, which all take seriously as invoking divine judgment on whoever breaches it.

14:27 However, Jonathan had already been in the thick of the battle when Saul imposed his oath, and so he is unaware of his father’s curse. He does not hesitate to taste the honey, and “his eyes became bright,” indicating the honey’s nourishing, refreshing effect (cf. Ezra 9:8; Ps. 13:3).

14:28 Only after Jonathan has acted does one of the soldiers inform him of what his father had threatened. “Charged the people with an oath” (lit., “made the people to swear”) may well mean that Saul had forced the soldiers to subscribe to the oath. The narrator adds that “the people were faint,” weak with hunger because of Saul’s ill-conceived directive.

14:29 Jonathan voices no regret for his action but instead scathingly criticizes Saul. “My father has troubled the land” employs the ominous verb that had described Achan’s sin (Josh. 7:25; see also Judg. 11:35; 1 Kings 18:17–18). His own experience has shown that it would have been far better if all had tasted the honey as he had done.

14:30 Jonathan’s critique extends beyond the soldiers not being allowed to eat the honey to include their being barred from “the spoil of their enemies,” which would have further revived the soldiers’ stamina. Their diminished strength means that Saul’s intervention had needlessly curtailed the extent of the victory against the Philistines.

14:31 Another incident from “that day” further highlights the consequences of Saul’s ill-considered oath. The army had “struck down” (which may imply routing or killing) the Philistines, chasing them out of the hill country as far as Aijalon, 15 miles (24 km) away to the west as the crow flies but longer by the route through the pass of Beth-horon and into the coastal plain.¹ But, repeating the expression of verse 28, the exertion involved meant that “the people were very faint.”

14:32 At nightfall Saul’s prohibition lapses, and the exhausted troops “pounce” (cf. comment on 15:19) on the captured livestock. They are so ravenous that they slaughter the animals on the ground right where they are, eating the flesh without draining the blood from it—a violation of the Lord’s law (Gen. 9:4–5; Lev. 7:26; 17:14; Deut. 12:23–24).

14:33 When Saul is informed of this failure to observe the law, he accuses the troops of acting treacherously by contravening the law of the covenant. To remedy the situation, he requires a great stone to be rolled “here” (though the MT reads “this day,” probably meaning “while there is still daylight”). When the captured animals are now slaughtered on the stone, their blood will drain away properly.

Saul is scrupulous in his concern for maintenance of covenant standards (cf. 28:3), but he views adherence to them as merely outward actions, overlooking the need for heart allegiance to the Lord. Saul’s piety focuses on proper behavior, ignoring personal fellowship with God.

14:34 The king directs those around him to go through the troops and order them to bring their animals to the altar for slaughter. The soldiers comply with the command.

14:35 Saul’s altar is probably erected as a memorial to the victory. It is unclear if the stone of verse 33 forms part of this altar. “It was the first altar that he built to the Lord” is the usual understanding of the second half of the verse, but the Hebrew is obscure and could be rendered, “He began to build an altar to the Lord”—raising questions as to whether it was ever finished. Equally, if this is his “first altar” after being on the throne for many years, it indicates the low priority he accords to the worship of the Lord.

14:36 Once Saul sees that the vigor of his troops is revived by their meal, he decides on the unusual strategy of pursuing the Philistines throughout the night. To this plan “they” (presumably his officers) assent, but “the priest” (Ahijah, v. 3) circumspectly reminds Saul of his duty to consult the Lord before engaging in further warfare, perhaps by resuming the ritual Saul had halted in verse 19. Once more Saul’s decision making is based on circumstances, not principles.

14:37 Saul raises two questions to God: whether the battle with the Philistines should be resumed, and whether the Lord will grant victory. “But he did not answer him that day”—this silence seems to include an element of judgment (cf. 8:18; 28:6). Use of the Urim and Thummim is perhaps assumed here (cf. 14:41).

14:38 Saul reasons that God has not responded because there is sin in the camp. He summons all of the “leaders [lit., “cornerstones”] of the people,” that is, the army commanders, to determine why this situation has arisen. While Saul had been shaken by Samuel’s declaration concerning the end of his dynasty (13:14), he does not link the Lord’s present silence to that pronouncement but views the offense as recently committed within the camp.

14:39 “As the Lord lives” introduces a very strong oath (cf. v. 45), and mention of “the Lord . . . who saves Israel” may reflect on the recent victory (cf. v. 23). Saul then displays his faulty judgment by making another rash vow to execute the perpetrator, whoever he is—including Jonathan his son. Perhaps his mention of Jonathan indicates existing tension between them. Saul alone seems unaware of his son’s conduct, while everyone else remains silent as the situation develops.

14:40 Saul proposes to narrow the search to a choice between himself and his son on one hand and the rest of the army on the other. This seems a strange choice, but the narrator conveys no hint that Saul is seeking to manipulate the situation.

14:41 The Hebrew text here (cf. ESV mg.) is much briefer than that of the Greek tradition followed by the ESV. The procedure of casting lots is similar to that employed in Saul’s selection (10:19–21), but this time it explicitly employs the Urim and Thummim. In the breastpiece of the high priest was a fold forming a pocket containing two stones, one possibly light or white in color (“Urim”) and the other dark or black (“Thummim”; cf. Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8). These were manipulated in a procedure now unknown in order to receive divine guidance.² “Taken” and “escaped” are technical terms for the outcome, which in this case identifies “Jonathan and Saul,” the order of their names reflecting the eventual result.

14:42–43 After a second drawing of the stones identifies Jonathan, Saul interrogates him, and he candidly reveals what he had done. Perhaps the intensified verbal form should be rendered “I just tasted a little honey,” indicating the triviality of his action. “Here I am; I will die” probably does not voice meek acceptance but rather embodies a protest at the disproportionate penalty for such an insignificant action.

14:44 Saul’s reaction is warped. The king who had been so offended by the consumption of blood (v. 33) is now prepared to execute his son. “You shall surely die” rejects an implied proposal for clemency, as Saul’s primary concern is to maintain his regal authority by imposing the penalty he announced (contrast David in 25:33). In “God do so to me and more also” (cf. 3:17), he calls down severe punishment on himself if he does not carry out his word. Saul’s determination is unnecessary and absurd; since Jonathan’s action was unintentional, under Mosaic law it required only a trespass offering.

14:45 However, in a rare instance of popular opposition to a royal decree, the army as a whole intervenes in this grotesque situation, challenging Saul’s verdict: “Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel?” They immediately answer the question they have posed: “Far from it!” What the Lord has decisively achieved through Jonathan has provided more impressive guidance than anything Saul has said. For the third time the root “to save, deliver” is used of Jonathan (also vv. 6 and 23), just as it occurred three times in chapter 11 (11:3, 9, 13) in connection with Saul’s activity against Nahash. Since Jonathan “worked with God this day,” he has achieved what his father could no longer do, and it is intolerable that any harm should befall him.

“So the people ransomed Jonathan, so that he did not die.” Although “ransom” originally signified gaining exemption through offering money or a substitute sacrifice (Ex. 13:13; 34:20), it is not stated if either occurs here. It may be merely a general metaphor for deliverance.

14:46 Always one to court popular endorsement, Saul acquiesces to the army’s action. Also abandoning his plan to “go down” in pursuit of the Philistines (v. 36), he instead “went up” back into the hill country. The potential for a complete rout of the enemy dissipates into the tame conclusion, “and the Philistines went to their own place.”

14:47 “When Saul had taken the kingship over Israel” employs a verb that ordinarily means “to capture.” Perhaps the meaning here is something like “secured” by overcoming internal opposition (10:27) and external threats (ch. 11) or, in a more sinister fashion, “seized” by illegitimate action.

Nevertheless, Saul’s reign can be credited with many achievements. He frequently displays personal bravery and does not shirk the task of securing the boundaries of his realm. The kingdoms listed here will later become tributaries to David (2 Sam. 8:12)—Moab across the Jordan to the southeast (see 1 Sam. 22:3), the Ammonites to the north of Moab (see 11:1), and Edom in the mountainous area southeast of the Dead Sea. The “kings of Zobah” ruled over a powerful independent city-state in Aram, to the north of Israel (2 Sam. 10:6). The plural “kings” may indicate that several cities were in some sort of confederation at that time. “The Philistines” were on the coastal plain to the southwest of Israel (1 Sam. 4:1).

“Wherever he turned he routed them [lit., “caused them to be condemned”]” does not mean that Saul will completely control these peoples. Rather, he defeats their armies, eradicates any further resistance, and exacts punitive tribute from them. There is ample reason for the women to sing, “Saul has struck down his thousands” (18:7).

14:48 “He did valiantly” pays generous tribute to the competence and valor of Saul, particularly in the early years of his reign. He also attacked the Amalekites (15:3) and “delivered [cf. comment on 7:3] Israel” from these raiders who made incursions into the land from the wilderness to its south. “Struck” probably indicates (in anticipation of ch. 15) that he defeated them.

14:49 Three of Saul’s sons are named here, probably in order of their birth: Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchi-shua. For Jonathan, cf. comment on 18:1. Later in the narrative, three of Saul’s sons are killed along with him: Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua (31:2). Furthermore, a fourth son, Ish-bosheth, is mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:8. However, in 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39 the names of Saul’s four sons are given as Jonathan, Malchi-shua, Abinadab, and Eshbaal. How are these lists related?

Ish-bosheth and Eshbaal are the same person. Originally baʻal (“lord” or “master”) could be used as an epithet of Yahweh (cf. Hos. 2:16), but in a later period, when Israel’s conflict with Baal worship will become intense, scribes will find names such as Eshbaal (“man of Baal” or “Baal exists”) offensive, substituting boshet, “shame,” for baʻal. In the postexilic period, when the confrontation with Baal worship is over, the Chronicler reverts to the earlier form of these names (1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40). While it is possible that Ishvi here is another name for Ish-bosheth, this is far from certain.

Saul’s two daughters, Merab and Michal, are mentioned because of their role in the subsequent narrative (1 Sam. 18:17–29).

14:50–51 Saul seems to have only one wife, although he also has a concubine, Rizpah (2 Sam. 3:7). Ahinoam is not mentioned elsewhere, and nothing is known of her father, Ahimaaz. Another woman named Ahinoam will become one of David’s wives (1 Sam. 25:43).

This is the first explicit mention of Saul’s army commander, Abner, who figures significantly in subsequent developments (2 Sam. 3:6). However, the ambiguity of “Saul’s uncle”—does it describe Ner or Abner?—makes his precise relation to Saul uncertain. While Abner may be Saul’s uncle,³ it is more probable that he is Saul’s younger cousin. Since after Saul’s death Abner will still be capable of outrunning Asahel (2 Sam. 2:19–23), it is hardly likely that he belongs to the generation older than Saul.

14:52 Special reference is made to the Philistines, Saul’s primary opponents (1 Sam. 9:16). Although Saul is on occasions victorious over the Philistines, they are capable and determined opponents that he is never able to overwhelm. At the end of his reign the Philistine problem is still unresolved, and Saul dies fighting them.

As a result of the continuing conflict, Saul takes care to build up his standing army by conscripting suitable men (cf. 8:10–12), the most notable example of which is David himself (16:14–21; 18:2).