In the last article, the idea was put forth that perhaps when Saul sought for a sin in the camp and stated, “though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die,” (1 Sam 14:39) he was just a little too anxious to give up his son to death. As we continue to go through the record in the next article, we will see how the evidence piles up to suggest that Saul’s envy and desire to exalt his own reputation had brought him to the point where he fell from his faith and even wanted to slay his firstborn.
Casting lots
So it was that as Saul looked for the sin in the camp — which should have been fairly obvious to him since he had just seen all of the people eating with the blood! — Saul separated himself and Jonathan from the rest of the army and cast lots to see who had been the sinner.
The whole incident seems to be a bit rigged. Just try to picture how this would have looked. Instead of casting lots by tribe or by family, Saul and Jonathan stood on one side, and the entire rest of the army on the other. The odds of the lot falling on either Jonathan or Saul were pretty huge — and if Saul’s was chosen by the lots, then one can imagine him saying that perhaps just as God didn’t answer them when they enquired, then perhaps He had not guided the lots as well. Essentially, it would appear as though Saul created a scenario where it was highly likely that Jonathan would be chosen!
Thus, in the first casting, Saul and Jonathan were taken — it was clearly the will of God directing this. (One might assume there was a 50% chance that this would have happened, but it seems clear that casting lots was not a simple matter of “heads you win”.)1. Then, when casting lots between the two of them, Jonathan was the one who was taken, and Saul’s suspicion was confirmed. Jonathan had sinned and Yahweh had cut off communication with them because of it. Thus, Saul urged Jonathan to admit what he had done — and so Jonathan told Saul of the incident with the honey. Yet, instead of working with his son and trying to resolve the issue in a loving, fatherly way, Saul was unmerciful. He turned to his son and condemned him to death.
“Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die. And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan” (1 Sam 14:43-44).
In a chilling foretaste of Saul’s brutality and bitterness towards anyone who would challenge his authority, the first king of Israel was more than willing to murder his son. Jonathan had put himself in a position in which he could possibly be the one who had been prophesied by Samuel to take over the kingdom — and now was a moment of vulnerability. He had broken one of Saul’s commands, and Saul, as his father, as the king, and as the one who put the oath upon the people, demanded that he pay for his crime through his death.
It is a disturbing picture of the ultimate result of a vain and selfish attitude. Yet even more disturbing is the fact that Jonathan shouldn’t have actually had to die for this. Death was a punishment imposed by Saul, not the law. In fact, the Law of Moses specifically gave a solution to a problem like this — Jonathan’s situation was such that he simply could have offered a sin offering. The sin offering was specifically for situations in which people had sinned out of ignorance.
“When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandment of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish…And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him” (Lev 4:22-23, 26).
If one of the rulers broke one of God’s commands through ignorance, they could bring a male kid of the goats and offer it as a sin offering. Through that sacrifice and their repentance, they would be forgiven their sin through ignorance.
Such was the case with Jonathan. He hadn’t broken one of God’s commands, but he had broken something even less important — a vain oath which had been set upon the people, and he had even done it in ignorance. He was a ruler, and so the offering specified for him was a male goat without blemish. In order to be forgiven of his sin, he simply needed to repent for breaking his father’s command and offer the trespass offering. It would have been an easy solution — but even more, Saul had built an altar right there, they could have sacrificed an animal from the spoil, and there even was a priest in their midst!
But either Saul didn’t realize that Jonathan could have offered this sin offering, or he didn’t want that option for his firstborn. The latter perhaps seems more likely. Just as Saul later tried to remove David through violent means, so would he now do to his son — the one who had shamed him before all of the people through his faith.
Yet thankfully, though Saul was the king and though he stated that Jonathan needed to die, that was not the plan in both the mind of God and the minds of the people. Thus, Jonathan was saved from the obsession and wrath of Saul.
“And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.” (1 Sam 14:45).
This time, the people were not indifferent to the ludicrous plans of their king. Instead of simply saying “Do what seemeth good unto thee,” the people stood up and proclaimed that they would not allow Saul to carry out his plans. Jonathan, working together with their God, had saved the nation that day. He had wrought a great victory — and the king, who had been a worthless leader and had only thought about himself, would not have any chance at killing their hero. Not one hair of his head would fall to the ground.
Those would have been words which sank into Saul’s mind and brought fear to him every time he thought of them. The people saw Jonathan as their deliverer and their leader — and it would have seemed clear that he was the one of whom Samuel had spoken. For the next while, it’s likely that Saul would have continued to think this way. From the time that the promise of his kingdom’s demise was reaffirmed after the battle of the Amalekites, to the forty days of Goliath’s taunting and his eventual death at the hand of David, Saul probably kept a very close eye on his son Jonathan.
Looking for Saul’s attitude in ourselves
It was a miserable life which he lived — a life in which he was suspicious of everyone, including his own son. Yet it was a life which was brought on by a desire to be praised of men and which constantly approached God with that attitude. Saul’s religion was all about the motions and all about the rituals — he followed God simply when it seemed beneficial for him. He offered the burnt offering because he saw that the people were scattered from him and he thought that it would calm them down and encourage them to follow him. He wanted to enquire of God because he wanted to try to show that his decisions were right while Jonathan’s were wrong. He ignored God’s law about the trespass offering and instead commanded that Jonathan should die.
Over and over, Saul used religion to his own ends — often only following the ritual of the law and never understanding the spirit of it. He was a man who had become full of self-conceit, and who had been so driven by his desire to be lifted up and praised that he reached the point at which he was willing to kill his own son.
It’s a scary portrait of what selfishness, pride, and the thirst for the praise of men can do to someone. Yet what is even scarier about this picture is that Saul wasn’t simply a man of the world, but he was part of the house of believers. He was a man who, despite his cravings for honor and glory and despite his desire to use the worship of God for his own ends, actually did appear to have moments where he did recognize God’s greatness and try to follow His commands.
At the end of his battle against the Ammonites, he had led the nation to a remarkable victory. Because of this, a number of people wanted to slay the men who had originally said that they didn’t want him as their king. However, Saul told them that this was an entirely unacceptable way to think and told them that they needed to recognize that God had brought this great victory, not him. It was as though he was a totally different person — one who wasn’t fixed on self-recognition.
“And the people said unto Samuel, Who is he that said, Shall Saul reign over us? bring the men, that we may put them to death. And Saul said, There shall not a man be put to death this day: for today the LORD hath wrought salvation in Israel” (1 Sam 11:12-13).
Saul took the focus off of his victory and reminded the people that God had been the One who fought against the enemy. It was God’s victory and God who deserved the honor. As well, even in the incident with the battle against the Philistines, Saul had set up an altar and sought to prevent the people from transgressing against God by eating with the blood (1 Sam 14:33-34). Thus, there were times when Saul had been a fairly faithful men — recognizing his dependence upon Yahweh and trying to truly serve him.
To add to this picture, Saul had also looked to the example of a faithful man as his hero. As mentioned earlier, Saul had seemed to have a passion for being like Gideon — he emulated some of Gideon’s battle plans and tried to follow his lead. Saul had Gideon as his role model, which would seem to indicate that Saul wanted to be a faithful man like faithful Gideon. Yet Gideon wasn’t Saul’s only role model. Hidden throughout Saul’s attack on the Philistines are a number of connections between his actions and the actions of another of Israel’s great warriors — we don’t have the opportunity to examine those connections at this point, but Lord willing, we will examine them in the next article.
Conclusion
Just putting this picture together, perhaps the most important lesson that comes from the end of this battle is a fuller picture of King Saul. He wasn’t always such a wicked man. As it would appear, Saul was a man who had an immense amount of potential for good — and in the beginning of his reign, he used that potential. He was knowledgeable, and he was faithful.
Yet he fell so far.
Such is the destruction that a focus on our own reputation and our own honor can wreak upon those in the household of faith. In seeing these things, may Saul’s story take on a much more personal note for us — may it be a story that shows us what can happen to believers. May it be a story that shows us what can happen to us. If the center of our lives shifts from being God’s praise and God’s glory, and instead becomes our own recognition and our own exaltation, then the same thing could happen to us. In so doing, may it then be our prayer that our God continues to humble us and continues to shape us, so that, in the words of the apostle Peter, instead of us seeking to exalt ourselves, our God may “exalt [us] in due time” (1 Pet 5:6).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One