Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

> An excellent point.  I hadn't considered the idea that a vow was
> extraneous at that point, but I think you're right.  We might compare
> this rash oath of his with that of Saul when he forbade his army to
> eat or drink.  The interesting contrast is that Saul relented, both
> when he saw that it was a foolish vow and when he saw that it would
> cost Jonathan's life, and AFAIK he is never called on the carpet for
> backing away from the oath.

I think you'll find that he is. He invokes the wrath of YHWH on himself if he
does not keep the vow. The irony is that the leader of Israel is led by the
people he should be leading and is forced to back down. However, he has placed
himself in the line of YHWH's wrath for not fulfilling the vow, and he places
Jonathan under the same wrath. What's the result? It all culminates in the
battle of Gilboa where Saul and Jonathan are both killed. Yes, Saul's death 
(and
indeed the burning of his body later on, a la Achan in Josh 7) are also
punishment for failing to accomplish the sacred ban on Amalek -- but it all
comes to a head. It is not just Saul who dies at Gilboa; it is Jonathan also.


Best regards,

Dr GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer of Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia