Then Saul prayed, “O Lord, God of Israel, please show us who is guilty and who is innocent.” Then they cast sacred lots, and Jonathan and Saul were chosen as the guilty ones, and the people were declared innocent. Then Saul said, “Now cast lots again and choose between me and Jonathan.” And Jonathan was shown to be the guilty one. [1 Samuel 14.41-42]
I am confused by this whole ordeal! The "sacred lots" revealed that Jonathan was guilty. Mind you, he was shown to be guilty of a crime he had no way of even knowing was a crime! It had only become a crime that day by oath of the king and Jonathan was not even privileged to the detail of that oath until after he had acted contrary to it.
My confusion is two-fold: One) How can a man be guilty of a crime if he had no earthly way of knowing it was a crime?; and two) How can "sacred lots" then reveal the guilty party in those circumstances?
I could totally disregard Saul and his foolish "oath" and actions if it were not for the sacred lots revealing that Jonathan was guilty. Perhaps what I do not understand is what it meant for a king to make an oath such as Saul made! "Oath" is a word I can only assume carried much more meaning and circumstance then than modern understanding attaches to it now. What's more, by the collaboration of the sacred lots with the oath of Saul, I am inclined to think perhaps God is more interested in "oaths" than we are!
Father, help me to get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment