1 Samuel 14:33 Meaning: When We Blame Others for What We Started

Then they told Saul, saying, “Behold, the people are sinning against Yahweh, in that they eat meat with the blood.” He said, “You have dealt treacherously. Roll a large stone to me today!”

Study this verse →

Meaning in one sentence

Saul calls the people treacherous for eating blood, but he caused their hunger. A devotional about seeing our own fault first.

I Samuel Old Testament Hebrew

Context

This verse appears in the middle of a chaotic day. Israel has just routed the Philistines, but the victory is shadowed by Saul’s rash oath: he cursed any soldier who ate food before evening. By sunset the army is starving. When they finally reach the plunder, they slaughter animals right on the ground, too weak and desperate to drain the blood properly. That is a direct violation of God’s command. A report reaches Saul, and his first word is an accusation: You have dealt treacherously. He sees their failure but cannot see the oath that drove them to it.

Key Words

The Hebrew behind you have dealt treacherously is the verb bagad. It means more than a mistake; it carries the weight of betrayal, breaking faith with a covenant. Saul uses the strongest word he can find. But the word for sinning that the messengers use is chata, which originally meant missing the mark, an arrow off target, a step off the path. The people did miss the mark, and that mattered. Yet the tragedy is that Saul names their sin without seeing the path he paved for it. A large stone becomes the makeshift altar, a tool to fix the surface problem while the deeper one, a leader who cannot look at himself, remains untouched.

How Christians Read This Verse

Christians have read this scene different ways. Some, like Matthew Henry and Wesley, focus on Saul’s blindness: he condemns the people but never mentions the oath that left them faint. Others, like Gill and the Geneva Bible, note the seriousness of eating blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-12) and treat Saul’s command to roll a stone as a proper attempt to restore order. Adam Clarke sees the stone as an altar for sacrifice. The passage doesn’t resolve whether Saul’s reaction was entirely wrong or partly right. It leaves us sitting with the tension: a man intent on stopping sin but unwilling to see the one he started.

A common misunderstanding

Some readers assume Saul is doing the right thing here. He stops a sin, builds an altar, consults God. In fact, the same God he claims to serve stops answering him a few verses later. The real problem is not that Saul corrected the people, but that he corrected them while ignoring the disaster he caused. Wesley’s note cuts to the heart: “He sees their fault, but not his own, in giving the occasion of it.”

Living This Out

This week you might catch yourself pointing out someone else’s mistake. Maybe it is a coworker who cut a corner, a family member who snapped, a neighbour who ignored a boundary. And you might be right about them. But pause before you speak. Ask: Did I set them up for this? Did my impatience, my silence, my hurry, my rash words make it harder for them to do right? It is a hard question, and it is the one Saul never asked. You can ask it today, not to shame yourself, but to see the full picture before you speak.

Main takeaway: It is easier to spot someone else’s sin than to see the one we started.

For Families

For ages 5, 8

Saul was angry because the people did something wrong. But he forgot that he was the one who made them so hungry that they did the wrong thing. When you mess up, it helps to think: did I cause someone else to mess up too?

For ages 9, 12

Saul made a rule that the soldiers could not eat anything all day during a big battle. By evening they were starving. When they finally got food, they were so hungry they broke God’s law about draining blood from meat. Saul called them traitors, but he never admitted that his own rule caused the problem. It is a warning for us: when someone does something wrong, we should ask if we played a part in it before we blame them.

Questions People Ask

Why were the people eating meat with the blood?

God had forbidden eating blood from Noah’s time (Genesis 9:4) and again in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17:10-12). It was a way of honouring life, because blood represents the life of the animal. The soldiers were so hungry from Saul’s oath that they slaughtered animals on the ground and ate without draining the blood properly.

Was Saul wrong to command a large stone to be rolled?

Not necessarily. The stone likely served as an altar where animals could be killed properly and the blood drained. Commentators like Adam Clarke and Gill see it as a practical step to stop the sin. The deeper problem was that Saul corrected the people without acknowledging how his rash oath had caused their desperation.

Is Saul acting like a hypocrite in this verse?

He comes close. He calls the people treacherous for breaking God’s command, but he does not mention his own command that left them faint. Wesley notes that he saw their fault but not his own. It is a blind spot that keeps appearing in Saul’s story.

What does the word 'treacherously' mean here?

The Hebrew word is 'bagad', which means to act deceitfully or break faith. It is a strong accusation, Saul treats the people’s sin as a betrayal of the covenant. Yet he uses the same word that could apply to his own failure to trust God and lead wisely.

Why did God stop answering Saul later in the chapter?

After this incident, when Saul asks God whether to pursue the Philistines, God does not answer (verse 37). The silence is striking. Many commentators connect it to Saul’s pattern of half-hearted obedience and failure to examine his own heart. The chapter shows a king who is more concerned with appearances than with real repentance.

For pastors & researchers

Hebrew interlinear, 8 commentaries & word study

Study page →