Jonathan and the Honey - help me understand this!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack_245814
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jack_245814

Guest
So in 1 Samuel 14:

Jonathan (son of King Saul) and his armor-bearer kick off the miraculous slaughter of the Philistines at Michmash, and Saul makes an oath cursing whoever eats anything before evening (when he will have taken his full revenge). Jonathan doesn’t hear the curse, and eats honey in the forest, and light shoots from his eyes.

He then says (RSV-CE) “My father has troubled the land; see how my eyes have become bright, because I tasted a little of this honey. How much better if the people had eaten freely of the spoil of their enemies which they found; for now the slaughter among the Philistines has been great.” The Israelites become so hungry that they eat the cattle of the Philistines raw, blood and all. In repentance of their sins, they offer many sacrifices on an altar Saul builds.

Later on, Saul asks God whether or not to pursue the Philistines further into the night, and gets no answer, so he counsels God as to who has committed the sin which angered Him. Instead of indicating the Israelites who had trampled so on God’s law by eating blood, He chooses Joseph (a much better man than his father), presumably for inadvertently breaking his father’s oath. The people, however, prevent Joseph from being slain.

I don’t understand the significance of this at all. All of the stories in 1 Samuel seem to have some sort of fairly obvious moral, but this one seems extremely obtuse. Why did Joseph’s eyes become enlightened when he ate the honey? Did he council the Israelites to break the oath as well, or not (seems like it could be read either way)? Why were the Israelites driven into such a bloodlust? You’d think battle-hardened warriors could handle less than 24 hours without food. And why was Joseph allowed to be rescued when God seems to have wanted him dead?

I understand these stories are allegorical as well as historical . . . I just can’t divine the meaning of this one 🙂

Thanks for the help!

P.S. I love the later historical books! The people in them seem much more human and complicated than the patriarchs, judges, and high priests of the older stories. Not that the Pentateuch/Joshua/Judges aren’t valuable - there are great lessons in there; these are just funner to read is all.
 
Saul made an oath Saul cursing *whoever *eats anything before evening. He does this without guidance from God.

It would have been alright if he had kept it himself as a private vow, but he was wrong to impose it on his men. I think that is why Jonathan was rewarded by God for eating the honey. The silence from God, when asked, should have been Saul’s clue that he was wrong, not Johnathan or the Israelites.

Even the most battle-hardened warriors don’t do well without food. I forget which wise leader said, “An army marches on its stomach.” Try just walking from dawn to dusk without food - no, don’t try it. You might faint, hurt yourself, and sue me. But think about marching all day while carrying weapons and armor, running and fighting, and even bleeding, without food. Nope. Bad idea.

So I can’t blame the troops for eating raw meat. They might not have sinned so, if they had refused to obey Saul - but he had the power of life and death over them.

HTH,

Ruthie
 
Hmm that makes sense to me. Saul made a rash, unthinking oath (in fitting with his general character) and God freed Jonathan from it.

I’d take issue only with your interpretation of the Israelite’s eating of blood: they could have cooked the meat and been following God’s Law as handed down to Moses (at least if you’re right about Saul’s oath being withdrawn by God); however they ate it raw, which was a direct affront to the Law.

Of course this is just a minor point; they offered sacrifices for sin, thus redeeming themselves.
 
Additionally, It is probable that the account in question be related to the following verses:

1 Samuel 18:1-3
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking to Saul, Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father’s house. And David and Jonathan made a covenant, for he loved him as his own soul.

Of Saul’s sons, Jonathan is singled out through the story in chapter 14. This account might have functioned to foreshadow what Saul would do to David. In this first account, Saul wants to carry out his quick and not God-given decision and kill his own son. People object to Saul and delivers Jonathan from him due to his miraculous victory against the Philistines. Saul later determines on his own to kill David after David’s miraculous victories against the Philistines, but David is saved by some Israelites who object to Saul’s decision and want to see David as their King. In short, the narrative of Jonathan and honey might have been recorded to highlight the similarities between Jonathan and David with regard to Saul’s behaviour.
 
That makes great sense as well; thank you very much!

Perhaps the Honey represented God’s will, thus explaining why it “enlightened” Jonathan. He ate it, even though King Saul commanded him not to; and he did this not out of disrespect for his father, but merely on unthinking, ignorant instinct.

So it is when David followed God’s will throughout his life in the court: he did this not out of defiance of Saul, as he respected Saul to an astounding degree, much like a son would (or should) respect his father. The piousness came naturally, and even though it infuriated Saul, his small-l lord, it was still just.

As Saul tried to kill Jonathan for eating honey and the people rescued him, so it is when Saul tried to kill David for being so favored by God, and God rescued him. This makes even more sense when you remember, as you pointed out, that Jonathan and David were intimately connected.

If we accept this interpretation, the lesson becomes clear: when authority of any sort punishes us for being pious, we must remain pious while not challenging that authority (which fits nicely with Christ’s teachings of humility and meekness); and we must not be pious for the sake of rebellion, but for the sake of God. If we do this, God will protect us, both temporally from baser evils and after death from an eternity in Hell, just as the people rescued Jonathan from being killed for eating the enlightening honey, and God rescued David from being killed for being such a good person, so loved by God and his fellow man.

Thanks guys, I love trying to extract from the Old Testament histories the lessons which are undoubtedly there. 🙂
 
Jack_245814 said:
That makes great sense as well; thank you very much!

Perhaps the Honey represented God’s will, thus explaining why it “enlightened” Jonathan. He ate it, even though King Saul commanded him not to; and he did this not out of disrespect for his father, but merely on unthinking, ignorant instinct.

So it is when David followed God’s will throughout his life in the court: he did this not out of defiance of Saul, as he respected Saul to an astounding degree, much like a son would (or should) respect his father. The piousness came naturally, and even though it infuriated Saul, his small-l lord, it was still just.

As Saul tried to kill Jonathan for eating honey and the people rescued him, so it is when Saul tried to kill David for being so favored by God, and God rescued him. This makes even more sense when you remember, as you pointed out, that Jonathan and David were intimately connected.

If we accept this interpretation, the lesson becomes clear: when authority of any sort punishes us for being pious, we must remain pious while not challenging that authority (which fits nicely with Christ’s teachings of humility and meekness); and we must not be pious for the sake of rebellion, but for the sake of God. If we do this, God will protect us, both temporally from baser evils and after death from an eternity in Hell, just as the people rescued Jonathan from being killed for eating the enlightening honey, and God rescued David from being killed for being such a good person, so loved by God and his fellow man.

Thanks guys, I love trying to extract from the Old Testament histories the lessons which are undoubtedly there. 🙂
Click to expand...
Excellent post! Thanks for explaning my points in a better and clearer way 👍
 
Don’t try to read too much into the concept of “honey.” It was nothing more than what those tired, hypoglycemic warriers needed–a fast sugar fix.

DaveBj
 
DaveBj said:
Don’t try to read too much into the concept of “honey.” It was nothing more than what those tired, hypoglycemic warriers needed–a fast sugar fix.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
If it was “just honey” than why did it enlighten Jonathan’s eyes? 😛
 
Jack_245814 said:
If it was “just honey” than why did it enlighten Jonathan’s eyes? 😛
Click to expand...
It brightened his eyes, like what happens to me when I eat something sweet to get me out of a hypoglycemic slump (like 30miles on the bike without eating or drinking anything). The literal meaning of aleph-waw-resh is sufficient without trying to pile on metaphorical meanings.

DaveBj
 
Jack_245814 said:
If it was “just honey” than why did it enlighten Jonathan’s eyes? 😛
Click to expand...
When a person gets low blood sugar, their eyes get dull. When they get a sugar source, the eyes perk up, as does the rest of the body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top