You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog. Bible in One Year Readings Index
Chapter 13: The History of the First Years of Saul's Reign
1 Samuel 13:1-7 ~ The Revolt Against the Philistines
The shofar is a ram's horn. It was blown from town to town as a signal to rally the Israelites to war. Saul determined that the three thousand Israelite warriors who responded to the military muster were enough and sent the others home to their families. The expression "everyone to his tent" means to return to their homes, the expression "tents" remained from the time the Israelites lived in tents during the wilderness years.
The number of years Saul reigned only has the year "two" associated with the phrase. Saul probably became king when he was thirty-five or forty years old since his son Jonathan had to be at least twenty years old to be a warrior according to the Law (Num 1:3). Josephus records that Saul reigned twenty years and eighteen of those years were while Samuel was still alive (Antiquities, 6.14.9 [378]).
Jonathan is the Israelite commander at Gibeah. He is Saul's son, the crown prince and heir (see 1 Sam 13:16). Jonathan is one of seven children (two sons and five daughters) Saul had with his wife Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz (1 Sam 14:50). He is described as being courageous, loyal, and as having an extraordinary trust in God.
Question: How did the Israelites gain control of the Philistine outpost at Geba?
Answer: Jonathan took the initiative by killing the Philistine governor of Geba and took possession of the city.
The Israelite victory at Geba caused the Philistines to rally their troops at Michmash with greatly superior numbers and chariots. Michmash Pass was a key strategic site located in the rugged hills of Benjaminite territory about seven miles north of Jerusalem. The town was on the north bank of the Wadi Suweinet opposite the town of Geba and was almost 2,000 feet above sea level. Two rocky outcrops called Bozez and Sench stood nearby on either side of the valley (1 Sam 14:4, 5). Geba was located northwest of the Dead Sea in Benjamite territory. Geba guarded the other side of the Michmash Pass. The Israelites needed to eliminate the two Philistine outposts at Geba and Michmash which controlled the strategic pass that was an important internal east-west route from the Philistine Plain to the Jordan River Valley. However, the Israelites were terrified of the Philistines and many of the people fled to hide in caves or to cross the Jordan River into the territory of the tribes of Gad and Reuben while three thousand Israelites rallied to Saul and Jonathan.
It should be noted that the Hebrew word "elph" can mean "thousand" or "unit." One "unit" consisted of about twenty-five men. The three thousand men who joined Saul is probably an accurate number, since it is recorded that later after the desertions of the soldiers that he only had six hundred (13:15), but the Philistine three thousand chariots, may mean three units of chariots or seventy-five chariots and six thousand horses may mean six units of horses or one hundred and fifty horses in addition to the very large number of foot soldiers. Units of chariots and horses are far more likely. It would have been difficult to maneuver many chariots in the hilly terrain, although Josephus does record the number as "thousands" (Antiquities of the Jews, 6.6.1 [97]).
Saul's Test at Gilgal
1 Samuel 13:8-15 ~ Saul Fails a Test of Obedience
Question: What instructions did Samuel give Saul concerning waiting for him at Gilgal? What was the importance of waiting at Gilgal? See 10:8.
Answer: Saul was to go to Gilgal and to wait seven days for Samuel to come to offer burnt offerings and communion offerings before sending the Israelites warriors into battle. The waiting was a test of obedience.
Question: What was Saul's excuse for offering the sacrifices?
Answer: According to Saul, it is Samuel's fault for not arriving on time. Saul was fearful that the men were returning to their homes that he would not have enough warriors to fight the enemy.
1 Samuel 13:16-23 ~ The Preparations for Battle with the Philistines
The Israelites camped at Geba across the ravine from Michmash where the Philistines camped. The Philistines formed raiding parties into Israelite territory to the west, north, and east (1 Sam 13:5, 17).
Question: The Israelites were at a disadvantage in fighting the Philistines for what three reasons?
Answer:
- The Israelites were outnumbered by the Philistine warriors.
- The Philistines had horses and chariots.
- The Philistines had iron weapons.
The Philistines had been carefully not to share their iron technology with the Israelites. Not only didn't the Israelites have iron weapons, but they were also dependent on the Philistines for sharpening their farm implements. It is these farm implements, axes, and the old bronze cycle swords that the majority of the Israelite warriors will have to use in the battle. That Saul and Jonathan are the only warriors to possess iron swords will not matter if the Israelites remain faithful to God who will win the battle for them. The Philistine's military superiority and the Israelite warriors lack of weapons is another test of faith in God for the Israelite king and his army.
Chapter 14: The Battle with the Philistines
1 Samuel 14:1-14 ~ Jonathan attacks the Philistine Outpost at Michmash
Question: What significance did sitting under a tree have in the Book of Judges? See Judges 4:5.
Answer: It is the usual place where the judges of Israel heard disputes and rendered judgment for God's people as in the case of the judge Deborah
Question: What contrast is presented between Saul and his son Jonathan in verses 1-2?
Answer: Saul is sitting under a tree, carrying out "business as usual" while Jonathan has taken the initiative to continue attacking the Philistines.
The situation is serious. The Philistines are regrouping and resupplying the defeated garrison at the strategic point of the Michmash Pass within sight of the Israelite camp at Geba. The Israelites and Philistines are encamped on the tops of two steep peaks, facing each other with a deep wadi (dry river bed) or ravine running between them and with a clear view of each other's camps (see 14:16).
The narrative shows Jonathan replacing Saul as the decisive leader (13:3; 14:1-15) and will also show him replacing his father in the affection of the soldiers.
Question: This isn't the first time Jonathan has taken the initiative in Israel's war with the Philistines. When did Jonathan take the initiative before against Israel's enemy? See 13:3-4.
Answer: He killed the Philistine governor of the outpost at Gibeah which forced Saul to sound the trumpets to call the tribes of Israel to war.
As events unfold, it appears Saul and his son lack a good relationship. Saul seems to be more concerned about the six hundred warriors he has left rather than trusting God to give him victory. Jonathan's only concern is whether his mission is in accord with God's divine will (verses 6 and 10). Saul's six hundred are now contrasted with the two brave Israelites: Jonathan and his weapons bearer, and Jonathan's confidence that if Yahweh is with them they cannot fail (verse 12). The contrast between Saul and is son is further emphasized by the episode of Jonathan's act of faith and trust in the Lord being sandwiched between two incidents of Saul's acts of lack of faith and his disobedience in chapters 13 and 15.
Question: What was the ephod? What was attached to the ephod that held two special devices? See Ex 28:6-30.
Answer: The ephod was the garment of the high priest to which was attached the breastplate of judgment that held the Urim and Thummim, the ocular devices used for determining the will of God.
Question: Why does Jonathan contemptuously call the Philistines "uncircumcised"?
Answer: He is identifying the difference between the circumcised Israelites who are consecrated to Yahweh from the eighth day of their birth and the Philistines who are uncircumcised and worship false gods.
Jonathan asks his weapons bearer to follow him across the wadi and to trust that God will give them victory over a much greater force of the enemy.
Question: How is Jonathan's confession of faith that numbers do not matter to his Lord and that God can provide deliverance threw few men as well as through many a contrast to Jonathan's father's concerns?
Answer: Saul was fearful of being able to achieve victory with only six hundred men, but Jonathan is willing to trust God with his life in attacking the enemy with only two men.
Jonathan's weapons bearer expresses his loyalty to Jonathan and also his confidence that he believes, like Jonathan, that if it is God's will they will succeed. Their "hearts are as one"; it is another reference to what Samuel has said about God desiring men whose hearts belong to Yahweh (12:20, 24; 13:14).
Question: What sign from God are they looking for that will indicate that God is with them in their mission?
Answer: If the Philistine guards invite them up to the outpost instead of coming down against them, they will take it as a sign that God approves of their mission and will give them victory.
Jonathan's intention is to draw the Philistines into a premature battle before the garrison can be fully reinforced. Jonathan and his companion are able to make their way unseen by the enemy down the slope by taking cover using the rocks, overhangs and crevasse, but once they reach the bottom of the wadi they will be exposed to the Philistine guards (verse 8).
Question: What happened when they reached the bottom?
Answer: The Philistine guards saw them and unknowingly gave Jonathan the "sign" from God that he was looking for by telling them to "come up."
The Philistine guards comment in verse 11 confirms 13:6 that the Israelites were fearful and in hiding. The Philistines refer to Jonathan and his weapons bearer as "Hebrews"; it is the way their enemies refer to them ethnically, not acknowledging them as a unified people of Israelites (see 1 Sam 4:6, 9; 13:3, 19). The Philistine guards call out "Come up to us," but Jonathan and his companion respond "we have something to tell you," suggesting they are deserters.
1 Samuel 14:15-23 ~ Yahweh gives Israel Victory over the Philistines
Question: What other sign did Jonathan and his companion receive that God is with them?
Answer: God intervenes and throws the Philistine camp into panic by making the earth quake.
When Saul heard the sounds of battle in the Philistine camp, he realized some Israelite soldiers had managed to launch a surprise attack. He demanded a roll call to determine who was missing and discovered that his son and his son's weapons bearer were absent.
Question: When he heard the battle with the Philistines had been engaged, Saul was ready to consult Yahweh through the use of the Urim and Thummim as to whether he should join the battle. Why did he suddenly dismiss the priest from using the ocular devices to seek the will of God? See 13:3, 4.
Answer: The question that Saul probably would have put to Yahweh was whether he should join in the battle begun by Jonathan against the Philistines. The ocular devices would have given a "yes, go" or "no, don't go" answer. We can only speculate, but it appears Saul did not want to be told to withhold his forces.
Perhaps he wanted the victory to be his just as he took credit for the capture of Geba when Jonathan was the actual victor. This is more evidence of a serious flaw in Saul's character.
Saul's forces joined in and pursued the Philistines who had been thrown into confusion (14:15), and drove them out of the hill country (14:31). Philistine power in the eastern hill country was broken when the Israelite army, with God's help, took the pass.
Question: How does God intervene to help the Israelites and when did God intervene in a similar way in the period of the Judges? See Judg 7:12, 19-22 and 1 Sam 7:10.
Answer: God causes so much confusion in the enemy camp that the Philistines turn their weapons on each other. It is reminiscent of the judge Gideon's defeat of the combined forces of the Midianites and Amalekites and the Israelite battle with the Philistines under Samuel's leadership.
1 Samuel 14:24-30 ~ Saul Makes a Foolish Vow
Beth-Horon was a city of refuge assigned to the Levitical family of Kohath located west of Geba and Michmash near the western border of the tribe of Benjamin (Josh 18:13-14; 21:22). There were twin cities of Upper and Lower Beth-Horon that guarded the major pass on the road from the coast by way of the Valley of Aijalon to the hill country. Because of its strategic location, Beth-Horon was the site of several major battles. For example, during the early years of the conquest Joshua chased the Amorite kings from Gibeon by way of the "ascent" of Beth-Horon or Upper Beth-Horon (Josh 10:10-11).
A fast is sometimes imposed in the attempt to strengthen prayer or to gain divine favor by offering a personal sacrifice of food. Once again Saul is rash and presumptuous in his relationship with Yahweh, and he tries to manipulate divine will through ritual (14:24; 15:15).
Saul is imposing a fast in an effort to force God to give his army victory similar to the way the judge Jephthah tried to use a vow to manipulate God to give him victory (Judg 11:30-31). The Israelite soldiers were "hard pressed" because they suffered from hunger as a result of the vow imposed on them.
Question: When the warriors told Jonathan about the curse, what was his response?
Answer: Jonathan criticized his father's action, rightly pointing out that is was foolish to deprive the warriors of the energy they needed for the battle because they would have had more strength to pursue the enemy.
Jonathan's assessment was correct. Instead of pursuing the enemy, the soldiers were so hungry that they immediately began slaughtering and eating animals in the enemy camp.
1 Samuel 14:31-35 ~ The Hungry Warriors Commit a Ritual Violation
The psychological shock of Jonathan's success brought about a reversal in the battle with the Philistines. However, the Israelite warriors only pursued the Philistines as far as Aijalon, a valley and city that had originally been allotted to the tribe of Dan (Josh 19:42) and which was the Philistine pathway into the hill country. It is best remembered as the site of the miracle of the stationary sun in Joshua's battle with the coalition of five Amorite kings in the Vale of Aijalon (Josh 10:12-15). The warriors exhausted condition, exacerbated by lack of food, made them unable to continue the pursuit of the enemy any farther than Aijalon, causing Saul to forfeit what could have been a resounding victory instead of a holding action that merely pushed the Philistines back into their own territory.
Question: Depriving the warriors of food was foolish because they were starving and weak after a day of intense physical exertion, but what other problem did the vow cause? See verse 33.
Answer: The warriors were so starved by the end of the day that they violated the prohibition against eating raw flesh with the blood still in it.
Question: What was the command concerning consuming raw flesh or blood and what was the penalty? Gen 9:3-4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-12, 14; 19:26; Dt 12:16, 23-28.
Answer: It was utterly forbidden since the time of the covenant with Noah for the people of God to consume raw flesh or to drink blood. The penalty for such a violation was excommunication.
Question: What was the purpose of blood in the ritual of worship and why? Lev 17:11 and Lev 1:4-5, 10-11; 3:1-2, 6-8, 12-13.
Answer: The blood of the sacrifice belongs to God; it is offered to God by being poured out in front of the altar for the expiation /atonement of the personal sins of the offerer or in a communal sacrifice for the sins of the covenant people.
Question: In the New Covenant liturgy of worship, to whom does the "blood" belong? What is its purpose? See Mt 26:28; CCC 1365, 1367-68, 1393
Answer: Through the miracle of transubstantiation, the wine offered becomes the precious Blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus shed His blood on the altar of the Cross in atonement for the sins of mankind and His Blood is poured out in front of the altar in the celebration of the Mass to the New Covenant faithful for the expiation of their sins and for their sanctification as they become one with the life of the Most Holy Trinity.
Question: To stop the covenant violation what did Saul tell the warriors to do and why?
Answer: He told them to bring all the animals and slaughter them on a rock. By slaughtering on the ground the animal's blood will not drain out properly, but by slaughtering on a rock, the blood can drain out and flow down, leaving the meat fit for eating according to the Law.
1 Samuel 14:36-42 ~ The Urim and Thummim are Consulted
At the suggestion of the high priest, Saul inquires of God about the prospects for pursuing the enemy as in 14:18.
Question: What assumption does Saul make when an answer is not forthcoming? What action does Saul take?
Answer: When an answer is not forthcoming, Saul assumes that the answer has failed because of some hidden sin that has offended Yahweh. He demands that the guilty party must be exposed.
Question: The sin is unknown, but why does Saul immediately assume it was Jonathan who is at fault? It is an accusation he will repeat in verse 41.
Answer: Saul knows that Jonathan was not in the camp when he made his vow and therefore he may assume it is Jonathan who unknowingly broke the vow.
There is more to this episode than a broken vow; it is another test for Saul. The first was a test of obedience to Yahweh's command spoken through His prophet, Samuel. Now the test is the use and abuse of the justice of the Law.
The Urim (correct Hebrew rendering with the ) accused and condemned but the Thummim pronounced acquittals. They were kept in the "breastplate of judgment" on the high priest's ephod (Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8). They also represented the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet: the of Urim and the t for Thummim (McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel, Anchor Bible, page 250).
Question: When it was discovered that the lot fell on Jonathan, what was Saul's solution to the problem?
Answer: That Jonathan should die.
Unfortunately, Saul's rash and headstrong manner characterizes everything he does. Saul's character is flawed by a lack of good judgment and a rashness and impetuosity which compromises his own purposes. In verse 39 Saul says: "... for as Yahweh lives who gives victory to Israel, even if the sin lies with Jonathan my son, he shall be put to death." Does Saul say this because he knows it is likely Jonathan who violated the vow because he didn't know about it? Notice how the inspired writer builds up the tension with the people's silence in verse 39b. The soldiers know it is Jonathan who unknowingly ate in violation of the vow since the soldiers who witnessed it have told the others (see verse 28), but no one is willing to condemn him to Saul.
There is a curious pattern in Saul's pursuit of knowledge. He is consequently seeking knowledge of what is about to happen (as in his quest for a prophet to help him find the missing donkeys), but his desire for knowledge is repeatedly withheld. And here is another contrast: this time between Saul's forgiveness for those who did not support his kingship that was extended after his victory over Nahash and the Ammonites and now Saul's refusal to show mercy to his own son. At first he was humble and merciful but now he is autocratic and cruel.
1 Samuel 14:43-45 ~ Jonathan is Accused of Breaking Saul's Vow
It cannot be ignored that Saul knew Jonathan was not in the camp when he made the vow because Jonathan's absence had been revealed in the roll call (1 Sam 14:17). In making the vow, Saul could have exempted any warrior who was not within the scope of his pronouncement. He also could have given a pardon to Jonathan and his armor bearer and declared that they were not subject to the vow since they had not heard the pronouncement. The first precept of the Law was obedience and the second was justice tempered by mercy. It was unjust to condemn Jonathan.
Saul is clearly manipulating the law concerning the fulfillment of vows. According to the Law, a vow was binding if made in the name of Yahweh: If you make a vow to Yahweh your God, you must not be slack about fulfilling it: Yahweh your God will certainly hold you answerable for it and you will incur guilt. If, however, you make no vow you will not incur guilt. Whatever passes your lips you must keep to and the vow that you have made to Yahweh, your generous God, you must fulfil (Dt 23:22-24/21-23). However, God understood that sometimes a person regretted making a vow and in that case a person could be redeemed from a vow: If anyone vows the value of a person to Yahweh and wishes to discharge the vow: a man between twenty and sixty years of age will be valued at fifty silver shekels ... (Lev 27:2b-3).
In addition, the punishment for the violation of a law could not exceed the seriousness of the crime. The command "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" was meant to limit excessive punishments (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:17-20; Dt 19:21). In Latin this law is called the Lex Talionis; it is the law of reciprocity or equivalent compensation. There was a lack of proportion between Jonathan's innocent violation and the proposed punishment. Johnathan broke a vow of which he had no knowledge and therefore, according to the law, he could not be put to death. However, he could be redeemed from the vow.
Question: Jonathan defends himself by testifying that he did not know about the vow, but why does he then submit to his father's death sentence?
Answer: Because he completely trusts God with his destiny and his life.
Question: What action did the Israelite soldiers take? See verse 45 and Lev 27:2b-3.
Answer: They refused to let Saul kill Jonathan. The soldiers redeemed him by paying the redemption price under the Law which was fifty silver shekels.
Question: What comparison can be made between Jonathan and Jesus?
Answer: Jonathan is the heroic "savior figure" in this narrative, but unlike Jesus, his own people united together in opposition to the authority of their leader to save him from an unjust death.
One cannot help but wonder if Saul acted out of ignorance of the Law, or stubbornness, or was there another reason for his determination to execute Jonathan that is more sinister.
Later we will learn more about Saul's fragile ego and his problem with jealousy in his relationship with David of Bethlehem.
1 Samuel 14:47-52 ~ Summary of Saul's Reign
1 Samuel 14:47-48 summarizes Saul's deeds as King of Israel in terms of his military victories over Israel's enemies. God had withdrawn His favor from Saul but He did not withdraw His favor from Israel and the Israelites continued to defeat their enemies under Saul's leadership.
In the next episode we continue to see the cracks in Saul's character and his continued failure in his relationship with God.
CHALLENGE: “Science and religion seem antagonistic. How can they coexist?”
DEFENSE: We elsewhere cover the fact that the two fields aren’t intrinsically hostile (see Day 266). This, plus the fact that they largely deal with different subjects, makes their coexistence possible.
Scripture does not dwell on the details of creation for, when inspiring the biblical authors, the Spirit of God “did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation” (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis 2:9:20).
Similarly, Cardinal Caesar Baronius is credited with saying, “The Holy Spirit’s intention was to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” (quoted in Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina).
According to John Paul II: The Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy.
The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 31, 1992).
The same point was made by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that science and religion each have a magisterium (teaching authority) with respect to their fields of study, but these largely do not overlap, stating: This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land.
But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating [i.e., weaving their fingers together] in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult (“Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” available online).
Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist
No comments:
Post a Comment