1 Samuel 14 is a wonderful story. There is so much tension and victory/defeat in this single story and coming from a youth director’s perspective, it seems to show a pretty typical teenager as well. But apparently several people has taken to talking about only a PART of the story and ignoring what I think is the best (and perhaps most important) part of the story. I’m not going to write the entire story here, it’s too long. But if you aren’t familiar with it, you may want to read it before going on because my theology may be very bad and it won’t make much sense if you don’t know the story…
Sunday I heard a sermon on about 5 verses of this story (I believe vs. 8-13). During the sermon the pastor referenced at least two other people who had talked similarly about this story and the “moral” of it. All three said the same thing- we need to be like Jonathan, unafraid to take the step out and trust that God will show up. A good lesson, something I believe we need to do. But not something I think this story is really about. Before I continue, I realize all three of these people should be more theologically educated than me and that our Bible’s that have section headings split this chapter into three separate stories, so I could be totally wrong on my interpretation…but in my reading of this story I in no way felt that it was saying we should follow the example of Jonathan.
My first issue with Jonathan as the unrquited hero- no where does it say Jonathan went following God’s lead. We read that Jonathan trusts that God can and will deliver the Philistines into their hands, but no where does it say that he was following God’s lead. Also, he doesn’t try to get anyone to go with him- this is HIS moment and only he and his armor bearer (probably a slave) go and they don’t tell anyone where they are going. I may be colored by my youth-centric focus but this looks like a teenage son trying to show his dad he’s a man by bringing victory on his own. God delivers the Philistine’s into the hands of Israel by causing a panic in their camp.
Saul goes to fight the Philistines upon seeing the chaos. Again, this is without the Lord’s guidance. Saul consults the priests but when he sees the chaos increasing he stops.
Saul is definitely shown to be in the wrong as well- he doesn’t truly seek God’s will before attacking and he commands the army not to eat until they gain victory which is shown to lead to sin on the part of Israel and to Jonathan disobeying by eating the honey. BUT when the lots are cast Jonathan is found to be in the wrong, not Israel and not Saul.
Like I said before, many scholars just say that Jonathan’s sin is eating the honey despite his not knowing that his father made this oath. Even if this is true, the reason for his ignorance goes back to his leaving the army behind to go do his own thing. But I don’t see why Jonathan would be more guilty than the Israelites who ate that which was forbidden by God.
At the route of this entire story about Jonathan is this underlying tone of disrespect- Jonathan doesn’t tell his father what he is planning when he leaves the camp, after eating the honey he comments that his father is not smart because if they were well nourished they would have had an even greater victory that day, and he seemingly tries to convince those with him that the honey was good and that they should be eating it as well. You may at this point be thinking that this is basically coming back to what all the other scholars and theologians are saying, but my point is that I think it’s all connected- from the moment Jonathan walked into that pass he was thinking about his victory and himself and not about what the LORD was leading them to do. If it was as simple as eating when he wasn’t supposed to out of ignorance then it would seem that everyone except Saul was in the wrong. But only Jonathan was found guilty.
The end of the story says that when Jonathan is found guilty and ransomed Saul stops pursuing the Philistines- this strikes me as being something he would do because he sees that the entire path was not sanctioned by God and he fears that were he to continue it would end in defeat- we do not see any specific message from God other than that Jonathan was guilty. I realize the lack of pursuit could also be said to stem from Jonathan eating the honey and Saul seeing this as a breach that would cause defeat. But again, I feel that ignores a lot of the story.
The last part of the chapter, the last mention about the fighting before moving on to another topic says that Saul fought enemies on every side and defeated some people groups. But that there was bitter war with the Phillistines as long as Saul was alive. This again suggests that the entire attack on the Philistines was not following God’s lead because typically when we see Israel attack an enemy following God’s lead they win and peace between the two groups follows.
Am I adding too much in to this story? Is it really three separate happenings? What is the true sin? Is this an epic fairytale or a tragedy? Have you heard other interpretations of this story? Where is the balance between taking too little and trying to make too much fit together?