TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on 1 Samuel 14 verses 36–46
Here is, I. Saul's boasting against the Philistines. He proposed, as soon as his soldiers had got their suppers, to pursue them all night, and not leave a man of them, Sa1 14:36. Here he showed much zeal, but little discretion; for his army, thus fatigued, could as ill spare a night's sleep as a meal's meat. But it is common for rash and foolish men to consider nobody but themselves, and, so that they might but have their humour, not to care what hardships they put upon those that are under them. However, the people were so obsequious to their king that they would by no means oppose the motion, but resolved to make the best of it, and, if he will go on, they will follow him: Do whatsoever seemeth good to thee. Only the priest thought it convenient to go on with the devotions that were broken off abruptly (Sa1 14:19), and to consult the oracle: Let us draw near hither unto God. Princes and great men have need of such about them as will thus be their remembrancers, wherever they go, to take God along with them. And, when the priest proposed it, Saul could not for shame reject the proposal, but asked counsel of God (Sa1 14:37): "Shall I go down after the Philistines? And shall I speed?"
II. His falling foul on his son Jonathan: and the rest of this paragraph is wholly concerning him: for, while he is prosecuted, the Philistines make their escape. We know not what mischief may ensue upon on rash resolve.
1.God, by giving an intimation of his displeasure, put Saul upon searching for an accursed thing. When, by the priest, he consulted the oracle, God answered him not, Sa1 14:37. Note, When God denies our prayers it concerns us to enquire what the sin is that has provoked him to do so. Let us see where the sin is, Sa1 14:38. For God's ear is not heavy that it cannot hear, but it is sin that separates between us and him. If God turns away our prayer, we have reason to suspect it is for some iniquity regarding our hearts, which we are concerned to find out, that we may put it away, may mortify it, and put it to death. Saul swears by his Maker that whoever was the Achan that troubled the camp, by eating the forbidden fruit, should certainly die, though it were Jonathan himself, that is, though ever so dear to himself and the people, little thinking that Jonathan was the man (Sa1 14:39): He shall surely die, the curse shall be executed upon him. But none of the people answered him, that is, none of those who knew Jonathan had broken the order would inform against him.
2.Jonathan was discovered by lot to be the offender. Saul would have lots cast between himself and Jonathan on the one side, and the people on the other, perhaps because he was as confident of Jonathan's innocency in this matter as of his own, Sa1 14:40. The people, seeing him in a heat, durst not gainsay any thing he proposed, but acquiesced: Do as seemeth good unto thee. Before he cast lots, he prayed that God would give a perfect lot (Sa1 14:41), that is, make a full discovery of this matter, or, as it is in the margin, that he would show the innocent. This was with an air of impartial justice. Judges should desire that truth may come out, whoever may suffer by it. Lots should be cast with prayer, because they are a solemn appeal to Providence, and by them we beg of God to direct and determine us (Act 1:24), for which reason some have condemned games that depend purely upon lot or chance as making too bold with a sacred thing. Jonathan at length was taken (Sa1 14:42), Providence designing hereby to countenance and support a lawful authority, and to put an honour upon the administration of public justice in general, reserving another way to bring off one that had done nothing worthy of death.
3.Jonathan ingenuously confesses the fact, and Saul, with an angry curse, passes sentence upon him. Jonathan denies not the truth, nor goes about to conceal it, only he thinks it hard that he must die for it, Sa1 14:43. He might very fairly have pleaded his invincible ignorance of the law, or have insisted upon his merit, but he submitted to the necessity with a great and generous mind: "God's and my father's will be done:" thus he showed as much valour in receiving the messengers of death himself as in sending them among the Philistines. It is as brave to yield in some cases as it is in other cases to fight. Saul is not mollified by his filial submission nor the hardness of his case; but as one that affected to be thought firm to his word, and much more to his oath; even when it bound him hardest, with another imprecation he gives judgment upon Jonathan (Sa1 14:44): "God do so and more also to me if I do not execute the law upon thee, for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan." (1.) He passed this sentence too hastily, without consulting the oracle. Jonathan had a very good plea in arrest of the judgment. What he had done was not malum in se - bad in itself; and, as for the prohibition of it, he was ignorant of that, so that he could not be charged with rebellion or disobedience. (2.) He did it in fury. Had Jonathan been worthy to die, yet it would have become a judge, much more a father, to pass sentence with tenderness and compassion, and not with such an air of triumph, like a man perfectly divested of all humanity and natural affection. Justice is debased when it is administered with wrath and bitterness. (3.) He backed it with a curse upon himself if he did not see the sentence executed; and this curse did return upon his own head. Jonathan escaped, but God did so to Saul, and more also; for he was rejected of God and made anathema. Let none upon any occasion dare to use such imprecations as these, lest God say Amen to them, and make their own tongues to fall upon them, Psa 64:8. This stone will return upon him that rolleth it. Yet we have reason to think that Saul's bowels yearned toward Jonathan, so that he really punished himself, and very justly, when he seemed so severe upon Jonathan. God made him feel the smart of his own rash edict, which might make him fear being again guilty of the like. By all these vexatious accidents God did likewise correct him for his presumption in offering sacrifice without Samuel. An expedition so ill begun could not end without some rebukes.
4.The people rescued Jonathan out of his father's hands, v. 45. Hitherto they had expressed themselves very observant of Saul. What seemed good to him they acquiesced in, v. 36, 40. But, when Jonathan is in danger, Saul's word is no longer a law to them, but with the utmost zeal they oppose the execution of his sentence: "Shall Jonathan die - that blessing, that darling, of his country? Shall that life be sacrificed to a punctilio of law and honour which was so bravely exposed for the public service, and to which we owe our lives and triumphs? No, we will never stand by and see him thus treated whom God delights to honour." It is good to see Israelites zealous for the protection of those whom God has made instruments of public good. Saul had sworn that Jonathan should die, but they oppose their oath to his, and swear he shall not die: "As the Lord liveth there shall not only not his head, but not a hair of his head fall to the ground;" they did not rescue him by violence, but by reason and resolution; and Josephus says they made their prayer to God that he might be loosed from the curse. They pleaded for him that he has wrought with God this day; that is, "he has owned God's cause, and God has owned his endeavours, and therefore his life is too precious to be thrown away upon a nicety." We may suppose Saul had not so perfectly forgotten the relation of a father but that he was willing enough to have Jonathan rescued, and well pleased to have that done which yet he would not do himself: and he that knows the heart of a father knows not how to blame him.
5.The design against the Philistines is quashed by this incident (v. 46): Saul went up from following them, and so an opportunity was lost of completing the victory. When Israel's shields are clashing with one another the public safety and service suffer by it.
Continue studying 1 Samuel 14:39 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
1 Samuel 14:39 powerfully captures King Saul's unyielding and tragically misguided resolve to execute his own son, Jonathan, for an unwitting transgression of a rash vow. This decree comes despite Jonathan's pivotal role in securing a miraculous victory for Israel against the Philistines. The verse starkly illuminates Saul's flawed leadership, revealing a king who prioritizes rigid adherence to a self-imposed oath over justice, mercy, and the life of his heroic son. The profound silence of the people in response underscores their deep disapproval and moral dissent against the king's severe and unjust pronouncement.
CONTEXT
Literary Context: This intense and pivotal moment is situated within a broader narrative detailing the ongoing, desperate conflict between Israel and the formidable Philistines. The chapter opens with Jonathan's audacious and faith-filled initiative, where, accompanied only by his armor-bearer, he attacks a Philistine garrison, leading to a divinely orchestrated rout of the enemy (1 Samuel 14:1-15). As the battle gains momentum, King Saul, in a moment of impulsive zeal and perhaps a desire to secure the victory solely under his command, pronounces a solemn and binding oath: "Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies" (1 Samuel 14:24). Unaware of this decree, Jonathan, exhausted from his heroic exploits, tastes some honey, thereby unwittingly violating his father's oath (1 Samuel 14:27). When Saul later seeks divine guidance to pursue the Philistines further and receives no answer, he concludes that sin is present in the camp (1 Samuel 14:36-37). Through the casting of lots, the guilt falls upon Jonathan (1 Samuel 14:40-42). Verse 39, therefore, serves as Saul's unyielding declaration of Jonathan's guilt and his intent to execute him, setting the dramatic stage for the people's intervention to save their beloved hero (1 Samuel 14:45).
Historical & Cultural Context: The events of 1 Samuel 14 unfold during the nascent period of the Israelite monarchy, a time of significant transition from the decentralized tribal confederacy under judges to a centralized kingship. Saul, as Israel's first king, is still establishing his authority, but his reign is already marked by significant character flaws, including impulsiveness, insecurity, and a tendency towards self-reliance rather than consistent, humble reliance on God. The Philistines, a powerful maritime people, were Israel's primary and most formidable enemy, militarily superior due to their monopoly on iron weaponry and blacksmithing, which Israel lacked (1 Samuel 13:19-22). Vows were considered extremely serious and binding commitments in ancient Israelite culture, made before God, and breaking them could incur severe divine displeasure (Deuteronomy 23:21-23). The practice of casting lots was a recognized and accepted method for discerning God's will or identifying guilt within the community, believed to be divinely guided (Proverbs 16:33). Saul's actions must be understood within this framework, where his rigid adherence to his vow, even when it led to profound injustice, was rooted in a misguided sense of piety, a desire to maintain his perceived authority, and perhaps a deep-seated insecurity about his kingship.
Key Themes: This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes within 1 Samuel and the broader biblical narrative, highlighting the complexities of leadership, human fallibility, and divine sovereignty. It vividly illustrates The Danger of Rash Vows, demonstrating how human pronouncements made without divine consultation or wisdom can become a snare, leading to severe and unjust consequences, echoing warnings found in Ecclesiastes 5:4-5. It portrays Misguided Leadership and Zeal, as Saul prioritizes his personal oath and perceived authority over the life of his son, the well-being of his nation, and true divine will. This showcases a legalistic rigidity that contrasts sharply with genuine spiritual discernment and compassionate governance. The theme of Jonathan's Innocence and Valor is central, as his unwitting transgression and instrumental role in Israel's miraculous deliverance underscore the tragic injustice of Saul's judgment and highlight Jonathan's character as a man of faith and courage. Furthermore, the People's Moral Compass is profoundly evident in their powerful silence, which speaks volumes about their apprehension, implicit disapproval, and eventual refusal to allow their hero to perish (1 Samuel 14:45). Ultimately, the narrative subtly reinforces Divine Sovereignty vs. Human Error, demonstrating that despite Saul's egregious mistakes and flawed leadership, God's plan for Israel's deliverance prevails, often working through and around human limitations and flaws to accomplish His purposes.
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The passage in 1 Samuel 14:39 is rich with Irony, particularly Dramatic Irony. Saul swears by the God "who saveth Israel" while condemning Jonathan, the very instrument of that recent salvation, a fact known to the reader and the people, but tragically overlooked by Saul in his rigid adherence to his vow. The Contrast between Saul's legalistic and self-serving zeal and Jonathan's innocent heroism and faith-filled action is stark, highlighting the moral and spiritual chasm between father and son. The Silence of the people is a powerful rhetorical device, conveying profound disapproval and a collective moral stand more effectively than any spoken words could. This Silence also serves as Foreshadowing, hinting at the people's eventual intervention to save Jonathan and their growing disillusionment with Saul's reign, which ultimately contributes to his rejection as king.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
1 Samuel 14:39 serves as a profound theological case study on the dangers of legalism, misguided zeal, and human vows that usurp divine wisdom and compassion. Saul's actions exemplify a rigid adherence to the letter of the law (his vow) without consideration for its spirit, justice, or the specific circumstances. This stands in stark contrast to God's character, which, while upholding righteousness and truth, is also abundant in mercy, grace, and a desire for justice that extends beyond mere legalistic compliance. The narrative challenges the notion that all vows, regardless of their nature or consequence, must be upheld at all costs, especially when they lead to injustice, contradict God's broader redemptive purposes, or endanger the innocent. It underscores the critical importance of discerning God's will and prioritizing His character of love and justice over human-made rules, personal pride, or a distorted sense of piety. The people's intervention later in the chapter highlights God's ability to work through the moral conscience of His people to correct human error and ensure His purposes are fulfilled, even amidst flawed leadership.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
The tragic dilemma presented in 1 Samuel 14:39 offers crucial and enduring lessons for believers today concerning the nature of commitment, leadership, and justice. It serves as a potent caution against making hasty promises or vows without careful thought, especially those that might contradict God's character of mercy and justice, or lead to unintended harm. Saul's example reminds us that true righteousness involves profound discernment, compassionate understanding, and a willingness to prioritize God's heart over rigid adherence to self-imposed rules or a legalistic interpretation of faith. In our own lives, we must constantly examine whether our zeal, our commitments, or our pursuit of perceived righteousness is truly for God's glory and the well-being of others, or subtly for our own reputation, pride, or control. Leaders, whether in family, church, or community, are particularly called to seek divine wisdom and discernment, prioritizing the welfare of those they lead and the principles of justice and compassion over personal pride or rigid adherence to flawed policies. Furthermore, the people's powerful silence and subsequent intervention encourage us to cultivate a robust moral compass, to question injustice, and to stand for what is right, even when it emanates from authority. We are called to be people who reflect God's heart for both unwavering truth and profound mercy, understanding that true faith is lived out in a dynamic balance of compassion and wisdom.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was Saul so determined to kill Jonathan despite his innocence and heroism?
Answer: Saul's determination stemmed from a complex and flawed character, coupled with the cultural weight of vows. Firstly, he was bound by a solemn vow made before God, and in ancient Israel, such oaths were taken with extreme seriousness, considered inviolable. To break it, especially after God's silence indicated sin in the camp, would be seen as a grave affront to God and a sign of weakness in his leadership. Secondly, Saul exhibited a legalistic and rigid interpretation of his own oath, prioritizing his word and perceived piety over justice, the life of his heroic son, and the evident hand of God in Jonathan's victory. This inflexibility, compounded by his insecurity as king, meant he likely feared appearing inconsistent or weak if he rescinded his decree. His zeal was tragically misdirected, focusing on the letter of his own law rather than the spirit of true justice or God's evident favor on Jonathan.
What does the people's silence signify in this verse?
Answer: The people's silence in 1 Samuel 14:39 is profoundly significant and far from an indication of agreement or apathy. Instead, it is a powerful expression of shock, dismay, and implicit moral dissent. They were stunned by Saul's unjust decree against Jonathan, their beloved hero who had just secured a miraculous victory for them. Their silence reflects their deep disapproval, their fear of directly challenging the king in such a public and grave moment, and their collective moral stand against such a harsh and unwarranted judgment. This silence served as a powerful prelude to their decisive intervention later in the chapter, where they directly challenged Saul's authority to save Jonathan (1 Samuel 14:45), demonstrating their unwavering loyalty to Jonathan and their growing disillusionment with Saul's increasingly erratic and unjust leadership.
Does God approve of Saul's vow and his actions here?
Answer: No, God does not approve of Saul's rash vow or his subsequent actions. While God commands faithfulness to vows, Saul's vow was made impulsively, without divine consultation, and ultimately hindered God's work by endangering the very instrument of His deliverance. God's withholding of an answer when Saul inquired about pursuing the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:37) indicated displeasure, not approval or endorsement of Saul's oath. The subsequent events, where God allows Jonathan to be identified by lots but then orchestrates his salvation through the people's intervention (1 Samuel 14:45), further demonstrate that God's will was not for Jonathan to die. God's justice is rooted in mercy and truth, not rigid, human-made legalism that sacrifices the innocent or hinders His redemptive purposes.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The chilling declaration of Saul in 1 Samuel 14:39, where he condemns his own son to death based on a rash, self-imposed vow, finds its ultimate and perfect contrast in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Saul's willingness to sacrifice Jonathan was born of a misguided legalism, human pride, and a flawed understanding of divine will, nearly leading to an unjust death for an innocent hero. In stark contrast, God the Father willingly offered His only Son, Jesus Christ, not out of a flawed vow or human error, but out of perfect love and divine wisdom, for the just and righteous redemption of humanity (John 3:16). While Jonathan was saved from death by the intervention of the people, Jesus' sacrifice was complete, final, and perfectly efficacious, requiring no human intervention for its power to save (Hebrews 9:12). Saul's rigid adherence to his own self-made law stands in direct opposition to Christ, who came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, embodying grace and truth (John 1:17), and declaring that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matthew 9:13). Jesus is the true King who lays down His life for His sheep (John 10:11), not out of a misguided oath, but out of perfect obedience to the Father and boundless love for humanity, ultimately conquering death and securing eternal life for all who believe (Romans 5:8).