1 Samuel 14:42

42. Jonathan was taken But Jonathan had not knowingly transgressed, and by the victory God had set his approving seal to the young hero’s Gideon-like faith, and Saul’s oath was rash, unwise, and without divine counsel; why, then, should the cloud of divine indignation rest upon the people, and why should the Lord God of Israel designate Jonathan as the offender? We answer, This taking of Jonathan by lot was not a designation of him as the special object of the Divine anger, nor did the people so understand it, as we see from their action in rescuing him from death. But though it convicted him of no guilt before God, it did show him to be the violator of the king’s oath; and a solemn oath, made by the anointed king of God’s chosen people, though it be hasty and unwise, must be vindicated in the eye of the nation as a thing not to be treated lightly. The taking of Jonathan led to an investigation of the whole matter of the oath, and resulted in showing that he who violated this oath was not so guilty before God as he who made it. And this result would further show that the sin of the people in eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14:33) was a consequence of Saul’s rash adjuration. The king himself, then, had been the cause of the trouble, and of Jehovah’s refusal to answer him that day, and with a fallen countenance and a saddened heart he returned from the pursuit of the Philistines. They who hold high positions of authority among men should be exceedingly careful how they deal with solemn oaths. In Israelitish history Saul’s rash adjuration was the last relic of the age of vows.