p. 80 | The Obedience of Saul by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 15, 1883

The Obedience of Saul.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

WHEN Saul was sent to execute God's judgment against the Amalekites, the command given him was, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Sam. 15:3. This order was explicit enough certainly, and could not be misunderstood. All will agree that disobedience to such a plain command could proceed from nothing else but willfulness. Saul set out upon his mission, and smote the Amalekites, gaining a great victory. He did not, however, follow strictly the directions given him, for we read, "But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly." Did Saul obey orders? There can be but one answer: He went directly contrary to them. Should a modern officer obey the orders of his superior no better than Saul did, he would immediately be court-martialed and shot.

But how did Saul excuse himself for such conduct? Did he shrink from meeting the man of God, and say that the order could not be executed? No, he came boldly forward and said, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the word of the Lord." What impudent assurance! No wonder the prophet asked in astonishment, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" Saul had his reply ready, and said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."

From these answers of Saul's it appears that he really thought that he had obeyed the Lord. He doubtless reasoned thus: "The Lord wants all these sheep and oxen destroyed; but the end will be accomplished just as well if we offer them in sacrifice, as it would if we should slaughter them where they are. By saving them for sacrifice we can fulfill the commandment of the Lord, and at the same time offer him acceptable worship." Now it is very evident that such reasoning is not reasoning, but sophistry. If the Lord had desired that those animals should be offered in sacrifice, he would have said so; and although the Lord delights in sacrifice, he cannot accept that which is made at the expense of obedience to his commandments. Saul's course shows that he was blinded by self-will.

There is a great deal of obedience at the present time of the same nature as this that we have just considered. In a conversation which we once had with a lady in regard to the Sabbath, she admitted that the seventh day is the Sabbath, just as the commandment says, and that it has never been changed by divine authority; "but," said she, "we keep the first day of the week in honor of Christ; and the Father has such great love for the Son that anything done in his honor will be accepted as obedience." Just think of it. The Father and the Son are one; yet God will overlook disobedience to his plainest commandment, if the person declares it to be his intention to honor the Son. Has Christ commanded the observance of the first day? No. Has God ever given anybody permission to keep it? Never. Has either one ever said that such observance would honor Christ? Such a thing was never even intimated. Has not God commanded men to keep the seventh day? Yes; and in the same commandment he has told them to work on six days. And Christ was one with the Father before the worlds were made, and was associated with him in that work; hence the commandments of the Father are also those of the Son. Then how can any-body possessing reason imagine that breaking the Sabbath and observing Sunday, is an act of honor either to the Father or to the Son? This question is beyond our power to answer.

Under this same head comes Joseph Cook's reason (?) for keeping Sunday. He once wrote an article for the Christian Union on "The Sunday Question," which begun thus:—

"If it be asked what is the Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, my reply must be that the sermon on the mount, in my opinion, recognizes the moral spirit of the whole decalogue. The sermon on the Mount affirms that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled. That does not mean the ceremonial law, but the two great tables of the older dispensation. No one pretends that the law in the decalogue against theft is repealed by the New Testament, nor that against adultery."

Truly that is a reason worthy of Saul himself. "We keep Sunday, because the law enjoining the observance of the seventh day is still in force!" This reasoning goes beyond Saul, for he intended to obey the Lord, at some future time, and in his own way; but Mr. Cook intends to obey the Lord in his own way, which is by direct disobedience.

Let us use this reasoning in the case of another commandment. The first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Now why may not the heathen who has professed to be converted to Christianity, say, "If it be asked why I worship idols, my reply must be that the ten commandments are recognized by the New Testament as of full force. The spirit of that law enjoins worship, but since the object of worship is not specified, we are at liberty to worship what we please." Is there a sin common to mankind that may not be justified by such reasoning?

Or he might say, The Lord takes great pleasure in the things that he has made. When he had finished the work of creation, he pronounced it very good; and the psalmist says: "The works of the Lord are great;" "His work is honorable and glorious;" "He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered." Now, reasoning as in the first instance, the heathen might say, "It is true that the Lord has commanded us to worship him; but I worship the sun and moon in honor of God's creation; and God thinks so much of his works that he will accept sun-worship as obedience to himself." Why should the heathen be condemned for breaking one commandment, and the Christian be justified for breaking another, for the same reason? Do men think that they can deceive the Lord by such sophistry, and cause him to think that disobedience is obedience? Do they imagine that they will convert the Lord to their way of thinking? or that he will withhold punishment out of respect to their persons? If they do, let them consider the case of Saul, and its consequences, and take warning. E. J. W.