What type of leader are you? In many ways Saul embodied the characteristics of a lousy leader, but there is hope that someone better might sit on the throne in Israel. Join Dr. Marty Baker as we continue in 1 Samuel 14 and glean from the Spiritual Snapshots in this book.
First Samuel chapters 13 and 14 are pivotal to the story of why Israel’s first king didn’t remain the king, followed by lessons in what kind of leader was needed for God’s people by comparing King Saul’s leadership against that of his son, Jonathan. God ripped Saul’s dynasty from his hands because, at his core, he evidenced blatant insubordination to God’s prophet, which meant he didn’t desire to honor and follow God either (1 Sam. 13:14).
With massive enemy forces from Philistia positioned in his country to destroy and dominate it, Saul chose to take matters into his own hands by failing to wait any longer for Samuel, the prophet, to show up, as he said he would, to offer sacrifice followed by tactical insight. His disregard for God’s command cost him the kingdom. From this, we learn that God does not suffer flagrant disregard for His Word and the concept of chain of command well.
From Saul’s regal son, Jonathan, we are led to believe he would replace his father. Why? Growing restless with the presence of a Philistine garrison smack dad in the middle of his country in the mountain town of Geba, Jonathan courageously took the initiative and eliminated it in short order (1 Sam. 13:3). His bold action triggered the invasion of his country by the Philistines, and placed his father in a predicament. Would he follow God though outnumbered and outgunned? His father wouldn’t, but Jonathan would. Acting like a king in chapter 14, Jonathan, again, took bold action as he and his armor bearer scaled the cliffs guarding the southern flank of the Philistine encampment. Effortlessly, they destroyed the twenty heavily armed guards in this location (1 Sam. 14:14). God, then, caused a localized earthquake to shake up the Philistine army literally and emotionally (1 Sam. 14:15). Talk about irony. The Philistines initially shook up Saul and Israel, and now God and Jonathan shook them up. What goes around really does come around.
In verse 16 of chapter 14, we learn what happened as Israel sought to seize this unique opportunity to drive the invaders out of their land, how Saul failed to lead his people properly, and how his son, Jonathan, acted like the true king. Again, we wonder, “Will Jonathan be the next king to replace the inept one?” The answer will be “No,” because God merely shows what kind of King the people will need in the future by looking at Jonathan. Put differently, this pivotal chapter sets us up to embrace the enjoyment of the entrance of a young shepherd boy to be the greatest king Israel would ever have. His name? David. But his best friend, Jonathan, would teach us what a man after God’s heart looks like by his godly example.
So, working through this transitional section, we can’t help but see the contrasts between two key leaders in Israel. The conflict they faced quickly revealed their character, and those character traits will help us answer a very practical question. I’m sure Israel posed this question during its national crisis:
What Kind Of Leader Is Needed To Lead Effectively? (1 Sam. 14:16-52)
Since this lengthy narrative needs to hang together for thematic purposes, it behooves us to approach it differently. We will move, as usual, through the individual sections that constitute the narrative; however, at the same time we will offer salient observations about the difference between leaders who are losers and leaders who actually lead when the proverbial chips are down. Regardless of where you are in life, whether you are a high-ranking officer at the CIA, FBI, DIA, or a father or mother seeking to lead your family in tough, challenging times, there is a word of insight here for you.
The Recon (1 Sam. 14:16)
Because King Saul had moved further away from the Philistine base of operations in Michmash, he had lookouts gathering intel for him.
16 Now Saul’s watchmen in Gibeah of Benjamin looked, and behold, the multitude melted away; and they went here and there. (1 Sam. 14)
The lookouts ran back and related to him how the Philistine forces were in the process of melting away. The figure of speech is called a simile where one thing represents another. Since the object of the “melting away” is not given, we have an ellipsis that needs to be supplied. Hence, we could easily say they “melted away like snow.” This sudden and frantic flight of well-armed and war-hardened troops led to a logical tactical question: Why were they suddenly melting away? What caused this?
I would think the earthquake, which Saul must have experienced, or at least seen its effects at a distance, would have caused him to remember how God uses events like this to bring divine judgment (Num. 16:32; 26:10; Deut. 11:6). The phraseology, viz., melting away, should have triggered thoughts of divine action because it was used during the Exodus and the Conquest periods to denote how God’s miraculous activity toward His people caused Israel’s enemies to cower and fear (Exodus 15:15; Joshua 2:9, 24). But Saul didn’t connect the dots because he was spiritually shallow.
What Saul did next is, well, intriguing.
The Renumbering (1 Sam. 14:17)
One would think that if your well-armed enemy ran for their lives in all directions, you would spring into action to defeat them definitively, even though you had inferior forces. Saul did not seize the tactical advantage. No, he thought it essential to count his troops. Really? What a dumb move.
17 And Saul said to the people who were with him, “Number now and see who has gone from us.” And when they had numbered, behold, Jonathan and his armor bearer were not there. (1 Sam. 14)
Why did he do this? He wanted to see how many more troops he had lost since he fled from Gilgal to Gibeah. What a bean counter. Further, he certainly didn’t possess the faith of his son who believed “the LORD is not restrained to save by many or by few” (1 Sam. 14:6). He was clueless, too, because he didn’t even know Jonathan and his armor bearer were MIA. With just 600 troops, one would think the King would know whether his number two man and armor bearer were present. But Saul didn’t because he ignored the details. When the report came back, they were down to 598 soldiers, he was shocked, and from what we learn in the following historical panel, he panicked.
Traits of a Loser Leader: One, he doesn’t know what is happening when times are challenging because he is checked out. He is checked out because of various factors: he’s afraid or doesn’t care. Two, he tends to freeze up instead of moving out quickly when a favorable situation develops. Saul could have gained some insight from a quote from Winston Churchill: “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.“[1]
The next movement of the passage reveals even more about why the kingdom would not remain with a leader like Saul:
The Request (1 Sam. 14:18-19)
Saul stalled again by asking for the priest, Ahijah, to bring him the ark of God. Tragic. The enemy was on the run, and your leader wanted the ark brought to him. Why? Historically, the ark played a significant role in Israel’s wars (Josh 3-6). With the ark present, perhaps Saul thought God would bless his next military move.
18 Then Saul said to Ahijah, “Bring the ark of God here.” For the ark of God was at that time with the sons of Israel. 19 And it happened while Saul talked to the priest, that the commotion in the camp of the Philistines continued and increased; so Saul said to the priest, “Withdraw your hand.” (1 Sam. 14)
Poor Saul. He didn’t know how to read the battlefield. He didn’t know how to read God either. God had already told him He would be with him as he subdued the Philistines, so he didn’t need the ark to discover God’s will in this fluid situation. He just needed to gear up, rouse the troops at his disposal, and go after the enemy. But he didn’t. He created another unnecessary delay by asking for the ark.
Did Saul ask for the literal ark located some six miles to the west in Kiriath Jearim (1 Sam. 7:2)? Probably not. I believe he asked for the priest to bring the ephod. Why do I say this? Carrying the ark to Saul’s position would have taken valuable time, which they didn’t have. Further, the verb “to bring” is used in Samuel for the ephod (1 Sam. 23:9; 30:7). The ephod, also, contained the Urim and the Thumim, or the two stones used to determine God’s will.[2] The Greek translation, or the LXX, of this verse also used the word “ephod,” thereby underscoring its presence as opposed to the actual ark.
18 καὶ εἶπεν Σαουλ τῷ Αχια προσάγαγε τὸ εφουδ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἦρεν τὸ εφουδ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐνώπιον Ισραηλ (1 Sam. 14, LXT)
So, the leader who already knew God’s will, stalled in the heat of a warzone to ascertain God’s will. How ironic. How illogical.
Equally illogical is how Saul quickly disregarded the priest’s mission to pursue his plans. Instead of waiting for a definitive word from God, he again showed complete impatience and arrogant self-confidence by terminating the priest’s mission so he could suddenly launch his military excursion.
Traits of a loser leader: Three, they project spirituality for show, when in reality, they are more concerned about taking action to make themselves look good. Saul suddenly jumped into the fray because he probably wanted to keep pace with Jonathan. Don’t you know he had in the back of his mind how his son had effectively taken out a Philistine garrison without his father’s counsel or assistance? Don’t you know he must have wondered if Jonathan was somehow behind this new battlefield turn of events? If so, he had to get a piece of the action to save face. Instead, he will lose face because he was a loser leader.
The Rout (1 Sam.14:20-23)
The following historical pericope tells us what happened next:
20 Then Saul and all the people who were with him rallied and came to the battle; and behold, every man’s sword was against his fellow, and there was very great confusion. 21 Now the Hebrews who were with the Philistines previously, who went up with them all around in the camp, even they also turned to be with the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan. 22 When all the men of Israel who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines had fled, even they also pursued them closely in the battle. 23 So the LORD delivered Israel that day, and the battle spread beyond Beth-aven. (1 Sam. 14)
Irony drips from this account. The Philistines came to fight with Israel, and God turned it around so they fought each other in the fog of war. Amazing. Even Israelite traitors and soldiers who had gone AWOL by hiding in caves all over the place suddenly found courage to fight for their people.
And why was Israel victorious? Was it because of King Saul’s outstanding, courageous leadership? Nope. They were victorious because of God. God worked through the courage and faith of Jonathan (1 Sam. 14:6, 12, 45). God worked through the earthquake. That, in and of itself, instilled consuming fear in the Philistine troops. Those troops were not on the run because of what Saul did, but because of God’s actions.
Turning from the outcome of the running battle, verse 24 gives us the story behind the story, and it is most disconcerting where Saul is concerned, but most illuminating as we study Jonathan’s part in the mop-up activity.
The Ridiculous Rule (1 Sam. 14:24)
When Saul finally put his soldiers in the thick of the action, he made a terrible tactical decision. Military history is chock-full of decisions that turned disastrous. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in the dead of winter couldn’t have been more ill-timed and costly. General Custer’s decision to attack a large Native American force with a relatively small number of troops resulted in a devastating defeat and loss of U.S. cavalry. Saul’s decision here couldn’t have been dumber given the circumstances:
24 Now the men of Israel were hard-pressed on that day, for Saul had put the people under oath, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food before evening, and until I have avenged myself on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food. (1 Sam. 14)
What? With the enemy in absolute disarray, Saul thought it wise to decree that no soldier should eat anything until that night. Oh, that was smart. Tell your outnumbered and outgunned troops to fight on an empty stomach. Tell them to refuse to eat any food they happened to see in deserted Philistine encampments. Keeping your troops fed and hydrated so they can fight is the fundamental concern of any military officer. If they are starving, how can they fight effectively? The point is, they can’t.
Illogically, therefore, Saul made a dumb strategic blunder that caused the rout not to be as successful as it could have been. And please notice what this tells us about . . .
Traits of a loser leader: Four, they are prone to making dumb decisions that make absolutely no sense to anybody with a brain. Have you ever served under an officer who acted like this? Have you ever worked for someone like this? It would have been even worse if that person had been a believer because they should have known better. Saul should have known better, but he didn’t. His decision is devoid of God and is about himself and what he wanted. He wanted revenge, even though vengeance belongs to God, not man (Heb. 10:30).
How did his dumb decision turn out? Not well.
The Result (1 Sam. 14:25-34)
Dumb decisions lead to unintended negative consequences:
25 And all the people of the land entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. 26 When the people entered the forest, behold, there was a flow of honey; but no man put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath.
27 But Jonathan had not heard when his father put the people under oath; therefore, he put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened. (1 Sam. 14)
Don’t you know this was bound to happen? Many of the troops with Jonathan that day knew of Saul’s dumb decree, but no one bothered to tell Jonathan for some reason. So, what did he do when he found a honey-laden honey comb as they marched through the forest? He took the end of his staff, dipped it in the honey, put the glob of the good stuff on his hand, and took a bite. What happened then? His eyes brightened because he just got a nice sugar rush.
As Jonathan enjoyed that bite of delicious honey, one of the soldiers piped up with some interesting intel:
28 Then one of the people answered and said, “Your father strictly put the people under oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the man who eats food today.'” And the people were weary. (1 Sam. 14)
How did Jonathan respond?
29 Then Jonathan said, “My father has troubled the land. See now, how my eyes have brightened because I tasted a little of this honey. 30 “How much more, if only the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies which they found! For now the slaughter among the Philistines has not been great.” (1 Sam. 14)
This represents the first negative outcome of Saul’s illogical decision.
The rift between father and son just widened a little more. Jonathan, a pragmatist, realized just how ridiculous his father’s decree was for the hungry, war-weary troops. Logical reasoning told Jonathan that his father was the one who caused trouble for Israel with lame decisions like this. A wise king who understood the art of war would never tell his troops they couldn’t eat in a battle if they happened to find food. His father’s decree merely caused Israel to not definitively rout the Philistines because the troops were famished and out of gas. What a sound and honest appraisal from a young man who should have been the king.
31 And they struck among the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon. And the people were very weary. (1 Sam. 14)
It’s about fifteen miles from Michmash in the mountains north of Jerusalem heading southwest to the valley of Aijalon. Aijalon was about ten miles northeast of the border of Philistia. This verse tells us that because of Saul’s dumb decree, the hungry Israelite warriors didn’t have the gumption to drive the Philistines out of Philistia. They stopped short and settled for a lesser victory. Had Jonathan been the king, this wouldn’t have happened.
A second negative outcome of Saul’s decree surfaces in verse 32:
32 And the people rushed greedily upon the spoil, and took sheep and oxen and calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. (1 Sam. 14)
When the sun set, thereby signaling a new day according to how the Israelites viewed time, the famished troops went wild in eating all the animals the Philistine forces had left behind. The Law of Moses required that they drain the blood from the animals before eating because blood represents life; however, the troops were so hungry they dispensed with God’s holy command (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; 22:28; Deut. 12:23-24).
Were the people responsible for their actions? Yes, but who had set them up for the powerful temptation? Their illustrious leader Saul. How did he respond to their sin? Read on and see:
33 Then they told Saul, saying, “Behold, the people are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood.” And he said, “You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today.” 34 And Saul said, “Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them, ‘Each one of you bring me his ox or his sheep, and slaughter it here and eat; and do not sin against the LORD by eating with the blood.'” So all the people that night brought each one his ox with him, and slaughtered it there. (1 Sam. 14)
Don’t you find this all so interesting and ironic? The man who is not the poster child for obedience is worried about the people’s disobedience. What a hypocrite. Further, Saul appears utterly incapable of discerning his part in their sin. He set the whole situation up! He, a weak, inept, and rash leader, created a situation where his troops would be tempted to compromise because of their extreme hunger. In this, I believe he sinned too.
Traits of a loser leader: Five, their dumb decisions place their people in challenging situations that may tempt them to sin or compromise their beliefs. Six, they are so arrogant they fail to see the ridiculous nature of their decisions, choosing instead to blame others.
Traits of a leader of leaders: One, they take the initiative to solve problems. Two, they creatively adjust to changing situations to place themselves and their followers in a winning position, not a losing one. Three, they can spot a loser leader a mile away and mince no words when they identify the troublemaker.
The first man was not the man for the position, while the second man was. Strive to be the second man. The story about these two leaders, however, was far from over.
The Restoration (1 Sam. 14:35-44)
Saul was all about religious formalism and not faith. Translated, he wanted to look spiritual, when, in reality, he was far from it. In fact, his son was everything spiritually he wasn’t. And he probably knew it, and that’s why he erected an altar to God:
35 And Saul built an altar to the LORD; it was the first altar that he built to the LORD. 36 Then Saul said, “Let us go down after the Philistines by night and take spoil among them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them.” And they said, “Do whatever seems good to you.” (1 Sam. 14)
Note what Saul didn’t do. After he built the altar, he didn’t seek God’s counsel on whether he should have his troops attack the Philistines in the darkness of night. He thought this up all on his own.
Realizing it is a good idea to know what God thinks, the priest piped up:
So the priest said, “Let us draw near to God here.” (1 Sam. 14)
Saul paused and finally decided to seek God’s mind:
37 And Saul inquired of God, “Shall I go down after the Philistines? Wilt Thou give them into the hand of Israel?” But He did not answer him on that day. (1 Sam. 14)
When God didn’t answer that day, what did Saul do? He acted rashly and impulsively again.
38 And Saul said, “Draw near here, all you chiefs of the people, and investigate and see how this sin has happened today. 39 “For as the LORD lives, who delivers Israel, though it is in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” But not one of all the people answered him. (1 Sam. 14)
Saul took the silence of God as a sign that the Lord failed to answer because there was sin in the camp. According to Saul, that sin had to be discovered and the perpetrator had to be destroyed. He even unwisely goes so far as to say that if the perp is his son, he will have to kill him. Can you believe this? The man who is the sinner wants to take out the man who is the saint? Talk about an unwise proposed move. Talk about irony on full display.
The ensuing verses tell how they cast lots to determine who had sinned among the troops.
40 Then he said to all Israel, “You shall be on one side and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side.” And the people said to Saul, “Do what seems good to you.” 41 Therefore, Saul said to the LORD, the God of Israel, “Give a perfect lot.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped. 42 And Saul said, “Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken. (1 Sam. 14)
Once God directed the lot to fall on Jonathan, Saul sought a confession.
43 Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.” So Jonathan told him and said, “I indeed tasted a little honey with the end of the staff that was in my hand. Here I am, I must die!” (1 Sam. 14)
Overflowing with self-righteousness, Saul immediately rushed to bring capital punishment on Jonathan for daring to eat some honey.
44 And Saul said, “May God do this to me and more also, for you shall surely die, Jonathan.” (1 Sam. 14)
Crazy. But most loser leaders are crazy to a degree. What they ask and how they treat people, even their best “employee,” is sometimes totally unconscionable and illogical. Since God controlled the lots (Prov. 16:33), we must ask a serious question: What was God up to in this leadership mess? He attempted to expose Saul for his lousy leadership and showcase Jonathan’s exemplary leadership. Further, God wanted to show Saul that the people’s allegiance under his regal reign was slipping and there wasn’t anything he could do about it.
Trait of a loser leader: Seven, they sound spiritual but they are not. Their actions eventually show this is the case. Eight, they do what they want when they want and don’t care about what God wants. Nine, they act harshly and ruthlessly toward those who don’t deserve it. If this is you, then you need to seek God’s forgiveness and ask for His help to become a better, wiser leader.
Trait of a leader of leaders: Four, they don’t cow-tow to a loser leader but stand boldly and confidently before them. Five, they don’t seek forgiveness for actions they know were proper and necessary. If you are this kind of leader, then may your tribe increase. A person of godly, logical convictions can be used of God to push back effectively against evil.
The chapter’s climax is reached in verses 45.
The Rebuttal & Rescue (1 Sam. 14:45)
This entire debacle, which Saul’s lousy leadership had set in motion, led the troops to change their allegiance to Jonathan.
45 But the people said to Saul, “Must Jonathan die, who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Far from it! As the LORD lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.” So the people rescued Jonathan and he did not die. (1 Sam. 14)
Saul arrogantly thought the soldiers were with him, but they weren’t. They were with Jonathan. Why? They were with Jonathan because He was a leader of leaders.
Traits of a leader of leaders: He took the strategic initiative even when outgunned and outnumbered. He made sound, wise decisions that benefitted the troops and the nation. He had an unshakable faith in the God who could help him fight the superior Philistines. He dripped with courage and that was contagious. He wasn’t afraid to improvise to gain an advantage over his foe. He was everything his father wasn’t, and because of this there was no way the people would ever let the likes of Saul execute him for eating some honey.
Yes, Jonathan was everything his father wasn’t. He was also the spitting image of Israel’s future king of all kings, David. This little episode sets us up for his arrival in due time. This little episode also teaches us a great truth about leaders God uses to deal effectively with evil: A great godly leader has fearless faith in the face of evil versus a lousy leader who bungles badly all too often. Oh God, make us leaders of fearless faith. And forgive us for messing things up with dumb decrees and decisions. Yes, forgive us and equip us to be a Jonathan instead of a Saul.
Church history has its fair share of Jonathans.
- Hudson Taylor took his family to China to bring the gospel to a hostile region of the world that needed it.
- William Tyndale brought the English Bible to anyone and everyone outside of the ecclesiastical class who wanted it all for themselves.
- Richard Wurmbrandt (1901-2001) brought the gospel to Romania and the world after his release from prison.
- Mission organizations like Cru are full of saints who bravely take the gospel to campuses like George Mason.
- The young man who witnesses to buddies on his Lacrosse team is another example of a Jonathan.
The question now is straightforward: Will you put on Jonathan’s battle gear and head out to take on evil with God’s help? God will bless you when you do, and He might also give you a David to fight alongside you.
[1] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/quotes-on-opportunities.
[2] URIM AND THUMMIM (אוּרִים, urim;, תֻּמִים, tumim). Objects kept in the breastpiece of the High Priest and used to discern the will of God. The Urim and Thummim are mentioned in the Old Testament but never described, so their exact nature is unclear. Descriptions of Aaron’s vestments place the Urim and Thummim inside the “breastpiece of judgment” which Aaron wears over the ephod, so they must have been fairly small (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8). They were likely a pair of objects, but since the words Urim and Thummim are both plural in form, it is possible that there were more than two objects. Other passages indicate that the High Priest was to use the Urim and Thummim to discern the will of God (Num 27:21; 1 Sam 28:6; Ezra 2:63). None of these passages describe how they were to be used for this purpose, but it is often taken to involve some form of casting lots, which would qualify this as a form of divination. Some speculations include the following (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 509–12): 1. They may have been a pair of stones used for casting lots, one of which would indicate “yes” and the other “no.” 2. They may have been an item for each letter of the alphabet. The name אוּרִים (urim) begins with aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, while the name תֻּמִים (tumim) begins with tav, the last letter of the alphabet; the names of these endpoints may stand for the whole alphabet. Three letters chosen by lot could then form the root of a Hebrew word which would indicate the answer to the question. 3. They may have been two die-like objects, each with some sides marked with aleph for Urim and some sides marked with tav for Thummim; if the lots were cast such that both came up with the same mark, it would indicate a “yes” or “no” answer, while if the two came up with different marks, the result was inconclusive.
Rachel Klippenstein, “Urim and Thummim,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
