Jonathan, a man of faith, initiated a great victory, but in this section we see that Saul, a man of pride, limited the extent of that victory while trying to extend it. Saul's failure to submit to Yahweh's authority resulted in his behaving foolishly more than wickedly.
Saul's improper view of his role as Israel's king comes through clearly in verse 24. The Philistines were not Saul's enemies as much as God's enemies. This was holy war (cf. Judg. 16:28), but Saul viewed the battle too personally. His selfish desire to win for his own glory led him to issue a foolish command.
An oath was an extremely serious matter in the ancient Near East (v. 26; cf. Judg. 14:8-9). One did not violate a king's oath without suffering severe consequences. Jonathan saw the folly of Saul's oath clearly because he wanted God's glory (vv. 29-30). The Hebrew word translated "troubled"(v. 29, akar) is the same one from which "Achan"and "Achor"(Josh. 7:25-26) come. Saul, not Jonathan, had troubled Israel, as Achan had, by his foolish command (v. 24).
Aijalon (v. 31) was about 17 miles west of Michmash. Verses 32-34 illustrate the confusion that resulted from Saul's misguided oath. The Mosaic Law forbade eating meat with the blood still in it (Lev. 17:10-14). The great stone (v. 33) served as a slaughtering table where the priests carefully prepared the meat for eating.
Saul was not entirely insensitive to Yahweh and His will. We can see this in his concern to observe the ritual dietary law (v. 33) and his desire to honor God for the victory (v. 35; cf. Exod. 17:14-16).146There are many examples of spiritually sensitive Israelites building altars to God (e.g., 7: 17; Gen. 12:8; Judg. 6:24; 2 Sam. 24:25; 1 Chron. 21:18). The writer's note that this was the first altar that Saul built reflects his general lack of commitment to Yahweh.
Evidently Saul would not have inquired of God if Ahijah (cf. v. 18) had not suggested he do so (v. 36). Probably God did not answer his prayer immediately because Saul wanted this information to vindicate himself rather than God (v. 37). Saul thought God did not answer him because someone had violated his rule (v. 24), which he confused with God's law calling violation of it sin (v. 38; cf. Josh. 7:14). Really God did not answer him because Saul was disloyal to Yahweh. The king boldly vowed that anyone who had sinned, which was only breaking his rule, even Jonathan, would die (v. 39). God identified Jonathan rather than Saul as the guilty party. Jonathan had violated the king's command though he had not violated God's command. Really Jonathan was executing God's will.
Jonathan would have had to die if he had broken Yahweh's command, as Achan did. However, Saul's oath was not on that high a level of authority though Saul thought it was as is clear from his insistence that Jonathan die. The soldiers who had gone along with Saul's requests thus far (vv. 36, 40) refused to follow his orders when he called for Jonathan's execution (v. 45). They recognized that Saul's rule about abstaining from eating (v. 24) was not divine law. They correctly saw that even though Jonathan had violated Saul's rule he had obeyed God's order to drive Israel's enemies out of the land. Saul's failure to see his role under God and the difference between the Word of God and his own commands resulted in confusion and disunity. Saul's preoccupation with Jonathan's eating against his wishes cost him a great victory over the Philistines.
The writer pointed out the reason for Saul's ultimate failure as Israel's king and the reason for his own personal destruction in this section (13:1-14:46). Essentially Saul refused to put the will of God above his own personal desires. Careful attention to the text shows that Saul showed great concern about the observance of religious rituals, but he failed to appreciate the indispensable importance of submitting his will to Yahweh. He sought to use God rather than allowing God to use him. He thought he was above the Mosaic Law rather than under it. He put himself in the position that God alone rightfully occupied.
To illustrate the seriousness of Saul's sin, suppose two parents have two children. The first child has a real heart for what pleases his parents. Whenever this child rarely disobeys his parents, his conscience bothers him, he confesses his offense to his parents, and he tries to be obedient from then on. This was how David responded to God. Even though David sinned greatly by committing adultery and murder, these sins broke his heart, he confessed them to God, and he returned to following God faithfully. His heart was one with God's. He wanted to please God and honor God even though he failed miserably occasionally.
The second child in the family in this illustration really wants to run his own life. He submits to parental authority when it seems to him to be to his advantage to do so, but his heart is really not with his parents. He wants to control his own life and believes he can do a better job of it on his own than by following his parents' instructions. This was Saul's attitude. Saul never submitted to divine authority unless he felt it was to his advantage to do so. He always wanted to maintain control over his own life.
Which of these two children has the more serious problem of disobedience? The second child does. Saul's sin was worse than David's. Even though David committed a few great sins, God did not cut off his dynasty or his rule prematurely since he really wanted to glorify God. However, David suffered severe consequences for his sins even though God forgave him. God did cut off Saul's dynasty and his rule prematurely because Saul would not yield to Yahweh's control, which was crucial for Israel's king. Failure to yield control to God is extremely important, even more important than individual acts of disobedience.
Saul's pride led him to make foolish decisions that limited his effectiveness. Many believers experience unnecessary confusion and complications in their lives because they will not relinquish control to God (cf. Rom. 6:13; 12:1-2).
