Naar de inhoud

1 Samuel 14:28

“Saul’s Rash Oath Troubles Israel”· 1 Samuel 14:24–35Read in context
King James Version
Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food this day. And the people were faint.
KJV (with Strong's)
Then answered H6030 one H376 of the people H5971, and said H559, Thy father H1 straitly H7650 charged H7650 the people H5971 with an oath H7650, saying H559, Cursed H779 be the man H376 that eateth H398 any food H3899 this day H3117. And the people H5971 were faint H5774.
Complete Jewish Bible
But one of the people said in response, "Your father strictly charged the people with an oath, 'A curse on any man who eats any food today'; even though the people are fainting with hunger."
Berean Standard Bible
Then one of the soldiers told him, “Your father bound the troops with a solemn oath, saying, ‘Cursed is the man who eats food today.’ That is why the people are faint.”
American Standard Version
Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth food this day. And the people were faint.
World English Bible Messianic
Then one of the people answered, and said, “Your father directly commanded the people with an oath, saying, ‘Cursed is the man who eats food this day.’” The people were faint.
Geneva Bible (1599)
Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father made the people to sweare, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth sustenance this day: and the people were faint.
Young's Literal Translation
And a man of the people answereth and saith, `Thy father certainly adjured the people, saying, Cursed is the man who eateth food to-day; and the people are weary.'
Nederlands · STVE
Toen antwoordde een man uit het volk, en zeide: Uw vader heeft het volk zwaarlijk bezworen, zeggende: Vervloekt zij de man, die heden brood eet! Daarom bezwijkt het volk.
Translation
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 7,537 of 31,102 · 24.2%

Study this verse

Summary

1 Samuel 14:28 recounts a pivotal moment during Israel's battle against the Philistines, revealing the dire consequences of King Saul's impulsive and ill-advised oath. As the Israelite army, led by the valiant Jonathan, gains a significant advantage, a soldier explains to Jonathan the reason for the troops' debilitating exhaustion and their inability to press their victory: Saul had placed a strict, divinely-backed curse on anyone who consumed food before evening, a command that had left the weary soldiers faint and unable to pursue their fleeing enemies.

Context

Literary Context

This verse is deeply embedded within the narrative of Israel's early monarchy, specifically during a critical phase of the ongoing conflict with the Philistines. The preceding chapters detail Saul's anointing as king and his initial military successes, but also hint at his emerging character flaws. Immediately prior to this verse, Jonathan, acting with remarkable faith and courage, initiates a daring attack against a Philistine garrison, resulting in significant disarray within the enemy camp (1 Samuel 14:1-15). Witnessing the Philistine confusion, King Saul, without consulting God, rashly pronounces a solemn oath, forbidding his soldiers from eating any food until evening, ostensibly as a means to secure a complete victory or perhaps as a misguided act of piety (1 Samuel 14:24). Unaware of this binding oath, Jonathan, faint from the intense combat, innocently tastes wild honey found in the woods (1 Samuel 14:27). Verse 28 serves as the crucial explanation to Jonathan, delivered by one of the common soldiers, clarifying the severe consequences of Saul's curse and the reason for the army's debilitating fatigue, thereby setting the stage for the dramatic and nearly tragic confrontation between Saul and his son.

Historical & Cultural Context

In ancient Israel, oaths were extraordinarily serious commitments, often invoking God's name and carrying the profound weight of a divine curse for their violation. A king's oath, particularly one made in a military context, would have been considered absolutely binding on the entire army, reflecting the king's supreme authority as God's anointed leader. Such vows were sometimes made in anticipation of divine favor or to ensure victory, but they also carried immense risks if made rashly or without proper divine counsel. While not explicitly a "herem" (devotion to destruction), the concept of a sacred ban or strict religious obligation in warfare was a familiar cultural understanding. The physical demands of ancient warfare were immense; soldiers often engaged in prolonged combat without adequate sustenance. Saul's prohibition, therefore, was not only cruel but also highly impractical, severely undermining the army's immediate need for strength to press their tactical advantage and pursue a fleeing enemy.

Key Themes

This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes developed throughout the book of 1 Samuel. It vividly illustrates the theme of Rash Vows and Their Consequences, demonstrating how Saul's impulsive and self-serving piety not only debilitated his army but also endangered his own son, a recurring motif where human will and misguided zeal clash with divine wisdom and practical discernment. The incident further underscores the theme of Leadership and Its Impact, portraying Saul as a king whose authority is frequently exercised without true discernment, compassion, or genuine reliance on God, standing in stark contrast to Jonathan's faith and, later, David's more God-centered leadership. The suffering of "the people" due to Saul's decree emphasizes the theme of The Burden of Leadership's Failures, showing how a king's ill-conceived decisions directly impact the well-being, morale, and effectiveness of his subjects, a pattern that consistently marks Saul's reign and ultimately leads to the tragic transfer of the kingdom to David (1 Samuel 15:28).

Exposition and Analysis

Key Word Analysis

Cursed ʼârar' H779

Derived from H779, this primitive root means "to execrate" or "bitterly curse." In this context, it signifies a solemn declaration of divine judgment or misfortune upon anyone who violates the oath. It highlights the severe spiritual and physical consequences Saul invoked, making the act of eating not merely disobedient but sacrilegious, carrying the weight of divine retribution.

Eateth ʼâkal' H398

This primitive root means "to eat (literally or figuratively)," encompassing consumption of food. Here, it refers to the simple act of taking sustenance. The prohibition against eating, despite the army's physical exertion and hunger, underscores the impracticality and severity of Saul's oath, turning a basic human need into a forbidden act punishable by a curse.

Faint ʻûwph' H5774

This primitive root means "to cover (with wings or obscurity)" and by implication, "to faint (from the darkness of swooning)." It describes a state of extreme physical exhaustion, weakness, and near collapse due to lack of food and prolonged exertion. This word vividly portrays the debilitating effect of Saul's oath on the army, rendering them ineffective at a critical juncture of the battle.

Verse Breakdown

"Then answered one of the people, and said,"

This opening clause marks a crucial turning point, as it introduces the voice of a common soldier, who acts as a messenger of truth to Jonathan. This highlights the disconnect between the king's decree (made without the army's knowledge or consent) and the harsh reality experienced by the fighting men. It signifies the moment Jonathan learns the reason for the army's strange behavior and his own unwitting transgression.

"Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying,"

This part explicitly identifies the source and nature of the binding command. The soldier attributes the severe prohibition directly to "thy father," King Saul, emphasizing that it was not a mere suggestion but a solemn decree enforced "with an oath." This clarifies the absolute and divinely-backed authority Saul attempted to wield, making the prohibition non-negotiable for the troops.

"Cursed [be] the man that eateth [any] food this day."

This is the precise content of Saul's oath, a direct quote that reveals the specific prohibition and the dire consequence—a divine curse—for its violation. The temporal limitation "this day" implies a temporary restriction, yet its timing during intense physical combat proved disastrous, leading directly to the army's debilitation and hindering their pursuit of the enemy.

"And the people were faint."

This concluding clause states the immediate and devastating consequence of Saul's oath. It underscores the severe physical toll on the soldiers, demonstrating that the king's decree, perhaps intended to secure victory through piety, had instead profoundly undermined the army's capacity to fight effectively and press their advantage. Their extreme faintness directly contrasts with the potential for a decisive and complete victory.

Literary Devices

The passage employs several potent literary devices that deepen its impact. Irony is profoundly evident, as Saul's attempt to secure a complete victory through a pious-sounding oath paradoxically leads to the severe debilitation of his army and nearly the death of his most capable son, Jonathan, thus hindering the very triumph he sought. There is also a strong element of Pathos, evoking deep sympathy for the suffering soldiers who are "faint" and exhausted due to a king's misguided and self-serving command, vividly highlighting the human cost of poor and impulsive leadership. The narrative also uses Foreshadowing, as Saul's rashness, self-centeredness, and willingness to sacrifice his people's well-being for his own perceived piety in this incident prefigure his later, more severe acts of disobedience and moral failures that ultimately lead to God's rejection of his kingship (1 Samuel 15:23). The common soldier's direct address to Jonathan further serves as a form of Exposition, providing crucial, otherwise unknown information to both Jonathan and the reader about the unseen, debilitating forces at play in the narrative.

Theological and Thematic Connections

This incident profoundly illustrates the dangers of human zeal untempered by divine wisdom, compassion, and practical discernment. Saul's oath, while perhaps intended to demonstrate piety or secure divine favor, was a human imposition that ultimately brought suffering and hindered God's purposes, rather than advancing them. It highlights a critical theological principle: true devotion and effective leadership stem from listening to God's voice, understanding His character, and genuinely caring for His people, rather than imposing arbitrary, burdensome, or self-serving regulations. The narrative implicitly critiques a legalistic approach that prioritizes rigid adherence to human rules or misguided interpretations of piety over human well-being, mercy, and practical wisdom. God desires obedience, but also mercy and discernment, as articulated in passages that emphasize the spirit of the law over rigid, unthinking adherence to external decrees.

Reflection and Application

The account of Saul's rash oath and its debilitating effect on his army serves as a powerful cautionary tale for all, particularly those in positions of leadership, whether in the church, family, workplace, or community. It compels us to consider the profound and often far-reaching impact of our words, decisions, and the "oaths" or expectations we impose on ourselves and others. True wisdom, as demonstrated in this passage, is not merely about imposing rules or demonstrating outward piety; it is about discerning God's will with humility, compassion, and foresight. We are called to lead and live with a spirit of grace, understanding that burdens placed on others, even with seemingly good intentions, can have unintended and deeply harmful consequences. This passage challenges us to critically evaluate our own "oaths"—the commitments, rules, or expectations we establish—and to ask if they truly serve God's purposes, promote the well-being of those under our care, and are rooted in divine wisdom rather than impulse, pride, or misguided zeal. It powerfully reminds us that God values mercy, practical care for His people, and genuine discernment above rigid, unthinking adherence to human-made decrees.

Questions for Reflection

  1. Where in my life or leadership might I be imposing "oaths" or burdens on myself or others without sufficient wisdom or compassion?
  2. How can I cultivate greater discernment and foresight before making significant commitments or decisions that impact others, ensuring they align with God's character?
  3. In what ways might my pursuit of "piety" or "success" unknowingly lead to exhaustion, hinder effectiveness, or diminish the well-being of those around me?
  4. How does this passage challenge my understanding of authority and the profound responsibility that comes with it, particularly in caring for those I lead?

FAQ

Why did Saul make such a harsh oath, and was it a good idea?

Saul likely made the oath out of a misguided sense of religious zeal, a desire to appear pious, or a desperate attempt to secure a decisive victory by invoking divine favor. He may have believed that by imposing this severe fast, God would grant them complete triumph over the Philistines. However, it was a profoundly unwise and ungodly decision. It was made without consulting God, without considering the physical realities of his exhausted troops, and ultimately hindered their ability to pursue the enemy effectively. The oath backfired, leading to the army's faintness and nearly costing Jonathan his life, demonstrating the dangers of human-initiated religious acts not aligned with God's wisdom or compassion. This incident exemplifies Saul's impulsive nature and his tendency to act on his own authority rather than seeking divine guidance, a pattern that ultimately leads to his downfall (1 Samuel 13:8-14).

What does this incident teach us about leadership?

This incident provides a stark and enduring lesson in leadership. It reveals Saul's tendency towards impulsive, self-serving, and authoritarian rule, rather than compassionate and discerning leadership. A truly effective leader considers the well-being, capabilities, and morale of those they lead. Saul's failure to do so led directly to the debilitation of his army and a near-tragedy involving his own son. It highlights that effective leadership requires not just authority, but also wisdom, empathy, and a humble reliance on divine guidance rather than human will or misguided zeal. The people's suffering, encapsulated in the phrase "And the people were faint," directly reflects the negative consequences of Saul's poor judgment, contrasting sharply with the kind of shepherd-leader God later raises up in David, who genuinely cares for his flock (1 Samuel 16:1-13).

Christ-Centered Fulfillment

The narrative of Saul's rash oath and its devastating consequences finds profound Christ-centered fulfillment. Saul, as an earthly king, imposes a burdensome law that brings weakness, suffering, and near-death to his people, ultimately hindering their mission and demonstrating the futility of human-imposed legalism. This stands in stark contrast to Jesus Christ, the true and perfect King, who does not burden His people with impossible commands but rather fulfills the law perfectly on their behalf (Matthew 5:17). Where Saul's oath brought a curse and physical faintness, Jesus, through His perfect obedience and sacrificial death on the cross, became the curse for us, bearing the full weight of sin and its consequences, thereby liberating us from its power (Galatians 3:13). He is the "bread of life" who truly sustains His people, offering spiritual nourishment and strength, ensuring that those who come to Him will "never hunger" and "never thirst" (John 6:35). Unlike Saul, whose leadership brought suffering and nearly sacrificed his son due to a misguided decree, Christ's leadership is one of boundless compassion, grace, and ultimate liberation, leading His people not into faintness, but into abundant and eternal life (John 10:10). He is the Good Shepherd who willingly lays down His life for the sheep, ensuring their sustenance, salvation, and ultimate victory over sin and death (John 10:11).

Copy as

Public-domain commentary

Matthew Henry

From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers 1 Samuel 14:24–35. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.

1662–1714 · 12 verses
Passage under comment1 Samuel 14:24–35
I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points(1.) (2.) Details

We have here an account of the distress of the children of Israel, even in the day of their triumphs. Such alloys are all present joys subject to. And such obstructions does many a good cause meet with, even when it seems most prosperous, through the mismanagement of instruments.

I.Saul forbade the people, under the penalty of a curse, to taste any food that day, Sa1 14:24. Here we will suppose,

1.That as king he had power to put his soldiers under this interdict, and to bind it on with a curse; and therefore they submitted to it, and God so far owned it as to discover, by the lot, that Jonathan was the delinquent that had meddled with the accursed thing (though ignorantly), on which account God would not be at that time enquired of by them.

2.That he did it with a good intention, lest the people, who perhaps had been kept for some time at short allowance, when they found plenty of victuals in the deserted camp of the Philistines, should fall greedily upon that, and so lose time in pursing the enemy, and some of them, it may be, glut themselves to such a degree as not to be fit for any more service that day. To prevent this, he forbade them to taste any food, and laid himself, it is likely, under the same restraint. And yet his making this severe order was,

(1.)Impolitic and very unwise; for, if it gained time, it lost strength, for the pursuit.

(2.)It was imperious, and disobliging to the people, and worse than muzzling the mouth of the ox when he treads out the corn. To forbid them to feast would have been commendable, but to forbid them so much as to taste, though ever so hungry, was barbarous.

(3.)It was impious to enforce the prohibition with a curse and an oath. Had he no penalty less than an anathema wherewith to support his military discipline? Death for such a crime would have been too much, but especially death with a curse. Though superiors may chide and correct, they may not curse their inferiors; our rule is, Bless, and curse not. When David speaks of an enemy he had that loved cursing perhaps he meant Saul, Psa 109:17, Psa 109:18.

II.The people observed his order, but it had many inconveniences attending it.

1.The soldiers were tantalized; for, in their pursuit of the enemy, it happened that they went through a wood so full of wild honey that it dropped from the trees upon the ground, the Philistines having perhaps, in their flight, broken in upon the honeycombs, for their own refreshment, and left them running. Canaan flowed with honey, and here is an instance of it. They sucked honey out of the rock, the flinty rock (Deu 32:13); yet, for fear of the curse, they did not so much as taste the honey, Sa1 14:25, Sa1 14:26. Those are worthy of the name of Israelites that can deny themselves and their own appetites even when they are most craving, and the delights of sense most tempting, for fear of guilt and a curse, and the table becoming a snare. Let us never feed ourselves, much less feast ourselves, without fear.

2.Jonathan fell under the curse through ignorance. He heard not of the charge his father had given; for, having bravely forced the lines, he was then following the chase, and therefore might justly be looked upon as exempted from the charge and intended in it. But it seems it was taken for granted, and he himself did not object against it afterwards, that it extended to him, though absent upon so good an occasion. He, not knowing any peril in it, took up a piece of a honey-comb, upon the end of his staff, and sucked it (Sa1 14:27), and was sensibly refreshed by it: His eyes were enlightened, which began to grow dim through hunger and faintness; it made his countenance look pleasant and cheerful, for it was such as a stander-by might discern (Sa1 14:29): See how my eyes have been enlightened. He thought no harm, nor feared any, till one of the people acquainted him with the order, and then he found himself in a snare. Many a good son has been thus entangled and distressed, in more ways than one, by the rashness of an inconsiderate father. Jonathan, for his part, lost the crown he was heir to by his father's folly, which, it may be, this was an ill omen of.

3.The soldiers were faint, and grew feeble, in the pursuit of the Philistines. Jonathan foresaw this would be the effect of it; their spirits would flag, and their strength would fail, for want of sustenance. Such is the nature of our bodies that they soon grow unfit for service if they be not supplied with fresh recruits. Daily work cannot be done without daily bread, which our Father in heaven graciously gives us. It is bread that strengthens man's heart; therefore Jonathan reasoned very well, If the people had eaten freely, there would have been a much greater slaughter (Sa1 14:30); but, as it was, they were very faint, too much fatigued (so the Chaldee), and began to think more of their meat than of their work.

4.The worst effect of all was that at evening, when the restraint was taken off and they returned to their food again, they were so greedy and eager upon it that they ate the flesh with the blood, expressly contrary to the law of God, Sa1 14:32. Two hungry meals, we say, make the third a glutton; it was so here. They would not stay to have their meat either duly killed (for they slew the cattle upon the ground, and did not hang them up, as they used to do, that the blood might all run out of them) or duly dressed, but fell greedily upon it before it was half boiled or half roasted, Sa1 14:32. Saul, being informed of it, reproved them for the sin (Sa1 14:33): You have transgressed; but did not, as he should have done, reflect upon himself as having been accessory to it, and having made the Lord's people to transgress. To put a stop to this irregularity, Saul ordered them to set up a great stone before him, and let all that had cattle to kill, for their present use, bring them thither, and kill them under his eye upon that stone (Sa1 14:33), and the people did so (Sa1 14:34), so easily were they restrained and reformed when their prince took care to do his part. If magistrates would but use their power as they might, people would be made better than they are with more ease than is imagined.

III.On this occasion Saul built an altar (Sa1 14:35), that he might offer sacrifice, either by way of acknowledgment of the victory they had obtained or by the way of atonement for the sin they had been guilty of. The same was the first altar that he built, and perhaps the rolling of the great stone to kill the beasts on reminded him of converting it into an altar, else he would not have thought of it. Saul was turning aside from God, and yet now he began to build altars, being most zealous (as many are) for the form of godliness when he was denying the power of it. See Hos 8:14, Israel has forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples. Some read it, He began to build that altar; he laid the first stone, but was so hasty to pursue his victory that he could not stay to finish it.

Copy as

Historical interpretation

Historical Reception

One surviving comment on this verse from the historical church.

1 quote · AD 735
AD 735BedeEarly MedievalSourceCommentary on Samuel
Your father bound the people by an oath, etc. He troubled, because he interdicted everything; had he interdicted in part and granted in part, the matter would have seemed to be conducted more conveniently. But because in these kinds of matters the commands of spiritual Fathers must be obeyed, Jonathan was apprehended by lot, and the oracle of the Lord was withdrawn from Saul consulting that very day, manifestly showing. For if the power of a worldly king prevailed so much with God, how much do you think the command of a spiritual master prevails? But even in the typological sense, it disturbs earthly hearts if someone commands these heavenly matters solely to be carried out, since the Lord testifies that new wine is not to be put into old wineskins. It troubles the sharpness of readers and compels them to falter, who believe that they must be prohibited entirely from reading secular literature, which wherever found, it is lawful to take useful things as if they were their own. Otherwise, neither Moses nor Daniel would have been allowed to be instructed in the wisdom or literature of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, although they abhorred their superstitions and indulgences. Nor would the master of the Gentiles himself have inserted some verses of poets in his writings or sayings: but it is much more cautious to grasp the rose amidst thorns than to gather the lily among the soft leaves; much safer it is to seek salutary counsel in apostolic writings than in Platonic pages. For even the bees themselves, which make honey of this kind, indeed present sweet sayings with their mouth which soothe, but in their rears they keep venomous stings that strike.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying 1 Samuel 14:28 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.

Related study articles8