THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
What should we conclude? If the entire assembly remained steadfast, and nothing further occurred, maintaining the vow made? No, it was not upheld but rather violated. In what manner? Listen closely and you will comprehend the full extent of the devil's malice. ‘And Jonathan heard not, when his father spoke unto the people, and stretched out the end of his rod, which was in his hand, and wet it in the honeycomb, and turned his hand into his mouth, and his eyes were opened.’ Observe who the devil enticed into breaking his vow—not any of the soldiers, but the very son of the one who swore an oath.
Read more (463 words)
He not only sought to orchestrate the breaking of the vow but also devised a scheme of infanticide, preparing for it from a distance, and attempted to turn nature against itself; what he had perpetrated against Jephthah (Judges 11:30-40), he intended to replicate now. Jephthah had made a vow to God to sacrifice the first one who greeted him following victory in battle, which led to his own daughter being the first to appear, resulting in her sacrifice, and God did not intervene. I understand that this sacrifice leads many unbelievers to accuse us of cruelty and inhumanity. Nonetheless, I assert that the allowance of this sacrifice demonstrates God’s profound care and compassion, for not wanting to abandon humanity, God did not prevent this tragic act. Had He intervened after that vow and the resulting decree, many would have continued making such promises, hoping God would not acknowledge them, inevitably leading to more infanticide. However, by permitting this act to occur, He directed future generations away from it. This truth is evident, for after Jephthah's daughter's sacrifice, a custom arose among the Jews wherein the virgins would gather at a set time to mourn for forty days, commemorating the tragedy and ensuring that future generations would remember it, teaching that it was not the will of God. Otherwise, God would not have allowed the mourners to grieve and lament. My assertion is not mere speculation but is evidenced by its aftermath. Following this sacrifice, no one ever again made such a vow to God. Thus, God did not intervene in this sacrifice, but He did halt the one He commanded—the sacrifice of Isaac—to illustrate that He does not delight in such offerings. Yet, the wicked spirit spurred himself on to commit a similarly dreadful act, and as a result, Jonathan was led to break the vow. If any soldiers had transgressed the command, he would have seen it as a minor offense; ever yearning for human suffering, he was unconcerned about the mere act of murder, thinking he would achieve greater mischief by staining the king’s hands with infanticide. And what can we say of infanticide? The malevolent one even conceived an even more gruesome murder; if Jonathan had sinned knowingly and faced execution, it would have only resulted in infanticide; but now, having sinned in ignorance (since he had not heard), and later being punished with death, it would have caused his father profound sorrow, as he would have lost a son who was not guilty. But let us return to our narrative. After Jonathan tasted the honey, ‘his eyes were given sight,’ as the Scripture recounts. Here it denounces the king's profound folly, illustrating that the famine had nearly blinded all the soldiers and cast a deep shadow over their vision.