TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
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.
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.
Historical interpretation
Historical Reception
One surviving comment on this verse from the historical church.
It is also the custom of the arrogant to not let their self-esteem keep quiet whenever the tongues of others grow silent in praising them. Indeed, while all the others keep quiet, the arrogant shouts aloud, for in his heart he carries around one who broadcasts his great worth. Therefore, the following words are readily applied to such people: “And the people turned to the spoils and brought sheep, cows and calves. They slaughtered them on the ground, and the people ate them with their blood.” If anyone cultivates many reasons for his innocence and boasts about them, he takes sheep. When someone thinks about his labors of preaching and collects in his memory whatever has been useful as he spoke to others or cultivated the earth, he takes cattle as booty. When he is elated from the fact that the impulses of wantonness upon the mind have been restrained and reduced, he takes calves. For there are two commandments that bring great praise to the just: the splendor of chastity and the light of good works. When an arrogant individual is exalted in his own estimation, he is said to have stolen sheep and calves. Sheep refer to the innocence of good works, calves to the mortification of bodily passion. Clearly, he added cattle to these, for he is not perfectly exalted if he thinks that he is in any way weak or powerless. He had already been great in his own opinion as far as he estimated his chastity and good works, but he raised himself in the arrogance of even fuller exaltation when he thought himself perfect in the labor of preaching.But afterwards he wrote about the end to which all these things lead: “And they slaughtered them on the ground.” To slaughter sheep, cows and calves on the ground is to exult with carnal joy and a conscience bereft of virtues. Thus God spoke about the proud and arrogant in the book of Hosea: “He turned away their sacrificial offerings into the deep.” Indeed, they plunge their victims into the deep when they do not raise up the heavenly offerings of virtues to the heavens in gratitude, but they yield their sacrifices to the earth through their quest for vain praise. Therefore, these words are well applied to them: “The people ate the sacrifices with their blood.” The food of the mind is its own internal joy. What, then, does eating with blood signify except to refuse to remove by any means striving for vain praise from the internal appetite of the mind? The blood is removed when the mind removes the striving for vanity from the joy of a good work. For the mind of a godly sort knows to rejoice in a good work, since he rejoices to draw near to the heavenly beings through his good works, but he avoids letting those works be seen at the time as he carries out those works. Then to eat with blood is to take the joy of a good work and mix it with a longing for vanity. Clearly, when praise is offered by others, then it is sincere food even for the arrogant. But when no one else praises them, the conscience of the haughty swells up, it violently snatches as loot the praise nobody else voluntarily offers.
Continue studying 1 Samuel 14:32 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Following a grueling battle against the Philistines, the Israelite soldiers, severely weakened by King Saul's rash oath forbidding food until evening, ravenously seized livestock from the enemy spoil. In their desperate hunger, they slaughtered these animals hastily on the ground and consumed the meat without properly draining the blood, thereby committing a direct and serious violation of the Mosaic Law. This incident highlights the devastating consequences of misguided leadership, the fragility of human obedience under duress, and the profound sanctity of life as enshrined in God's covenant.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within a critical narrative segment in 1 Samuel 14, immediately following a significant victory over the Philistines, largely spearheaded by Jonathan, Saul's son. The preceding verses detail Saul's impulsive and ill-advised oath, declaring a curse upon anyone who ate before evening, ostensibly to secure a complete victory. This oath, made without divine consultation, inadvertently trapped the exhausted Israelite army, leading to extreme hunger and fatigue, as seen in 1 Samuel 14:24-26. Jonathan, unaware of his father's oath, inadvertently violated it by tasting honey, setting the stage for a dramatic confrontation and nearly costing him his life, as recounted in 1 Samuel 14:27-31. Verse 32 describes the immediate aftermath of the battle and the lifting of the oath, revealing the people's desperate state and their subsequent sin, which Saul then attempts to rectify through the building of an altar and offering of sacrifices in 1 Samuel 14:33-35.
Historical & Cultural Context
The period of Saul's reign marked the tumultuous transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy in Israel, a time characterized by constant skirmishes with formidable neighbors like the Philistines. The Philistines, a technologically superior maritime people, posed a significant threat, possessing iron weaponry that the Israelites largely lacked. Warfare was physically demanding, and soldiers relied heavily on provisions and proper rest. Culturally, the Mosaic Law was the foundational covenant governing Israelite life, with strict dietary regulations being a cornerstone of their distinct identity and holiness. The prohibition against consuming blood was ancient and deeply significant, first articulated to Noah after the flood in Genesis 9:4 and emphatically reiterated in the Law, particularly in Leviticus, where blood is identified as the life-force and reserved for atonement rituals at the altar, as stated in Leviticus 17:11. Deuteronomy further reinforces this prohibition, emphasizing the sacredness of life in Deuteronomy 12:23. The people's actions in 1 Samuel 14:32 thus represent a profound cultural and religious transgression, born out of extreme duress but nonetheless a direct violation of divine command.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes within 1 Samuel and the broader Old Testament narrative. Firstly, it highlights the consequences of rash and ill-conceived leadership, particularly King Saul's impulsive oath, which directly precipitates the people's sin and distress, as seen in 1 Samuel 14:24. Secondly, it underscores the theme of disobedience to divine law, even when driven by extreme circumstances. The consumption of blood was a clear and fundamental violation, demonstrating how human weakness can lead to spiritual compromise. Thirdly, the narrative vividly portrays human weakness and desperation, showing how physical exhaustion and hunger can override moral and spiritual principles. This serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of human endurance and the need for divine guidance. Finally, it implicitly raises the theme of atonement and purification, as Saul immediately recognizes the sin and takes steps to address it by building an altar and offering sacrifices, as detailed in 1 Samuel 14:33-35.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb (H5860) literally means "to swoop down upon" or "to pounce upon," often used for birds of prey. In this context, it vividly describes the soldiers' ravenous hunger, depicting them not merely approaching the spoil but attacking it with an uncontrolled, desperate urgency. This emphasizes their extreme physical and mental state, induced by Saul's oath, and the lack of proper order or reverence in their actions.
The verb (H7819) means "to slaughter," "to kill," or "to butcher." While it is the standard term for ritual slaughter in many contexts, here it is used in conjunction with "on the ground" and "with the blood," indicating a hasty, unceremonious, and unlawful killing. The immediate consumption without proper drainage of blood, a crucial aspect of lawful slaughter, is directly implied, highlighting the transgression.
This noun (H1818) refers to the vital fluid of humans or animals, representing life itself. In Israelite theology, blood held profound sacred significance, being the vehicle of life and reserved for atonement. The phrase "with the blood" (עַל הַדָּם, 'al ha-dam) specifically denotes that the blood was still present and consumed along with the meat, rather than being drained onto the earth or poured out at the altar as required by Mosaic Law. This highlights the direct violation of the prohibition against consuming blood, which was central to the Israelite understanding of the sanctity of life and the process of atonement.
Verse Breakdown
"And the people flew upon the spoil"
This opening clause immediately sets the scene of chaotic, desperate consumption. The verb "flew upon" conveys the soldiers' extreme hunger and lack of restraint, a direct result of Saul's ill-advised oath which had left them famished after a day of intense battle. They did not calmly approach but rushed headlong, driven by primal need, reflecting a breakdown of discipline and adherence to proper procedure.
"and took sheep, and oxen, and calves"
This specifies the nature of the "spoil" – various livestock. These animals would have been taken from the defeated Philistines, representing the spoils of war. The mention of different types of animals indicates the extent of the Philistine's herds and the abundance available, yet the people's hunger was so great that they indiscriminately seized whatever they could, prioritizing immediate sustenance over careful selection or preparation.
"and slew [them] on the ground"
This phrase describes the crude and improper manner of slaughter. "On the ground" implies a hasty, unsanitary, and non-ritualistic killing, contrasting sharply with the careful, clean, and often altar-bound slaughter prescribed by the Law. This immediate, crude killing method directly facilitated the subsequent sin of consuming the blood, as there was no attempt to drain it properly, demonstrating a disregard for the sacred protocols of food preparation.
"and the people did eat [them] with the blood"
This final clause reveals the specific and grievous transgression. The consumption "with the blood" is the direct violation of a fundamental Mosaic prohibition (e.g., Leviticus 17:11). This act, born of desperation, demonstrates the people's willingness to compromise divine law under duress, underscoring the severity of their hunger and the failure of Saul's leadership to prevent such a spiritual compromise, leading to a defilement of the community.
Literary Devices
The passage employs several potent literary devices to convey its message and emotional impact. Hyperbole is evident in the phrase "flew upon the spoil," which vividly exaggerates the speed and ferocity of the soldiers' actions. This intense imagery underscores their extreme hunger and desperation, allowing the reader to viscerally grasp the intensity of their physical need and the uncontrolled nature of their response. There is also a powerful Irony at play: Saul's attempt to consecrate the battle through a rash oath, intended to honor God and secure victory, inadvertently leads his people into a grave sin against God's law. The very means by which he sought spiritual advantage results in spiritual transgression, highlighting the dangers of human presumption over divine wisdom. Furthermore, the Symbolism of blood is central to the passage's theological weight. In Israelite theology, blood symbolizes life itself and is reserved for atonement. Its desecration by consumption underscores the people's desperate state and their disregard for a foundational theological principle, highlighting the profound spiritual implications of their physical actions and the immediate need for purification.
Theological and Thematic Connections
The incident in 1 Samuel 14:32 serves as a stark reminder of the sanctity of life, as enshrined in God's covenant with Israel. The prohibition against consuming blood was not merely a dietary restriction but a profound theological statement: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). By consuming the blood, the Israelites not only violated a specific command but also blurred the sacred distinction between life and death, and between the common and the holy. This act, driven by desperation, underscores the pervasive nature of sin and the human tendency to compromise divine principles under pressure. It also highlights the critical role of leadership in guiding a people in obedience, as Saul's rashness directly contributed to this widespread transgression, necessitating immediate atonement and purification for the community.
Reflection and Application
The narrative of 1 Samuel 14:32 offers timeless lessons for contemporary believers. It confronts us with the reality that even good intentions (like Saul's desire for victory) can lead to disastrous outcomes when not tempered by wisdom, consultation, and consideration for others. Leaders, whether in the church, home, or workplace, must carefully weigh the impact of their decisions on those under their care, understanding that rashness can lead to spiritual and physical harm. For individuals, this passage challenges us to examine our own responses under duress. When faced with extreme pressure, exhaustion, or overwhelming need—be it financial, emotional, or spiritual—are we prone to compromise our convictions or God's commands? The Israelites' desperate act reminds us that our physical needs, if unchecked, can lead us to violate spiritual principles. It calls us to cultivate a deeper reliance on God's provision and guidance, even when circumstances are dire, trusting that He will provide a way to remain faithful without resorting to sin. Ultimately, it underscores the importance of valuing life as God does, recognizing that all life belongs to Him and should be treated with reverence, reflecting His holy character.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was eating meat with the blood such a serious offense in Israelite law?
Eating meat with the blood was a grave offense because blood was considered the very essence of life, and life belongs to God alone. The Mosaic Law explicitly states, "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 17:11). This prohibition, first given to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:4), underscored the sanctity of life and the unique role of blood in atonement. By consuming blood, the Israelites would be partaking in the life-force, which was reserved for God and for the sacred act of covering sin at the altar. It was a violation of God's proprietary claim over life and a disregard for the sacred means of purification, blurring the lines between the holy and the common.
Did the people's extreme hunger excuse their sin?
While the people's extreme hunger and exhaustion certainly explain their desperate actions, the biblical narrative does not present it as an excuse that nullifies the sin. Saul immediately recognizes the transgression and takes steps to address it by building an altar and offering sacrifices (1 Samuel 14:33-35). The Law of Moses often made provisions for unintentional sins or sins committed out of ignorance, but even these required atonement. The narrative highlights that while circumstances can mitigate culpability, they do not erase the reality of a violation against God's explicit command. It serves as a powerful reminder that even under duress, God's standards remain, and human weakness can lead to spiritual compromise that requires repentance and purification.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
The desperate act of the Israelites in 1 Samuel 14:32, consuming blood in violation of God's law, powerfully foreshadows the ultimate and perfect fulfillment of the law concerning blood in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament prohibition against consuming blood underscored its sacred nature as the life-force, reserved by God for atonement. It pointed forward to a future, perfect sacrifice. While the Israelites' blood consumption was a sin requiring purification, Jesus, the perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, willingly shed His own blood, not for a temporary covering of sin, but as the once-for-all, complete atonement for humanity (Hebrews 9:22). His blood, unlike that of animals, possesses eternal efficacy, cleansing us from all sin (1 John 1:7) and granting us bold access to God's presence in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 10:19). The desperate hunger of the Israelites for physical sustenance, leading to sin, contrasts sharply with the spiritual hunger that Jesus satisfies through His body and blood, offered in the New Covenant. He invites us to partake of Him spiritually, declaring that whoever feeds on His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life, a life that truly cleanses and eternally sustains. Thus, the very sin committed by the Israelites highlights the profound need for the perfect, atoning blood of Christ, which alone can truly cleanse and sustain us.