What is the context?
God does not answer Saul’s question about pursuing the Philistines. Saul begins an investigation and declares that the offender must die, even if it is Jonathan. The people remain silent. The selection first narrows to Saul and Jonathan, then falls on Jonathan.
Jonathan reports tasting a little honey. In the BSB he asks whether he must now die. Saul insists on the death sentence, but the people refuse it. They point to the deliverance God has brought through Jonathan and insist that he must not be harmed.
The people rescue Jonathan, and he does not die. The Hebrew verb is פָּדָה, padah (pah-DAH), to ransom or rescue. Brown–Driver–Briggs specifically lists this verse as rescue from violence and death. The word does not require inventing a money payment that the narrator never mentions. Saul then ends the pursuit, and the Philistines return to their land.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley understands Jonathan’s selection as exposing the danger created by Saul’s oath, rather than God endorsing the execution. He takes the people’s appeal to God’s help through Jonathan seriously. Gill likewise regards their intervention as protecting someone who acted without knowing the prohibition and whom God had used to bring deliverance.
Gill reads Jonathan’s reply as willingness to submit, following his older translation. The BSB presents the reply as a question. Both approaches recognize the contrast between the small act of tasting honey and the death Saul demands; the quotation above retains the BSB’s wording.
Henry warns that someone who neglects his own faults can become unusually severe over others’ failures to follow his commands. The account does not quote God ordering Jonathan’s death. It records Saul’s insistence, the people’s resistance, and Jonathan’s rescue. The human oath and God’s own command should remain distinct.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.