Like Father, Unlike Son (Saul and Jonathan)

The number of people and commentators who have put Saul's and David's lives side-by-side for comparative studies must be staggering. I've even done so myself.

Less common, however, is the compare-and-contrast between Saul and Jonathan.

In the early chapters of I Samuel, are the intertwined stories of both men, and how they handled real-life situations.

First -- let's look at Saul

Saul had shown that he was a capable military leader (Chapter 11). He had seen battle before, and had defeated Israel's enemies before.
Saul had also seen evidence that should inspire him to trust the word of the prophet Samuel. Chapter 10 has an amazing string of prophesies and an instruction. Saul gives specific descriptions of who he is going to meet, and what is going to happen in the next few hours. You're going to meet 3 men, carrying specific things, and will give you some of them. You're going to join in a divinely orchestrated jam session with some singing prophets near a Philistine outpost, and the Spirit of God will come upon you dramatically. After that, go do what God compels you to.

All of these happened precisely, to the scantest detail, in the form and fashion that Samuel had said they would.

There was one final detail to this profoundly specific near-term prophesy:

⁸ "Go down ahead of me to Gilgal. I will surely come down to you to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, but you must wait seven days until I come to you and tell you what you are to do."

Samuel didn't say anything about the details or events that were to occur on that day, only that sacrifice was to occur at that time and place, followed by instructions from that generation's oracle of God.

So what did Saul do, armed with this information, and the confidence that this prophesy that was more detailed and specific than the vast majority of all prophetic instructions ever recorded in scripture?

⁵ The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Micmash, east of Beth Aven. ⁶ When the men of Israel saw that their situation was critical and that their army was hard pressed, they hid in caves and thickets, among the rocks, and in pits and cisterns. ⁷ Some Hebrews even crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead.
Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. ⁸ He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul's men began to scatter. ⁹ So he said, "Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings. " And Saul offered up the burnt offering. ¹⁰ Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.

So, at the time Samuel mentioned, Israel had been met by an army they feared, many were deserting, Samuel was nowhere to be seen, and soldiers were deserting him. Did he turn to God or human solutions? He profaned God by offering the sacrifice, when he was not legally permitted to do so.

What was Saul's excuse? It was Samuel's fault! (What??) He blamed Samuel for not being there. There was a heavy irony that was entirely lost on Saul: Saul was blaming Samuel to his face, at the moment in which he was finishing the sacrifice. Samuel was there, just not before Saul caved to his panic, and carnal solutions to the task at hand.

This attitude was paralleled with Saul's attack on the Amalekites. (1 Samuel 15) Saul, who was not in the custom of building altars to memorialize the faithfulness of God (1 Sam 14:35: usual enough that it was mentioned as the "first time that he had done this") but he managed to build a memorial to himself and his own accomplishments. (1 Sam 15:12)

What did he say about these accomplishments? He greeted Samuel in the Lord's name, and said that he had (verse 13) carried out the Lord's instructions. Samuel pointed out the flaw in that theory, since the flocks and King Agag had not been put to the sword, as commanded by God.

Saul (like so many of us, if we're honest) tried to dress up his rebellion in spirituality. He gave sort of an "uh, these flocks here? They are, uh, for, uh, sacrifice to God, yeah, that's the ticket, sacrifice to God, that'll work..." response.

Samuel wasn't fooled by the pretense to spirituality. He reminded Saul of the commandment, and Saul's disobedience to it. For a second time in this same conversation, when faced with the truth of his own sin relative to God's command, Saul insisted that his Sin was actually Virtue.

The hammer fell, Saul was judged unworthy to reign, and another king (David) was to be raised up. Even afterward, Saul tried to avert the punishment by repenting after the consequence (no dice) so he begged that Samuel at least honor him before the elders, and worship together with Saul.

Compare that to his son, Jonathan.

The faith or fear test that Saul failed (by offering the sacrifice himself), Jonathan passed with flying colors. Context: Philistines have ensured that Israel does not have iron weapons, or even iron tools. Only the king and Jonathan had even a sword or spear.

So, militarily, Israel was disadvantaged. Morale was crumbling, it was REALLY bad. How bad? This was a point in their history (1 Sam 11) where citizens of a city had contemplated having their right eyes gouged out as a term of subjugation to their neighbors.

Jonathan decides to take action. He grabs his armor-bearer, leaves the safety of the garrison, and crosses into the enemy camp. Here's the text:

⁶ Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, "Come, let's go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few."
⁷ "Do all that you have in mind," his armor-bearer said. "Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul." ⁸ Jonathan said, "Come, then; we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. ⁹ If they say to us, 'Wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. ¹⁰ But if they say, 'Come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the LORD has given them into our hands."
¹¹ So both of them showed themselves to the Philistine outpost. "Look!" said the Philistines. "The Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in." ¹² The men of the outpost shouted to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, "Come up to us and we'll teach you a lesson." So Jonathan said to his armor-bearer, "Climb up after me; the LORD has given them into the hand of Israel." ¹³ Jonathan climbed up, using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer right behind him. The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him. ¹⁴ In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre. ¹⁵ Then panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties—and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God.

Short form: They take action, confront the enemy, seek guidance from God in the midst of their action and they charge the enemy. Why? They trust in God's ability, not man's. (verse 6) They killed 20 men. (10:1 odds, mind you), and it had a cascade effect which put the enemy to flight.

Later in the same chapter, Saul makes one of his famously stupid vows, and places anyone who eats before the battle is won under a curse. Jonathan knows nothing of this, and innocently takes some honey with his staff, and touches it to his lips.

Philistines are being routed, and Saul asks for divine leading on how to proceed. God is silent. Saul swears to put to death whoever is guilty of whatever sin has resulted in God's silence. He could even argue that he has good precedent for this, with Achan (Joshua chapter 7). Eventually, Jonathan is shown to be guilty of breaking his father's dumb oath.

Moment of truth: how does Jonathan respond to this situation? 1 Sam 14:43 "I tasted a little honey with the tip of the staff that was in my hand. Here I am, I will die."

The biggest difference between the two men was their view of God.

First, in their trust of Him:
Saul, doubted the faithfulness of God, and when he saw the thing he really trusted in (public support, military or otherwise) crumbling (men were deserting) in the face of trouble, he demonstrated that he had a low view of the ability of God to be faithful, and of God to be the ultimate solution to the problems he faced.

Jonathan trusted the faithfulness of God. He identified the enemy as 'uncircumcised', meaning 'not having a covenant with a covenant-keeping God.' He glorified God even before the fight, "God is able to save by many or few", and without the benefit of a detailed prophesy like the one his dad blew off, he forged ahead into the fight.

Secondly, the differed in their view of His Holiness:
Saul played fast-and-loose with God's commandment. The parts he liked, he obeyed, when convenient. Should he sacrifice? Should he let Agag and the best of the flocks live? Sure, why not. Judgment fell against him because Saul had "rejected the word of the Lord" (1 Sam 15:26).
When he was convicted of sin, he blame-shifted, groveled, whined, squirmed, tried to justify himself, and tried to generally avoid the consequence attached to the sin.

Jonathan ate honey. It was not disobedience to God. It wasn't even disobedience at all, since he did not know about the prohibition. Eating honey is not sinful. He was not gluttonous, he simply had a 'little taste'. Why was it sin? Because his father, the king, had placed anyone who ate before the victory was won under a curse. God honored the reckless, stupid, and self-serving curse of a man in power as being a valid obligation with associated heavy penalties for violation. Jonathan did not contest it, he submitted to the penalty as the proper response to a violation of God's holiness.

We need to examine our own reaction to sin. Do we -- like Saul -- blow it off, as unimportant, insignificant, excusable? Bad idea. If so, we have either forgotten the nature of the One who Redeemed us, or perhaps never even been truly born again.

Why is our reaction to sin important?
Because if we have been given new life, we know what it cost us to get it:
The perfect, holy, Son of God took the judgment of sin upon himself, with abuse, beatings, shame and ultimately a painful and violent end, so that the wrath of God against sin would be satisfied. If we trust in Christ, we die with him, and we are given a new life in Christ, which gives us a hatred toward the sin that was so abhorrent that the thrice-holy God had to die in our place to deal with it. He grants, by His Spirit, victory over the sins that used to rule over us, and a love for God, people, and righteousness for its own sake.

Are you more like Saul, or Jonathan?
Have you trusted in Christ Jesus?