The Tragic Ending of King Saul

The Philistines overtook Saul and his sons; and the Philistines killed Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua the sons of Saul.  The battle went heavily against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was badly wounded by the archers. (1 Samuel 31:2-3 NASB)

The end of Saul is a dramatic sad story.  Years before, Saul was in a similar predicament when Jonathan defeated a Philistine outpost in 1 Samuel 13, and the Philistines responded by mobilizing the entire army, like here.  But here, Saul takes his stand.  Before he continued the 'guerrilla' tactics that worked so well in the hills of Palestine.  Here, Saul tries to fight a 'conventional' battle.

But even if this isn't the manner in which he normally fought (and by now, it may have been), Saul's heart isn't in this one.  He has been told that he will not survive the battle, nor will his sons.  Saul lives long enough to see his sons fall, he wounded by archers and can't escape himself, and so decides to commit suicide instead of letting the Philistines torture him to death.

The story of Saul is not one of 'redemption'; there is no silver lining to his story.  He was so often about himself; and by himself, with his hopes in ruins around him, he died.  But God had plans for him, intentions Saul would never enjoy.  His story started out with great hopes, with Saul prophesying, with victory, with honor and with obedience.  It ends very differently, and the difference was his relationship with God.

It's twelve years before Israel again regains her footing with David as king.  The devastation of Saul's sin, self-centered living, and raging jealousy of David marks his people for over a decade.  They are unable to fully recover from Saul's mistakes.  This is true except for Judah.  For those twelve years, David rules Judah as king, and seems at least as strong as the other eleven tribes.

Again, the failure to relent, to accept the guidance of God, prolongs the pain left by Saul.  Had the people relented even after Saul refused, recovery would have been swifter.  The failure of Saul to accept the restraints of God placed on him because of his disobedience; his refusal of correction carried on into the people themselves.  Once again it becomes clear sin does not just affect the sinner.

So here are the lessons I learn from this tragic ending to a tragic figure:

• My obedience is more important than I am, for it affects more than just me
• Failure can be recovered through accepting the correction of my Master
• Relenting is often the peaceful humility necessary for success before my Master
• It's not about me; and never will be

The Meaning of Tears

When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David wept the more.  Jonathan said to David, "Go in safety, inasmuch as we have sworn to each other in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD will be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants forever.'" Then he rose and departed, while Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41-42 NASB)

The 'test' of Jonathan's father, Saul, did not turn out well.  Jonathan indicated it to David with a boy and arrows, and now they both know Saul is out to hunt down David and kill him.  Jonathan recognizes his position, his responsibilities, and what he needs to do.  It is never recorded that he ever goes out with Saul after David, in fact, he's not mentioned again until the final battle of Saul.  It is truly a sad parting.

The writer includes the detail that David wept more.  In the first part of the chapter, in the initial encounter and dialogue, it seems that David is actually upset with Jonathan.  Jonathan seems to be the one initiating a covenant, and even includes a comment that he not be killed, and that it include their offspring.  Because of that, I don't believe that David loves Jonathan more than Jonathan, but rather that Jonathan bears a greater weight at the moment.

Jonathan gave his stuff to the boy and sent him back into the city with it.  He knew he had to go back into the realm of his father.  He knew he had a life of responsibilities there that he could not ignore, and from which it would be wrong of him to leave.  I doubt he even thought it possible.  I suspect that, instead, Jonathan looked with a sort of dread upon his future and the future of his father's kingdom. 

With all the problems posed by a real enemy of Israel; the Philistines, Canaanites, even rogue Hebrews, the problem absorbing Saul was David; who was not a threat.  This does not bode well for Israel.  This is a misplaced focus, and it had to evident to all, but who would defy the 'emperor without clothes'?  The kingdom is about to descend into disarray and anarchy.  I suspect the weight of his vision of the 'train-wreck' coming weighed heavier on Jonathan than David's departure.

So, as I paint this circumstance (mostly in my mind rather than truly explained in Scripture - so mere conjecture) it seems to me that Jonathan is in a position where his faith enables him to see the problem (Saul obsessed with David to the detriment of the kingdom), but also that he is held in its path by his real responsibilities within the community.  In a sense, he sees his own doom.

I also note that this faith does override his 'responsibilities' on the military side as he never goes out with Saul after David.  He sees the inevitable 'train-wreck' but refuses to put more coal into the engine to speed things up.  He sees the inevitable 'train-wreck' but dutifully remains on the train where his responsibilities remain; perhaps he can alleviate some of the effects on the community by remaining.

I also suspect that I am reading into this some qualities of my own.  I have been accused of sticking with 'lost causes' to the bitter end; usually out of stubbornness.  That may be true.  Even in games, where the stakes were meaningless, I have done what I thought needed to be done regardless of what I knew they would cost me (okay, not 'meaningless' entirely, but not significant either).  I'm not sure why I do that or where I learned to approach things that way.  But I do.  Maybe Jonathan doesn't here.  But I still learn a lesson from him.

I am called (i.e. placed somewhere for something by my Master - there's a divine purpose) to where I am for this time.  I believe that my Master has called me here and now for some form of service, and I suspect that it has to do with a marriage mentoring program my wife and I are heading up.  At least I see that as a major part of His purpose. 

The program is lacking momentum, and the danger for me is look at it as a 'lost cause' or a 'waste of time'.  It's not.  The problems of my community require this service as part of any solution.  It is the time for this program, and this is definitely the place that needs it.  Through it I believe my Master can bring hope to a people and to a place without it.  It's just been hard to get people who initially said they want to be a part to communicate or keep it as a priority.  There are lots of reasons but the results are what have me concerned.

So, do I look at the situation and decide that what has people distracted (the stuff of daily life) has vanquished this service to the community?  Do I see a 'train-wreck' in trying to get this program off the ground?  Maybe, but I also see that by staying in it, I may be then available to my Master to make what He will with who He sends and with what He provides.  It will be a program about Him rather than me and my wife.  Jonathan submitted himself to the community, and his availability cost him his life.  I don't face any such sacrifice.  Instead, all that is needed is for me to continue in the path laid out by my Master and not 'jump ship (or trains as it were)' to some other program that I suspect has a better chance of success.  I truly think the light at the end of the tunnel is the glory of my Master rather than another train.  Time to pile on the coal!

What's A Good Son To Do?

"For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."  But Jonathan answered Saul his father and said to him, "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?"  Then Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him down; so Jonathan knew that his father had decided to put David to death.  Then Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat food on the second day of the new moon, for he was grieved over David because his father had dishonored him. (1 Samuel 20:31-34 NASB)

Between a rock and a hard place really doesn't adequately describe the position of Jonathan, the eldest son of King Saul.  From reading 1 Samuel, Jonathan knows who is right in the conflict.  His loyalty is to his father, but also to his friend (if that word is strong enough), David.  Yet, he stays with his father.  It's a decision that eventually costs him his life, but it is a cost he is willing, and probably knows he will have to pay. 

The reality is that there is more to Jonathan's life in Gilead than we see initially in 1 Samuel.  He has a family of his own, wife, kids, and so on.  We know this from the actions of David later on when he shows favor to Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, crippled when the Philistines overran Gilead and he was being carried in the escape.  So there was much in Jonathan's life that complicated his loyalties besides who was right and who was wrong.

In a sense, this is a position we all face.  The choice of loyalty is often too easily criticized by those on the 'outside looking in' based on their perception of moral right, and moral wrong.  Often there are issues of responsibility to family, responsibility to community, and so on that override the other 'moral' issues. 

So the tension between right, wrong, and responsibility is what can put me between a rock and hard place.  What character do I need to live in this space?  Right now, based on some things I've experienced just recently, I need courage and determination to act.  And I need to implement those qualities faster into situations.

I believe that it's one thing to be courageous, but it's not enough.  I think the willingness to act, and the determination to act are necessary to translate courage into action.  Sometimes the competing loyalties cause a delay in action.  That's where I think I need to improve.  I can't even say that I'm delayed by 'thinking about what I'm dong'.  It actually has more to do with motivating myself to do what I already know I need to do.  Pushing myself should never be the factor that delays my actions of courage.  At some point it becomes a lack of courage.

So, as I encounter rocks and hard places, I pray that my Master will bring out in me not just the courage He calls forth in His knight, but also the willingness and determination to act required of those called to serve such a Master.  I want to be a good servant, but I also want to be a good warrior; and that requires fast action.  I want to be like Jonathan and choose those responsibilities I have been given by my Master over the other good I find attractive. 

Faith Versus Courage: What Wins the Battles

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." 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." (1 Samuel 14:6-7 NASB)

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.  While Saul talked to the priest, the commotion in the camp of the Philistines continued and increased; so Saul said to the priest, "Withdraw your hand."  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. (1 Samuel 14:18-20 NASB)

As I read 1 Samuel 14, the whole of it turns on this concept of courage and faith.  In combat, courage is not a luxury, it's a necessity.  But courage is not as simple as just being able to charge the machine gun nest and be shot.  Courage means doing what you fear to do, not what your brain tells you is ridiculous to do.  Sometimes it's faith that inspires the ridiculous.

I pulled the two passages above because both introduce engaging the enemy, and both demonstrate courage (even the second one).  But one demonstrates faith where the other does not.  The success of the battle was determined by faith, not courage.

The setting is that 600 Israelites are in Geba and Gibeah, facing 30,000 Philistines; so the odds are lopsided in the extreme.  Raiding parties have gone out looking for the Israelites (like recon-by-fire) because they've hidden in crags, holes and so on.  The Philistines know the people are out there, just no idea where.  So, it's not really a stalemate, it's more like a lull before the Philistine "boot" crushes Israel.

So, in the midst of this "lull", Jonathan and his "armor bearer" decide to engage the Philistine garrison on their own.  The reason is Jonathan figures numbers aren't really a problem for God.  That's his reasoning, even though it's ridiculous, from a military standpoint, for two people to take on an entire garrison.  But his reasoning derives from his faith, so, from a military standpoint, two people walk with the army of the Maker of the heavens and the earth.  Now the odds are still lopsided, but the other way. 

That's faith: to see the "unseen" and be sure of it in the face of what is seen.  Again courage faces fear, real or imagined.  Faith discerns what is unseen and walks in confidence.  Sometimes faith looks like wisdom, sometimes it looks like extreme foolishness.  Sometimes it takes courage to move belief to faith (belief in action). 

Saul realizes the Philistines have been engaged, but not how.  He musters the troops (600-2) and discovers his son and his armor bearer are gone, so now he knows how.  Then he calls for the Ark to inquire of God (possibly he calls for the priest with the Ephod...long story).  But when the battle grows he decides he has enough to go on, and calls the 598 to follow him in joining the battle against the 30,000.

This still takes courage.  It's still extremely lopsided odds on the surface.  I'm pretty sure Saul wanted to know if he should engage the enemy.  But then he figured that the momentum of battle was already there, so he needed to act quick to keep it in his favor.  It makes sense from a military standpoint.  In fact it made sense to those who had run away, and those who had joined their enemies as well.  The people came from their hidy-holes, and even those in the Philistine camp rejoined Israel in the battle switching sides...again, as it were. 

Joining the battle as it had clearly turned against the Philistines at that point was a no-brainer.  Everyone got in on it, but they knew Jonathan had started it.  It was clear that the faith of one brought the victory, not the 600 in Gibeah, not the return of those in hiding, and not the return of the unfaithful among Philistines.  Courage was displayed on the part of many, but faith was displayed by one.  Courage didn't bring victory, it was faith.  Okay, it's possible to see it as courageous faith, but it is still faith in its essence, not courage.

So what do I learn?  I learn that reasoning, sound foundational principles of leadership, finance, and planning are not the keys to success.  They are important, and I don't discount them; I have skills in all of them.  But the key to success is reckless abandon to my Master in faith; belief in action.  So when I'm faced with extremely lopsided odds to accomplish the work of my Master, I don't need to "figure it out" using foundational principles.  I need to act on my belief that the Master of the universe leads me into the fray.