BLOG

The solution to Saul's bad precedent, part 6

Saul was disqualified quite early in his reign because he was fearful that the people were scattering, or deserting the army. This pattern was repeated in the church, when leaders took carnal steps to retain their membership, especially in the face of divine delays. The early church thought that Christ would come soon, and when He delayed His coming, the people fell away.

Saul offered the sacrifice himself, though he was not a priest—neither an Aaronic priest nor a Melchizedek priest. Hence, he assumed a calling (authority) that was not his. Later, God told King David that he was “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4), and for this reason David was allowed to eat the bread from the Table of Showbread and to approach the Ark of the Covenant in David’s tabernacle.

But Saul was not of that priestly order. One must go beyond Pentecost to be a Melchizedek priest. When John wrote in Revelation 20:6 that those who will reign with Christ for a thousand years will be “priests of God and of Christ,” he was not referring to the Aaronic order but to the Melchizedek order. These are the overcomers who are raised in the first resurrection.

Jonathan’s Victory and Saul’s Curse

Saul’s son, Jonathan, was a type of overcomer. He and his armor bearer took the Philistine garrison without the knowledge of the main Israelite army. But when the watchmen saw that the Philistines were fleeing, they joined the battle and won the battle (1 Samuel 14:22, 23). But Saul then made another foolish decision. 1 Samuel 14:24 says,

²⁴ Now the men of Israel were hard-pressed on that day, for Saul had put the people under oath, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food before evening, and until I have avenged myself on my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food.

Saul’s decree may have sounded religious, but it was not a good idea to go on a fast on the day of battle. At any rate, Jonathan did not hear that decree, because he had gone to the Philistine garrison earlier. We read in 1 Samuel 14:27,

²⁷ But Jonathan had not heard when his father put the people under oath; therefore, he put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened [ore, “became light, enlightened”].

This is an interesting and prophetic way of describing the taste of honey. It is more than just a quick energy boost, as we read in Ezra 9:8, after the people had repented of sin:

⁸ But now for a brief moment grace has been shown from the Lord our God, to leave us an escaped remnant and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage.

Enlightening the eyes results in revival, that is, restoring life or overcoming death. In the Near-Eastern languages, the eyes were understood to be a barometer of one’s life-force. It implies resurrection, thereby tying the overcomers (like Jonathan) to the first resurrection.

So we read in Psalm 13:3,

³ Consider and answer me, O Lord my God; enlighten my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death.

We see here how David desired divine revelation that would enlighten his eyes. Without it, he would “sleep the sleep of death.”

Again, we read in Psalm 19:8 that “the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” This is a Hebrew idiom that implies gaining strength, whether physical or spiritual. The ultimate fulfillment of this is the strength to rise from the dead and to stand upon one’s feet.

Saul’s curse prophesied how the church would curse the overcomers on account of their desire for enlightened eyes. The honey in this case represents the gospel of the Kingdom, which was presented in the days of Moses as “a land which flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 14:8). Jonathan was the overcomer in his day who not only stood out among his brethren but was also cursed by his own father, the Pentecostal king.

This set a precedent for what we have seen in the Pentecostal Age, when church leaders demanded conformity and even mediocrity. History shows how the church persecuted not only genuine heretics but also overcomers who deviated from the boundaries of church creeds and church traditions that were presumed to contain all truth.

Jonathan’s Trial

When someone told Jonathan about his father’s curse, we read in 1 Samuel 24:29, 30,

²⁹ Then Jonathan said, “My father has troubled the land. See now, how my eyes have brightened because I tasted a little of this honey. ³⁰ How much more, if only the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies which they found! For now the slaughter among the Philistines has not been great.”

The Israelites won the battle, but the victory was only partial, due to Saul’s curse. That evening the army was famished, and we read in 1 Samuel 14:32, 33,

³² The people rushed greedily upon the spoil and took sheep and oxen and calves and slew them on the ground, and the people ate them with the blood. ³³ Then they told Saul, saying, “Behold, the people are sinning against the Lord by eating with the blood.” And he said, “You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today.”

The law had forbidden anyone—Israelite or foreigner—to eat or drink blood (Leviticus 17:12), signifying that God’s people were not to be bloodthirsty or cruel. Saul chose to blame the people for violating this law, instead of repenting for making such a foolish curse. When someone does something to cause another to sin, he violates the law by putting a stumbling block in front of the blind (Leviticus 19:14). To cause another man to sin makes one liable for the other man’s sin. Another example of such liability can be seen in Matthew 5:32 KJV.

Because the battle was incomplete, Saul asked God if he ought to finish it the next day. We read in 1 Samuel 14:37,

³⁷ Saul inquired of God, “Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will You give them into the hand of Israel?” But He did not answer him on that day.

Saul’s heart was still not right, because he still did not acknowledge or repent of his own sin. Nonetheless, he did the religious thing. 1 Samuel 14:38 says,

³⁸ Saul said, “Draw near here, all you chiefs of the people, and investigate and see how this sin has happened today. ³⁹ For as the Lord lives, who delivers Israel, though it is in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” But not one of all the people answered him.

Saul swore an oath (“as the Lord lives”) to punish the one who had caused their trouble. So they cast lots by means of the Urim and Thummim from the ephod, and it was then discovered that Jonathan was the one who had eaten honey during the battle. Saul was then determined to maintain his religious veneer of righteousness by executing Jonathan. However, to their credit the people themselves constrained him. 1 Samuel 14:45, 46 says,

⁴⁵ But the people said to Saul, “Must Jonathan die, who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Far from it! As the Lord lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.” So the people rescued Jonathan and he did not die. ⁴⁶ Then Saul went up from pursuing the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place.

Hence, Saul swore to put Jonathan to death (vs. 39), while the army itself swore an oath (“As the Lord lives”) to prevent his death. This is a good example showing that the people themselves have the power to oppose the Pentecostal king—or any other church leader—in order to do what is right. Church leaders are supposed to be examples and stewards of their position, but when they depart from God’s order, no one is required to follow them blindly over the cliff.

Having said that, keep in mind that no leader is perfect, and no one knows all truth. Grace ought to be given as far as possible.

A final thought... Jonathan was more qualified to be king than his father was. But the people had asked for a king like the nations, so they got Saul. I wonder what would have happened if they had asked for a godly king.