DIVINE TRIAL AND EXPOSURE
[p. 65] DIVINE TRIAL AND EXPOSURE
1 Samuel 13: 13, 14; 1 Samuel 14: 47, 48; 1 Samuel 15: 1 - 23
JT The thought has been before one all day that, as anointed of God and set up in light and privilege, we are all under trial. We are greatly favoured, as Saul was, peculiarly favoured, with the mind of God set before him as to one who would supersede him, according to the verses read in chapter 13. And then, according to the verses read at the end of chapter 14, he was generally successful, that is, as the natural eye would see things. He “took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he turned himself, he discomfited them. And he did valiantly, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of their spoilers”. Then we are told of his sons and daughters, and his ministers, we might say. The chapter is the history of a ministry that is finished. But chapter 15 is particularly in mind as the final test; this final commission becomes the supreme test. It seems to me as if at the present time it is wholesome to face such scriptures, for we are all on trial in this sense; it is he that continues to the end that shall be saved. Constantly the mind of God is being brought to us, as it was to Saul, and at times it seems as if we are moving in it, and yet the final test may bring out serious conditions, for the tests go on to the last moment of our position down here. Chapter 15 begins with, “Samuel said to Saul, Jehovah sent me to anoint thee”. Samuel is having to do from the very outset with this remarkable man; he stresses that it is so, that Jehovah sent him to anoint Saul, and he is [p. 66] going through with the matter. So that our beginnings are in mind and how we are to finish. This last service seemed to be the best of all, and yet it was the worst of all, so that we have to be on the alert to be sure that we are doing the will of God. Chapter 16 is the positive terminus to this subject, that is, the appearance of David. Chapter 15 is what is in mind as the final test.
Ques Paul said he had fought the good fight and kept the faith. Would he be an example of one who did continue, as over against Saul?
JT Quite so. Samuel himself is a testimony to this same thing, but he stresses here that he had to do with the beginning of this movement involving Saul, and now he is having to do with it at the end.
Ques Do you suggest that we are tested as to where we are inwardly in our secret history with God?
JT That is the idea. Samuel is, as it were, overseeing the matter, it is he who is speaking to Saul in all these cases. Now he is reminding him that he had to do with him at the beginning and was sent of Jehovah to anoint him, and he says, What is going to happen? He is giving him a work, and is he doing the will of God in it, or is he assured of the will of God and not doing it?
Ques Is the failure in obedience through not hearkening sufficiently attentively to the word of the Lord?
JT Yes, and not waiting for issues. The servant and the saint too is to be on that principle of dependent waiting. Whatever little I may do, what is the result of it? Am I confirmed that I am doing the will of God? So that the first scripture read is a pronouncement on Saul as having failed in not waiting. In verse 8 it says, “He waited seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him” (that is, from Saul). “And [p. 67] Saul said, Bring hither to me the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings. And he offered up the burnt-offering. And it came to pass, as soon as he had ended offering up the burnt-offering, behold, Samuel came”. He did not wait long enough, and hence we have this pronouncement. He explains and excuses himself to Samuel. He says, “The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to Jehovah; and I forced myself, and offered up the burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly, thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God which he commanded thee”. That is, each move in our position in the testimony is to be tested out. Does it bear the test? It may not, and yet we go on. The light of God is brought in, and we go on again and again, and finally it looks as though the general service of Saul is successful. Had we nothing beyond chapter 14 it might have been thought that the Spirit of God thought it successful. But chapter 15 brings out the whole matter. The will of God was not in his heart, the word of God was not in his heart.
Rem It is a great contrast to the Lord in Isaiah 8. At a crisis in the testimony He says, “I will wait for Jehovah, who hideth his face from the house of Jacob; and I will look for him”.
JT I was thinking of that. Jacob says, “I wait for thy salvation, O Jehovah”. Patience is set before us in the man of faith. It calls for examination at every stage of our service and history.
LES Does Samuel himself exemplify the true spirit of waiting in chapter 16 when he says, “We will not sit down till he come hither”?
JT Well, he had come to that. It is an excellent example of what we are seeking to show. He was quickly recovered. It is an example of how readily a truly obedient man becomes restored if in any way he is deflected; but where the word is not readily [p. 68] received, digested and acted on, God will not let us off. We may seem to be doing well, but God will bring in a test, and we are exposed.
Ques Was the first test not only in regard to the commandment, but in regard to patience as far as the word was concerned? He waited the set time. Was the extra time on Samuel’s part to test the thought of patience?
JT That is the idea. It was in mind that this man should be always on trial, he represents us all in the testimony, in responsibility, we are always on trial. God loves to see His own work show itself in the sense of dependence and patience, but otherwise the test will expose us. We may as well make up our minds to this.
Rem We can never exactly be sure of ourselves.
JT No, you cannot. Paul said he had a good conscience, but he was not thereby justified, “He that examines me is the Lord”, he says.
Ques So that is it that if there is exposure, what comes to light is that there has been in some way or other the retention of the man that God has rejected?
JT That is what I thought; that comes out here. Samuel is faithful with Saul in chapter 13, as we have observed, reminding him that God had rejected him, but still he is allowed to continue, and chapter 14 brings out the kind of man that was to replace him, only not fully so. That is, Jonathan is very like David and acted wonderfully in chapter 14, so that Saul has under his very eyes what God has in His mind in His service, a man who works with God. Jonathan represents the spirit of Christ as working with God. But chapter 14 only brings out the obdurate condition of Saul, because he would have slain Jonathan on merely legal grounds, on no righteous grounds whatever. That is, it is positive unrighteousness. “Thou shalt certainly die, Jonathan”, he said, for a merely legal cause, whereas in truth [p. 69] Jonathan was representing and working with God, bringing out the wealth of the land. The land was flowing with milk and honey, and Jonathan saw that it was flowing with honey and he partook of the honey, he partook of the land of Canaan in a truly spiritual way, and he must die for that, because of a legal enactment of his father, an unrighteous enactment. So that in these chapters we have the man under trial, tested at every moment, as it were. We are tested every moment in these meetings, weekly meetings and special meetings, tested every moment with the light of God, and what are we doing, what is the effect of it?
Ques Had you in mind that the 14th verse of the 13th chapter constituted an appeal to Saul, that is, the presentation of the man after God’s own heart?
JT That was what I thought, a man after God’s own heart. He existed. We do not get his name, there is no indication as to who he is, “Jehovah has sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah has appointed him ruler over his people; for thou hast not kept what Jehovah commanded thee”. Yet Saul is going on, allowed to go on, not deposed. Then Jonathan comes in and tests him again, working with God, and he does not tell his father. Why am I left out of things, why am I not taken into the counsel of the spiritual? Well, there is something wrong with me. He did not tell his father. Why did he not tell his father? Jonathan was acting spiritually, I mean to say that the position today is most critical, because God is greatly favouring us. Week after week brings its quota of light and blessing amongst us, and we are all on trial in that way. Are we looking in and saying, What is the situation with me? Why am I not in the counsels of the brethren, for instance? Why am I not in the confidence of the brethren? The spiritual are with [p. 70] God. However few, they are with God. Jonathan was with God, he was working with God, but what he undertook to do he kept silent as to his father. His father is out of it; that is to say, unless I am walking in the light as God is in the light, I am simply out of the thing, though professedly in it.
Ques Does the apostle refer to that when he says, “We labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him”?
JT Just so. The apostle had kept his conscience right with God, yet he was not justifying himself, he says, ‘It is the Lord who examines me’. The mind of heaven is usually reflected in the spiritual. Jonathan represents the spiritual here. There are such, however few, and they keep their counsels to themselves in regard of unspiritual people. So that I am out of it unless I am judging myself. It says, “He did not tell his father”.
WJD Are you applying this to the general development of the truth amongst us?
JT Yes, everywhere. There is that amongst us that is unnamed, very much that is a weight, unjudged sin. The spiritual are exercised, but, generally speaking, there is a great deal that is not dealt with. God is going on with us, and the spiritual are with God, and they have to keep their counsels. Many are out of these things. Why are they out of them? Why is Saul out of this matter? He is quite ignorant as to what Jonathan is doing, and yet Jonathan is with God. He has an armour-bearer who is ready to follow him. In verse 6 Jonathan says, “Come, and let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised” — see the spiritual terms he uses, whereas Saul was using natural terms, calling the Israelites Hebrews — “perhaps Jehovah will work for us; for there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by many or by few. And his armour-bearer said to him, Do all that is in thy heart”. So that we have two anyway,
[p. 71] as we have in the New Testament, “two of you”. They are with God about matters and God is with them. They are working with God, so that the testimony goes on. Am I in it or out of it? Although nominally in fellowship, am I out of it? Why should I be out of it?
Rem Jonathan and his armour-bearer represent a spiritual understanding amongst the saints who are with God in the development of the matter.
JT That is right. They are not a party, they are working with God. But he did not tell his father; his father was out of the thing, he was unspiritual, and he was not keeping the commandments of God.
WC Does the position under the pomegranate tree suggest a kind of orthodox position? There were a good many with him, six hundred. The real work of God is unknown, going on without their knowledge.
JT And he has got the ark too, apparently. The ark was with Israel in those days, and Saul would have had it and used it, but he gets no answer. In verse 18 of chapter 14 it says, “Saul said to Ahijah, Bring hither the ark of God. For the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel. And it came to pass while Saul talked to the priest, that the noise which was in the camp of the Philistines went on and increased; and Saul said to the priest, Withdraw thy hand. And Saul and all the people that were with him were called together, and they came to the battle”. But he is getting no answer. It is the noise of what God is doing that draws him, and then he comes into the thing, and he does harm. He is worse than useless, and he would have slain Jonathan, the man who is working with God. There is no effort to depose Saul, no effort by anybody to set him aside. He is doing it himself; he is being exposed.
Rem Jonathan wished to have all the people in this; how much more if the people had partaken.
[p. 72] So that the spiritual move is not a party one, as you say.
JT Not at all, I think what Jonathan represents here is a man who is increasing, as working with God, coming into the good of Canaan. The word as to the honey in verse 26 is, “The people had come into the wood, and behold, the honey flowed”. It was Canaan. What God had promised was there, and he was availing himself of it. But Saul would put him to death for this, for laying hold of the heavenly privileges, the fruit of the land flowing with honey.
Ques Do you get an example of this in Simon Magus in Acts 8?
JT Well, Saul represents persons who are more distinguished, really distinguished in the testimony, because he is distinguished in the testimony. The account we get is, “He took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about” and so forth. Of course Simon Magus was never distinguished in the testimony, but this man is, and he is the leader ostensibly, and yet he is not with God, and he is out of everything that is spiritual.
AJG Do we get principles set out in these persons more than just persons themselves? I wondered whether Paul discerned something of this sorrowful feature in Peter in the Acts when he withstood him to the face. Peter was happily recovered.
JT Quite, so far as it went.
Ques Would the word in Corinthians as to reigning as kings without us be significant in this regard?
JT Yes, they were out of it, that is right. Paul was going on spiritually with God; the Corinthians were out of it.
Ques Is it not so that if there is disobedience and lawlessness the service may be carried on, but it will be in the self-confidence of the flesh rather than being with God in [p. 73] the matter?
JT Exactly. And then I may be against the spiritual. God is not stopping; if the leading man is not with Him, God is going on; He will go on with the spiritual, however few, and give the victory too, and presently the leading people run counter to the spiritual. Saul would have slain Jonathan here, and it was because he was appropriating the land of Canaan, the very best thing that God had promised; that was what he was appropriating, and he must die for this. It shows how serious it is if I am not with God, how I may come right up against those who are spiritual and quarrel with them and persecute them.
Ques What is the significance of the eyes becoming bright in Jonathan’s case?
JT That is the heavenly food. The Messiah was to eat butter and honey. Jonathan came into the good of the heavenly land. Others might have come into it, but they were restrained by the legality of the unspiritual. Many are hindered because of that, they have respect for the consciences of others, and they are hindered from the very best things that God has.
Rem “All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me” furnishes the spirit of it.
JT Just so. There may have been some leading influence there. It was a personal attack on Paul, as in Jonathan’s case here.
FWW What is the difference between butter and honey, and milk and honey?
JT Butter is a higher thought. Isaiah 7 says that “a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep” so that he might have the butter. Butter is a product of milk. There are so many things current that are weighing us down, that are unnamed, and these chapters are to show that we are on trial. If things are let go by the board, God is thinking of them; He is not forgetting anything. Things must come to trial. Saul is doing fairly well according to [p. 74] the end of chapter 14, but the last chapter exposes the root of the whole matter. Samuel said to Saul, “Jehovah sent me to anoint thee king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken to the voice of the words of Jehovah” (chapter 15: 1). It is a new matter altogether, the whole history is wound up in the end of the chapter. Is he going to get off free? He gets this important commission, against an ancient enemy of God’s people; it was an excellent opportunity for him to show that, after all he has been through, he can now serve God and do what he is told to do, keep the word of God. So Samuel says, “Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy utterly all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling”. It is a remarkable thing — you might say, an infant would cover both, but the point is to show that he is going to be tested, “Ox and sheep, camel and ass”. Then we are told how the battle went and how successful he was, and he goes up to Carmel and sets up a monument; that is, he is thinking of himself. It is a great matter, and he is successful, and he is setting up a monument, and we are told in verse 10, “The word of Jehovah came to Samuel saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned away from following me, and hath not fulfilled my words”. He had already intimated that to him, but this chapter shows that He is giving him full opportunity to prove himself.
Ques What is the import of the second verse, remembering what Amalek did to Israel?
JT “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have considered what Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up from Egypt”. I think that Jehovah is putting the matter into Saul’s hands, that is, spiritually it is an extended matter, it is a matter that attaches to the whole history of God’s people. He is making much of [p. 75] him, to give him such a charge as this. It involves great spirituality and ought to appeal to any true Israelite as to the history of God’s people. So he is setting him up again; he is on trial, but this new opportunity brings out that there is no change, that the root of the matter was never judged. Every vicissitude brought out that, though Saul had done pretty well, though he “took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about ...”, the root of the matter was there; it had never been judged.
CTL Does Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 set out this point in dealing with the flesh rightly when he says, “We henceforth know no one according to flesh”?
JT Just so. That is where he judged rightly. He says, “Having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died”. Saul never came to that, with all these opportunities he had, forty years in God’s service. He never came to that at all.
Ques Is the root of the matter in personal, private exercises?
JT It ought to be; a daily check-up on our history would bring it to light. We allow things to go on and never attend to them. Short accounts are the idea in relation to God.
AJG Do you think the leaders at Corinth were tested as to this very matter, and over against that the apostle says, “For we do not, as the many, make a trade of the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ”?
JT Quite so. Then again, “Let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven ... but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. The feast is a continual thing spiritually. Saul had forty years in this great position, leading God’s people ostensibly. With all these opportunities, with Samuel there all the time always ready to speak to him, the root of the matter is never dealt with.
LES [p. 76] The Spirit who dwells in us is spoken of as “the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead”. Would that involve that His testimony to us would constantly bring before us God’s selection of Christ as the Man whom He approves, and His rejection of every other?
JT Very good, that goes on to the change of our bodies. How well pleased the Spirit of God is with us, and really Samuel represents that side; he is representative of God, there all the time, and Saul had the advantage of the presence of Samuel and yet never judged the root of the matter.
Ques Would the expression in the first verse, “The voice of the words of Jehovah”, indicate going to the root of matters?
JT Yes, it is the words, not a general thought, it is detail, checking up in our histories, the constant appeals of God to us by the Spirit.
Ques So that the voice would suggest something living?
JT Quite so, it is “the voice of the words of Jehovah”. How many there were, how constantly God speaks to us.
Rem I am thinking that Saul was a man for words, was he not? But the voice of the words would go beneath the legal exterior.
JT Quite so — what the words carried, the voice of God.
Ques Would this reference back to Exodus 17 constitute an appeal as to the sufferings of Christ, as the only way in which we can receive the Spirit in power to overcome Amalek? Is there a danger of our losing sight of that and going on without feeling what it cost Christ to deal with the flesh in order that we might have the Spirit continually, the power of it?
JT If Saul were a spiritual man he would understand this commission. In chapter 10: 1 it says, “Samuel ... kissed him” and told him of different [p. 77] things that he would come in contact with as he moved according to the instructions, amongst them Rachel’s sepulchre, the hill of God, and prophets prophesying, so that these are suggestions that would draw out spiritual instincts, but Saul did not have them. It is remarkable that for forty years God allowed this man a prominent or distinctive place in the testimony, and he has never been right all the time. All these spiritual suggestions as to Rachel’s sepulchre, the hill of God, and the prophets of God, all these ought to have set him up spiritually at the outset, but he was wrong from the beginning. He never judged himself.
Rem No one would have detected that but God. Even Samuel does not seem to have seen it.
JT The end of chapter 14 would rather indicate that, after all, he has done fairly well. Many a time one has heard that about brothers one knew, who were not right. Only recently such a person went astray and got lawless. There it is, however; it is never named. There are many such cases amongst us.
CTL It says in chapter 14 that Saul built an altar to Jehovah. This was the first altar he built to Jehovah. Would the setting up of the monument in chapter 15 be a solemn departure from that position?
JT He was making a religious show when he built the altar in chapter 14. He is more or less exposed, for the battle is being won by someone else, he is trying to get into it and have the glory of it, he is sending for the ark, setting up an altar, sending for the priest, but he is exposed. Jonathan, the spiritual man, is there, and he is carrying on, the testimony of God is going on, only two knowing it. But Saul is being exposed. It is the spiritual activity that exposes such a man as this, but the difficulty that I observe in the meetings is the inability to name, the indisposition to name, evils, and the tendency to leave them not dealt with.
[p. 78] Ques I suppose it cannot be named until it becomes open?
JT Well, the spiritual can name it. I think Jonathan was naming the real condition in his father when he did not tell him what he was going on with. He had a secret understanding, in fact, he says so; when the matter comes to light he says that his father had troubled the land (verse 29). That is naming the thing. The people are to come to that.
Ques Is it not all the more serious that even after that, it says Saul “did valiantly, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of their spoilers”, that ostensibly things went on even after that?
JT That is the test, I think. Such a man is allowed to go on and do things, do valiantly, too. People say, After all, he has been a good brother, and the matter is not named. He is a real troubler, that is the truth.
Ques How would you name it?
JT Well, there is the principle of investigation. Our so-called care meetings ought to be that; it is a question of a spiritual investigation. They are not final. The assembly alone can administer judgment, but the investigations ought to bring to light the conditions in the gathering, and there ought to be a naming of any troubler. He has troubled the land.
Rem They would be named in the care meeting before they are named in the assembly.
Ques Do you think the apostle in 2 Timothy is on this line? He names the matter of Demas, and then he names the matter of Alexander the coppersmith. He goes on to say, “Against whom be thou also on thy guard, for he has greatly withstood our words”.
JT A very good example. He names things to Timothy as if he had confidence in him.
[p. 79] Ques Is it a question of the testimony being at stake, that things must be named when that is the case, not personal matters, but the testimony at stake?
JT We ought to see that here. Although this man is a leader, he is a troubler really. Although there seems to be a good report, he has done fairly well. God is showing in chapter 15 that he is not to get off. That is a solemn matter. The government of God goes on, and no one will escape, God will see to that; something will happen to show the root of the matter.
Ques There would be certain indications, do you think, to the spiritual of the way things were going?
JT That is what comes out here. What you notice is that Samuel is really friendly to Saul, he is no enemy at all. He is friendly from the beginning to the end. He mourned for him after he was finally rejected. Nevertheless he is a spiritual man and his word is faithful. In chapter 15 Saul tells his story. God had told Samuel in verses 10 and 11 that Saul had not fulfilled His words. “Samuel was much grieved; and he cried to Jehovah all night”. He was a true friend, a spiritually true friend, and why should not a spiritual man be truly a friend to any offender, because the more spiritual I am the more I am truly a friend to any offender. Samuel is faithful, and that is what is so much needed, a faithful naming of the thing that exists. So Saul said to him, in verse 13, “Blessed art thou of Jehovah: I have fulfilled the word of Jehovah. And Samuel said, What means then this bleating of sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of oxen which I hear? And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites, because the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to Jehovah thy God”. How plausible all this is, and most (alas, we have to say, most) will accept such a plausible story as this. We [p. 80] see what Saul has done: he has gained a great victory, in fact, we are told in chapter 14 that he had done this, for I suppose the allusion is to this battle. You will observe here in chapter 15: 17 - 19, that Samuel does not say a word about the people. He tells the truth, that Saul is responsible for all the others. He has neglected to hear the word of God and to act upon it, so that no son of trouble, like Saul, need make much of what the generality of the saints think. It is a question of the judgment of the spiritual, of the mind of God. So Samuel says, it is very plain, “Why then didst thou not hearken to the voice of Jehovah? ... Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king”. So the matter is settled.
CH It is made very clear in that verse, “Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and self-will is as iniquity and idolatry”. Self-will, generally speaking, is one of our greatest sorrows.
JT Yes. It is inability to face things that needed to be judged.
Rem Is it right to suggest that in the questions that Samuel asked Saul — it was all done by questions — he was giving him an opportunity, but it only brought out the fact that he was excusing himself all the time? Had he judged himself at that late hour God would have come in for him.
JT This is really what meets all these matters that are allowed of God amongst us. What has happened? There is nothing very concrete you can speak of, but verses 22 and 23 are the spiritual exposure of the whole matter, that will is at work, want of self judgment, instead of God’s will, my will, covered over with what is my will all the time. That is the point, I suppose it is put poetically to pierce our consciences, to get in.
CTL Is the final test as to the thoroughness of doing things?
[p. 81] JT Yes. Take Agag here, he is the king. What does he represent? He represents Amalek. In his own person he represents the whole thought, the whole thing that God would have destroyed, and Saul is so far away from God that he justifies saving this man. So Samuel hews him to pieces. It says of him in verse 32, “And Samuel said, Bring ye near to me Agag the king of Amalek”. According to this version he came gaily; I suppose it would mean he was a gentleman, he was fully refined after the flesh so as to produce a good impression. I suppose that is the idea; he would produce a good impression on an unspiritual person. But he did not on Samuel. Samuel said, “As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless above women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal”.
Ques What about Saul’s confession in verse 24?
JT It is wrung out of him. We go to a brother like this, not judging himself really but doing the best he can to cover himself. But God will not let us off. It is faithfulness to God that comes out in this chapter. It is a sort of appendix to Saul’s life, but it brings out the real state that was there all the time; God would have it so.
CH Would the Lord’s parable as to the foundations in Luke 6 bear on this? One built on the sand and the other on the rock. Would Saul represent the building on the sand and David the building on the rock?
JT Quite so. David judged himself thoroughly, he is over against Saul in that sense. David was always recoverable and always listened to his prophets, to Nathan and to Gad.
Rem Saul seems to have listened to the people. That is a poor thing for a king, “I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice”. It is not the language of a [p. 82] king.
JT Quite so. Besides that he blames the people for his own sin.
AJG The Spirit of God makes that clear in verse 9, “And Saul and the people spared Agag”, both of them: Saul was in it.
JT Quite so.
Ques Does Samuel himself set forth the secret of power? He hews Agag in pieces and returns to Ramah where he has his house and his altar. He returns to Ramah after anointing David. He always keeps up his links with Ramah.
JT He maintains his spiritual elevation before God.
Ques Why did Saul go to Gilgal?
JT A man like him will go the full limit of religious appearances.
CH Does Samuel show the balance of right feelings? Whilst he could hew Agag in pieces — there was no excess in that, it was right — he mourned over Saul, not taking advantage of him in any way.
JT I think he shows how thoroughly he regarded Saul; he would have saved him; a spiritual man will always take that attitude in seeking to recover a brother.
Ques Is it not wrong to mourn over Saul in this sense?
JT He kept it on too long. “How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?”. In raising this question I suppose it is right that we should be thoroughly with God in our feelings. It says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king”. Whilst we do not want to give any place to the flesh at all, we should be devoid of what is spiritual if we lacked feeling in the matter. These words ought to be kept in mind, how the root of the matter was reached in them; they are in poetic form. Samuel committed himself in them. They stand out as dealing with these cases, that you [p. 83] have not got very much concrete evidence of what you might call serious crime, but it is the underlying state extending over the whole period of one’s service. Things were never really judged at bottom. These two verses are in poetic form to pierce through and get to that side, so that it is exposed. Saul is the responsible leader; there is no effort outwardly to depose him. God has expressed His mind, but Saul goes on and on until he falls on mount Gilboa.
Ques While what you say can be taken up by us all, have you leaders particularly in mind?
JT No, not specifically. It is the general thought of a state continuing and the service seemingly to a certain extent quite commendable, the state owned in the fellowship, and yet God will not let it pass, it must be exposed.
Ques Is it what we say that exposes us?
JT Agag represents the flesh in its worst form against the people of God, it came to light when the Spirit was recognised. It is Satan in the flesh, that is what it is. Think of Satan in it! He is self-cultivated, self-cultured, he will produce a good impression on the natural mind. This man Agag came gaily, as much as to say, I am quite acceptable. He would have produced that impression if he could on Samuel.
Ques Do you think we need to have a clear vision in these matters of what is delightful to Jehovah? Samuel brings that in here, “Has Jehovah delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah?”
JT That is very good. These two verses are to be noted, I think they are put down so as to stand in our mind. Poetic form is to impress our minds, we can always recall poetic form.
FWW Is the contrast seen in Isaiah 42? “Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth”.
JT [p. 84] Quite so. Matthew brings that in, does he not?
Ques Why does Saul always refer to “thy God” and not ‘my God’?
JT He was pretending to honour Samuel, I suppose. I think he represents in all this the cleverness of such a man covering over the real thing that God is exposing, and excusing it, making much of Samuel, of course, making much of the spiritual man, but never really judging the root. He fails to do that, skilfully hiding that if he can.
Rem So that it says, “Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth”.
JT Quite so. This chapter 15 is, I believe, what we all have to face. We are on trial. However we may seem to be getting on well. God will not let us off unless there is this habitual judging of ourselves, keeping short accounts with God. The voice of the words of Jehovah is constantly coming before us, meeting after meeting, and yet we turn a deaf ear to it.
Rem Jehovah having war with Amalek from generation to generation gives Him the opportunity to bring us into the matter.
JT Quite so.
Ques I suppose we shall be disqualified from coming into the spiritual development under David if this is not really faced?
JT I think so. Even Samuel himself came under the power of the thing to some extent, thinking of Eliab instead of David.