Outline of Chapter 14:

       vv.    1–15      Jonathan and his Armor-Bearer Assault the Philistine Camp

       vv.   16–23      Saul Observes the Commotion in the Philistine Camp and Pursues the Philistines

       vv.   24–30      Saul’s Foolish Oath; Jonathan Unknowingly Breaks this Oath

       vv.   31–35      The Famished Soldiers Eat Without Properly Acknowledging God

       vv.   36–42      When God Does Not Answer Saul, Saul Determines to Find Who Broke the Oath

       vv.   43–46      Saul Determines to Execute Jonathan, Who Broke the Oath; the People Deliver Jonathan

       vv.   47–48      Saul’s Victories Over the Surrounding Heathen

       vv.   49–52      Saul’s Genealogical Line; Saul’s Army

Charts and Maps:

       v.      1           A Map of the Battle of Michmash

       v.      2           Troop Movement of the Israelis and the Philistines

       v.      3           The Line to Ahijah

       v.      3           What is the Relationship Between Ahijah and Ahimelech?

       v.      3           The Ages of the Priests and their Descendants

       v.      3           A Brief Summary of the Doctrine of Urim and Thummim

       v.      7           1Samuel 14:7a-b Text from the Greek Septuagint

       v.     12           A Summary of the Doctrine of Matstsâbâh, Mûtstsâb, Matstsêbâh, Matstsebeh, Mitstsâbâh, Matstsâb, N^etsîyb, and Nâtsab

       v.     15           1Sam. 14:15 Exegeted from the Septuagint

       v.     16           Summary of the Doctrine of Mûg

       v.     18           1Samuel 14:18—Which Translations Follow the Greek and Which Follow the Hebrew?

       v.     18           A Summary of Old Testament Textual Criticism

       v.     18           Based upon Textual Criticism, which is the Preferred Reading for 1Samuel 14:18?

       v.     18           Which is the Preferred Reading for 1Samuel 14:18 from a Theological and Logical Standpoint?

       v.     22           The Events which Took Place

       v.     22           What We Think Might Have Happened to Cause the Philistines to Panic

       v.     23           1Samuel 14:22b Text from the Greek Septuagint

       V.    23           1Samuel 14:23 Text from the Greek Septuagint

       v.     23           How Did the Israelites Defeat the Philistines?

       v.     24           What’s Wong with Saul’s Oath?

       v.     31           A Map Containing the Cities of Michmash and Aijalon

       v.     32           Passages Relating to the Eating of Blood

       v.     35           Other Altars in Scripture

       v.     41           1Samuel 14:41 from the Septuagint

       v.     41           Textual Criticism and 1Sam. 14:41

       v.     42           1Samuel 14:42 Text from the Greek Septuagint

       v.     42           Options Regarding God’s Answer to Saul

       v.     45           Jonathan and Achan, a Comparison

       v.     47           A Map of Israel and the Surrounding Nations

       v.     47           Saul’s Wars

       v.     48           A Summary of Saul’s Military Victories

       v.     49           Saul’s Varied Line

       v.     50           What if this battle with the Philistines did not occur early in Saul’s kingship...?

       v.     51           Possible Lines to Saul

       v.     51           1Samuel 14:49–51 in the Contemporary English Version

I ntroduction: In 1Sam. 14, we venture into a very detailed examination of Jonathan’s incredibly brave two-man attack upon the Philistines. The primary reason that this is treated as a separate chapter from 1Sam. 13 is that we follow Jonathan and his incredibly heroic exploits.

1Sam. 14 deals with the success of Jonathan and also suggests to us who has written this and the previous chapter—Jonathan. We have a great deal of detail here which could only be known by Jonathan or by his armor bearer. One of the very difficult things to determine is who is the author of any portion of Scripture when the author has not made that clear to us.

One of the things which we notice immediately is that there are words used by this author which are not found anywhere else in 1Sam. 1–12; and there are quite a number of words found here but not in 1Sam. 13. The indication is that we are dealing with what appears to be a different author who has a greater vocabulary than the author of the first 12 chapters.

One of the things which surprised me in this chapter was just how many mistaken interpretations that I came across in the commentaries of McGee, Barnes and Keil and Delitzsch (as well as in other, less accurate, commentaries where erroneous interpretations are to be expected).

Finally, we would hope that if the text is more difficult that we would have a very reliable text. Furthermore, this is narrative, rather than simply being a list of names of people or cities, so I would have expected fewer problems with the Hebrew. Unfortunately, there will be several places where it is clear that the Hebrew text is corrupt, as well as several places where the Greek and Hebrew are radically different. What often helps us in this latter situation is the Dead Sea Scrolls; if they are in agreement with the Greek, then we can generally assume that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) is the better source. Unfortunately, we have several instances where the latter Hebrew text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement with one another, and differ from the Septuagint. This will make for some tough choices. This will cause us to examine the laws of textual criticism in this chapter.

Jonathan and his Armor-Bearer Assault the Philistine Camp

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so is the day and so says Jonathan, son of Saul, unto his boy carrying his manufactured goods, “Come and let us pass over into a post of the Philistines who [are] beyond this.” And to his father he did not make known.

Septuagint                             And when a certain day arrived, Jonathan the son of Saul said to the young man that bore his armor, “Come, and let us go over to Messah of the Philistines that is on the other side yonder; but he told not his father. .

Significant differences:          No significant differences; the only significant difference is where the LXX transliterates one word instead of translating it.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       One day, Jonathan told the soldier who carried his weapons that he wanted to attack the Philistine camp on the other side of the valley. So they slipped out of the Israelite camp without anyone knowing it. Jonathan didn’t even tell his father he was leaving. [The CEV transposes vv. 1, 2 and 3]

The Message                         Later that day, Jonathan, Saul's son, said to his armor bearer, "Come on, let's go over to the Philistine garrison patrol on the other side of the pass." But he didn't tell his father.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         One day Saul’s son Jonathan said to his armorbearer, “Let’s go to the Philistine military post on the other side.” But Jonathan didn’t tell his father [he was going].

JPS (Tanakh)                        One day, Jonathan son of Saul said to the attendant who carried his arms, “Come, let us cross over to the Philistine garrison on the other side”; but he did not tell his father.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now the day came that Jonathan, the son of Saul, said to the young man who was carrying his armor, “Come and let us cross over to the Philistines’ garrison that is on yonder side.” But he did not tell his father.

Young's Updated LT              And the day comes that Jonathan son of Saul says unto the young man bearing his weapons, “Come and we pass over unto the station of the Philistines, which is on the other side of this;” and to his father he had not declared it.

What is the gist of this verse? Jonathan speaks to the young man who carries his weapons, telling him that they were going to go over to the camp of the Philistines. He does not tell his father that he is going.

Translation: Then it was the day when Jonathan, the son of Saul, said to the young man bearing his armor... Jonathan again decides to take matters into his own hands. The beginning wâw consecutive closely connects this chapter with the previous one (along with the context of this chapter).

Apparently, Jonathan has an assistant who carries Jonathan’s armor and weapons (as there would be for Saul), and Jonathan speaks to this assistant.

Scanned from The MacMillan Bible Atlas; 3^rd Edition; Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai; MacMillan; ©1993 by Carta; p. 70.

Translation: “Come and pass over to the garrison of the Philistines which is beyond this.” Here, Jonathan suggests to his armor bearer that they go over to the Philistine outpost. There is no more information recorded here than this, so it is possible that the armor bearer does not know what they are going to do. It might even possible that Jonathan does not know exactly what he is going to do at this point. However, it is clear from the previous chapter that Israel has a problem. The Philistine army has moved full-force into central Israel and daily plagues Israel with raids to nearby cities (1Sam. 13:17–18). The attacked Israel with impunity. The purpose of these Philistine raids was threefold: (1) they kept their men in training by raiding nearby cities; (2) these raids psychologically pummeled the Israelites (we will later find that some Israelites even allied themselves with the Philistines); and (3) this provided the Philistine encampment with much needed food and supplies. This was not unusual for a people of that era to do. David will move to Ziklag temporarily (1Sam. 27) and he will support his army by raiding nearby peoples. Don’t misunderstand me—I am not saying that this is right; it is simply what was done at this time.

In any case, Jonathan knew something had to be done, as the Philistines were acting in defiance of the armies of the Living God. They were raiding nearby cities for food and sustenance, as well as to psychologically disturb the Israelites, and Jonathan rightfully determined that had to stop.

What this visit by Jonathan and his armor-bearer entails is not very clear, so let me tell you about the geography here. Between Michmash (where the Philistines were) and Geba (where Jonathan was) is the deep Wady es Suweinit, which runs between Bethel and Beeroth (represented today by the modern Beitin and Bireh), and into the Jordan valley. Between Michmash and Geba are two precipitous walls formed by this wady, so that going from one city to the other is no easy matter.

Robinson tells us of his traveling from Jeba to Mukhmas: The way was so steep, and the rocky steps so high, that we were compelled to dismount; while the baggage mules got along with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short side wadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The ridges between these terminate in elevating points projecting into the great wady; and the most easterly of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around the eastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes up over the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, and the scene of Jonathan’s adventure. Put quite simply, moving between MIchmash and Geba was not an easy thing to do. This is another reason why the assaults that the Philistines carried out went east, west and north.

Translation: ...and he did not make [this] known to his father. This should be pretty obvious. There is little doubt that Saul saw Jonathan as the one who got him into this mess. Therefore, Saul would not really want Jonathan to do anything more. Now, we may feel the same way; however, it will become clear in this chapter that Jonathan had his head screwed on right and that he was doing what he should be doing.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And Saul was staying in an extremity of the Gibeah under the pomegranate which [was] in Migron and the people who [were] with him about six hundreds a man.

Septuagint                             And Saul sat on the top of the hill under the pomegranate tree that is in Magdon, and there were with him about six hundred men.

Significant differences:          Apart from my transliterating Gibeah instead of translating it, the MT and LXX are the same.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         Meanwhile, Saul was taking it easy under the pomegranate tree at the threshing floor on the edge of town at Geba (Gibeah). There were about six hundred men with him.

NLT                                Meanwhile, Saul and his six hundred men were camped on the outskirts of Gibeah, around the pomegranate tree at Migron.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        Now Saul was staying on the outskirts of Gibeah, under the pomegranate tree at Migron, and the troops with him numbered about 600.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And Saul was staying in the outskirts of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree which is in Migron. And the people who were with him were about six hundred men,...

Young's Updated LT              And Saul is abiding at the extremity of Gibeah, under the pomegranate which is in Migron, and the people who are with him, about six hundred men,...

What is the gist of this verse? Saul is apparently not in Gibeah proper, but on the outskirts of Gibeah sitting under a pomegranate tree, in a panic, wondering what to do. There are about 600 men with him (recall that he recently had a personal force of 3000 men, and that he had put a call out to all Israeli males to join him in Gilgal—1Sam. 13:2, 4).

Translation: And Saul was staying on the outskirts of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree which [is] in Migron;... We know nothing about this place Migron, except that it is on the outskirts of Gibeah, south of Michmash. Migron is also mentioned in Isa. 10:28; the details are sketchy, the intervening time frame is great, so that we do not know if the reference is to the same Migron or not. Robert Gordon suggests that a slight rearrangement of the letters for Migron would result in threshing floor. I have examined several possibilities, and I just don’t see it. The end result would have the two prepositions, bêyth and min, together (or, in from), which is not something which I can find another instance of. Given that we have no pressing reason that this proper noun is wrong, we will accept it as is.

Given all that had happened, Saul was taken aback. He really had no idea what to do, and he sat underneath the pomegranate tree in Migron pondering his situation. This is one of the smartest things that Saul could do—nothing. He was almost out of assets and in a hopeless situation. It was better for him to sit back and do nothing than it was to act.

One portion of this verse which I originally ignored was this pomegranate tree. Generally speaking, in a city, the important meetings took place near the gates of the city. However, Saul and his army are not holed up in a city, but on the outskirts of Gibeah. When Saul is outdoors, he does not stand out in the sun, he has a place underneath a tree which he has chosen. This is in keeping with Deborah, who used to sit under the palm tree (Judges 4:5) or the tamarisk tree under which Saul will stand in 1Sam. 22:6. This would indicate to us that this is summer in Israel, even though I am not certain whether that knowledge will help us in this chapter.

Translation: ...and the people who [were] with him [numbered] approximately six hundred men. Saul has no idea what to do. This verse tells us that he did not have much of an army remaining. He originally had a personal fighting force of 3000 men (1Sam. 13:2) and he had just put out a call to all Israel to join him in Gilgal, his original rallying point (1Sam. 13:4). The end result is that he now has 600 men, indicating an unusually high desertion rate as well as a meager response to his call to action. It will also turn out that a considerable force of Israelis joined the Philistines, preferring to back a winner (1Sam. 14:21).

Often, as I go through various commentaries, it is very unclear as to what is physically going on. In one commentary, Saul has moved south from Geba to Gibeah in this verse. In another, in v. 2, Saul is in Gibeah while Jonathan is in Geba. Who moves from where to where? Using the very rough map below, I will describe the correct troop movement.
Troop Movement of the Israelis and the Philistines
1.    Originally, Saul is in Michmash with 2000 men; Jonathan is in Gibeah with 1000 men. Jonathan strikes a garrison of Philistines which is in Geba (1Sam. 13:2–3). 2.    Saul summons the males of Israel to Gilgal (1Sam. 13:4). As Saul called for all Israel to assemble there, we may reasonably assume that Jonathan and his troops went there as well. 3.    The Philistines gather in Michmash with 6000 horsemen, 3000 chariots, and innumerable support (1Sam. 13:5). Saul’s men begin to desert him, and he will be left with only 600 men (1Sam. 13:6–7, 15 14:2). 4.    Samuel goes to Saul in Gilgal, but Saul has already offered up sacrifices to God apart from Samuel (1Sam. 13:14). 5.    Samuel leaves Gilgal and Saul and his men go to Gibeah (1Sam. 13:15—in the Greek). 6.    Where we pick up the thread of our narrative in v. 2, Saul, Jonathan and 600 men are in Gibeah (1Sam. 14:2); the Philistines are in Michmash, sending out raiding parties to the east, west and north (1Sam. 13:17–18).

Saul had also just finished a tense confrontation with Samuel, who told him that his kingdom and dynasty were over, insofar as God was concerned (1Sam. 13:11–14). We have no record of Saul confessing or acknowledging his sin against God. We do not have any expression of regret. In fact, for all Saul knows, this could be his last stand. After all, Samuel did tell him that his kingdom would not endure and that God has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and Jehovah appointed him as ruler over His people (1Sam. 13:14b). Furthermore, Saul’s army did not have the weapons to fight the Philistines. He was in a hopeless situation.

On the plus side, the men who remained with Saul are very courageous and dedicated men. They have witnessed thousands of men desert, yet they have remained with Saul in his move from Gilgal to Gibeah in what many of them realized could be their last days. Also on the positive side, we see no evidence of Saul blaming his son Jonathan for what has taken place. He does not spend any time concerned with assigning blame to their present situation.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And Ahijah son of Ahitub, brother [or, relative] of Ichabod, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, priest of Y^ehowah in Shiloh wearing an ephod. And the people had not known that had gone Jonathan.

Septuagint                             And Achia son of Achitob, the brother of Jochabed the son of Phinees, the son of Heli, was the priest of God in Selom wearing an ephod; and the people knew not that Jonathan was gone.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Ahijah was serving as priest, and one of his jobs was to get answers from the Lord for Saul. Ahijah’s father was Ahitub, and his father’s brother was Ichabod. Ahijah’s grandfather was Phinehas, and his great-grandfather Eli had been the Lord’s priest at Shiloh.

The Message                         Ahijah, wearing the priestly Ephod, was also there. (Ahijah was the son of Ahitub, brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas, who was the son of Eli the priest of GOD at Shiloh.) No one there knew that Jonathan had gone off.

NLT                                (Among Saul’s men was Ahijah the priest, who was wearing the linen ephod. Ahijah was the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother. Ahitub was the son of Phinehas and the grandson of Eli, the priest of the Lord who had served at Shiloh.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         [He had with him about 600 men] in addition to Ahijah, the son of Ichabod’s brother Ahitub, who was the son of Phinehas and the grandson of Eli, the Lord’s priest at Shiloh. Ahijah was wearing the priestly ephod. [the portion in brackets is v. 2b]

JPS (Tanakh)                        Ahijah son of Ahitub brother of Ichabod son of Phinehas son of Eli, the priest of the Lord at Shiloh, was there bearing an ephod.—The troops did not know that Jonathan had gone.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     ...and Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of the Lord at Shiloh, was wearing an ephod. And the people did not know that Jonathan had gone.

Young's Updated LT              ...and Ahiah, son of Ahitub, brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas son of Eli priest of Jehovah in Shiloh, bearing an ephod; and the people knew not that Jonathan had gone.

What is the gist of this verse? What we have here is the priestly line. Ahijah is the priest of Israel who wears the ephod. He was with Saul. He is the son of Ahitub who is Ichabod’s brother (or relative). Ichabod is the son of Phinehas, who is the son of Eli, who was the priest of God at Shiloh. In the second half of this verse, we are told that Jonathan disappeared from camp and no one knew.

Translation: And Ahijah [was] the son of Ahitub, brother [or, relative] of Ichabod, son of Phinehas son of Eli, the priest of Y^ehowah in Shiloh, bearing the Ephod. The verb nâsâ indicates that there is more to this than the simple wearing of an outfit. Bearing, lifting up, carrying the ephod means that there is religious significance to the wearing of the Ephod; there is more to it than simply wearing a piece of clothing. It has always been closely tied to determining the will of God.

Furthermore, my guess would be that the wearing of the Ephod is attributed to Ahijah rather than to Eli (see also 1Sam. 14:18, 36b–37). However, this introduces a problem—if Ahijah is the one wearing the Ephod, then would he also be the priest of Y^ehowah at that time in Shiloh? Now, the problem is not with Scripture, as we do not know exactly when Shiloh was destroyed; therefore, one interpretation this verse is that the Tent of God is still set up in Shiloh (minus the Ark of God, which is in Kiriath-jearim—1Sam. 7:1); and the destruction of Shiloh is still to come (as you may recall from our discussion, Shiloh may have been already destroyed by the Philistines under the watch of Samuel).

However, it is also possible to read this verse with Eli as having been the High Priest of Y^ehowah in Shiloh (he would have really been that last true High Priest); and his relative Ahijah is said to be wearing (actually, bearing) the Ephod, presumably in Gibeah with Saul and the people. The indication is that we are, in the midst of this confrontation, also mentioning the line of Eli, which is functioning once again in the realm of the priesthood, albeit imperfectly. Such an interpretation would allow for the previous destruction of Shiloh, having occurred around the time that the Ark was taken, and prior to the 20 or so years of peace enjoyed on Samuel’s watch, alluded to in 1Sam. 7:13–14.

So there is no confusion—we have no contradiction here; we are simply trying to properly interpret this verse, and its interpretation would be related to when exactly Shiloh was destroyed. My interpretation is that Eli was the High Priest in Shiloh, which has since been destroyed; and that Ahijah is Eli’s descendant, and that Ahijah is the one bearing the ephod and therefore the one who has the spiritual authority (which is below Samuel’s authority). If we take this position, then all other previous mentions of Shiloh should be in agreement with our interpretation; otherwise, our speculation must be revised.

Now that we have gone through the messy part of interpreting who is who in the first half of this verse, we should discuss in more detail who is who. Eli was the High Priest to God who raised Samuel as his own son in Shiloh (1Sam. 2:18–3:21). Eli was a rotund man and his sons, Phinehas and Hophni, did not believe in God, but liked the sacrifices, as it meant that it was barbeque-time for them. Therefore, when he became old, they acted as priests to God, primarily for the meat (1Sam. 2:12–17). Because his sons were degenerate, God gave Samuel to Israel to act as the High Priest (his authority over Israel is clear in 1Sam. 8–12). Because of the degeneracy of Eli’s sons, and because Eli did not bar them from priestly activity, God cut off the priestly line of Eli (1Sam. 2:27–33). The sign to Eli that this man of God was telling him the truth was that his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas would both die on the same day (1Sam. 3:34). Israel was at war against the Philistines in 1Sam. 4 and they needed something to turn the tide of battle, so they got the Ark of God as a good luck charm to take with them into battle against the Philistines. Along with this Ark came Hophni and Phinehas. The ark was captured by the Philistines and Hophni and Phinehas were killed in this battle. When Eli heard that they had died, he fell over backwards on his chair in grief, and died in this fall. At this time, all that remained of this line was the pregnant wife of Phinehas (as far as we know). She is extremely grieved at the death of her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law and goes into labor at hearing the news. She dies in childbirth, but after giving birth to a son, Ichabod, whose name means the glory of God has departed. This is all in 1Sam. 4.

There are several men named Ahitub in the Levite priestly line. His actual relationship might seem murky here, but let’s just simply go with the easiest explanation. Ahitub is the older brother of Ichabod and the son of Phinehas. The Hebrew allows for both Ahitub and Ichabod to be sons of Phinehas; it also allows for either one to be the son of Phinehas. Simplest understanding is what we will assume. Being the older brother, Ahitub would assume the priesthood responsibilities rather than Ichabod. The more convoluted explanation is that Ahitub is somehow differently related to Ichabod. The problem with this explanation is that it would be easier to state their relationship exactly, unless they were barely related, in which case it would be easier to just give his lineage. Again, we will assume that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation, and there is no Scripture which would contradict this. However, we need to deal with age next. Eli was old when he died and old when Samuel came along. It is reasonable to assume that Samuel was much younger than Eli’s sons. He would be closer in age to Eli’s grandsons, one of whom was definitely Ichabod and the other we are postulating to be Ahitub. Samuel was old at this time, meaning that Ichabod and Ahitub would also be old. Therefore, the likely candidate age-wise and lineage-wise for a priest would be a son of Ahitub. So, the simplest explanation also results in a reasonable age for the priest (he’s probably 20 years older than Saul, as a rough guess). However, if this battle against the Philistines is not at the beginning of Saul’s career but midway through (which we will discuss in v. 50), then he and the priest would have probably been within 20 years of each other in age.

Now, it is interesting that Ahijah has assumed the priesthood, as Samuel is still around. Samuel is old, he is an icon, but he is well-known and respected by the people of Israel. His sons have not followed in his footsteps, so the priestly line does not continue through Samuel. Since Samuel is old enough to require his sons to function as judges, it is reasonable to assume that someone has to also function as a priest when Samuel is unavailable; and that is where Ahijah comes in. Again, we may go with the simplest explanation that Ahijah was the High Priest, as he did have access to the Ephod (which is implied but not outright stated in 1Sam. 14:3, 10, 18–19, 37). And if not the High Priest, per se, then the priest of the camp of Saul; the highest ranking Aaronite.

Another thing which should be mentioned is the overall time-frame. Given that Ichabod was born the day that the Ark was taken from Israel and that Ahijah is probably his nephew (this would have to be by an older brother, Ahitub), and given that Samuel is an old man by this time, and if we are 20 years into the reign of Saul, then perhaps 50–60 years have passed since the Ark was taken and returned.

The last thing that we need to examine is the Ephod of God. We will spend no little time justifying that the ephod of God is what Saul will call for in 1Sam. 14:18 (the Hebrew reads Ark), so we need to have some idea as to what the Ephod is. We find a description of the High Priest’s clothing, including the Ephod, in Ex. 28 and 39. What appears to be the case is that the Ephod was similar to shoulder pads or an armless outer vest (which may have extended down as far as the wearer’s hips) and that there were two stones mounted on the shoulders. Attached to the ephod was a breastplate, and mounted on the breastplate were 12 stones, one for each tribe of the Israelites. When God’s will was desired, the High Priest would be called forward and apparently these stones would light up in answer to simple questions put forth of the priest. This might be seen as a very mystical approach; however, the more natural explanation is that the combination of the sun and clouds overhead to cause one stone to shine whereas the others did not. When one tribe was chosen over another tribe, the breastplate was used. If one desired simple yes or no questions to be answered by God, the Ephod was used. The Ephod is mentioned in our context (1) to indicate that there was a man who handled the priestly duties under Saul, and that man was Ahijah; and (2) to prepare us for Saul calling for the Ephod later on in this chapter for guidance (1Sam. 14:18). Sadly, Saul will have this same man murdered in cold blood right before Saul’s own eyes (1Sam. 22).

There are at least two instances where the word ephod is used, but it is not a reference to the Ephod of God. In Judges 17:5, we have the itinerant priest Micah. The priesthood went down through the line of Aaron (it is a mistake to equate the Levites with the priesthood). It didn’t take long before there were way more people in his line than would ever be needed to serve God at the Tent of God. Some priests went out and established private ministries elsewhere. Let’s say you are a rich guy or there is a reasonably wealthy town, and they want to hire a man to be their personal priest,—well, this could be done. It was certainly not Biblical, but many Old Testament events do not line up with the will of God. Micah became a privately-employed priest and he built several religious artifacts (which no doubt gave great credence to his priestly office). Young Samuel also wore a linen ephod, which tells us that not every ephod had to be made to the specifications of Ex. 28. Samuel’s mother made him clothing and it was very likely similar to the priestly clothing worn by Eli, but a 100 sizes smaller. In contrast to the Micah of Judges, this was not a blasphemous act on the part of Samuel’s mother. Samuel was given over to God, and he was given a similar priestly uniform every year by his mother (1Sam. 2:18–19).

A reasonable question would be, is this the real Ephod in this passage? My first inclination would be to answer with a guarded yes. Recall that it is likely that Shiloh has been razed sometime during the previous 30–40 years, probably by the Philistines. We do not know exactly where the priests or the Tent of God are (although it did survive the attack). We would reasonably suppose they are in Nob (1Sam. 21). Whereas it is clear in Judges 17 and 1Sam. 2 that the ephods mentioned are not the ephod of God, it is unclear in this passage. Since nothing is stated which clearly defines this as Ahijah’s homemade ephod, we will assume that we are speaking of the real deal here.

There is a connection between Urim and Thummim and the Ephod and breastplate, although we do not know exactly what it is. The Ephod of God and breastplate were both associated with determining God’s will, as were the mysterious Urim and Thummim. I will theorize that perhaps Urim referred to the two stones of the ephod and that Thummim referred to the 12 stones of the breastplate. Another possibility is the Urim referred to one stone of the ephod and that Thummim referred to the other stone. Another possibility is that, whatever the Urim and Thummim were, they were placed inside the breastplate (see Ex. 28:30). A fourth possibility is the Urim and Thummim mean lights and dark nesses and refer to these stones lighting up or shining when questions are asked.

We also hear about the lots which Israel would throw to determine God’s will, which may or may not be related to Urim and Thummim or to what is kept in the breast pocket of the Ephod. We have gone into great detail on this topic in Deut. 33:8 where we examined the Doctrine of Urim and Thummim.

This next portion of the verse is rather difficult to grasp; not because the Hebrew is difficult, but because it seems to have been inserted without reason. We have Jonathan and his armor bearing heading over to take a look at the Philistines and the people don’t realize that he has gone (next portion of this verse). However, suddenly, in the middle of this, those descended from the former High Priest Eli are named. What appears to be the situation is that it is Ahijah who is wearing the Ephod, which is used to determine the will of God; and, despite that, no one knows that Jonathan has gone.

Translation: And the people did not know that Jonathan had departed. This is a rather weird thing, to suddenly stop and mention Eli’s line; and now we are back to the main action. Jonathan and his armor bearer have gone to spy on the Philistines, and those in GIbeah are not aware that they have left. Obviously, this would have all held together better if v. 3b were a part of v. 4. Or, even better, we could have left out Ahijah’s linage, and this would have all fit together perfectly.

It is this verse (and v. 17), which clearly tell us that Jonathan and Saul were originally together in Gilgal and then they moved as a group to Gibeah. Had Jonathan remained in Geba, (1) the fact that he left to investigate the Philistine camp and that the people in Gibeah did not know he was gone would make little sense. Why mention that Jonathan is gone from Gibeah if he was not in Gibeah in the first place? (2) When Saul realizes that something is up in the Philistine camp, then he quickly inventories the troops and finds that Jonathan is not there (1Sam. 14:17). There would be no reason to number the troops and determine that Jonathan was gone, if Jonathan was stationed in another city.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And between the passes which sought Jonathan to pass through above the garrison of the Philistines, a tooth of the rock from the side from this and from a tooth of the rock from the side from this. And a name of the one, Bozez; and a name of the one, Seneh.

Septuagint                             And in the midst of the passage whereby Jonathan sought to pass over to the encampment of the Philistines, there was both a sharp rock [lit., tooth off a rock] on this side, and a sharp rock on the other side; the name of the one was Bases, and the name of the other Senna.

Significant differences:          No significant differences; it is difficult to determine where Jonathan is in relation to the Philistines, even with the extensiveness of this text.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Jonathan decided to get to the Philistine camp by going through the pass that led between Shiny Cliff [Bozez Cliff] and Michmash to the north and Thornbush Cliff [Seneh Cliff] and Geba to the south. [vv. 4–5]

The Message                         The pass that Jonathan was planning to cross over to the Philistine garrison was flanked on either side by sharp rock outcroppings, cliffs named Bozez and Seneh.

NLT                                To reach the Philistine outpost, Jonathan had to go down between two rocky cliffs that were called Bozez and Seneh.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         There was a cliff on each side of the mountain pass where Jonathan searched for a way to cross over to attack the Philistine military post. The name of the one [cliff] was Bozez, and the name of the other was Seneh.

JPS (Tanakh)                        At the crossing by which Jonathan sought to reach the Philistine garrison, there was a rocky crag on one side, and another rocky crag on the other, the one called Bozez and the other Seneh.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And between the passes by which Jonathan sought to cross over to the Philistines’ garrison, there was a sharp crag on the other side, and the name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh.

Young's Literal Translation    And between the passages where Jonathan sought to pass over unto the station of the Philistines is the edge of a rock on the other side, and the name of the one is Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh.

What is the gist of this verse? Jonathan has climbed to a spot where he can overlook the Philistine camp. He is at a particular passage way between two small rocky crags, each of which is named.

Translation: And between the passes which Jonathon desired to pass through, above the outpost of the Philistines, [there was] a sharp crag on this side and a sharp crag on that side. You will notice that there is an exact repetition of a fairly long phrase with a conjunction between the repetition. With the prepositions, it is difficult to ascertain for certain what is being said; however, it appears that Jonathan was getting a vantage point from which he could look down upon the encampment of the Philistines. They had just moved to the pass of Michmash (1Sam. 13:23). Jonathan needed to find a place where he could look down upon the Philistine camp. Where he and his armor bearer went to, there were sharp crags or rocks on both sides of this passageway which looked down upon the Philistines. What could be the geography is that on both sides of this passageway was more than simply two sharp sets of rocks, but actual rock mountains or rock hills, neither of which could be easily scaled (hence the description as a tooth of the crag). The reason that I say this is that they are named, which would be something which would more reasonably applied to something larger than just two sets of sharp rocks. That is, you would name a mountains or a hill rather than name a single rock (which we will see in v. 1b).

Translation: And the name of the one, Bozez; and the name of the other, Seneh. I quite frankly do not completely understand the reason for this; why Jonathan would record the names. However, where he was, was probably well known to those of his era. Let me make a guess—one cliff would have the sun on it most of the time, meaning that it would be to the north (so the sun would strike it from the south); the other side would be covered with thorns or brambles. So, even though Jonathan is generally approaching from the south, the entrance to the camp of the Philistines are these two cliffs with a north-south bearing, which is confirmed in the next verse.

In any case, the name Seneh, according to Barnes, means Acacia, a name which is given to the modern valley in that area, as it is filled with Acacia trees. Concerning Bozez, Barnes tells us that the valley runs nearly due east and its northern cliff is of a ruddy and tawny tint, crowned with gleaming white chalk, and in the full glare of the sun almost all the day. Edersheim also gives us a good feel for the geography: Passing from Geba northwards and westwards we come to a steep descent, leading into what now is called the Wady-es-Suweinit. This, no doubt, represents the ancient “passage of Michmash” (1Sam. 13:23). On the opposite steep brow, right over against Geba, lies Michmash, at a distance of barely three miles in a north-westerly direction. This Wady-es-Suweinit is also otherwise interesting. Running up in a north-westerly direction towards Bethel, the ridge on either side the wady juts out into two very steep rock-covered eminences—one south-west, towards Geba, the other north-west, towards Michmash. Side wadys, trending from north to south behind these two eminences, render them quite abrupt and isolated. These two peaks, or “teeth,” were respectively called Bozez, “the shining,” and Seneh, either “the tooth-like,” the pointed,” or perhaps “the thorn,” afterwards the scene of Jonathan’s daring feat of arms (1Sam. 14:1–13). Bethel itself lies on the ridge, which runs in a north-westerly direction from Michmash.

What appears to be the case is that this is a common pass from Michmash to Geba. The Philistines were camped north or northwest of this pass, ready to move out against Israel. Jonathan and his armor bearer approach this pass from the southwest and come through the well-known pass to observe the Philistines. However, even though the Philistines are north and the Jews are south, the actual pass that Jonathan will go through has a north-south bearing itself, as will be apparent below.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       The tooth the one from north opposite Michmash and the one from south opposite Geba.

Septuagint                             The one way [was] northward to one coming to Machmas, and the other way [was] southward to one coming to Gabae.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         The cliff to the north faced Micmash; the cliff to the south faced Geba (Gibeah).

NLT                                The cliff on the north was in front of Micmash, and the one on the south was in front of Geba.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         One cliff stood like a pillar on the north facing Michmash, the other stood south facing Geba.

JPS (Tanakh)                        One crag was located on the north, near Michmas, and the other on the south, near Geba.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     The one crag rose on the north opposite Michmash, and the other on the south opposite Geba.

Young's Literal Translation    The one edge is fixed on the north over-against Michmas and the one on the south over-against Gibeah.

What is the gist of this verse? In this verse, we are given yet more information about where Jonathan and his armor bearer are standing, as well as information which helps us with the overall geography. The jutting high rock to the north of them is opposite Michmash and the jutting high rock to the south of them is facing Geba. They are in between, closer to Michmash, looking down at the Philistine encampment, which is on the outskirts of Michmash.

Translation: The one crag, is a sharp rock from the north opposite Michmash and the other is from the south opposite Geba. Jonathan and his armor bearer are on a mountain passageway overlooking the Philistine camp. The rocky crag on one side is to the north near Michmash; the rocky crag on the other side is opposite Geba, which is to the south. The Philistines are camped below them, adjacent to Michmash or just outside the city limits of Michmash.

This verse helps us with several things. We find the preposition min which is used in the phrase from the north and from the south. The location of the cities tells us that this prepositional phrase means to the north and to the south. There will be other places in Scripture when knowing this will be helpful. As has been mentioned before, Michmash is north of Geba, and the Philistines would travel south to get to Geba, and then Gibeah. According to the Macmillian Bible Atlas, Geba is southwest of Michmash. The route that the Philistines chose (and the route that Jonathan chose) involves going through a mountain pass with a north-south bearing as well. So the Philistines are coming south, but will have to veer west to go through this particular pass. Jonathan and his armor bearer will be moving northward, but they will veer to the east to go through this mountain pass.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says Jonathan unto the young man bearing his armor, “Come and let us go over unto a garrison of the uncircumcised ones. Perhaps will work Y^ehowah for us because nothing to Y^ehowah [is] a hindrance to deliver, in many or in a few.

Septuagint                             And Jonathan said to the young man that bore his armor, “Come, let us go over to Messab of these uncircumcised, if the Lord may do something for us; for the Lord is not straightened to save by many or by a few.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences. You can probably guess that the LXX transliterated one word instead of translating it.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Jonathan and the soldier who carried his weapons talked as they went toward the Philistine camp. “It’s just the two of us against all those godless men,” Jonathan said. “But the Lord can help a few soldiers win a battle just as easily as he can help a whole army. Maybe the Lord will help us win this battle.”

NLT                                “Let’s go across to see those pagans,” Jonathan said to his armor bearer. “Perhaps the Lord will help us, for nothing can hinder the Lord. He can win a battle whether he has many warriors or only a few!”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Jonathan said to his armorbearer, “Let’s go to the military post of these uncircumcised people. Maybe the Lord will act on our behalf. The Lord can win a victory with a few men as well as with many.”

JPS (Tanakh)                        Jonathan said to the attendant who carried his arms, “Come, let us cross over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf, for nothing prevents the Lord from winning a victory by many or by few.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, “Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few.”

Young's Updated LT              And Jonathan says unto the young man bearing his weapons, “Come, and we pass over unto the station of these uncircumcised; it may be Jehovah does work for us, for there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by many or by few.”

What is the gist of this verse? Jonathan goes to his armor bearer, his young man, his personal assistant, and suggests that they go over to the garrison of the Philistines. He will further suggest that God will work in their behalf, as God is not constrained by working through many men or through a few. The implication is that Jonathan is considering attacking the Philistine army with two men.

Translation: The Jonathan said to his young armor bearer, “Come and let us pass over toward the outpost of these uncircumcised men.” Uncircumcised is a term of derision that the Jews applied to the heathen. Interestingly enough, this term was used primarily for Philistines (see, for example Judges 14:3 15:18 1Sam. 17:26, 36 31:4 2Sam. 1:20 1Chron. 10:4). God uses the same term to differentiate between believers and unbelievers—the believers are circumcised and the unbelievers are not (Jer. 9:25–26 Ezek. 28:10).

We don’t know what sort of facial expression the armor bearer had at this time that Jonathan said this. He apparently had been Jonathan’s armor bearer for awhile, and therefore was trusted enough to accompany Jonathan in scaling this mountainous area to observe the Philistine camp. Very likely, this is the armor bearer who served Jonathan when Jonathan attacked and defeated the Philistine garrison in Geba, the action which set all of these events into motion. So, the armor bearer was used to Jonathan’s impetuous, but spiritually reasonable actions. However, this must have been a bit of a shock. Here is this huge Philistine encampment, which they can see from where they are; and now Jonathan says, “Let’s get a bit closer.” However, that is not the most shocking thing that he says.

Translation: “Perhaps Y^ehowah will work for us because nothing to Y^ehowah [is] a hindrance to save, [whether] by many or by a few.” Here is where it appears that Jonathan drops the bomb on his armor bearer. He suggests that God will work on their behalf, as He is not constrained by numbers. That is, God can deliver whether there are many or just a few to work with. The statement that Jonathan is making is that he and his armor bearer are about to take on the entire Philistine army—the army which has all of Israel quaking. Jonathan shows incredible courage and faith here. So observe—Jonathan and his armor bearer are on a cliff overlooking the camp of the Philistines; and now Jonathan suggests that they invade this camp.

Jonathan may have been looking back to the time when Gideon was going to attack the Midianites. Gideon first put God through a series of tests to make certain that God was God (Judges 6:36–40). Then God put Gideon through a bit of a test. The Midianites were like locusts in Israel, there were so many of them (Judges 6:5). To overthrow the Midianites, God required that Gideon pare down his fighting force to a very small number—from 22,000 down to 300 (Judges 7:3–7). Just as David told the mighty Goliath, “Jehovah does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is Jehovah’s and He will give you into our hands.” (1Sam. 17:47b). Similarly, the psalmist writes, The king is not delivered by a mighty army; a warrior is not delivered by great strength; a horse is a false hope for victory; nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength (Psalm 33:16–17). Or as Paul told the Romans, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31b). And as another psalmist tells us: Whatever Jehovah pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all the deeps (Psalm 135:6). And as per the famous quote from Zechariah 4:6b: “Not by might nor by power but by My Spirit,” says Jehovah of the armies. It is not unreasonable to suppose that as Jonathan and his armor bearer looked down upon the Philistine camp, with intents of attacking them, Jonathan thought to himself, “With men, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.” (Matt. 19:26b). It is clear that these Philistines threaten the armies of the Living God, and that they threaten the life of Israel in the land. To Jonathan, it is clear that such a thing will not be tolerated by God.

Throughout the Old Testament, we have instances of man believing in God over human viewpoint, and acting by faith, even in the face of certain doom. No doubt the writer of Hebrews was therefore inspired to write: By faith [great men of the Old Testament] conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, [and] put foreign armies to flight (Heb. 11:33–34).

Application: People improperly apply this principle all of the time. Some people with illnesses, which legitimately require a physician, will not see a doctor, as they think this is lacking in faith. This does not preclude strategy and tactics in war either. There is a fine line between faith and laziness. There is a fine line between faith and craziness. What was occurring here was, God had given Israel the land, and the uncircumcised were there to test Israel. There was no confusion about these things. The influx of Philistines into the center of Israel was certainly a cause for great alarm; and their raiding parties are evil. Therefore, Jonathan has to step up, as his father appears to be paralyzed.

Now, as I originally pictured this, Jonathan and his armorbearer pass between these two steep cliffs to the outpost of the Philistines. They could see the camp through the passes, but still had to go down into a ravine and then up from there to get into the camp (v. 13). However, Edersheim pictures this as Jonathan and his armorbearer being up on one cliff, and they will have to descend between the cliffs and then come up on the other one to reach the Philistine camp.

Here is how others have handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         And his armorbearer said to him: “Do all that pleases your mind: go where you will, and I will be with you wherever you have a mind [to go].”

Masoretic Text                       And so says to him bearer of manufactured goods, “Do all which [is] in your mind; Stretch out [or, incline] to you; behold, I [am] with you as your mind.”

Peshitta                                 And his armorbearer said to him, “Do all that is in your heart; turn aside, and go; behold, I am with you; do whatever is in your heart.”

Septuagint                             And his armor-bearer said to him, “Do all that your heart inclines toward; behold, I [am] with you, my heart [is] as your heart.”

Significant differences:          In the Hebrew, there are two imperatives; in the Greek, the second verb in the armor-bearer’s encouragement is affixed to Jonathan’s heart. The armor-bearer tells Jonathan, in the Greek, that they are of the same mind (my heart is as your heart]; in the Hebrew, the meaning seems to be about the same, but he simply says, “I am with you as your heart.” When all is said and done, the idea is, Jonathan’s servant strongly supports Jonathan, whether viewing this from the Hebrew or the Greek.

It is both possible and reasonable that the Peshitta simply tried to give sense to the gist of the Hebrew, and came up with what they did. It is possible that they even inserted a word or two to give this verse greater sense. I suspect that Jerome did the same with the Latin. On the other hand, it is also possible that the translators of the Peshitta and Jerome had access to better manuscripts, which made a bit more sense here.

I want you to notice that, in this verse, the Hebrew differs more from the Greek than any previous verse in this chapter. Nevertheless, the general meaning appears to be essentially the same. Although I will give the Greek exegesis, because it appears to be fairly simple, bear in mind that this may end up being much more information than you really are interested in.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       “Do whatever you want,” the soldier answered. “I’ll be right there with you.”

NLT                                “Do what you think is best,” the youth replied. “I’m with you completely, whatever you decide.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         His armorbearer answered him, “Do whatever you have in mind. Go ahead! I agree with you.”

JPS (Tanakh)                        His arms-bearer answered him, “Do whatever you like. You go first, I am with you, whatever you decide.” Literally: His arms-bearer answered him, “Do whatever is in your heart. Incline yourself; I am with you, according to your heart.” As per Septuagint: His arms-bearer answered him, “Do whatever your heart inclines to for I am with you; my heart is like your heart.” [it was difficult to determine how to present these two footnotes].

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And his armor bearer said to him, “Do all that is in your heart; turn yourself, and here I am with you according to your desire [lit., heart].”

NRSV                                    His armor-bearer said to him, “Do all that your mind inclines to. I am with you; as your mind is, so is mine.” [the footnotes for this verse indicate that the NRSV follows the Septuagint more than the MT here, which is common in the NRSV].

Young's Updated LT              And the bearer of his weapons says to him, “Do all that is in your heart; turn for you; lo, I am with you, as your own heart.”

What is the gist of this verse? The young man who carries Jonathan’s weapons is in complete agreement with Jonathan as to what they are to do. He doesn’t ask for the day off; he doesn’t tell Jonathan, “This is really stupid. We’re both going to die!” He recognizes that what Jonathan says is true and is in full agreement with his plan.

Translation: His armor bearer answered, “Do all that is in your heart...” Even more surprising than what Jonathan says is what his armor bearer says. He says to Jonathan, “Whatever, dude” with the implication that he will go along with him. It is amazing that God brought two men of such great faith together like this.

Translation: Incline yourself [or, spread out];... The meaning of this phrase is quite confusing. His armor-bearer appears to be telling Jonathan to advance as he sees fit. The Greek is somewhat different here.

Translation: ...listen, I [am] with you as your heart.” The armor bearer pledges his loyalty to Jonathan. I am guessing, since they are approaching the Philistine camp, that they are splitting up or spreading out (although I would have expected the 1^st person plural for that). The very last phrase, although a bit abstruse, just indicates to Jonathan that his armor bearer will act in accordance with his (Jonathan’s) volition. It will be as though he is in complete accordance with Jonathan’s heart. Although the Hebrew more or less makes sense (it is a little awkward), the Greek smooths this out. Whether a Greek translator added this in order to smooth out the verse or whether it came from a better Hebrew manuscript, we do not know. However, the Greek reads: And his armor-bearer said to him, “Do all that your heart inclines toward; listen, I [am] with you, my heart [is] as your heart.” The last phrase means that they believe the same thing and that the armor-bearer is in complete agreement with Jonathan’s plan. The armor bearer is somewhat of an extension of Jonathan’s fighting arsenal; here he tells Jonathan that he is an extension of Jonathan’s volition as well.

Translation: “Do all that if your heart turns aside [or, avoids, deviates from];... Even in the Greek, this part is not easy to deal with. I believe that the idea is, “Suppose you heart deviates from [Saul’s orders to simply stay put]—[still] do all that [is in your heart]... Obviously, I am reading a lot into this passage. Jonathan’s armor bearer is supposing that Jonathan’s thinking might be turning away from something. Probably, the idea is, his heart is turning him away from just staying put, which would be Saul’s orders. His armor bearer might not speak all of this, as he does not want to make it sound as if Jonathan would be disobeying his father Saul’s orders.

Brenton renders this “Do all that your heart inclines toward...” He appears to be ignoring both the conjunction if, suppose and the actual meaning of the second verb.