SAUL MADE KING. HIS VICTORY OVER NAHASH. SAMUEL'S VINDICATION AND EXHORTATIONS. SAUL'S FIRST WAR WITH THE PHILISTINES. HIS DISOBEDIENCE.

THE FIRST eight chapters of 1 Samuel center about Samuel; and the following seven (1 Sam. 9—15) center about Samuel and Saul. For these reasons our studies of these first eight chapters were entitled Samuel, and our studies of 1 Sam. 9—15 are being given the title, Samuel and Saul. We trust that the readers have had enjoyment of, and edification by the study of 1 Sam. 1—8, and we pray the Lord to bless to them the study of 1 Sam. 9—15. In 1 Sam. 9-15 Samuel continues to type the Little Flock as a whole, especially in its more prominent members, and more especially in the star-members and their special helpers during the Interim. In these chapters Saul types the crown-lost leaders, more especially the most prominent of these, in crucial times, in each of Christendom's twelve denominations. There is, therefore, a twelve-fold antitype to the types of 1 Sam. 9—15, i.e., these chapters have had their fulfillment in the history of each of the twelve denominations, in so far as it concerns the crown-lost leaders of each of them. Time and space will not here permit a detailed description of each antitype as it was fulfilled in each of the twelve denominations, but an illustration of the fulfillment as an example of their fulfillments in the other denominations will be offered for each episode in a different denomination; and thus a fair idea of the involved principles applicable to all will be given. In our studies of the Gospel-Age Princes, based on Num. 7, we have given many details on the crown-lost princes in their capacity of perverting the twelve Little Flock movements 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

182 

into the twelve denominations of Christendom, as well as on the refutations, corrections and ethics that they offered on the twelve stewardship doctrines of these twelve denominations. 

(2) Crown-losers (man of Benjamin [son of the right hand], 1) as a class were a figurative bow (Kish [bow]) that shot out figurative arrows against their opponents, powerfully, (Abiel [my father is mighty]), as they held together (Zeror [bundle]) as a company of new creatures (Bechorath [firstborn]) refreshed (Aphiah [refreshed]) by the Little Flock brethren, whose chief favorites (Benjamite) they were, as they were able warriors (mighty man of power). They chief of these crown-losers were the crown-lost princes, or leaders (a son … Saul [desired, asked], 2). But as our Pastor indicated, Saul primarily types in general the Jewish Age Israelites and in particular Israel's main political leaders of the Jewish Age, just as in contrast he showed that David represents the Gospel Age Little Flock, particularly its leaders, and Solomon, the Millennial Age Christ, Head and Body. But as more timely we have been giving the Gospel Age antitype of Saul, the Parousia antitype of David and hope to give sometime the Epiphany antitype of Solomon. Accordingly, in the present chapter the crown-lost leaders are presented as the Gospel Age antitype of Saul. These were very gifted (choice) and in the beginning of their careers were of fine character (goodly). Among Christians as a whole (children of Israel) none were better in character than these; and in mental talents they were far above their brethren (from his shoulder … higher … people). The mere mention of names such as Origen, Augustine, Chemnitz, Calvin, Simon Menno, (Faustus) Socinus, Barrows, Barclay, Coke, Campbell and Himes, as the chief crown-lost leaders of their respective denominations, proves this of them. In fact, Origen, Augustine, Chemnitz and Calvin are generally considered as having intellects that rank among the ablest of the race. The various sets of

Samuel and Saul. 

183 

crown-losers (Kish, 3), as embracing in their number the crown-lost leaders (Saul) before the rise of each of the twelve denominations, had lost hold of various of their doctrines (asses … were lost), e.g., before the Greek Catholic Church arose, due to various errors on the relation of the Father and the Son arising during the second and early third centuries, crown-losers lost the Truth on the three natures of Christ and various features of Christ's office; again, due to various controversies arising among Lutherans, crown-losers lost considerable truths that Luther had presented. The crown-losers (Kish) sent out their ablest representatives (said to Saul … go seek the asses) to seek to find these lost truths. They sent along with them in this search the doctricians among the faith-justified, Uzzielite Levites (Take … servants with thee), which fact we construe, first, from the fitness of sending just such ones along for the search, and, second, from the fact that the Uzzielites, as the fourth group of the Kohathite Levites, had a fourth part of the Kohathite Truth teachings (a fourth part of a shekel of silver, 8). 

(3) Up to his anointing Saul represents the prospective crown-lost leaders, who as such were undergoing preparatory work to fit them later to become crown-lost leaders. These in their turn made (1) searching investigations for the lost truths throughout Christendom (passed through mount Ephraim, 4); (2) they did the same as to the lectures and publications of the third (land of Shalisha [third part]) main group of the Gospel-Age faith-justified, i.e., the Kohathites, in their linguistic, exegetical, historical and doctrinal lectures and works; (3) they specialized in this search on the subtile theologians' teachings of past times (land of Shalim [foxes]); (4) they examined the labors of the crown-losers (land of Benjamites), but all was in vain (they found them not). So many, varied and contradictory were the pertinent teachings that none satisfied them so far. Finally, in 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

184 

their search, as they came (5) to the teachings of Little Flock writers (land of Zuph [honeycomb], 5), the prospective crown-lost princes suggested to their faith-justified doctrinal companions that the search be given up, as in vain (Saul … servant … let us return), fearing that their crown-lost brethren would give up anxiety about the lost teachings, would think of them as gone astray into error and would thus be distressed about them (father … asses and take thought for us). These faith-justified doctricians (he, 6) in their study of doctrine and its history, recognizing that Little Flock brethren (man of God), especially their leaders, more especially their star-member ones, had brought forth lost truths, called (said) the attention of the prospective crown-lost princes to the writings and persons of such Little Flock leaders, as active in Little Flock movements from time to time in various denominations of the nominal church (in this city). They spoke highly of their characters (honorable man) and of the truthfulness of their teachings (all … cometh surely to pass); therefore they suggested that they consult them (let us go thither), in the hope that they might show them the way to the lost truths that they sought (peradventure he can shew … we should go); for we are to remember that the Little Flock brethren who began the movements later perverted into denominations started them in previously existing denominations and always worked in the denominations until 1846. The prospective crown-lost princes objected that they had no truths to present to these, as the reason for requesting an interview (what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent … no present to bring, 7). In humility they deprecated their condition (what have we?). To this the faith-justified dogmaticians answered that they had doctrinal features to offer (I have … fourth part … silver, 8), which would show the Little Flock brethren their Christian faith, offered them for their use to influence them to help (I give … to tell us our way). 

Samuel and Saul. 

185 

(4) Here a linguistic remark is parenthetically made by the authors of 1 Sam. (Samuel, Gad and Nathan seem to have been the authors of 1 and 2 Sam., 1 Chro. 29:29), to enable their readers to see that the seer of former times was the prophet of their times; for in vs. 11, 18, 19, the obsolete word seer (not prophet, the current word) is used, to prepare the readers, for whose use the linguistic explanation (9) was made. The prospective crown-lost leaders recognized the propriety of the dogmaticians' remark (said Saul … Well said, 10), and agreed to his proposal (let us go); and both went to these Little Flock brethren in the denomination where their movement was active at the twelve pertinent times respectively (they went … where the man of God was). They surmounted the difficulties (hill [literally, ascent], 11) in the way of gaining access to the pertinent denomination (city). Amid such difficult experiences they met providentially some newly consecrated brethren (young maidens) who were seeking Truth in the Scriptures (draw water). They asked these the position of the Little Flock leaders (Is the seer here?) as, e.g., Calvin at various places in France and in Geneva inquired of newly consecrated brethren concerning the views of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, the Swiss reformers and starters of the Little Flock movement that Calvin later perverted into the Presbyterian Church. Such consecrated ones offered them not only what they asked (answered … He is, 12), but volubly and detailedly gave them information not asked for, but calculated to help them. It is just like the newly consecrated to give more than they are asked for! They told that the Little Flock leaders had preceded them (before you); they urged haste (haste), for they had during that period (today) come to that denomination (city) to serve their, truths (sacrifice) on behalf of the people (of [literally, for] the people) throughout the denomination (in the high place). They assured them that they would find them in the denomination's most public 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

186 

place (as soon as [literally, at your entering, i.e., at the gate] … the city … find him, 13). They urged that they see them before they became engaged with others, which would preclude a speedy interview, for their engagements made it hard to gain such an interview (before … eat). Otherwise, like the rest of the people, they would have to wait to see them until after they had performed their service and all had partaken thereof (people will not eat until … he doth bless the sacrifice … they eat that be bidden). Hence they urged haste (get you up … shall find him). These typical maidens were as observant as they were newsy, for they observed Samuel's habits very well, and were not at all secretive as to telling them, which is just as true of the pertinent newly consecrated ones! 

(5) These brethren overcame the difficulty of approach to the pertinent denomination (went up into the city, 14). Hence (into the city) they came into contact with the Little Flock brethren, who approached them (Samuel came out against them) on their way of ministering their Truth in the pertinent denomination (to go up to the high place). Providentially the Lord made known ahead of time (a day before Saul came, 15) to the Samuel class the coming of the prospective crown-lost princes (Tomorrow … I will send thee a man … of Benjamin, 16), e.g., as we saw that He had done to William Miller as to Elders Buckley, Himes, White, etc. (EC, 35-38). The Lord providentially made these Little Flock leaders recognize that they should train (anoint) such crown-lost leaders to become a class of leaders in the Little Flock movements (captain over my people Israel). These God chose to deliver His people from sectarian attackers of those who accepted the teachings of the Little Flock leaders (save my people … hand of the Philistines), e.g., (Faustus) Socinus' attacks on the trinity delivered Unitarians from the sectarian attacks of Trinitarians. God assured antitypical Samuel that He was so arranging, out of pity for His people's 

Samuel and Saul. 

187 

oppression at the hand of sectarians (looked … their cry). The Little Flock leaders' need of such assistance and the coming of such able men unto them was doubtless the way the Lord indicated to antitypical Samuel that they whom he was meeting were the promised helpers and leaders (Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said … the man whom I spake to thee of … reign over my people, 17). The crown-lost leaders approached antitypical Samuel (Saul drew near to Samuel, 18) in a public way (in the gate), asking in what teachings of doctrine and practice the Little Flock leaders dwelt (Tell me … the seer's house). These by their teachings made their identity known (I am the seer, 19). They bade them attend in the pertinent denominations, which the Samuel class did not yet leave, their public ministry (go up before me unto the high place). They likewise invited them to partake of a feast of Truth that day (eat with me today); and when they would be sufficiently fed on the Truth (tomorrow) they would send them on the way of their future service (let thee go). They likewise promised to explain whatever questions were pressing on their hearts (tell thee all that is in thine heart). 

(6) They assured them that the teachings that had been lost from the Apostolic days until the Parousia (lost three days ago, 20) were no longer to be worried about, since they were discovered in one or another of the twelve denominations (set not thy mind on them; for they are found). Then, noting the great learning, exceptional talents, deep humility and devoted spirit of service in these, antitypical Samuel assured them that they and their fellow crown-losers were both the hope and the desire of God's people (all the desire of Israel … on thee … father's house). By their acts the prospective crown-lost leaders indicated that they were crown-losers (a Benjamite, 21). By their acts they also indicated their humility in recognizing their unworthiness to be in the Little Flock (smallest of the tribes of Israel, 15:17) and the least part of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

188 

this class (my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin). Hence they earnestly demurred at antitypical Samuel's so speaking to them. Such a spirit of humility shines out in all the crown-lost leaders at their outstart, especially in Origen, Augustine, Simon Menno, Barclay, Campbell and Himes, as their biographies testify. E.g., The Confessions of Augustine show this spirit in a most praiseworthy way. Thereupon antitypical Samuel took antitypical Saul and the faith-justified dogmaticians into the banqueting room of Truth (took Saul and his servant … into the parlour, 22) and gave them the honor place, thereby bestowing chief attention on them (sit in the chiefest place), though not neglecting other guests at the feast (them that were bidden). The guests were all of natures lower than the Little Flock (30 persons [30 is a multiple of 10]). The Little Flock leaders charged themselves, in their capacities as preparers of the spiritual food (cook, 23), with the work of giving the special stewardship truths to antitypical Saul, as the thing especially set aside for the purpose (Bring the portion … Set it by thee). As charged, so was it done to Saul with the pertinent twelve stewardship truths and their related detailed matters (cook … shoulder … upon it … before Saul, 24). Antitypical Samuel heartily commended to antitypical Saul for his appropriation some detailed features not given to others (which is left [literally, reserved] … eat), encouraging them to put it into a condition for partaking (set it before thee) and assuring him that it was reserved until then for them from the outstart of their inviting others to the feast (this time … kept … invited the people). The prospective crown-lost leaders in the twelve pertinent periods partook of the twelve stewardship doctrines and of certain related details from and with antitypical Samuel, e.g., Chemnitz received the pertinent Truth from and with Melanchthon, Alexander Campbell from and with Thomas Campbell, etc. 

Samuel and Saul. 

189 

(7) Thereupon antitypical Samuel and Saul drew back somewhat from the respective denominations' activities in which they had been engaged (come down from the high place into [literally, of] the city, 25). Following this they set the Truth forth before antitypical Saul with a restful result in the latter (communed [additional reading, he spread a couch—Ginsburg's notes; see Rotherham]) in a public way before the Little Flock movements (top of the house). On this Truth antitypical Saul rested himself (he lay down, Ginsburg's notes; see Rotherham. These words are not in the A. V., but instead a variant and incorrect reading has been rendered in the A. V. of v. 26, "and they arose early"). Very early in the next stage of affairs, publicly before the Little Flock movements, antitypical Samuel hastened antitypical Saul to go to their proper denominations (about the spring of the day, that Samuel called Saul to [literally, on] the top … up … away, v. 26). Aroused from their rest in the Truth (Saul arose), antitypical Samuel and Saul proceeded in association to activities in the pertinent denominations, e.g., after Thomas Campbell had measurably indoctrinated Alexander Campbell in the teaching that the Bible is the Christian's sole creed and center of union, both of them in unison (both of them, he and Samuel) taught this feature of Truth in the Presbyterian Church, of which both were members. The same thing in principle was done in the other eleven denominations. This course brought them farther and farther away from harmony with the pertinent denominations (going down to the end of the city, 27). At this juncture, as they were falling out more and more with the respective denominations, antitypical Samuel, desiring privacy for their qualifying antitypical Saul for leadership, indicated their desire that the faith-justified dogmaticians be sent away, asked antitypical Saul to remove these from them (Samuel said to Saul … pass on before us), which was done (passed on). Then antitypical Samuel asked

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

190 

for antitypical Saul's undivided attention (stand thou still a while), in order that they might further instruct them in the Lord's Word pertinent to the circumstances in which they were (shew thee the word of God). 

(8) 1 Sam. 10 treats of Saul's being made king of all Israel, and as such types the crown-lost leaders' being made the leaders of the twelve denominations of Christendom. Up to this point in the antitype the teachings that antitypical Samuel, the Little Flock leaders, had been giving antitypical Saul, the prospective crown-lost leaders, apart from a few details that their superior gifts enabled them to understand better than the rest of the consecrated, were given in no more detail to antitypical Saul than antitypical Samuel had given them to other brethren, but from here on full qualifications for the pertinent leadership in the way of enlightenment and encouragement were given by antitypical Samuel to antitypical Saul (Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, 1), explaining that they were so doing to them, because the Lord had chosen and qualified them unto leadership over His people (Lord hath anointed thee … over his inheritance). Antitypical Samuel assured them that in the period of their leaving the Little Flock as mouthpieces of the Lord (departed from me today, 2) crown-retainers and crown-losers (two men), in connection with the help and the remembrance of the two Gospel-Age spiritual covenants (by Rachel's [ewe] sepulchre), near the border of crown-losers' sphere (in the border of Benjamin), in protection against too hard trial (Zelzah [heat—shade]), would assure them that the lost teachings had been found (asses … are found), and that their long quest therefore was worrying crown-losers (sorroweth for you), who instead of worrying for the lost teachings (left the care of the asses), feared that they had gone astray (What shall I do for my son). This could be told them, since the wide-awake crown-retainers and crown-losers had from

Samuel and Saul. 

191 

antitypical Samuel learned these truths. Again, antitypical Samuel assured antitypical Saul that, as they would turn from the subjects of the two Gospel-Age spiritual covenants (go … thence, 3) and would advance to the strength of high character (come to the plain [literally, oak] of Tabor [height]), they would be met by consecrated ones of the Little Flock who would present themselves to them in three aspects (three men). In the first of these aspects they would appear as believing in the sin-offering of Jesus, the burnt offering of Jesus and the sin-offering of the Church (one carrying three kids); in the second they would appear as believers in the deeper teachings of these three matters (another carrying three loaves of bread); and in the third they would appear as explainers of the easier matters of sacrifice (another carrying a bottle of wine). It would be natural for the crown-lost leaders to meet Little Flock members so engaged when crown-lost leaders had just left their leaders, though we are not to conclude from this that, the philosophy of the Church's share in the Sin-offering was then clearly understood; rather the simple fact that the Church is privileged to suffer with the Lord for righteousness was doubtless the thing then being taught and lived out. Hence the things that they imparted to antitypical Saul were not the deeper teachings on all three of these matters, but the deeper teachings of Jesus' suffering as atoning for sin—sin-offering, and receiving the manifestation of God's acceptance—burnt offering (salute thee, and give thee two loaves of bread, 4). Antitypical Samuel, who knew that the ransom sacrifice was the all-important Truth for the consecrated, charged antitypical Saul to receive the two antitypical loaves (which thou shalt receive of their hands). 

(9) Antitypical Samuel told antitypical Saul that he would have a third experience, which would be in the twelve denominations of the nominal church (hill of God, v. 5), in which the pertinent twelve Little

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

192 

Flock movements would be working. They assured them that in each of these, where there would be a body of sectarian fighters (garrison of the Philistines), there would come to them companies of preachers (company of prophets), after ending certain features of their services for their respective denominations (coming down from the high place). These would be working in favor of their conceptions of their written creeds (psaltery), books of devotion (tabret [cymbals]), books of hymns or sermons (pipe) and the Bible (harp) and preaching (prophesy) as they proceeded on their course of work. Furthermore, antitypical Samuel told antitypical Saul that the Lord's Spirit would so prevail over them (come upon thee [literally, prosper over thee], 6) that it would move them to preach among such preachers (shalt prophesy, with them), and the effect of this upon them would be to alter them entirely, i.e., make them opponents to the respective sects in which the Little Flock movements began (turned into another man), e.g., Dr. Coke would be changed into an enemy of the Church of England, in which the Wesleyan Little Flock movement began; Alexander Campbell would be changed into an enemy of the Presbyterian Church, in which the Barton W. Stone and Thomas Campbell Little Flock movement began. After these three experiences would be fulfilled (when these signs are come, v. 7), antitypical Samuel charged antitypical Saul to do whatever the circumstances would point out for them to do (do as occasion serve thee), because they would be the Lord's indications for their activities (God is with thee). 

(10) Antitypical Samuel assured antitypical Saul that the latter would come into various turning points of crucial events before the former would come to their assistance (shall go down before me to Gilgal [circuit, rolling away], 8). Then they would come to their succor by fruitful services, expressing God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice (I will come … offer

Samuel and Saul. 

193 

burnt offerings), in fulfillment of their consecration vows (peace offerings), impressing upon them the thought that they should await antitypical Samuel's full time of coming (seven days shalt thou tarry) and not take things into their own hand without his presence (till I come). These things done, antitypical Samuel would tell them what they should do (shew thee what thou shalt do). After antitypical Samuel's instructions had been delivered to antitypical Saul, the latter pursued their mental journey away from the former (turned … from Samuel, 9). God gave them the heart of organizers and servants and defenders of their stewardship truths and their related doctrines (God gave him another heart). And the three forecast sets of experiences of vs. 2-6 occurred to and in them in the respective periods (those signs came to pass). Particulars connected with the first two are not given at their fulfillment, but on the third they are given in vs. 10-13. V. 10 simply states the fact of the third's fulfillment just as stated prophetically in vs. 5, 6; and vs. 11-13 relate certain accompanying experiences. Antitypical Saul's acquaintances from times gone by (all that knew him before time, 11) looked upon them (saw) and behold, they witnessed them moving themselves to preach among preachers (behold, he prophesied among the prophets). They questioned one another incredulously (people said one to another [literally, every man to his friend]) as to the meaning of this unusual happening (What is this … the son of Kish?), and questioned wonderingly whether these controversialists (Kish [bow]) were also preachers (Is Saul also among the prophets?). 

(11) But a class in the same denomination (one of the same place, 12) answered their question by another question, to the effect that no one could tell how prophets came into being, i.e., that they became such, not by human birth or training, but by God's appointment, and that as ones that others would not expect to be made such. The lives of every one of the twelve 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

194 

chief crown-lost leaders exemplify this unexpectable thing (who is their father?), e.g., Augustine's, Calvin's and Campbell's previous lives gave no hint of such an office coming to them later on. Secondary crown-lost leaders, like deacon Athanasius, in the Greek; lawyer Cyprian, in the Roman; lawyer Beza, in the Presbyterian; and superintendent Andreae, in the Lutheran Church, etc., are examples of the same. This fact is so frequent an one that it has become recognized generally as a matter of ordinary providential dealings, yea, even a Scriptural teaching (therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also [literally, even Saul] among the prophets?) Such prophesyings were in favor of the respective stewardship truths, and the result was that it brought antitypical Saul into oppositional prominence in their respective denominations (end of prophesying, he came to the high place, 13), e.g., Chemnitz to Rome, Augustine to the Manichaeans and Donatists, Calvin to Rome, Coke to the Church of England, Campbell to the Presbyterian Church, Simon Menno to Rome, etc. This course of theirs led the theological professors as a class, who were the doctrinal, etc., leaders in their respective denominations (uncle [Ner, who, as well as Kish, was a son of Abiel, 9:1; 14:51, which facts prove Saul and Abner, the future captain of Saul's army, to have been first cousins], 14), to speak to antitypical Saul and their associated faith-justified doctricians (Saul's uncle said unto him and to his servant), asking on what theological subjects they had been making mental journeys (Whither went ye?). They answered that they had been searching for the theological teachings of Truth that had been lost out of their respective denominational beliefs (said, To seek the asses). They further said that, failing in their search (they were no where), they sought interviews with Little Flock leaders (came to Samuel). The theologians, long suspicious of, and hostile to antitypical Samuel, eagerly inquired as to their teachings (Saul's uncle said, Tell

Samuel and Saul. 

195 

me, I pray thee, what Samuel said, 15). Antitypical Saul told the theologians (said unto his uncle, v. 16) that antitypical Samuel said clearly (plainly) that these lost and sought truths had been re-discovered (asses were found), and explained them to the theologians, but told nothing of their choice and training by antitypical Samuel for crown-lost princeship (kingdom … he told him not). 

(12) Antitypical Samuel made it known that those interested in Little Flock movements in the respective denominations should enter before the Lord into the condition of watchfulness and prayer, in view of critical times among them (Samuel called the people … unto the Lord to Mizpeh [watch-tower], 17). There they reminded the Lord's people (the children of Israel, 18) of God's past favors in delivering them (1) from Satan's evil order of affairs (I brought up Israel out of Egypt), (2) from his servants (out of the hand of the Egyptians), (3) from the domains of sin and error (of all kingdoms) and (4) from sin, error, selfishness and worldliness (of them that oppressed you). They added that, despite these delivering acts of God (saved you … adversities and tribulations, 19), the Lord's people had rejected their God (ye … rejected your God), refusing to accept Him as their King, by clamoring for leaders to be their symbolic king (set a king over us). Therefore, acceding to their clamors, they told them to come in their denominations (tribes) and in their sects or leaders (thousands [or princes]) before the Lord, that He might choose them a set of leaders as a symbolic king. Under Divine testings on all Spiritual Israel administered through antitypical Samuel (Samuel caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, 20), the crown-losers were brought forward as having among them the ones qualified as such figurative king (the tribe of Benjamin was taken). Under Divine trial effected through antitypical Samuel upon the crown-losers (he caused the tribe of Benjamin to come

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

196 

near, 21), the choice simmered down to its specially Truth-studious and Bible-spreading leaders (family of Matri [rainy] was taken); and from these the choice narrowed down to the most capable, faithful and humble of these (Saul the son of Kish was taken). These were looked for among those who were conspicuous, but in vain (sought him, he could not be found). 

(13) Such leaders not coming to the fore, the antitypical Israelites again looked into the principles of the Lord's Word and into His Spirit and providence for information respecting their whereabouts (enquired of the Lord further, 22), asking if such leaders would yet come to the fore (man should yet come). The Lord, through the principles of His Word and through His Spirit and providences, gave answer that they were to be found concealed in humility, occupied among lowly ministries and things (answered … hid himself among the stuff [literally, vessels, teachings]), e.g., Augustine, when so desired, sought in humility to hide himself in studies and lowly occupations among the brethren. This is true also of Calvin, Chemnitz, Coke, etc. But the antitypical Israelites brought these reticent ones out of their student privacy and lowly occupations (ran and fetched him, 23). Under these conditions antitypical Saul presented themselves before the people (when he stood [literally, had presented himself] among the people). Here their great talents and fine spirit were found to be very much superior to those of their fellows and brethren (higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward). Generously antitypical Samuel introduced the crown-lost leaders to antitypical Israel (Samuel said to all the people, 24) as the Lord's chosen for them (the Lord hath chosen), ornamented with incomparable talents and good spirit (none like him among all the people), e.g., Farel so introduced Calvin; Melanchthon, Chemnitz; Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, etc., to the antitypical Israelites. Antitypical Saul was heartily

Samuel and Saul. 

197 

received and acclaimed by the people as their special leaders (people shouted … save the king). Antitypical Samuel laid before antitypical Israel the reciprocal duties and privileges of antitypical Saul and Israel, not only orally, but also in writing, as matters pertinent to the Lord (Samuel told … wrote … before the Lord, 25), and sent the people on their way to their respective denominations (Samuel sent … every man to his house). Antitypical Saul went to his position in the nominal church, accompanied by devoted colaborers (Saul … to Gibeah … with him a band … God had touched, 26). But in each denomination there were opponents who belittled, despised, rejected them, showing no devotion (children of Belial [worthlessness] said … this man save us? … despised … no presents, 27). But they acted as though they did not hear their opponents (held his peace [literally, he was as deaf]). 

(14) 1 Sam. 11 treats of Saul's first war in deliverance of Israel from their enemies. It types how in each of the twelve denominations the crown-lost leaders had to wage controversy in defense of its stewardship and related truths. This matter, for clearness' sake, as an illustration of all twelve experiences, will be shown as to how especially Martin Chemnitz and John Gerhard, others cooperating, delivered antitypical Israel in the Lutheran Church from the attacks that the ablest Jesuits and other Romanist theologians as clericalists (Nahash [serpent] the Ammonite [from the people, clericalists], 1), as the special standard-bearers of Rome, waged against it. The Council of Trent (intermittently held between 1545 and 1563), largely dominated by Jesuits, issued its decrees and canons as the modern creed of Romanism; and papacy, through the Jesuits, in harmony with the Council's views, sought to win back (encamped) to Romanism the Lutherans, who, like all other denominationists shortly after the respective Little Flock movements were perverted into sects, became dried up and hardened as to 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

198 

the spirit of their respective Little Flock movements (Jabesh-gilead [dry rocky land]). Prior to the Council of Trent the religious controversies in Germany, the emperor siding with Rome, made the Lutherans desire to come to an understanding with the Romanists (all the men of Jabesh said … covenant with us … serve thee) and thus end the prolonged political and religious disorders in Germany. The Council of Trent was convoked, among other reasons, to end these disorders in favor of Rome; and the emperor, as the Romanist ally, and the hierarchy (Nahash, 2) sought to make as a condition of this understanding (condition … covenant) the rejection of the Reformation Truth and the acceptance of the decrees and canons of Trent as the papacy's creed, which would have blinded the main one of the eyes of understanding of the Lutherans (thrust out all your right eyes) by propaganda efforts to refute Lutheranism and prove Romanism. In the furtherance of the scheme to produce this spiritual blindness Jesuit propagandists in large numbers were sent into Germany, and made subtle attacks on Lutheranism. The proposed apostasy was intended as a reproach to all Protestants (a reproach upon all Israel). The Lutherans in Germany were hard pressed, especially by the emperor's political measures in favor of Rome and against them, and by the keen, but sophistical arguments of the Romanist theologians, especially of the Jesuits (encamped against Jabesh-gilead). As a result many, yielding to the political and theological pressure, fell away to Rome from the Lutherans. The leaders (elders, 3) asked for a truce (Give us seven days' respite), which was given them in various treaties, the object of the Lutherans being to gain a sufficiency (seven) of time to gain succor from their allies (send … man to save us). If such succor should not come in a reasonable time they would give up to the Empire and Papacy (we will come out to you). 

(15) It was especially to the Lutheran Church as the sphere of crown-lost leaders (to Gibeah [height]

Samuel and Saul. 

199 

of Saul, 4) that the word of this threatening disaster came (messengers … told … the people). This caused the deepest concern and distress among the Lutherans, high and low, civil and ecclesiastical (all the people … wept). Before this the crown-lost leaders were occupied with their studies along other lines and with pastoral work (Saul came after the herd out of the field, 5). The grief of the people coming to their notice, they inquired for the reason (What … that they weep?). Then they were apprised of the threatening situation (told him … of Jabesh). In the earlier stages of this sorrow, i.e., about 1560, the Jesuits, under the leadership of the Portuguese Jesuit, Payva d'Andrada, a member of the Council of Trent, made a strong attack on the Lutheran catechism. Its object of deception and its distressing effect on the Lutherans becoming known to Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), a representative of antitypical Saul among Lutherans, he became greatly aroused (Spirit of God came upon Saul … those tidings, 6); and the more and more deeply he meditated on d'Andrada's sophistries, the more and more sharply angry he became (anger was kindled greatly). He sent word and evidence (messengers, 7) of his sacrificing his humanity (yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces), everywhere in Germany, through his book in defense of the catechism against d'Andrada, issued in 1562, entitled, The Main Points of the Jesuits' Theology (sent … coasts of Israel). He assured all his fellow Lutherans that if they would not come to the support of himself and his co-workers (Saul) and Luther and Melanchthon (Samuel), their human rights would be destroyed (by their Romanist captors). Everywhere the Lutherans were aroused, in their reverence for God and Truth, as though they were one man, to fight for their faith under the lead of these servants of God (fear of the Lord … come out with one consent). But this was after a considerable number had fallen away to Rome. Antitypical Saul defined, described, limited and explained these sup 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

200 

porters by the Truth (Bezek [lightning], 8); both the common run of their supporters (Israel) and the leading ones of them (Judah) were such as indicated a lower standing than that of the Divine class (300,000 … 30,000 [multiples of ten]). 

(16) The first controversial messages of Chemnitz, Gerhard, etc., were the messengers (messengers, 9) to the besieged Lutherans (men of Jabesh-gilead) that in due time (tomorrow), when the full needed Truth would come (sun be hot), they would bring help (help). Chemnitz's first message was the abovementioned book of his; that of Gerhard (1582-1637) was his incidental refutations of Romanism found in his great dogmatic work entitled, Theological Topics, which in the Lutheran Church is considered the greatest work on dogmatics ever written. Other Lutheran anti-Romanist writers produced similar works of secondary importance, contrasted with the prime importance of the first anti-Romanist books of these two Lutheran standard-bearers. All of these came as messengers of help to the antitypical Jabesh-gileadites and rejoiced their hearts (messengers came … to the men of Jabesh … glad). The course of the Lutherans in Germany gave the Romanists the impression that they would shortly surrender and accept the blinding effects of Romanist doctrines and practice (said, Tomorrow … ye shall do … seemeth good unto you). D'Andrada in 1564 published two answers to Chemnitz's reply to his criticism of the Lutheran catechism. The first of these answers, together with the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, came into Chemnitz's hands; and as a result of his study of them he decided to issue a thorough refutation of Romanism and defense of Lutheranism. This he did in his work, in four large parts or four large volumes, in Latin, entitled, The Examination of the Tridentine Council, issued 1565-1573. This work and Gerhard's Catholic Confession are undoubtedly by far the greatest anti-Romanist works ever produced. Chemnitz's large

Samuel and Saul. 

201 

quarto did Rome more damage than any other book of that period. D'Andrada repented many a time for provoking the controversy. This book stopped the Romeward movement in the Lutheran Church, and put the Romanists very much on the defensive. In consequence of its effects the Lutherans invented the proverb, "If Martin [Chemnitz] had not come, Martin [Luther] would not have stood." The book went through many editions. A copy of the fourth edition, published in 1578, five years after the first edition was completed, is in the writer's library. It was translated into German and French, and in 1861 a Latin edition appeared. 

(17) So mighty an attack on Romanism and able a defense of Lutheranism the Romanists could not leave unanswered. Many replies to it were issued. The ablest of these was by the Jesuit, Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1629), who is by far the greatest controversialist of Rome against Protestantism. Bellarmine aimed to answer every objection ever urged against Romanism in four huge quarto volumes entitled, Disputations, issued 1581-1593. The importance and weight that he attached to Chemnitz's work can be seen from the fact that he devoted 5/6 of this huge work to his answers to Chemnitz's Examination. Unlike most Romanist controversialists, who set up straw men and kick them over, Bellarmine stated truthfully and clearly, with its proofs, each Protestant argument, and then attempted to refute it. Its fairness offended the pope, who, fearing that it would injure more than help Romanism, at first put it on the Index, but later removed it therefrom. Bellarmine was undoubtedly mentally a very gifted man, a great scholar and an exceedingly able debater, but his difficulty was that he had a poor cause to defend. Yet he did as capable a job as probably highest human ability backed by Satan's special help could have done with the bad cause that he had to advocate. He was answered more or less tersely by many, especially by Gerhard in his Theological

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

202 

Topics; and the latter answered him detailedly and most destructively in his large four-volumed-quarto work entitled, The Catholic Confession, issued 1634-1637. Of all of Bellarmine's and other Romanist controversialists' antagonists, Gerhard is the most dreaded by them. He pulverized the Romanist positions. No two Romanist controversialists can agree on answers to him. The writer is the happy possessor of the chief pertinent works of Chemnitz, Ballarmine and Gerhard, which stand side by side, now in perfect peace, on one of the shelves of his main Romano-Protestant bookcase! Between Chemnitz and Gerhard lesser Lutheran anti-Romanist controversialists wrote. These gave the Romanists added misery in the fight, but Gerhard practically ended the battle, though later anti-Romanist Lutheran controversialists, e.g., Calov, the fourth greatest Lutheran theologian, in his Papistical Mataeology (Vaindoctrine), issued 1647, wrote against Rome, as a pursuit of a defeated and fleeing enemy. The result of the fight to Romanist warriors was, as v. 11 puts it: "They which remained were scattered, so that two of them were not left together." The fight was well planned by antitypical Saul, who, as planned, waged it along (1) doctrinal, (2) historical and (3) exegetical lines (put the people in three companies, 11), and attacked the Romanists early (morning watch) and continued the fight for over three-quarters of a century (heat of the day [mid-afternoon, the full day here standing for a century]). In similar ways the other eleven crown-lost-leader groups overthrew the antitypical Nahash that attacked their respective denominational views. But the example of how the Lutheran part of antitypical Saul's battle was fought will suffice to illustrate the other eleven forms of the battle, as well as to clarify the entire type, since our space will not permit the presentation of the involved details of the other eleven parts of the antitypical Jabesh-gileadites' and Saul's pertinent parts therein. 

(18) After antitypical Saul's great victory in each of the twelve denominations, their adherents desired

Samuel and Saul. 

203 

of antitypical Samuel (people said unto Samuel, 12) that they be permitted to disfellowship the sons of Belial who said that antitypical Saul should not be their leaders (Who … said, Shall Saul reign over us? [Ginsburg's notes read: Saul shall not reign over us; thus not a question, but an affirmation] bring the men … to death). This the crown-lost princes forbade, saying that no one should be disfellowshipped at that time, since God had then wrought deliverance for His people (not a man … death this day; for today … salvation in Israel, 13). Antitypical Samuel counseled the people to meet the turning points of their crises by giving renewed energy to the leadership of antitypical Saul (said Samuel … go to Gilgal [turning, circuit], and renew the kingdom, 14). Accordingly, the people at the turning points of their crises renewed the energy of antitypical Saul's leadership as a matter pertaining to the Lord (made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal, 15). At the turn in their affairs they fulfilled their covenant vows in matters pertaining to the Lord (sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord), and the crown-lost leaders and their supporters were very glad indeed for their victory and the resultant strengthening of the crown-lost princes' leadership. This occurred in the pertinent turning points of the twelve denominations' controversies with their enemies, e.g., Origen's victory over Beryllus of Arabia on the Father's and Son's being the same person in different forms (Modalism); Augustine's victory over the Donatists on rooting out the unsaintly (tares); Calvin's and Beza's victory over the Romanists on transubstantiation and over the Lutherans on instrumentalization and on the alleged communication of the Divine attributes to Christ's humanity, e.g., omnipresence, omniscience, Omnipotence, etc.; Simon Menno's victory over Lutherans and Calvinists on Anabaptism; Faustus Socinus' victory over Romanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Anabaptistism and other so-called orthodoxies on trinitarianism; 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

204 

Barrowe's and Greenwood's victory over Papacy, Episcopacy and Presbyterianism on ecclesiaism; Coke's victory over Calvinism on predestination, irresistible grace, etc.; Campbell's victory over Romanism on the Bible as the true creed and center of Christian unity; and Hime's victory over post-Millennialists on the chronology. 

(19) Next 1 Sam. 12 will engage our attention. It treats of Samuel's defense of his ministry, of his reproof of the people for their various apostacies, among others, in desiring leaders other than Little Flock leaders, of his exhorting them to obey, of his giving a sign from God as a proof of this sin, of their asking for mercy through Samuel's intercession, after being convinced of their wrong by the sign, of Samuel's continued exhortation to them to walk before the Lord in uprightness, of his promise to pray for them, of his repeated exhortations and of warnings against the effects of sin. At each turning point of antitypical Israel's crises, antitypical Samuel took occasion to inculcate some needed lessons, as well as to defend himself against the charges of the sons of Belial, which he here proceeds to do (Samuel said unto all Israel, 1), in connection with their evil desire which expressed itself in their clamoring for another set of leaders than those of the Little Flock as direct representatives of the Lord, and which under protest was granted them by the Lord and His Little Flock representatives (I have harkened … and have made a king over you). They pointed out these leaders in each case, after the turning points of their crises came (behold, the king walketh before you, 2); but at the same time the Little Flock leaders were well worn out (old and gray-headed). We see this, e.g., in Wm. Miller's words in 1846, when he declared himself as too old and worn out to bear the burdens of the service much longer, and that he must let the younger men take it up (EC, 35 (32)). Others of the Little Flock leaders at the involved turning points of antitypical Israel's history did the same thing. They called attention to the fact

Samuel and Saul. 

205 

that the more prominent and less prominent clergy were also ministering to God's people (my sons are with you). They further declared at each of such periods that they as a class had made themselves serve God's people from early in the Gospel Age (have walked [literally, have made myself walk, i.e., conducted myself properly] before you from my childhood [literally, youth] unto this day). Thereupon they challenged anyone to step forward in their presence (Behold, here I am, 3) with the proof, not a groundless surmise, of their ever having wronged anyone in their ministry, and to do it before God and antitypical Saul (witness against me before the Lord, and before His anointed). 

(20) Then they threw out the challenge on particulars: Had they taken away from anyone his privileges as to our Lord's sacrificed humanity or as to the services of the Truth (whose ox have I taken)? Had they taken away from anyone his privileges as to the Truth or the Truth literature (whose ass have I taken)? Had they unjustly taken anyone's rights from him (whom have I defrauded [literally, oppressed])? Had they crushed anyone in heart and right hopes or in any other particular (whom have I oppressed [literally, crushed])? Have they received from anyone a bribe that would move them to close their eyes to the briber's wrong-doing (received any bribe to blind [literally, cover] mine eyes therewith)? They asserted that if such things could be proven against them, they would make restitution (I will restore it [rather, them; there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew, so the word it or them should be italicized] you). No such things having been done by the Little Flock leaders, who, instead, gave up their all on behalf of the brethren, and the brethren all knowing this, they with one voice answered negatively (not defrauded [oppressed] us, nor oppressed [crushed] us, neither hast thou taken ought of any, 4). Thereupon antitypical Samuel called the Lord and antitypical Saul to witness as between them 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

206 

and the people on this subject (the Lord is witness … and his anointed … this day … not found ought in my hand, 5). To this all agreed (they answered, He is witness). It is a fact of history that in proportion to the prominence of the Divine uses and faithfulness of the Little Flock leaders, in that proportion have the sons of Belial [worthlessness] surmised and charged evil against them, which fact has compelled them more or less elaborately to defend themselves against such charges, in order that the ministry be not blamed and injured, e.g., our Lord, Paul, John, Arius, Claudius of Turin, Berengar, Abelard, Marsiglio, Wyclif, Hus, Wessel, Savonarola, Luther, Zwingli, Hubmaier, Servetus, Cranmer, Wesley, T. Campbell, Miller, Russell, etc. This should not surprise us, since they are the special targets at whom Satan shoots his arrows, even bitter words. But they have all had these satisfactions, that they have been innocent of the charges, that the brethren knew that none of them were true, and had no real charge against them, as vs. 4 and 5 typically prove and as Matt. 5:10-12 literally proves to them. Amid such experiences of slander they have been comforted with the Lord's promise that in due time He will bring forth their righteousness [purity of character] as the light and their judgment [teachings] as the noonday (Ps. 37:6). 

(21) Thereupon antitypical Samuel brought to the people's attention (Samuel said unto the people, 6) some of the main acts of God on behalf of His people during the Gospel Age and their frequent apostasies, as admonitions against a repetition of the wrongs. They called their attention to His raising up of our Lord (Moses) and the Church (Aaron) and His bringing them out of the kingdom of darkness (brought your fathers out of the land of Egypt) into the Kingdom of His dear Son (Col. 1:13), which made them His people. In view of this fact antitypical Samuel requested their special attention (therefore stand still [literally, set yourselves, i.e., to listen], 7), in order that they 

Samuel and Saul. 

207 

might teach (not reason) them in matters pertaining to the Lord (reason … before the Lord), all the glorious attributes of God (all the righteous acts [literally, righteousnesses of the Lord]), which He exercised toward them lately and earlier (which He did to you and your fathers). He showed that after the Lord's people had come to symbolic Egypt (Jacob was come into Egypt, 8) and were oppressed by Satan, sin, error and death and cried for deliverance (your fathers cried unto the Lord), God sent Christ (Moses) and the Church (Aaron), who by the preaching of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus brought them out of Satan's kingdom into God's reckoned Kingdom in justification, and caused them later to come into the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit (made them dwell in this place). Further, they taught the Lord's people that when in various of their generations they forgot the Lord (forgat the Lord, 9), He gave them up (he sold them) to the power of the leaders of the armies of the nominal church (Sisera [binder in chains], captain of the host of Hazor [enclosed place]), to the power of the sectarians in the various denominations (hand of the Philistines) and to the power of the papacy as the most autocratic of all rulers (hand of the king of Moab [from father]). These waged long warfare against the Lord's captive people (fought against them). Yet when they repented and cried for deliverance, confessing their sins (cried … said, We have sinned … forsaken the Lord, 10), and acknowledged that they had served Satan in his power-grasping and lording representatives (Baalim [lords]) and the adulterous union of church and state ([literally, the] Ashtaroth [the beauty, i.e., the goddess of love, Venus of the Romans, Astarte of the Greeks; Ashtaroth was the Phoenician name for this goddess, whose rites were accompanied with licentiousness and prostitution]). They prayed for deliverance from these enemies (deliver us … enemies),

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

208 

promising to serve the Lord, if delivered (we will serve thee). 

(22) God raised up for their deliverance our Lord (Jerubbaal [striver with Baal, lord, i.e., Satan as power-grasper and tyrant], 11), the star-members beginning with those of the Thyatira Church and ending with those of the Laodicean Church (Bedan [son of Dan; Hebrew, Bendan, contracted into Bedan, i.e., Samson]), the anti-Romanist star-members of the Philadelphia Church (Jephthah [He—God—opens]) and the Little Flock leaders (Samuel [name—character—of God]). By these God delivered His people from all their enemies and oppressors mentioned above (delivered … enemies on every side) and made them dwell in safety from such (dwelled safely). They declared that when antitypical Israel was threatened by the clericalists (Nahash [serpent], king … Ammon [from people], 12), they clamored for the very ablest as their leaders to be appointed by antitypical Samuel (me … king shall reign over us), despite the fact that God was their Leader (God was your king). Then antitypical Samuel pointed to their desired leaders as Divinely given them (13). They then told antitypical Israel the things that, if done by them, would make them put God before them and their leaders (shall both ye … king … continue following the Lord [literally, ye … king shall be after the Lord, i.e., shall put God before them—God first—Ps. 16:8; the A. V. does not give the thought of the original], 14). They told them what these things are that, if done, wall set God before them and their leaders: (1) reverence for God (fear the Lord); (2) carrying out their consecration of sacrifice (serve Him); (3) practicing His Word (obey His voice); (4) submissiveness as against revolutionism (not rebel). They further told antitypical Israel that disobedience to the Lord's Word (not obey the voice of the Lord, 15) and rebellion against His precepts, i.e., arrangements (rebel against the commandment

Samuel and Saul. 

209 

of the Lord), would turn God against them, as it did before (against you, as … your fathers). 

(23) They then called their special attention to a great work that God was about to perform in their sight (16). As it was unexpectable for rain and thunder in Palestine to come during wheat harvest (wheat harvest today, 17), so during the times that great numbers were won by the sectarianizing and stewardship-truths-perverting work of the crown-lost leaders, it would be unexpectable that at the prayer of the Little Flock leaders (I will call unto the Lord), the Lord would raise up Little Flock controversies (thunder) against such works and give new Truth (rain) through them. This unexpectable thing would give antitypical Israel clear evidence of God's disapproval of their great wickedness in asking for the gifted sectarian and perverting leaders for whom they clamored (perceive and see that your wickedness is great … asking you a king). At antitypical Samuel's prayer (Samuel called, 18) the Lord raised up a controversy (thunder) against the sectarianizing work and the perverting work on the respective stewardship doctrines, and sent truths (rain) to set this matter right through the Little Flock leaders, e.g., Little Flock leaders praying for the Lord's help were by Him enabled to controvert, and give new truths against, the perversions of Athanasius on Christ's person, of Augustine on the one Church, of Calvin on the Lord's Supper, etc., etc. This had the effect of arousing great fear toward God and antitypical Samuel in the people (greatly feared the Lord and Samuel). Recognizing from these controversies and truths their great wrong in choosing such leaders (added … sins this evil, 19), they besought antitypical Samuel's prayers that they might not be cut off from being God's people (pray … that we die not). Noting the people's repentance, antitypical Samuel comforted them with the thought that, though they had done the great evil involved in seeking leaders after their own preference (done all

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

210 

this wickedness, 20), yet they should no longer fear (Fear not), for there was yet hope for God's favor, if they would not turn in apostasy from Him (turn not aside from following the Lord), but serve Him heartily (serve … heart). They exhorted them to avoid apostatizing (turn ye not aside, 21), which, if done, would lead to their going after things of emptiness, unprofitableness, unsalutariness and disaster, such as sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in their varied forms (after vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver); for promise whatever they might, they are but unavailing (vain [literally, emptiness]). 

(24) The reasons why they should take comfort were: (1) that the Lord's oath to His people would keep Him in honor-bound faithfulness to them (for His great name's sake, 22); and thus He would not forsake them; and (2) His pleasure in choosing them as His people was also a guarantee of this (pleased the Lord to make you his people). Moreover, as for antitypical Samuel, they felt it a sin and an abomination against God, from which they prayed the Lord to deliver them (as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord, 23), that they should give up praying for the brethren (in ceasing to pray [literally, making myself pray] for you). Not only this, but they promised to continue instructing as to the good and right teachings of the Lord (teach you the good and the right way). They stressed again the thoughts that the people should surely reverence God and serve Him most heartily in harmony with the Truth (fear … serve him in truth … heart, 24), which to help them do, they exhorted them to study God's magnifying works toward them (consider how great things he hath done for you [literally, see that which he is magnifying for you]). But if, despite God's continued goodness, mercy and longsuffering, the people would persist in wilful wrong-doing (still do wickedly [literally, sinning you sin], 25), the Lord would see to it that they and their chosen leaders would come to ruin and 

Samuel and Saul. 

211 

extinction, and thus come to an end as God's people (consumed [literally, come to an end], both ye and your king). Thus in this entire chapter by word and act antitypical Samuel sought to bring the people to repentance for past wrongs, to the determination to serve God with their whole heart in the Truth, to the exercise of hope for good and fear of sin in its nature and consequence, and so to safeguard them as God's flock; and, so doing, they proved themselves the faithful friends, brethren and shepherds of God's people. 

(25) 1 Sam. 13 types the conflict between believing Christian teachers and what is called vulgar rationalism, as well as the aftermaths of that conflict. It was a struggle that occurred mainly in Germany in the last third of the 18th and the first third of the 19th centuries. Rationalism was sown in Germany (1) by the deists of England and (2) by the infidelistic naturalists of France, who themselves were an outgrowth of English deism, and who through the religious indifferentism of Frederick the Great found an entrance into Germany; for he welcomed at his court some of the great French infidelistic naturalists, e.g., Voltaire, d'Argens, la Mettre, etc. Vulgar rationalism was in Germany fathered by John S. Semler, theological professor at the Halle University, a very gifted man who used his great talents in a way that, contrary to his purpose and expectation, undermined faith in the orthodox views of the Bible and current dogmas. Thus as to the Bible he sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. When he came to see the evil effects of his teachings, he sought to stem them, but, failing therein, died of a broken heart. A close second to him in this mischievous work was Reimarus, professor at Hamburg, who forged the so-called Wolfenbuettler Fragments, as allegedly very ancient documents. These taught that Christianity was originated by frauds and deceptions. Lessing, one of the three greatest lights of German literature, took up a defense of these Wolfenbuettler Fragments in a controversy 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

212 

with Goeze, chief pastor of Hamburg. Semler supported Goeze, but Lessing's literary standing and great ability gained much favor for the fraudulent Fragments among many, resulting in the discrediting, not only of the current orthodoxy, but also of the Bible and the idea of a Divine revelation, the virgin birth, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as everything supernatural, like miracles, prophecies, providence, etc. From Semler's school went forth the heroes of vulgar rationalism, e.g., Teller, Leffler, Gabler, etc. An infidelistic philosophy gave impetus to this theory; and ere long almost all theological professors, church counselors, pastors, teachers, etc., of Germany rejected the Bible as a Divine revelation and proclaimed only three doctrines as their theology: the existence of a God, the practice of righteousness and a belief in the soul's immortality ("God, virtue, immortality," as they put it), with an acceptance of reason as the source and rule of faith and practice. 

(26) As they used the word, reason, it could mean anything from the most depraved to the most exact intellects and the most true and the most erroneous understandings of the most ignorant to those of the most intelligent. According to their idea of reason, it was an exceedingly ambiguous term; for no matter how mistaken one's knowledge and understanding were, they were reason to vulgar rationalists. Accordingly, reason to them meant as many different things as there were individuals in the world. Hence it is the most unstable and variable source and rule of faith and practice imaginable, and therefore utterly unreliable as such a source and rule. We understand reason to mean the normal thinking faculties and their true contents. To normal true thinking faculties belong proper perceptive, reproductive, imaginating and analytical powers, as well as the powers of rational intuition, i.e., those faculties that take in thought, that remember thought, that invent thought, and that ratiocinate on thought, as well as the powers that take in and think 

Samuel and Saul. 

213 

self-evident truths (rational intuitions), like 2+ 2 = 4; 3 X 1 = 3, things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, the shortest distance between a point on earth and a point in the sky is a straight line between them, a thing cannot be in two places at the same time, a father is older than his son, etc., etc. The great mistake of vulgar rationalists was their failure to allow for the depravity, yea, varying depravity, of man's perceptive, reproductive, imagining, ratiocinating and rational intuitive faculties and for the resultant erroneous and imperfect contents of these faculties. This varied depravity in itself and in its erroneous contents disqualifies reason from being the source and rule of faith and practice. At best it can be a vessel into which can be poured the contents of the true source of faith and main rule of practice, and which can hold such contents and reject contradicting contents, as well as pour the former out to others. The only true source of faith and main rule of practice is the Divine revelation, the Bible; while the sole source of faith and main rule of practice is the Bible, the secondary rule of faith and practice is the Spirit of God in His people. The latter is not such a source, but is such a rule, because in the intellect it holds the Truth already gotten from the Bible, and requires that all subsequent things offered to it as Truth be in harmony with the already received Truth, and rejects everything contrary to it, and because in the heart is requires that all things offered to it as matters of conduct be in harmony with the graces of the Spirit already developed in God's people, and rejects every thing contrary to them. Thus the Spirit as a rule of faith and practice in the intellect is sanctified reason, and in the heart holy affections and a holy will responsive to righteousness and holiness and rejective of unrighteousness and unholiness; and because truth is harmony with reality, Biblical and related facts are included in the Spirit as intellect, i.e., sanctified reason accepts Biblical and related facts as belonging to it as a rule of faith and practice. Accordingly, there is but 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

214 

one source of faith and one main source of practice, i.e., the Bible, and two rules of faith and practice.; the Bible, and the Spirit of God in His people, while vulgar rationalism takes man's depraved intellect and its erroneous and imperfect contents as the sole source and rule of faith and practice. We have made these preliminary remarks on reason, the Bible and the Spirit of God in God's people the better to pave the way to an understanding of 1 Sam. 13 and parts of 1 Sam. 14. 

(27) The literal rendering of v. 1 alluded to in the margin means, according to the Hebrew idiom, that Saul was one year old at the commencement of his reign. The A. V. text is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew, whose text as it now stands has evidently suffered the loss of a numerical adjective, perhaps forty; for in the second year of his reign (2) Saul had a son, Jonathan, old enough to be the second in command of his army; hence perhaps the word forty dropped out of the text. Saul's reign being one of trialsomeness, additional to his son Jonathan's age at Saul's second year of reigning, makes us think that his age likely was 40 (40 representing trialsomeness) when he began to reign. If it is the missing word, v. 1 should be rendered: Saul was forty years old at his [beginning to] reign. At any rate the Hebrew idiom of the pertinent words proves that some numeral adjective has fallen out of the text of v. 1, but none of the ancient Hebrew MSS. contains here a variant reading, which proves that the omission is a very ancient one. V. 1 and a part of v. 2 should be rendered as follows: Saul was [40] years old when he [began to] reign. And he had reigned two years over Israel [the words so far quoted are not found in some of the best recensions of the Septuagint, which likely means that they were not in the Septuagint translators' Hebrew text three centuries before Christ. If that is the case, of course, there is no difficulty, as to the point treated above], when Saul chose for himself 3,000 men from Israel, etc. So far our exegetical remarks on certain difficulties

Samuel and Saul. 

215 

in vs. 1, 2. Now for the explanation of the antitype: Maturity for trial marked each member of the crown-lost leaders when he became such (forty years, 1), and shortly after becoming such each of them surrounded himself with the ablest controversialists in antitypical Israel (chose 3,000 … Israel) The majority of these were especially attached to the crown-lost princes (2,000 with Saul) in the field of treasured knowledge (Michmash, treasure) and in the administrative part of the Church (Mount Bethel, house of God), and a minority (1,000) of them were attached to the most faithful of the crown-losers (Jonathan) in the humbler positions of character development in the Church (Gibeah, height, of Benjamin, son of the right hand). The rest of the matured antitypical Israelites worked at ordinary pursuits (the rest … tent). 

(28) This was the condition at the time that the most faithful crown-losers (Jonathan, 3) aghast at the teachings and doings of the vulgar rationalists, gave them a thorough refutation. As indicated above, not only did the latter reject the errors of the orthodox, but with these their truths, particularly that the Bible was the Divine revelation, and, of course, that it was inerrant, they sought to bring everything of teaching and practice down to the low plane of the rabble. So greatly did their religious tastes degenerate that at Christmas the highest thoughts that the manger scene could arouse in them were the kinds of fodder to supply the beasts of the stall; and the best lessons that they could draw from the Easter scene were the benefit of early rising and (because they taught that Jesus did not die, but merely swooned) the symptoms of seeming death, i.e., swooning. Flatness and superficiality developed to the nth degree characterized their thoughts, lectures, sermons, teaching and conversations. The noble hymnology of the Reformation and its following century they watered to the grossest flabbiness and tastelessness. If able men had deliberately set out to make religion dull, flat and repulsive, they could not 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

216 

more completely have succeeded in their purpose than the vulgar rationalists did to rob religion of its strength and clearness of thought, depth and fulness of feeling and vigor and activity of will, e.g., Abraham Teller, the president of the Berlin University, openly declared that "the Jews because of their faith in God, virtue and immortality, should be recognized as genuine Christians"; and K. F. Bahrdt, who was one of the leading vulgar rationalists, who was dismissed from the ministry and his professorship in the Halle University's theological faculty for loose living, and who finally died of a venereal disease, thought, while acting as a bartender in a saloon, that it was a good place from which to dispense his theological knowledge to the people. The notorious so-called "German Library," published by the book-seller Nicolai, of Berlin, made itself the judge of literature and a veritable Inquisitorial tribunal, condemning every literary effort that attempted to set forth anything of deeper and sounder import than the mob- and rabble-appealing vulgar rationalists in their shallowness and unsoundness gave forth from the professor's and consistorial counselor's chair, the pastor's pulpit and the teacher's desk. Yet these heroes of superficiality, shouting out their watchword, "reason," as their forte, and "unreason," as their pet aversion, were the leaders in university, consistory, church and school in those unhappy 60 to 70 years, denying everything supernatural, like the virgin birth, miracles, prophecy, atonement, Christ's resurrection, etc., etc. They led the religious mob and rabble of those days with the most superficial platitudes as expressions of the acme of wisdom. 

(29) But the Lord left not Himself without His 7000 witnesses in this evil time, when he was considered a full Christian who believed there is a god, that virtue is to be practiced and that the soul is immortal. The believing and able dogmaticians, Reinhard, the chief court preacher, of Dresden, and Storr of Tuebingen; the most thorough of all church historians, 

Samuel and Saul. 

217 

Schroech; the brilliant apologists, Lilienthal, Klenker and Koepen; the famous mathematician, Euler; the great physiologist, Haller; and the courageous pastor, Claus Harms, of Kiel, stood for a positive Christianity and smote the vulgar sectarian rationalists, hip and thigh (Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines, 3), regardless of their high positions in consistory, university, church or school (Geba, hill). The courage of these, the most faithful of the crown-losers, aroused D. E. F. Schleiermacher, who was one of the greatest and most influential theologians of Germany during the 19th century, to great activity in preaching, lecturing and writing, among other things, against vulgar rationalists (Saul blew the trumpet … Let the Hebrews hear). In his first activities he was only a step ahead of them in belief but miles ahead of them in depth of thought, fulness of feeling and energy of will. As time went on he grew more and more in positive views of Christianity. Though he never succeeded in reaching correct views on the canon, integrity and authority of the Bible, yet by sheer force of intellect, warmth of feeling and energy of will he drew after him a number of the ablest intellects and most pious hearts of Germany. Though a deep thinker and writer, he was a very popular preacher who knew how to make himself understood and appreciated in his sermons by the common people. Additionally, he was a very able leader and executive, and was privileged to be the antitype of Saul at the juncture of affairs typed by Saul in 1 Sam. 13. He was the leading professor at the Berlin University, as well as the first preacher and theologian of Germany, and after a powerful ministry he died in 1834, leaving E. W. Hengstenberg, also of the Berlin University, as his successor in the Saul antitype as set forth in 1 Sam 14. But he and the faithful members of antitypical Jonathan were in a small minority; and the vulgar rationalists, who possessed almost all the theological chairs in the universities, the executive posts in the consistories (the church government 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

218 

committees in the various states of Germany), the pulpits in the churches and the desks in the schools, took note of antitypical Jonathan's pertinent activities (the Philistines heard of it). Believers everywhere heard of their refuting the vulgar rationalists (all Israel heard say that Saul [through Jonathan] had smitten the garrison of the Philistines, 4). The proud vulgar rationalists from their heights of alleged reason looked down upon, and despised the true believers as alleged hypocrites, superstition's devotees and unreasonable fanatics (Israel … abomination with the Philistines). Heartened by the refutation of the vulgar rationalists by antitypical Jonathan, the true believers, practicing an energetic piety in consecration, were reached by Schleiermacher's appeals to follow after his standard against the antitypical Philistines (people were called together after Saul), but it led them into an ever-increasing crisis (Gilgal, circuit). 

(30) This smiting of the vulgar rationalists had the effect of arousing those rationalists who were not of the vulgar kind, but who were of the higher critical sort, many of them being very scholarly men of large knowledge and acute intellects, to gather themselves together to fight the Bible-believers; for they instinctively felt that the principles of these Bible-believers were opposed to their principles, and that the time had come for a clash to set in between these two groups of opposing principles (the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, 5). They consisted of comparatively numerous organizations (30,000 chariots) and numerous teaching leaders (6,000 horsemen); and their supporters were innumerable (people as the sand … sea shore in multitude). They took up their position in the treasure store of vast knowledge (Michmash), but their position was an erroneous one (eastward from Beth-aven, house of idols [erroneous theories]). The true believers, seeing these enemies encamped against them, in their distress realized that they were in a difficult position (men of Israel … in a 

Samuel and Saul. 

219 

strait … distressed, 6). Thereupon they sought to dodge the pertinent conflict, looking for protection: some in church secret societies, i.e., in local congregations (caves), some in general alliances of great ones, like the Evangelical Alliance (thickets), some in the strong fortresses of society, like the Evangelical Union (rocks), some in high places (societies, like the Gustav-Adolph Society), some in home missionary societies (pits) and some in foreign missionary societies (Hebrews went over Jordan [Christendom] to the land of Gad [fortunate, company] and Gilead [heap, or rock witness], 7). 

(31) At this time Schleiermacher was in a crisis (Saul was yet in Gilgal); and his supporters clung to him with much fear and many forebodings (followed him trembling). After waiting for what seemed to him the full time (tarried seven days, 8) to receive from the Lord's special mouthpiece (Samuel), here the Philadelphia star-members in their writings, the message and service of the Truth that the latter had to give him, and after these did not come to him at the time expected in his crisis (Gilgal), and when his supporters in large numbers left him (the people were scattered from him), Schleiermacher, very unclear on many a truth held properly by believing nominal-church theologians, and failing to wait for clarification thereon, called for his supporters' co-operation (Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings, 9) in his presentation of his (unclear) views. Accordingly, he began to present his quite immature and erroneous views-a case of less palpable error fighting more palpable error (he offered the burnt offering). Just after each of Schleiermacher's presentations of his more or less erroneous views and service to the Lord, antitypical Samuel appeared in the Philadelphia star-members' writings (as soon as he had made an end of offering … Samuel came, 10). Schleiermacher made many mental journeys to reach clearness on their views of things, just as his presenting

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

220 

his partially erroneous views and services was a long-drawn-out affair involving as it did the presentation of various unclear views at different times, antitypical Samuel coming to him after each of such times (Saul went out to meet him) and at each of such times antitypical Samuel came to minister some good to him (salute [literally, bless] him [the grammatical structure of the Hebrew sentence shows that it was Samuel who came to bless Saul]). At each of these times antitypical Samuel in his writings expostulated with him as to his immature teachings and services (Samuel said, What hast thou done? 11). At each of such expostulations Schleiermacher made excuse that his supporters were mentally scattered from him (scattered from me), that he could not get the help from the Philadelphia star-members, T. Campbell and Wm. Miller being their only living representatives during his lifetime, the deal ones coming to him and expostulating with him in their writings, which, indeed, was the way that Campbell and Miller expostulated with him, and all of them offering such written helps each time only after he had done the pertinent presenting of a mixed message and service (thou camest not). He further made excuse that they failed him in his need when he expected help from them (within the days appointed). 

(32) Furthermore, he excused himself on the ground that the historico-higher-critical allies of the defeated vulgar rationalists were assembling themselves in the field of special treasures of knowledge, whereby they became especially threatening (Philistines gathered … at Michmash). Therefore, fearing an attack upon him, he concluded that the historico-higher critics would pounce upon him while he was in a crucial situation (said I, The Philistines … upon me to Gilgal, 12). For such a thing to happen to him before he had by teachings and services against the historico-higher critics sought to gain God's favor (not made supplication; literally, entreated the face) was to his mind an 

Samuel and Saul. 

221 

unseemly thing; hence he claimed that he forced himself to present such teachings and services as he had contrary to the historico-higher critics (forced myself … offered a burnt offering), which was not a Divinely pleasing service. Servants of God should not enter into any teaching and ministry before the Lord has made the teaching clear to them, and has indicated what the service should be, otherwise they would be running ahead of the Lord. How much Schleiermacher, a large Gospel-Age crown-lost leader, was in this matter like a certain little Gospel-Age crown-lost leader, who said in his heart, My Lord delayeth, i.e., does not do things fast enough to suit me! Hence he took them out of His hands and hurried them along as seemed good to him. The Philadelphia star-members in their writings, as well as by their example of waiting quietly on the Lord, until His due time would come, rebuked his course as a foolish one (Samuel said to Saul, Thou has done foolishly, 13), telling him that thereby he had violated the command that God gave him, i.e., to wait upon the Lord, and to let Him direct his teachings and services (not kept the commandment of the Lord). Had he obeyed the Lord in this matter, the Lord would have given him the privilege of leading the Lord's people in the fight against the historico-higher critics to a completion (now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever). But the repeated failure of Schleiermacher unto a completion to wait on the Lord to reveal His message and service as due moved the Lord to reject his leadership over antitypical Israel's warriors (thy kingdom shall not continue, 14). The Philadelphia star-members assured him in their writings that the Lord had selected a crown-lost leader whom He could heartily approve for the pertinent work. So far as Schleiermacher the individual is concerned, God had selected a successor, Hengstenberg, under whose supervision as leader the Lord would entrust His warriors against the historico-higher critics, but in so far as all through the Age

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

222 

the crown-lost leaders did in principle the same thing as Schleiermacher did in this matter, not wait on the Lord, the successor of these crown-lost leaders as a class was to be Bro. Russell as that Servant (commanded him to be captain over his people), the reasons for the Lord's course being repeated for emphasis. 

(33) After each of such failures of Schleiermacher to wait upon the Lord, the Philadelphia star-members withdrew from him in the sense that their pertinent teachings failed to influence him to betterment, until such leavings came to a completion, despite his thereby being left in a crucial condition (Samuel arose and gat him up from Gilgal, 15). And at each of such leavings they in their teachings went to the most faithful of the crown-lost servants of the Lord, antitypical Jonathan, who were in that height of the humbler character of the Church attainable by crown-losers (unto Gibeah of Benjamin). Schleiermacher after each of these experiences examined and analyzed his supporters and found them quite few and faultful humans and new creatures (Saul numbered the people … 600 men). After each expostulation from antitypical Samuel Schleiermacher took up a position in the height of the humbler character of the Church for crown-losers, attainable by amendment of his course, with the most faithful of the crown-losers and their supporters (Saul and Jonathan and the people abode in Gibeah of Benjamin, 16), while the historico-higher-critical (not vulgar) rationalists took up their position in the treasury of their scientific theological knowledge (Philistines encamped in Michmash). The father of the rationalistic historico-higher critics was De Witte, an encyclopedia scholar, a sharp thinker: a thorough linguist and a great writer. The historico-higher-critical rationalists engaged in three lines of destructive anti-Christian work (the spoilers … in three companies, v. 17). The first of these was philosophy. At first by making the basis of their theology the pantheistic natural philosophy of Schelling, and a little later by

Samuel and Saul. 

223 

making the basis of their theology the pantheistic idealistic philosophy of Hegel, the historico-higher-critical rationalists worked destructively and anti-Christianly against the idea of the Bible as a Divine revelation and against its contents as inspired, unto subverting the faith of most theological professors and pastors (one company turned … to Ophrah [gazelle, in allusion to the doctrine of philosophy] … Shual [fox, in allusion to the subtility of Schelling and Hegel and their colaborers]). The second of these was that of philology, embracing especially the dead languages, Hebrew and its cognate tongues and Greek, whereby they sought to undermine Biblical teachings. The leaders in this line of misuse of philology were Gesenius in Hebrew lexicography and Ewald in its grammar, and Wahl in the lexicography and Winer in the grammar of Biblical Greek. While the former two did some very useful lexical and grammatical work in the elucidations of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the latter two did the same for the Greek of the New Testament, their and their colaborers' efforts were in the interests and spirit of rationalistic historico-higher criticism; hence their work was in many ways anti-Biblical (another … to Beth [house]-horon [grave-like, in allusion to the dead languages], v. 18). 

(34) The third of these was Biblico-historical criticism, i.e., higher criticism proper. Baur of Tuebingen, thoroughly imbued with Hegel's philosophy, and a talented scholar, was the main leader of this company or school of thought, and Strauss and Vatke were its chief lieutenants. The first claimed that there were two antagonistic schools of thought among the Apostles: Peter leading the particularistic—Jewish—point of view, and Paul leading the universalistic—Jewish-Gentile—point of view, and that in the battle the universalistic overthrew the particularistic point of view, and thus became the surviving view of the Christian Church. He denied the genuineness of all the New Testament, except Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians and 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

224 

Galatians. The origin of all its other books he assigned either to the last quarter of the second or to the third century. Strauss's main destructive work was done by his Life of Jesus, the Gospel accounts of which he claimed to be myths, assigning the Gospels' writing to the third quarter of the second century. Vatke treated the Old Testament destructively and anti-believingly with the same spirit and methods as Baur and Strauss treated the New Testament. This third school was by far the worst of the three as to destructiveness and anti-Christianity (another turned to … border that looketh … Zeboim [serpents, or hyenas, in allusion to its Satanic destructiveness] toward the wilderness [in allusion to their disregard of organized churchianity]). They all started their destructive attacks in 1835, the year that we have elsewhere shown that the darkening of the symbolic sun and moon began, as it was indeed their work that began this darkening. From Semler's opening the attacks that led up to vulgar rationalism in this four-volumed work on the Canon (1771-1776) to about 15 years before the attacks of Vatke, Baur and Strauss (1835), increasingly the literary molders of public religious opinion ceased in Germany to be Bible-believers among theological professors, consistorial counselors, pastors and teachers, until, with but the exception of antitypical Saul and Jonathan, there were none of such there (no smith found throughout … Israel, 19). For the authorities, to prevent such becoming Bible-believers, filled with rationalists of both classes the theological professorships, which resulted in prospective theological professors, consistorial counselors, pastors and teachers becoming either vulgar or historico-higher-critical rationalists, and which resulted in Bible-believers' being made unfit to prepare controversial discourses and lectures or to write controversial books (Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears). This had the effect that all Bible-believing exponents had to go to the rationalistic professors, etc. (all

Samuel and Saul. 

225 

Israelites went down to the Philistines, 20), to fit for use (sharpen) their correctional (share), ethical (coulter), controversial (axe) and doctrinal (mattock) discourses and books. However, they had the writings (file, 21) of the star-members and their assistants for their doctrinal (mattocks), ethical (coulter), correctional (forks), controversial (axes) and hortatory (goads) helps, to fit for use (sharpen) their discourses, lectures and books. Excepting in the case of antitypical Saul and Jonathan, this resulted by 1835 (day of battle, 22) in no Bible believer's being able to prepare up-to-date controversial discourses, lectures and books (there was neither sword nor spear found … but with Saul and Jonathan). When 1835 came the historico-higher-critical rationalists went forth to battle, as described above, on the difference between their fund of knowledge and that of Bible-believers (garrison … went out to the passage of Michmash, 23). 

(35) Immediately following the appearance of Baur's and Strauss's books in 1835, antitypical Jonathan, catching their drift, began to consult with his chief scholarly supporters on answering them (upon a day Jonathan … said … bare his armour … let us go … garrison … other side, 14:1). The chief members of antitypical Jonathan at that time on the New Testament phase of the controversy were Neander, a converted Hebrew, the father of modern New Testament and church history, Ullmann and Tholuck; and the chief members of the antitypical armour bearer on New Testament apologetics were Nitzsch, Mueller, Dorner, Rothe and Lange. The chief members of antitypical Jonathan taking part in defense of the Old Testament were Bleek, Umbreit and Keil; and the chief members of his armour bearer were Delitzsch and Lange, also mentioned above as working in defense of, the New Testament. But above all Hengstenberg, the antitypical Saul of this time, did the earlier best work on the Old Testament against the historico-higher-critical rationalists. Indeed, his disproofs of some of their Old Testament

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

226 

positions are among the strongest ever written, and to this day have not been refuted. This is particularly true of his Genuineness of the Pentateuch and Daniel, His Christology of the Old Testament and his Egypt and the Books of Moses, which are classics on these subjects. But, owing to his too controversial attitude, the then members of antitypical Jonathan held aloof from him, and let him know nothing of their plans; for they were head and heart theologians compared with him, who seemed to be mainly a head theologian (he told not his father). Hengstenberg took an ever-increasingly radical conservative position which made him in character far inferior to men like Neander, Tholuck, etc. (Saul tarried [literally, dwelt] in the uttermost part of Gibeah, 2), fighting every manifestation of rationalism in his magazine, The Evangelical Church Newspaper (under a pomegranate tree), which more or less continuously fought every kind of religious error advanced by the higher critics (in Migron, overthrow). But his supporters were a very small, imperfect and faultful set of humans and crown-losers (about 600 men). The Priesthood (wearing an ephod, 3) at that time stressed the God-man theory of Christ (Ahiah, Jehovah's brother) as a good brother of the race (the son of Ahitub, my brother is good) and as a supporter of freedom (Ichabod, where is the glory?) in Protestantism (Phinehas), where for centuries the crown-lost princes were to be found (Eli, high one). But none of these knew the mental journeys of antitypical Jonathan as against the historico-higher critics. 

(36) Antitypical Jonathan occupied a strong believing position (sharp rock … Bozez, shiny, 4) on the matters at issue between the believing theologians and the historico-higher critics, and the latter a strong unbelieving position thereon (a sharp rock … Seneh, peak, or point); and between the two positions there was a very deep and steep passage way of thought down one and up the other, so that it was easy to miss one's mental footstep passing from one to the other 

Samuel and Saul. 

227 

(between the passages); and for coming to an understanding of both positions there was a necessity of sharp thought (sharp rock); and many a traveler from one to the other lost his mental footing. Down and up these mental paths the members of antitypical Jonathan and their special supporters had laboriously to travel. Antitypical Jonathan's position opposed that of the rationalistic historico-higher critics (the forefront [edge] … northward over against Michmash, 5); and the position of the rationalistic historico-higher critics opposed that of antitypical Jonathan (the other southward over against Gibeah). The proposal of antitypical Jonathan was that they and their special supporters (Jonathan said … let us, 6) study with the purpose of opposing the views of the rationalistic historico-higher critics (go over unto … these uncircumcised), but do it in the faith that the Lord cannot be limited in His help, regardless of whether His servants are many or few (Lord will work for us … no restraint … by many or by few). To this plan their special supporters with encouraging words agreed (do all … heart … I am with thee, 7). Antitypical Jonathan then said that they would do the necessary involved study (we will pass over, 8) and show themselves as opposed to them (discover ourselves unto them). Furthermore, they said that if their opponents would by their course suggest that they were going to attack them, they would wait for them to attack and would defend the position of the believers (Tarry until we come to you; then we will stand … not go up unto them, 9); but that if by their course their opponents would indicate that they would act defensively, if attacked, the believers would take the aggressive against their errors (Come up unto us; then we will go up, 10), believing that the Lord had decided victory for them (the Lord hath delivered them into our hand). To antitypical Jonathan's suggestion both agreed (this … sign to us). Accordingly, these servants of God by word of mouth and in their writings 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

228 

made it known that they were opposed to the theories of the rationalistic historico-higher critics (both of them discovered themselves unto … the Philistines, 11), who in their pride ridiculed these servants of God as cowards venturing out of their shelters (come out of their holes where they had hid themselves). After ridiculing these servants of God, they challenged them to attack their positions (Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing, 12). 

(37) Antitypical Jonathan took his cue from their proud challenge that they and their chief supporters were to take the aggressive, and, therefore, encouraged the latter to follow them into the fray (Come up after me), assured that the Lord had delivered the rationalistic historico-higher critics into the power of God's people (the Lord hath delivered them into the hands of Israel). Thereupon antitypical Jonathan as leader and their special supporters as followers did the necessary very difficult mental work to put them into the position to attack (climbed up upon his hands and feet … armour bearer after him, 13) and by their lectures and publications attacked Strauss's and Baur's positions, thoroughly refuting them (they fell before Jonathan; and his armour bearer slew after him). Neander was the first member of antitypical Jonathan to attack Baur's and Strauss's challenges and books of 1835. Against Strauss's Life of Jesus Neander in 1837 published his Life of Christ, which is the ablest and most complete refutation of Strauss's mythical theory as applied to the Gospel narratives ever made. In 1832, before this controversy broke out, he had published, as an introduction of his great Church History, a history of the Apostolic Age, entitled, The Planting and Training of the Christian Church. After Baur's attacks on the Acts and Epistles appeared, Neander revised this book, making it, among other things, a thorough refutation of Baur's entire theory of the Apostolic Age. Undoubtedly Neander was under God the chief agent in restoring a living faith in the

Samuel and Saul. 

229 

Bible to Christian theologians the world over as against the unbelief of the rationalistic historico-higher critics, for these books were translated into many languages and therein widely circulated. In 1838 Ullmann, another very able member of antitypical Jonathan, published an able refutation of Strauss's Life of Jesus, entitled, Historical or Mythical; and against the rejection of Jesus' virgin birth and sinlessness he published his very fine Sinlessness of Jesus (1842). His Essence of Christianity likewise was a hard blow against the rationalistic historico-higher critics. Other members of antitypical Jonathan, mentioned above, also joined in the battle successfully. Not only so, but the members of their chief supporters joined in it very fruitfully, especially Mueller, in his book, The Doctrine of Sin, and Lange, in his able and detailed Life of Christ. Thus in defense of the New Testament the above-named brethren and others waged a very successful fight. Umbreit, Bleek, and especially Keil, supported by Delitsch and Lange, as their special helpers, waged a noble fight in refuting some attacks of the rationalistic historico-higher critics on the Old Testament, as that higher criticism was known in the documentary theory and in the late origin of the Old Testament before its later manifestations, by which through Wellhausen, Graf and Kuenen it left the partly refuted positions of the rationalistic historico-higher critics and took on the form of evolutionary higher criticism, with which believing scholars battled during the Harvest. But, as shown above, Hengstenberg gave the rationalistic historico-higher critics on the Old Testament the strongest of their partial refutations. Nevertheless antitypical Jonathan and their special supporters started the defeat of the rationalistic historico-higher critics (first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armour bearer made, 14), who were in many cases very exceptionally able apostate new creatures of highest human culture (about twenty men); especially did they refute them in the domain of the New Testament (an half acre of

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

230 

land [half of God's revelation]) as written by God's inspired Apostles (a yoke of oxen, 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). 

(38) These staunch defenders of the veracity of the Bible, especially of the New Testament, started a revolution in Christian society against the rationalistic historico-higher critics, who were up to that time almost omnipotent in influence in German Christian society (the earth quaked, 15). Their refutations were so powerful and the revulsion of German Christian society at, and its revolution against the rationalistic historico-higher critics were so great, that a paralyzing fear overtook the latter's whole host (host) in their world of activity (field) and among their supporters, their camp followers (all the people). The leaders among the rationalistic historico-higher critics (garrison), yea, all three groups of destructive companies, i.e., philosophers, linguists and historico-Biblical critics, trembled (the spoilers, they also trembled); there was indeed a paralyzing fear that overtook these (a very great trembling). Hengstenberg's guards (watchmen of Saul, 16), ever on the alert to note the goings on among the rationalistic historico-higher critics, from their vantage ground of the believing positions in the humble height of Christian character (in Gibeah of Benjamin), gave close heed (looked) to the commotion among the rationalistic historico-higher critics, and saw that the latter were diminishing in numbers (multitude melted away) and were fighting one another in their confusion (went on beating down one another). Hengstenberg asked that his supporters be investigated (said Saul unto the people that were with him, Number, 17), that they might learn who had left them to fight with the rationalistic historico-higher critics (see who is gone from us). Then, from the investigation, it was learned that antitypical Jonathan and their chief supporters were not among them; for these had withdrawn from co-operation with Hengstenberg because of the violence of his controversial spirit and expressions 

Samuel and Saul. 

231 

(Jonathan and his armour bearer were not there). Thereupon Hengstenberg asked that the consecrated brethren bring to him all the truths of God's plan then due, that from them they might select ones fitted for use in that condition, according as God through the consecrated should indicate His will (Saul said unto Ahia, bring hither the ark of God, 18); for at that time the believing theologians brought together and held all of the truths previously and then due (the ark of God … with the children of Israel). 

(39) While Hengstenberg was consulting with the consecrated brethren over what the Truth required them to do at this juncture of affairs (while Saul talked unto the priest, 19), the debate, the confusion and the flight of the rationalistic historico-higher critics became very tumultuous (noise … of the Philistines … increased). Then Hengstenberg charged the consecrated brethren to cease their efforts to get a response from the Truth, as it now was by the providential situation shown what course to take (withdraw thine hand). Thereupon Hengstenberg with all his warriors by Divine providence was called out to battle (Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves; literally, Saul was called and all the people that were with him, 20). Accordingly, they joined the controversy (they came to the battle). Here they noted that the rationalistic historico-higher critics, in their, efforts to answer the arguments that antitypical Jonathan and his chief supporters used against them, fell to contradicting and fighting one another (every man's sword was against his fellow), resulting in their utter defeat on the involved New Testament matters (a very great discomfiture). Some of the Lord's real people under deception had joined in with the rationalistic historico-higher critics as fellow warriors (Hebrews that were with the Philistines before … went up with them into the camp, 21). These received the opening of their eyes through the arguments of antitypical Jonathan and their chief supporters and joined 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

232 

their real brethren who were with antitypical Saul and Jonathan (turned to be with … Saul and Jonathan). And those real believers who, dodging the issues, hid themselves in various protective organizations of Christendom (men … hid themselves in mount Ephraim, 22), seeing that the rationalistic historico-higher critics were being refuted and put to flight (heard that the Philistines fled), joined in the controversy, to the further undoing of the foe (followed hard after them in the battle). Thus at that time, from 1837 to from about 1860 to 1865, God delivered His people from the rationalistic historico-higher critics (The Lord saved Israel that day, 23); and the controversy entered the phase of the creed idols (the battle passed over unto Beth-aven). 

(40) Hengstenberg was so conservative a man, made all the more so by his very many controversies with unbelievers, that anything claimed to be a new truth, advancing light, was looked upon by him with gravest suspicion; and he put his followers under a strict charge to eschew anything not taught previously (Saul had adjured … saying, Cursed be the man that eateth … until evening, 24). This resulted in the people famishing for positive Truth (men of Israel were distressed that day), since in the controversy they were refuting error, and not getting advancing Truth. Hengstenberg gave this solemn charge, because he desired to vindicate himself against his foes, and because he feared that the new views accepted would compromise the victory that he desired to win for God's cause and for himself (that I may be avenged on mine enemies). Accordingly, his supporters kept the charge, and eschewed accepting any new views during that controversy (none of the people tasted any food). Just at that period the Lord's people came to certain great ones of the Lord, like Bros. Miller, Storrs, Stetson, etc., who taught the sweet hopes of the message of Christ's Millennial reign of blessing in the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit (all … came to a [literally,

Samuel and Saul. 

233 

the] wood [trees represent great ones either among the Lord's people or among the world] … honey upon the ground, 25). Hengstenberg's supporters coming in contact with these sweet hopes of the messages in their writings (when the people were come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped, 26), heeding their leader's charge, would not accept the sweet hopes of the Millennial message (no man put his hand to his mouth: for the people feared the oath). But, as shown above, antitypical Jonathan, offended at the too severe polemics of Hengstenberg, left the sphere of his activities. Hence they did not know of his solemn charge to the people (Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath, 27). They, in various of their members, accepted with their official sanction some of the sweet hopes of the Biblical teachings on the Millennium (put forth the end of the rod … and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth). This gave them great enlightenment, not only on this, but on many other doctrines, etc. (his eyes were enlightened). 

(41) Certain of Hengstenberg's heresy-hunting followers (one of the people, v. 28) disapproved of their accepting and giving their official sanction to the doctrine of the Millennium, stating that Hengstenberg had solemnly forbidden such a course (Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food this day), even though the people should be hungry for advancing Truth (the people were faint). Antitypical Jonathan replied that Hengstenberg by such a prohibition had wrought evil results for the Lord's people, giving them both head and heart difficulties (hath troubled the land [container for thing contained], 29). They politely called (I pray you) the attention of the people to how the Millennial doctrine clarified the mental vision of them as parts of God's people on Biblical subjects otherwise unclear (see … how mine eyes have been enlightened), emphasizing the fact that this was because they had accepted

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

234 

the Biblical doctrine of the Millennium (because I tasted a little of this honey). These brethren were certainly right, for that doctrine is sweetness itself to God's true people; for its blessed prospects give them hope and joy amid their conflicts, trials and suffering; for this doctrine was some of the spoil taken out from under the rubbish with which the rationalistic historico-higher critics had covered it. Accordingly, antitypical Jonathan stated that if all the opponents of rationalistic historico-higher critics had accepted this doctrine as part of the spoil that they had taken from the latter, they would have had much more enlightenment on God's ways (How much more … had eaten … spoil … they found, 30), and would consequently have refuted their foes with greater thoroughness (much greater slaughter). As it was, instead of making the slaughter complete on both New and Old Testament matters, it was complete only on the treasures of knowledge on the historico-higher criticism of New Testament matters (they smote … that day from Michmash, 31). While there were defenses of the Old Testament against higher criticism made by antitypical Saul and Jonathan, these were incomplete (to Ajalon, place of gazelles [Josh. 10:12, "moon in the valley of Aijalon," i.e., Old Testament in the sphere of Historico—Higher criticism's doctrines]). The comparative weakness of antitypical Saul and his supporters against the Old Testament historico-higher criticism was due to their lack of the riches of knowledge in the Old Testament on prophecies and types as to the Millennium (people were very faint). 

(42) As all erroneous systems have some Truth mixed with their error, so rationalistic historico-higher criticism had some Truth mixed in with its error; in fact, in some cases the error was quite well hidden and the amount of connected Truth was so large that the error was not apparent without considerable thought and knowledge; for Satan knows that without some Truth he cannot deceive many. This pertinent 

Samuel and Saul. 

235 

Truth is in v. 32 represented by the flesh, and the hidden error by the blood left in the flesh. Hengstenberg's followers (the people, 32) with zeal mentally accepted the truths that they took away from the rationalists (flew upon the spoil). Some of these truths pertained to the justified (sheep), some to the humanity of Jesus (oxen) and some to the humanity of the consecrated (calves); and without proper examination of them and without the full elimination of the hidden error from them, which would be complete figurative bleeding of the figurative flesh (slew them on the ground [did not hang them up so that all the blood would flow out of them]), and with the pertinent truths, they imbibed the connected and hidden error (the people did eat them with the blood). Many brought the knowledge of the fact to Hengstenberg (told Saul … sin … eat with blood, 33), who in his characteristic hatred of, and opposition to error, even in its most attenuated form, denounced the wrong-doers as traitors and their wrong as treason (Ye have transgressed; literally, Ye have dealt treacherously). Thereupon he charged that the doctrine that the Bible is God's inspired and inerrant revelation be analyzed, proved and upheld as a tester for him of all religious thought for that period of time (roll a great stone unto me this day). Furthermore, he charged his main supporters to mingle everywhere among his ordinary supporters (Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, 34) and teach them to submit, in a work done as in his presence, to his test doctrine all teachings that they had taken as booty from the rationalistic historico-higher critics (Bring me hither every man his ox … sheep) and study them in submission to his test doctrine (slay them here [on the rock]), and if they by that test doctrine have all the error emptied from them, then they should accept them (eat); but he cautioned them not to sin against the Lord by partaking of the bootied truths containing error, be it ever so little (sin not … eating with the blood). All his supporters with their full power did as 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

236 

he charged (every man his ox with him; literally, by his hand), and did this before the Parousia day dawned (that night), and thus properly studied them, purging out of them whatever was erroneous (slew them there). 

(43) Hengstenberg developed his followers as a compact consecrated body for sacrificial purposes on behalf of the Lord (Saul built an altar unto the Lord, 35). While previous crown-lost princes built sects in which consecrated, justified and unjustified ones were members, and thus were not the real Church, Hengstenberg would have none in this special company who not only professed, but practiced consecration, which was possible, because the so-called Pietists at that time, who to a man were consecrated, stood with him and recognized him as their leader (the same was the first altar that he built unto the Lord): Hengstenberg desired and, therefore, exhorted his supporters to join him in pursuing and devastating the rationalistic historico-higher critics on their Old Testament theories, and that immediately (Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, 36) and thus make a complete job of the conquest (spoil them until the morning light … not leave a man of them). To this plan all acceded (Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee). But the consecrated brethren asked that they should first approach God and learn His will on the subject (draw near … unto God), and that in connection with the doctrine of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant revelation (hither). Thereupon Hengstenberg sought to find out the Lord's will from His Spirit, Word and providence (asked counsel of God, 37) on whether the battle against the rationalistic historico-higher critics on their Old Testament theories (Shall I go down after the Philistines?) should be pushed unto the limits of a complete victory thereon (wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel?). By not giving them the necessary refutative arguments thereto, and by not giving favoring providences, God withheld a reply at that period, from about 1850 to about 1865 (answered him not that 

Samuel and Saul. 

237 

day). This lack of God's manifesting His will on the subjects under consideration convinced Hengstenberg that there was something wrong done by some of the leaders among his supporters. Hence he asked that these should undergo a Divinely indicated examination on the subject of the alleged sin that hindered the completion of the victory (Saul said, Draw ye near, all ye chief … know and see wherein this sin hath been this day, 38). He solemnly affirmed that if the fault was even in antitypical Jonathan, his chief new-creaturely supporters, they would have to be disfellowshipped (though it be in Jonathan … surely die, 39). 

(44) This struck all his supporters as too harsh; for it was generally known that antitypical Jonathan accepted the Millennium, which Hengstenberg, as an adherent of the (Luthern) Augsburg Confession, rejected. Hence none of his supporters gave him any encouragement on his rash determination (not a man among all the people that answered him). It struck him that the blame should lie either in the main leaders or in the rest of the warriors (all Israel … one side, and I and Jonathan … other side, v. 40). To this his supporters assented (people said … what seemeth good unto thee). Then Hengstenberg prayed that the Lord might properly direct the discussion and vote to the discovery of those allegedly at fault (Lord … Give a perfect lot, 41). Thereupon the discussion and vote eliminated all except him and antitypical Jonathan (Saul and Jonathan were taken; but the people escaped; literally, went out). Thereupon Hengstenberg declared that the discussion and voting should be as between him and antitypical Jonathan (Cast lots between me and Jonathan, 42). The discussion and voting revealed the fact that antitypical Jonathan had by his acceptance and commendation of the Millennial doctrine introduced a condition among Hengstenberg's supporters that in their opinion diverted attention from the fight against the rationalistic historico-higher critics, and brought a new controversy among the former, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

238 

which influenced the Lord to decide against the prosecution of the anti-infidelistic battle in the interests of a subject more edifying for this people (Jonathan was taken). Thereupon Hengstenberg demanded an explanation of antitypical Jonathan's pertinent course (Tell me what thou hast done, 43). These then very frankly confessed their faith in the Millennial doctrine (I did but taste a little honey) and their sanctioning it with the office that was in their power (with the end of the rod that was in mine hand). They also recognized that the unbending conservatism of Hengstenberg would cut them off from the fellowship of their fellow sympathizing antitypical Israelites (lo, I must die). 

(45) Thereupon the unbendingly conservative Hengstenberg by word and act most solemnly pronounced the sentence of disfellowshipment upon these, under pain that he would receive it or worse yet, if he refrained from acting it out on these (God do so [to me] and more also [if I do not see to it that] thou shalt surely die, 44). But Hengstenberg had miscalculated the attitude of his supporters as to antitypical Jonathan, for they loved the latter more than him, because they had nobler and more lovable heart qualities than he. Reminding him of their more effective part in the conflict with the rationalistic historico-higher critics than his (who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel, 45), they in no uncertain, and with unanimous voice questioned his decision (Shall Jonathan die?). Then most solemnly they declared against his decision (God forbid; as the Lord liveth) and most determinedly insisted, not only that these be not disfellowshipped, but that no other evil, not even the least one, come to them for their course (there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground); for they argued that these had cooperated with God throughout the period of the involved controversy (for he hath wrought with God this day). Hengstenberg, as strong-willed as he was, had to bend to the storm of indignant protests that his severity had aroused in all his supporters, with the 

Samuel and Saul. 

239 

result that his own supporters rescued these from the disfellowshipment that he had determined against them (so the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not). The dissension in the ranks of his supporters on the Millennial question and their unanimously standing by antitypical Jonathan as against him made him give up that phase of the controversy that was implied in attacking in detail the positions of the rationalistic historico-higher critics on Old Testament matters (Saul went up from following the Philistines, 46); and these critics went on with their theories (the Philistines went to their own place), which were developed by the Wellhausen-Graf-Kuenen schools into the theories of the evolutionary higher critics of the Harvest time. These latter views have been refuted by the antitypical Levites, who rallied to antitypical Moses' call (Ex. 32:26-28). Among these antitypical Levites the outstanding ones were Koenig, Moeller and Ruprecht, of Germany; Robertson, Orr, Sayce, Rawlinson, Finn and Urquhart, of Britain, and Bartlett, Bissell and, with Koenig, the ablest of all opponents of evolutionary higher criticism, Green, of America. 

(46) Thus by defending the twelve stewardship and other doctrines throughout the period of denominational mouthpieceship against their attackers, the crown-lost leaders took the leadership of antitypical Israel (So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, 47); and they had no easy time; for they had to meet opponents on every phase of truth due in their times (fought against all his enemies on every side), particularly against the autocrats, like the hierarchies in the Church (Moab), the clericalists (children of Ammon), the secular rulers who sought to control the Church (Edom), the radical religious leaders (kings of Zobah, encampment) and the sectarians (Philistines). Their great abilities enabled them to be very troublesome to whatever opponent they met, it making no difference who those opponents were (whithersoever he turned himself, he vexed them). Yea, they wrought 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

240 

mightily, as can be seen by the properly informed at the mere mention of names like Origen, Augustine, Gerhard, Calvin, Menno, (Faustus) Socinus, Jewel, Barrowe, Barclay, Watson, Campbell and Hines, besides many other very able members of antitypical Saul in each of the twelve denominations, of whose crown-lost leaders only one for each is mentioned in this sentence. These able new creatures were certainly calculated to "vex" opponents in error. Not only so, but they saw to the gathering and training of able controversialists as their assistants (he gathered an host, 48), as they also waged for a time a successful war against sin in themselves and others (smote the Amalekites) and by their controversies delivered antitypical Israel from all who corrupted for them their Truth teachings (delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them). 

(47) They had, especially, three groups of helpers (the sons of Saul, 49): (1) the ablest and most faithful of the crown-losers (Jonathan), (2) the less able consecrated crown-losers and the faith-justified ones, who in both classes were linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic scholars (Ishui, level, just), and (3) the least able consecrated ones and the faith-justified ones, who acted as evangelists, missionaries and pastors (Melchi-shua, my king is saved, in allusion to antitypical Saul's being delivered as their leader from their attackers' arguments). They had especially two powers (two daughters): (1) that of writing, preaching and lecturing before immense public audiences (the name of the firstborn Merab, increase, abundance) and (2) that of addressing church gatherings (the name of the younger Michal, brook). Their office was that of being winsome chief leaders of God's nominal people (the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, my brother is pleasant, 50); and those whom they made leaders of their warriors were the theological professors (name of the captain of his host was Abner, father of light), who were very closely associated with

Samuel and Saul. 

241 

the crown-lost leaders (Saul's uncle); and they were indeed depositaries of knowledge (son of Ner, light). Controversialists by their controversial knowledge (Kish, bow, 51) were their developers (father of Saul); and the light, knowledge (Ner) that developed the theological professors, and that developed antitypical Saul was powerful (Abiel, mighty father [who was the father of Kish also], 9:1). But throughout the period of denominational mouthpieceship for God (all the days of Saul, 52) the crown-lost princes in each denomination had severe controversies with the sectarians in the other denominations (sore war against the Philistines). And they were on the lookout for able scholars and controversialists, and on finding them enlisted them among their warriors (when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him). 

(48) From chapters 9 to 14 antitypical Samuel's and Saul's conflicts with error receive almost exclusive typical descriptions, but in chapter 15 their conflicts with sin in and about them are typically set forth. Here antitypical Samuel appears as more than a conqueror, while antitypical Saul falls short thereof. And chapter 15 closes with the statement that typifies antitypical Samuel's sorrowfully keeping himself aloof from antitypical Saul. The types of chapters 9-12 have had twelve progressive fulfillments, one in each of the twelve denominations. The types of chapters 13 and 14 have had but a single fulfillment, members of various denominations having part therein. But like the types of chapters 9 to 12, the types of chapter 15 have had a twelve-fold fulfillment, one progressively in connection with each denomination. So much prefaced, we will with the Lord's help proceed to the explanation of chapter 15's antitype, and with it will end the discussion of Samuel and Saul. 

(49) Antitypical Samuel in each denomination first, in order of time, aroused antitypical Saul to wage controversies against errorists who were injuring God's true people. Later, in point of time, they exhorted 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

242 

these to amendment of life and development of an overcoming character, and with such exhortations they (Samuel, 1) reminded these (said unto Saul) that they were by God commissioned to qualify them for leadership in antitypical Israel (The Lord sent me to anoint thee king … over Israel), and made this fact the reason of their exhorting these to obedience to them as the mouthpiece of the Lord's Word (therefore hearken thou unto the voice [mouthpiece] of the words of the Lord), the sequel proving that in this exhortation amendment of life and development of an overcoming character were the things charged. Then antitypical Samuel points out the reason why this exhortation coming from God should be fulfilled. The treacherous efforts of sin to impede and prevent God's people from developing character unto fitness to reach heavenly Canaan in their journey thereto from the present evil world (saith the Lord, I remember that which Amalek, laborious, did to Israel, prince or warrior of God, … when he came up from Egypt, fortress, 2). Therefore the Lord charged antitypical Saul utterly to destroy sin in themselves and to help other antitypical Israelites to do the same in themselves (smite Amalek, 3), and not only so, but utterly to destroy every form that sin has (utterly destroy all that they have), not sparing it or any of its forms and expressions (spare them not), killing all of them (slay), regardless of whether they were strong (man) or weak (woman) or partly developed (infant) or just begun to be developed (suckling) or were in the humanity of the consecrated (ox) or justified (sheep) or in an organization (camel) or in a teaching (ass). To carry out this charge antitypical Saul assembled antitypical Israel (gathered the people, 4) and described them in their sin-oppressed condition (numbered them in Telaim, oppression), detailing the nature of sin, their fallen dispositions and their sinful expressions, showing that the majority of them were very depraved (200,000 footmen) and that a minority of them were

Samuel and Saul. 

243 

less depraved (10,000 men of Judah, praised). The first effort was made against sin as an organized empire, i.e., the natural depravity of their dispositions (Saul came to a [the] city of Amalek, 5) and they fought in the advantageous position of the Truth and its Spirit (laid wait [literally, strove] in the valley). 

(50) Since this antitype concerns the overthrow of sin, certain human talents inherited and acquired (Kenites, acquisitions, 6) and usable in the Lord's service were not included in the order of extirpation. Hence antitypical Saul by his course separated these (Go, depart, get you down), which often are used as servants of sin (among the Amalekites), from such sinful uses, that they might not be destroyed as inseparable from sin, when it would be destroyed (lest I destroy you with them), the reason being that these natural and acquired talents have been helpful for the Lord's people in carrying out their consecration (showed kindness to … Israel, when they came up) during their journey from this present evil world (out of Egypt). Accordingly, antitypical Saul and Israel severed their natural and acquired talents from sinful uses (Kenites departed from among the Amalekites). Antitypical Saul and earnest antitypical Israelites bravely attacked all of their actual and verbal sins and all of the wilfulness that formerly lodged in them (Saul smote the Amalekites, 7). This they did in the sphere of their isolated condition away from the world (Havilah, sandy [Israel's 40 years' journeys were in the sandy wilderness]) to the fortifications of sin (Shur, fortress) guarding the present evil world (over against Egypt). They even did more: they made a captive of sinfulness itself (Agag, giant, 8), which as the depraved condition of a fallen disposition is the king sin (king of the Amalekites), and overthrew its expressions in word and deed (utterly destroyed all the people) with the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (with the edge of the sword). But they made the great mistake of cutting off the branches of the tree of sin and leaving 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

244 

its trunk unfelled and its roots unuprooted (Saul and the people spared Agag, 9); not only so, but they spared, some the besetting sins of their justified humanity (best of the sheep), some the besetting sins of their consecrated humanity (best … of the oxen), some even other than besetting sins (and of the fatlings; literally, even seconds), some their recently developing sins (lambs), and in general what of sin that was dear to their depraved dispositions (and all that was good), refusing to make a full end of these (would not utterly destroy); but all of sin that was distasteful and unappealing, hence rejectable, they destroyed (but every thing [literally, every work] … vile and refuse … destroyed utterly). 

(51) The Lord's Word condemning such a course, opening up to antitypical Samuel (then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, 10), impressed them with the thought that God had decided to change His procedure in having antitypical Saul continue to be God's leader for Israel (repented me that I have set up Saul to be king, 11), God giving as His reasons therefore that antitypical Saul had turned away from the Lord (he is turned back from following me), and that they had failed to fulfill the charge of God as to fully overcoming sin (not performed my commandments). Naturally antitypical Samuel was greatly saddened by the two things: antitypical Saul's disobedience and the Lord's purpose to uncrown him (it grieved Samuel). These two things moved him with much supplication to entreat the Lord not to uncrown them, but to give them another chance to reform (cried unto the Lord all night). Assured that God would not change His decision, antitypical Samuel quickly (rose early, 12) betook themselves on a mental journey to meet antitypical Saul as soon as possible (to meet Saul in the morning). Antitypical Saul was on all hands being praised to antitypical Samuel as being very fruitful in their undertakings (told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, fruitful garden), as having made a great reputation

Samuel and Saul. 

245 

for themselves as a reminder of their fame (set him up a place; literally, a monument), as exhibiting, i.e., showing off, themselves in many places (gone about, and passed on) and as descending into a crucial condition (gone down to Gilgal). Thus they who had begun so humbly were now developing pride, unholy ambition, arrogance and hunger for honor and applause, thus proving that few of God's people can stand greatness and popularity. If we look at men like Origen, Athanasius, Cyprian, Gregory the Great, Illiricus, Whitgift, Calvin, (Faustus) Socinus, Calov, Coke, Campbell and Rutherford, we see this principle illustrated in antitypical Saul. How necessary in the prominent servants of God that they be filled both with deep humility and loving zeal; otherwise they will come to their Gilgals and therein come to a fall! 

(52) Of course, in antitypical Samuel's coming into contact with antitypical Saul (Samuel came to Saul, 13), the latter were sure to speak graciously to the Lord's faithful (Blessed be thou of the Lord), and yet to boast in hypocrisy (I have performed the commandment of the Lord). Butantitypical Samuel's sharp eyes and keen ears were quick to perceive and understand the evidences of unovercome sins in the justified (Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, 14) and in the humanity of the consecrated (the lowing of the oxen which I hear?). Then to save their face and to make an appearance of piety (for hypocrisy does love to palm off its evil doings as a service of God), they asserted that the qualities e.g., compromises with the world and its ways to win more followers, exercising worldly and selfish qualities against consecration to influence otherwise unwinable persons to accept a compromise of Christianity as the genuine article, were proper things to offer to God in sacrifice, though connected with some sin (Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites … to sacrifice unto the Lord, 15). They claimed that these were the best of fallen humanity's qualities (best of the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

246 

sheep and of the oxen) and were really useful to exercise with certain kinds of people, to win them for the Lord. And the dispositions not useful in this way they claimed were all overcome (the rest we have utterly destroyed). This untruthful and deceitful answer prompted antitypical Samuel to ask antitypical Saul to give attention to the pertinent message that the Lord had just recently given them (Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath said to me this night, 16). Antitypical Saul asked them to tell it (Say on). Antitypical Samuel then asked antitypical Saul whether it was not true that in the days when they were full of deep humility they were made the leaders of the denominations of Christendom (When … little in thine own sight … made the head of the tribes of Israel, 17) and whether it was not then that the Lord qualified them to be such leaders (the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?). Furthermore, they reminded them that God had commissioned them utterly to overcome sin in itself and in all its forms (the Lord sent … and said … utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, v. 18) and to continue perseveringly in this spiritual warfare, until they would fully conquer them (fight against them until they be consumed). Then antitypical Samuel asked antitypical Saul why they had not obeyed the Lord's charge (Wherefore … not obey the voice of the Lord, v. 19), but instead yielded to sin's sway for advantage (fly upon the spoil), and had done evil in God's sight (didst evil in the sight of the Lord?). 

(53) Self-righteousness and self-justification characterized antitypical Saul to so great a degree that he presumed in his pride positively to contradict the rebuking star-members (Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, 20). They insisted that they had gone the full length of their mission (gone the way which the Lord sent me). Then they boasted that they had gotten sin under their control (have brought Agag, the king of Amalek) and had fully overcome the words and acts of their fallen flesh (have utterly destroyed the Amalekites).

Samuel and Saul. 

247 

Selfishly they sought to shift upon their supporters (the people took of the spoil, 21) the burden of sparing such allegedly allowable features of sinfulness in the justified and in the humanity of the consecrated (sheep and oxen) as could be used fruitfully in an alleged service of God, instances of which were cited above (the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto … thy God in Gilgal). To this deceitful answer antitypical Samuel gave, partly in question form, a classic answer (Samuel said, 22; in the type the answer is put in poetic form): Does the Lord delight in services allegedly acceptable to Him and in sacrifices made contrary to obedience as much as He does in obedience, even if unaccompanied by sacrifice? Does He in any sense delight in such service and sacrifice contrary to obedience? (Hath the Lord … delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as [He delights] in obeying the voice of the Lord?). Then antitypical Samuel read them a lesson very essential for all of God's people to learn, especially those of them in high places in His service, to the effect that to practice justice is better than to practice love contrary to justice, and to obey is better than alleged acceptable services rendered contrary to obedience. If, therefore, such cannot in harmony with obedience sacrifice, let them omit sacrifice, but obey; for justice must precede love. If both can be done together, that is best (Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams). Then, because antitypical Samuel were dealing with a crown-losing class, and therefore in God's sight with Levites, they used language appropriate to the situation, to the effect that revolutionism—the sin of antitypical Levites—is the sin of especially deceiving false teaching (rebellion is [the word for as is not in the Hebrew, as its being in italics shows] the sin of witchcraft, v. 23), and wilfulness-a special characteristic of revolutionistic leaders—is disharmonious with justice and is self-worship (stubbornness is [again the word for as is

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

248 

not in the Hebrew, as the italics show] iniquity and idolatry). 

(54) Thereupon antitypical Samuel, with a sad, but obedient heart, announced the Lord's decision, telling antitypical Saul, with words doubtless choked with deep emotion, and in some of their representatives with tear-filled eyes, that since they had refused obedience to the Lord's Word, the Lord had rejected them from being the leaders of His true people (rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king). Then, pricked to the heart and facing the situation honestly, antitypical Saul, their natural and acquired humility returning, acknowledge to antitypical Samuel that they had sinned (I have sinned, 24). Then they confessed the weakness that prompted to the sin—fear of opposing the wishes of the people by a resolute insistence on their overcoming sin (I feared the voice of the people and obeyed their voice), for which they were willing to disobey God and the star-members (transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words). Here is brought out a danger to leaders: fear of losing the popular favor leading them to compromise Truth and righteousness. Let those who are leaders be on their guard against this snare. If they give God their supreme devotion and trust, they will be delivered from "the fear of man that bringeth a snare," a snare that in a more attenuated way is a danger to all of God's people. Surely our hearts bleed for typical Saul, and more so for antitypical Saul, for having been caught in this snare unto their undoing as leaders of God's people! Antitypical Saul earnestly and humbly entreated antitypical Samuel for forgiveness (I pray thee, pardon my sin, 25); moreover they made the same kind of a request that antitypical Samuel withdraw not their cooperation with them in their service of the Lord, which they greatly desired to further (turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord). This antitypical Samuel refused to do, for they knew that the rejected ones' service henceforth would not be acceptable

Samuel and Saul. 

249 

(I will not return with thee, 26). They gave as their reason a repetition of the pronounced sentence, that their rejecting God's Word resulted in God's rejecting them from leadership in antitypical Israel. This made it inadvisable to act in a way contradictory to the resultant situation (rejected the word of the Lord … rejected thee … king over Israel). 

(55) So saying, antitypical Samuel turned to leave antitypical Saul, so far as acting as though they were sanctioning their administrative acts any more (turned about to go away, 27). Thereupon in remonstrance antitypical Saul forcibly took away from antitypical Samuel some of their power, and thus did violence to it; for these crown-lost princes resented antitypical Samuel's refusal to recognize their leadership, but they did it in the hope of changing their minds and course (laid hold on the skirt of his mantle, and it rent). The remonstrance of antitypical Samuel at Calvin's burning Servetus is a good illustration of the antitype of 1727; others abound. This unseemly course of antitypical Saul prompted antitypical Samuel to point out how by that violence antitypical Saul had figured forth God's taking the leadership in antitypical Israel from them (the Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee, 28) at that time (this day), which occurred with the various individuals on their rejection in each denomination and, finally, with all of them through God's choice of Bro. Russell to be put in their place. They said that God would give it to a brother in Christ worthier than they (give it to a neighbour … better than thou). They further asserted that God, who is the Strength of His people, would not make His decision become a falsehood (the Strength of Israel will not lie, 29); nor would He, as men usually do, change His mind (nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent). Heartbroken, poor antitypical Saul again acknowledged their sin (I have sinned, 30). Despite this, they pleaded that antitypical Samuel do them the respect, that the other leaders, as well as

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

250 

the people, seeing, would still continue to support them as their chief leaders (honour me … before the elders … and before Israel). Antitypical Saul pleaded this that they might serve the Lord (turn again … worship … thy God). Deeply touched through their love and pity for antitypical Saul, antitypical Samuel relented and showed fellowship while antitypical Saul continued to serve the Lord (Samuel turned again … Saul worshiped the Lord, 31). 

(56) But antitypical Samuel did not use the occasion to compromise with, but to destroy sin in themselves. Before the whole assembly they required sin as a subject to be brought to the fore (Bring hither to me Agag, the king of the Amalekites, 32). In its possessors this seemed to be thought to mean that they would very tenderly be spared overcoming it (Agag … delicately … said, Surely the bitterness of death is past). But they miscalculated the character and purpose of antitypical Samuel, who declared that as sin by its mortal power had caused the death of all men, as the children of human nature and of God's covenant with Adam and the race in him (Hos. 6:7; as thy sword hath made women childless, 33), so should lust in its various forms, the mother of sin (Jas. 1:15), become childless, through antitypical Samuel's overcoming it (so shall thy mother be childless among women). Thereupon antitypical Samuel overcame sin in the presence of antitypical Saul and Israel, by making no compromises with it, but overcoming all inducements that it offered them to compromise with it, which to accomplish they had to sever themselves from antitypical Saul and all who had their spirit (hewed Agag in pieces), and that publicly in the Lord's service amid crucial experiences (before the Lord in Gilgal). Thereupon antitypical Samuel returned to the heights of developing and maintaining a more than overcoming character (Then Samuel went to Ramah, height, 34). And antitypical Saul ascended to office powers in the heights of a crown-loser's character (Saul went up to

Samuel and Saul. 

251 

his house to Gibeah [height] of Saul). But these experiences ended antitypical Samuel's fellowship with antitypical Saul (Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death, 35); for after the Adventist crown-lost leaders went to the bad, the last of the twelve fellowship removals occurred, which fellowship removals were kept up until their careers ended, early in the Harvest, when Bros. Storr and Stetson, some of the last representatives of antitypical Samuel, died. Despite antitypical Samuel's disappointment in antitypical Saul, they still continued to love these, which occasioned them to grieve deeply over the fall of these (Samuel mourned for Saul), which, however, did not alter God's determination to change His procedure whereby He had made antitypical Saul the leader of antitypical Israel (the Lord repented [changed not His mind, but His procedure] that he had made Saul king over Israel). Let us learn the lessons chiefly inculcated by Samuel and Saul, i.e., that by God's grace we stand, as we abide faithful, taught us by antitypical Samuel's life, and that, despite God's grace, we fall, as we prove unfaithful, taught us by antitypical Saul's life. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) About whom does 1 Sam. 1-8 center? 1 Sam 9-15? What title did these two facts suggest as to the subjects of these two sections? What have the brethren indicated as to their study of 1 Sam. 1-8? What prayer is thereby suggested? What does Samuel continue to type in 1 Sam. 9-15, generally, particularly and most particularly? Whom does Saul therein type, generally and particularly? How many fulfillments does 1 Sam. 9-15 have? What does this mean? What will time and space not allow here? In lieu of this, what will be presented? What has been given as to the crown-lost leaders? In what study? 

(2) What do Saul, David and Solomon primarily type? Saul and David secondarily? When will the secondary antitype of Solomon be given? By what are crown-lost leaders typed? As a class what were they? How typed? How did they shoot out their teachings? How typed? What did they do with one another? How typed? As 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

252 

what did they hold together? How typed? As such what was their condition? How typed? By whom were they refreshed? How typed? Who were the chief of the crown-losers? By whom typed? How are these described? How typed? How did they compare in this respect with other crown-losers and unconsecrated ones? How typed? Name one of such in each denomination. What does the mere mention of their names prove? Who were the four ablest of the twelve? How do they rank in intellectual ability with the ablest of men? What had crown-losers before the rise of each of the twelve denominations lost? How typed? How is this exemplified before the rise of the Greek Catholic Church? The Lutheran Church? What did the crown-losers, therefore, do? How typed? Whom did they send along? How typed? In what two ways is this construed? 

(3) Up to his anointing whom does Saul type? As what? What did they do in search of the lost truths? First where? How typed? Second where? How typed? Wherein? Third where? How typed? With what results? Why? Finally, where did they come in search? How typed? What did the prospective crown-lost leaders here suggest? How typed? Why did they make the suggestion? How typed? What did the doctricians suggest? How typed? Why? How did they speak of the Little Flock leaders' characters and teachings? How typed? What moved them to advise going to antitypical Samuel? How typed? What are we to remember as to antitypical Samuel's activities up to 1846? How did antitypical Saul react to the suggestion? How typed? Why? How did he deprecate the situation? How typed? How did the dogmaticians answer? How typed? What reason did they give? How typed? 

(4) What remark is made in v. 9? Why is it made? How did antitypical Saul react to the dogmaticians' second remark? How typed? What, accordingly, was done? When? How typed? What did they first do? How typed? Whom did they providentially meet? How typed? On' what errand were these engaged? How typed? What were they asked? How typed? Give an example of one of the twelve fulfillments. What did the consecrated ones offer them? How typed? How? How typed? Like what is this? What did they say? How typed? What did 

Samuel and Saul. 

253 

they urge? How typed? Why? How typed? Why did they say they had come? How typed? Where, according to the assurance, would they find them? How typed? What further did they urge? How typed? Why? How typed? Otherwise what would happen? How typed? Why did they urge haste? How typed? In what were the typical and antitypical maidens alike? 

(5) What did antitypical Saul and his associates overcome? How typed? How did they meet antitypical Samuel? How typed? What had the Lord made known to antitypical Samuel beforehand? How typed? What example illustrates this? With what did He charge antitypical Samuel? How typed? For what had God chosen antitypical Saul? How typed? What example illustrates this? Why, according to God's assurance, was God so arranging? How typed? How did God indicate this to the Little Flock leaders? How typed? What did antitypical Saul do? How typed? What did they ask? How typed? How did antitypical Samuel introduce himself to antitypical Saul? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel bid them? How typed? To what did they invite them? How typed? What did they promise to do later? How typed? What else? How typed? 

(6) What assurance did they give? How typed? Noting what moved antitypical Samuel to give what assurance? How typed? By what did the crown-lost ones betray themselves as such? How typed? What else by act did they indicate of themselves as a class and their relations? How typed? What did these qualities move them to do? How typed? In what examples do we see this? Who shows this and in what? What did antitypical Samuel then do? How typed? What did they then give them? How typed? What did they not thereby neglect? How typed? Of what natures were the guests? How typed? With what and in what capacity did the Little Flock leaders charge themselves? How typed? What was done with the charge? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel heartily commend to antitypical Saul? To what did they encourage them? How typed? What assurance did they give them? How typed? What did antitypical Saul then do? Where? How typed? Give two examples of this.

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

254 

(7) Thereupon what did both classes do? How typed? In what way did antitypical Samuel put the Truth before antitypical Saul? How typed? How do we get this thought? In what way? How typed? What did antitypical Saul then do? How typed? How do we get this thought? What in the next stage of affairs did antitypical Samuel do? How typed? After this rest what did antitypical Samuel do? How typed? What did both classes in association do? How typed? Give an example of this. What in principle was done in the other eleven denominations? Into what did this activity bring both classes? At this juncture what did antitypical Samuel desire? How typed? What resulted? How typed? Why did they desire this privacy? How typed? 

(8) Of what does 1 Sam. 10 treat? Up to this point, with certain exceptions, what had antitypical Samuel not given antitypical Saul? What from then on did they give them? How typed? For what did this qualify them? How typed? What assurance did they give them on their leaving the Lord's mouthpieces? How typed? In what sphere? How typed? What would the two classes of the consecrated tell them? How typed? How could they have told this? What second assurance did antitypical Samuel give antitypical Saul? How typed? What are the three aspects of the type and antitype? What were, and what were not, the teachings that they would impart? What charge was given as to two loaves? How typed? 

(9) Where was the third of antitypical Saul's experiences to take place? How typed? Who would be there? How typed? With whom would it be? How typed? How would these be occupied? How typed? In favor of what would these be working? How typed? What would these be doing as they thus proceeded? How typed? What would antitypical Saul's third forecast experience be? How typed? In what would such prophesying result? How typed? Into what would this third experience change them? Give two examples of this thought. What was antitypical Saul to do after these three signs were fulfilled in them? How typed? Why do these things? How typed? 

(10) What did antitypical Samuel then tell antitypical Saul? How typed? How would the former come to the latter's succor? How typed? What thought did the 

Samuel and Saul. 

255 

former impress upon the latter? How typed? What were the latter not to do? How typed? After these things, what would antitypical Samuel show antitypical Saul? How typed? What occurred after antitypical Samuel had finished his instructions to antitypical Saul? How typed? What kind of a heart did God give the latter? How typed? What happened as to the three forecasts of vs. 2-6? How typed? Of which two as events are no fulfilled details given? How typed? Of which one are the details given? In what verses are they typed? What does v. 10 simply state? How? What do vs. 11-13 relate? What did antitypical Saul's oldtime acquaintances witness? How typed? What did they do to one another? How typed? What did they question? How typed? 

(11) How did another class in the same denomination answer them? How typed? What was their question? How typed? What did their question mean? How typed? What facts prove this principle to be true? What examples of primary crown-lost leaders illustrate this principle? Of secondary crown-lost leaders? What did the frequency of this fact result in? How typed? In favor of what truths was such prophesying? How typed? In what did it result? How typed? Give six examples illustrative of this result. To what further result did this lead? How typed? What was the relationship of the involved types to each other? How proved? What was the antitypical uncle's question put to antitypical Saul and the doctricians? How typed? What twofold thing did they answer? How typed? What question did this twofold answer prompt the antitypical uncle to ask? How typed? What answer was returned? How typed? Of what was no mention made? How typed? 

(12) What did antitypical Samuel make known? To whom? In view of what? How typed? Of what did they there first remind God's people? How typed? Second? How typed? Third? How typed? Fourth? How typed? What did they add? How typed? Despite what did they reject the Lord as King? How typed? For what had they clamored? How typed? Acceding to their ill-advised clamors, what did they suggest that they do in their denominations and thousands of leaders? How typed? Why this? What resulted from the first testings through antitypical Samuel's ministry? How typed? From 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

256 

the second testing? How typed? Under the third testing? How typed? Under the fourth testing? How typed? What was done as to antitypical Saul? How typed? What was the result? How typed? 

(13) On such leaders not coming forward what was done? How typed? For what did they inquire? How typed? How and what did the Lord answer? How typed? Who illustrated this course of humility, etc.? What did the antitypical Israelites then do? How typed? What did antitypical Saul then do? How typed? In what respects was he superior to all the others? How typed? How did antitypical Samuel introduce them to the people? How typed? Give three examples of such introduction. How was antitypical Saul received? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel then do? How typed? What did they finally do? How typed? What did the crown-lost leaders then do? How typed? By whom accompanied? How typed? What did opponents in each of the twelve denominations do as to this matter? How typed? What reaction was made? How typed? 

(14) On what does 1 Sam. 11 treat? What does it type? Who will be presented as an illustration of the controversial work of the involved antitypes in all twelve denominations? Against whom especially did they contend? What was the pertinent work of the Council of Trent? What did the Jesuits and other Romanist controversialists, accordingly, attempt? How typed? What was the condition of the Lutheran Church at that time? How typed? What before the Council of Trent had the Lutherans come to desire? Why? How typed? Why was the Council of Trent convoked? What condition did the emperor and the hierarchy desire to impose for the treaty? How typed? How impose it? In furtherance of this scheme what was done? As what was the proposed apostasy intended? By what two things were the German Lutherans hard pressed? How typed? What resulted? For what did their leaders ask? How typed? What was the object of the Lutherans? How typed? On what condition would they give up? How typed? 

(15) To and as what did the message of the threatening disaster come? How typed? What was its effect on the people? How typed? With what were the crown-lost leaders occupied before this? How involvedly typed? 

Samuel and Saul. 

257 

What did they ask as to the people's grief? How typed? What were they told? How typed? What in 1560 was done by Payva d'Andrada and his colaborers? How did its nature and result affect Martin Chemnitz? How typed? How did he progress in this attitude? How typed? What did he then do? How typed? What word did he send to his fellow Lutherans? How typed? What effect did this have on them? How typed? What had previously happened? What did antitypical Saul do to those who flocked to his standard? How typed? Of what two kinds were his supporters? How typed? What as to their standing is typed by the multiples of ten? 

(16) What in reality were the first pertinent writings of the Lutheran section of antitypical Saul? How typed? Wherein were Chemnitz's and Gerhard's first pertinent messages contained? Who else cooperated? How, compared to the two? As what did all these come to antitypical Jabesh-gilead? With what effect? How typed? What impression did the course of the German Lutherans make on the Romanists? How typed? What did d'Andrada do in 1564? What came into Chemnitz's hands? What resulted therefrom? Into what did this decision result? What were the character and effect of his work, Examination of the Tridentine Council? In view of its character and effect what proverb was invented? What is a short history of this book? 

(17) As to it what could the Romanists not permit? What did many Romanist theologians do as to it? Who was their ablest representative? Give a description of him and his pertinent work, Disputations, etc., of the terse answers, and especially of Gerhard's detailed answer? Where are copies of the three above-mentioned works? What was done by Lutheran anti-Romanist controversialists between Chemnitz and Gerhard? Who practically ended it? By whom, later than Gerhard, was it continued as a pursuit? By whom especially of these? What was the result of the conflict, especially Gerhard's part therein? How typed? How was the conflict planned and executed? How typed? How long did it last? How typed? How did the antitypical battle go on in the other eleven denominations? Why will their details not here be given? What adequately illustrates them?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

258 

(18) What did antitypical Saul's and Samuel's adherents desire of the latter? Why did they desire this? How typed? Who forbade this? Why? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel counsel? How typed? What was, accordingly, done? How typed? What did they do at this turn of affairs? How typed? What else was there done? How typed? Give examples. 

(19) What are the main lines of thought in 1 Sam. 12? What two things did antitypical Samuel seek to do at each turning point of antitypical Israel's crises? In connection with what did he seek these things? How typed? Whom did they point out? How typed? To what else did they point? How typed? What example illustrates this? Who else did this also? To what third thing did they point? How typed? What fourth thing did they point out? How typed? What general challenge did they throw out? How typed? 

(20) What was the first particular challenge that they threw out? How typed? The second? How typed? The third? How typed? The fourth? How typed? The fifth? How typed? What did they assert? How typed? What was the people's answer? Why? How typed? Upon whom did antitypical Samuel call to witness the people's answer? How typed? How did the people respond thereto? How typed? To what does history testify in this connection? How did this affect the faithful servants of the Truth? Who are examples of this? Why does this occur? What say the cited Scriptures thereon? With what should God's servants comfort themselves when slandered? 

(21) Thereupon what did antitypical Samuel call to the people's attention? How typed? What was the first of these Divine acts? How typed? In view of this what did antitypical Samuel request? Why? How typed? What did they teach them? How typed? On this subject what did they first teach the people? How typed? Whom did God send to deliver them? By what? How typed? What was done to God's people? How typed? What did they teach the people as to their forgetting God? How typed? To whom did He first give them up? How typed? Second? How typed? Third? How typed? What did these do to God's captive people? How typed? What did God do when they repented and cried to Him? How 

Samuel and Saul. 

259 

typed? What evils were confessed? How typed? What was asked? Promising what? How typed? 

(22) What four antitypical deliverers did God raise up? How typed in each case? What did these effect? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel then charge against them? Under what circumstance did they ask this? How typed? To whom did antitypical Samuel then point? How typed? What four things did they then point out as enabling the people to set God first before self? How typed? What did they mention as turning God against them again? How typed? 

(23) To what did they then direct special attention? How typed? What, type and antitype, made it unexpectable? What would this unexpectable thing give antitypical Israel? How typed? What was then done, type and antitype? Give examples of the fulfillment in the Greek, Roman and Calvinistic Churches. What was the first effect of this, type and antitype? The second? The third? What effect did the repentance of the people have on antitypical Samuel? How typed? Why could they give comfort? How typed? Under what conditions? How typed? To what did they exhort? How typed? To what would apostasy lead? How typed? Despite what would such be the result of apostasy? How typed? 

(24) What reasons did antitypical Samuel give for the people's taking comfort? How typed? How did antitypical Samuel regard ceasing to pray for the people? How typed? What besides praying for the people did antitypical Samuel promise to do to them? How typed? What did they again stress? How typed? To what did they exhort as helpful thereto? How typed? If they should sin wilfully, what did antitypical Samuel say would occur? How typed? What activities and disposition type and antitype, does 1 Sam. 12 show to be its speaker's? 

(25) What will our present study do with our subject? What does 1 Sam. 13 type? Where and when did this conflict mainly occur? By what two error-teaching parties was rationalism sown in Germany? Whence did the French naturalists arise? By what did they find an entrance into Germany? How so? Who were their chief representatives at the court of Frederick the Great? Who was the father of vulgar rationalism? With what effects did he use his great talents? How may his sowing and 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

260 

reaping be described? What effect on him did his recognition of the effects of his teachings have? Who was a close second to him in this mischievous work? What fraud did he commit? What did they teach? What was Lessing's connection with them? What part did Semler take in this controversy? What were the effects of Lessing's defense of the Wolfenbuettler Fragments? Who were the heroes of vulgar rationalism? What gave impetus to this theory? What resulted ere long? What three doctrines were by them held to be the total of religion? How did they state these three? On what did they rely as the sole source of faith and practice? 

(26) What did they include as meant by the word, reason? According to their uses of this word, what characterized it? What even would they understand it to mean? What does this mean for reason? What kind of a source of faith and practice is it? What two things do we understand the word to mean? What four powers belong to normal true thinking? What functions do these four powers have? What are some self-evident truths? What two great mistakes did vulgar rationalists make? What does the depravity of these four intellectual powers disqualify reason from being? At best, what are its offices? What is the only true source of faith and practice? What are the two sole rules of faith and practice? How do they compare as such? How does the Spirit of God in His people exercise its office as the secondary rule of faith and practice? Accordingly, in the intellect what is the Spirit? What is included in sanctified reason as a part of the rule of faith and practice? Accordingly, how many sources of faith and practice are there? How many rules of these are there? In contrast, what does vulgar rationalism take as the sole source and rule of faith and practice? Why have these remarks been made on reason, the Bible and the Spirit in God's people? 

(27) What, according to the margin's literal rendering, does the expression, Saul was a son of one year, mean? How does the A. V. render the pertinent expression? What has happened to the original here? What word did it probably originally contain? What two reasons favor this thought? If this emendation be correct, how should the pertinent part of v. 1 be rendered? What does the pertinent Hebrew idom prove as to this verse? How can 

Samuel and Saul. 

261 

we not prove this? What does this prove of the omission? Accordingly, how should v. 1 and the first part of v. 2 be rendered? What marked each member of the crown-lost leaders when chosen to be such? How typed? What happened shortly thereafter? How typed? With whom were the majority of these especially associated? In what? How typed? The minority? In what? How typed? What did the crown-lost leaders do with the rest of the Lord's people? How typed? 

(28) What did the most faithful of the crown-losers do at this time? How typed? What two things did the vulgar rationalists reject? What did they seek to do? What are some examples of their use of the Christmas and Easter festivals? Wherein did their flatness manifest itself? What did they do with the noble German hymns? Had able men deliberately sought to make religion hollow, more than whom would they not have succeeded in so doing? What two examples illustrate this? What did the notorious so-called German Library do in this connection? What was their watchword and their aversion? Where were they placed in office? Whom did they lead? With what? 

(29) What was God's pertinent course? Even amid what condition? In what branches of religious learning did some war against vulgar rationalism? In spite of what? How typed? Who was by them aroused to lecture, preach and write against the vulgar rationalists? How typed? What were some of his beliefs, abilities, characteristics and activities? In what did these result? To whom did he appeal? How does he stand related to the Saul of 1 Sam. 13? At his death, who was his successor as antitype of Saul? Especially in what chapter? How did he and antitypical Jonathan stand in numbers, compared with the vulgar rationalists? What officials took note of antitypical Jonathan's refuting the vulgar rationalists? How typed? Who else took note of it? How typed? How did the high-placed rationalists regard the Bible-believers? How typed? 

(30) What kind of men were many of the non-vulgar rationalists? What effect did antitypical Jonathan's victory have on the other than vulgar rationalists? What were they in fact? On what did they decide? Why did they do this? How typed? In what groups were they 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

262 

gathered together? How typed? How were they in numbers, compared with the antitypical Israelites? How typed? Where did they take their stand? How typed? What was the character of their position? How typed? How did the true believers view the situation? How typed? What did it move them to do? In what ways did they seek protection? How is each way typed? 

(31) In what condition was Schleiermacher at this time? How typed? How did his supporters cling to him? How typed? For whom and what did he wait and how long? How typed? Whom here does Samuel type? In what did they not give him help? How typed? Who in large numbers left him? How typed? What mistake did he commit? Why? How typed? What did he do? How typed? Thereafter who appeared? How? How typed? How did Schleiermacher react to the situation? How typed? How in point of time did he do the offering and approach the views of the Philadelphia star-members? At each stage of his advancement what did he do? How typed? After each stage of the offering what did antitypical Samuel do? How typed? At each expostulation what did Schleiermacher do? What were the excuses? How typed? Who during his life were the living star-members? How only was there contact made between him and all of the Philadelphia star-members? How was his second excuse made? How typed? What was his third excuse? How typed? 

(32) What was his fourth excuse? How typed? His fifth excuse? How typed? The sixth? How typed? As a result of these six excuses what did he do? How typed? Until when should God's servants be inactive as to teaching and serving? Why? Like whom did Schleiermacher in this respect act? How did the latter one speak in his heart? How did the star-members rebuke the former? How typed? Of what did they accuse him? How typed? What would have resulted had he kept the Lord's command? How typed? What would result from his repeated disobedience in this line? How typed? What did the star-members tell him? How? How typed? Who was the selected successor of Schleiermacher? Of all the crown-lost leaders? How typed? Why is a repetition made here? How typed? 

Samuel and Saul. 

263 

(33) What was done after each of Schleiermacher's runnings ahead of the Lord? Unto what? Despite what? How typed? After each one of such leavings what did he do? How typed? After each of such experiences what did he do as to his supporters? After each expostulation of antitypical Samuel what did he do in company with antitypical Jonathan? How typed? What position did his foes take? How typed? Who was their father? In how many lines of destructive work did they engage? How typed? What was the first of these? Who were its two main exponents? How did they differ? From this standpoint what did the rationalistic higher critics do and accomplish? How are their views and activities typed? What was the second of these? What did its cultivators seek to do? Who were the two main leaders in Biblical Hebrew and the two main leaders in Biblical Greek? How did the two in each set differ in their work? Despite certain good fruits of their work, in whose interests and spirit did they work? What was the result? How is all this typed? 

(34) What was the third of the three destructive activities? Who was the main leaders of this movement? What was his inspiration and qualifications for this work? Who were his two main lieutenants? What did Baur hold as to the Apostles, especially Peter and Paul? What did he deny and accept of the New Testament? To what periods did he assign the writing of his rejected books? What was Strauss's most destructive book called? What did he claim the Gospels' accounts to be? When did he claim them to have been written? What did Vatke do in this matter? In what spirit? How did the third school compare with the other two? How is it typed? In what year did all three start their attack? What did that year witness? What was the period of vulgar rationalism's ascendancy? How long before Baur's, Strauss's and Vatke's special attacks? What characterized the molders of public religious opinion during this period? How typed? What pertinent course did the authorities pursue? In what did this result? How typed? What resulted from this result? How typed? What only was left to them? How typed? In what did this result? How typed? What did the rationalistic higher critics do in 1835? On what? How typed? 

(35) What did antitypical Jonathan do shortly after the appearance of Baur's and Strauss's books in 1835? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

264 

How typed? Who were the three chief members of antitypical Jonathan at that time as to New Testament subjects? What is here said of the first of them? Who were their chief supporters? Their chief members on Old Testament matters? Their chief supporters? Who was the antitypical Saul of that time? On what was his chief pertinent work? How did it compare with others thereon of his times? What may be said of it? Of what three works of his is this especially true? Wherein did he go to an extreme? In what did this result as to antitypical Jonathan? Why was this so? How typed? What position did he increasingly take? How typed? What did he fight? In what? How typed? What did he do with rationalistic error? What was the character of his supporters? How typed? What did the Priesthood at that time stress? How typed? How did it characterize Jesus? How typed? As the supporter of what? How typed? In what? How typed? Who were in it for centuries? How typed? Of what were all the other warriors against rationalistic higher criticism ignorant? How typed? 

(36) What were the contrasted positions of antitypical Jonathan and the rationalistic higher critics? How typed? What lay between the two positions? What resulted therefrom? How typed? What was necessary to understand both positions? How typed? What was the result to many a mental traveler? Where did antitypical Jonathan and their armour bearer have mentally to travel? How did the two positions stand toward each other? How typed? What did antitypical Jonathan propose? For what purpose? How typed? How was their faith in God as to this proposal expressed? How typed? How did their special supporters react to the plan? How typed? What first thing did antitypical Jonathan then say? How typed? Second thing? How typed? Third thing? How typed? Fourth thing? How typed? What in this connection was their belief? How typed? To what did both antitypes agree? How typed? What did they then do? How typed? How did the rationalistic higher critics at first react to this avowal? How typed? Later? How typed? 

(37) From the proud challenge of the rationalistic higher critics, what cue did antitypical Jonathan take? How typed? What did they do? How typed? What did they then do? How typed? What did their lectures and publications do? How typed? Who was the first member 

Samuel and Saul. 

265 

of antitypical Jonathan to attack Baur's and Strauss's challengesome books of 1835? By what pen product did he attack Strauss's mythical theory of the Gospels? What is a correct characterization of Neander's book? When previously did he publish a certain book? What was its title? For what was it intended? What did he do with it after Baur's 1835 book appeared? What did his revision, among other things, do with this book? What was his place as to restoring faith in the Bible among theologians the world over? How did this occur? What did Ullmann as a very able member of antitypical Jonathan do in 1838? What was his book entitled? What did he publish in 1842? Against what? What third book of his gave the rationalistic higher critics a very hard blow? What did other members of antitypical Jonathan also do? Who else joined them in the fray? In what books? What is a summary of the activities of the above-mentioned and other members of antitypical Jonathan and their armour bearer? Who did well and nobly in defense of the Old Testament against the rationalistic higher critics thereon? On what form of Old Testament higher criticism? Who were its chief molders during the Harvest? How do they differ? Who have battled with its later form? Who gave the rationalistic higher critics on the Old Testament the strongest refutation? Who first started the refutation of these on both Testaments? How typed? What kind of persons were these believing critics? How typed? In what part of the Bible did they refute these most completely? How typed? How do the cited Scriptures suggest this? 

(38) What did antitypical Jonathan and their special supporters start by their defense of the Bible, especially of the New Testament? How typed? What was the influence of their foes before their attacks on them? Where? What were the effects of these two things on the rationalistic higher critics? How typed? On their world of activity? How typed? On their camp-followers? How typed? On their leaders? How typed? On the three groups of these destructive critics? What were these three groups? How typed? Who observed these happenings? How typed? From what vantage ground? How typed? What as sentinels did they do? What did they first note? How typed? Second? How typed? What did Hengstenberg ask? How typed? Why so? How typed? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

266 

What was then learned from the investigation? Why in the antitype were these absent? How typed What did Hengstenberg ask of all the consecrated? Why? How typed? How was it that the consecrated then had the Truth then and previously due? How typed? 

(39) What occurred while he was so consulting? How typed? What did he then charge? How typed? Why? How typed? What did Divine providence then do? How typed? What did they do? How typed? What did they note at this point? How is the noted thing typed? What was the result? Under deception what had some of God's people done? How typed? What did they receive through antitypical Jonathan's arguments, and how did this affect them? How typed? Who else had fled from the danger? Into what? What did they see? How did it affect them? How are all these features typed? During what period had this fight been going on? What did God do for them then? How typed? Into what phase did the controversy thereupon enter? How typed? 

(40) What kind of a man was Hengstenberg? What had made him so? To what extreme did this lead him? Accordingly, what charge did he lay upon his follows? How typed? What was the result of his foolish charge? Why? How typed? Why did he give this solemn charge? How typed? To what did this charge lead his supporters? How typed? To whom did the Lord's people at that time come? What sweet message did they teach? How are these two things typed? What did Hengstenberg's followers do as to these messengers and their message? How typed? In obedience to their leader's charge, from what did they abstain? Why? How typed? How did it come that antitypical Jonathan knew not of this charge? How typed? What did they do with the Biblical doctrine of the Millennium? How typed? What resulted? How typed? 

(41) What did certain of Hengstenberg's followers do about this? How typed? What did he state? How typed? Despite what? How typed? What was antitypical Jonathan's reply? How typed? What and in what spirit did they do to the people? How typed? What fact did they emphasize? How typed? Why was their reply true? What did they then declare of the usefulness of the Millennial doctrine? How typed? What did they say would have resulted therefrom? How typed? As a result, wherein were they completely victorious? How typed?

Samuel and Saul. 

267 

Wherein not completely victorious? How typed? How is this point proven by the last clause of Joshua 10:12? To what was the pertinent weakness of Hengstenberg and his supporters due? How typed? 

(42) What is characteristic of all erroneous systems of thought? How does this hold as to higher criticism? How is this principle usually worked out? Why is this necessary for Satan? How typed in v. 32? What did Hengstenberg's adherents do on this point? How typed? To whose humanity did this truth pertain? How typed in each case? What two things did they fail to do? How typed? How does the type prove that they did not eliminate the error connected with these truths? What resulted? How typed? What was done as to their course? How typed? What did it prompt him to do? Why? How typed? What as a result did he charge? How typed? What additional two things did he charge? How typed? What were they further to do with these doctrines? How typed? What did he conditionally charge? How typed? Against what did he caution them? How typed? What did his supporters then do? How typed? Before what period did they do this? How typed? What was then done? How typed? 

(43) Into what kind of a body did Hengstenberg develop his supporters? Why? How typed? How does this part of his work compare with that of previous crown-lost leaders? Why? How typed? What desire did he express to his followers? How typed? Why did he desire this? How typed? What response to this expressed desire was made? How typed? What counsel did the consecrated offer thereon? How typed? In connection with what doctrine? How typed? Accordingly, what did he do? How typed? On what subject? For what purpose? How typed? By what special ways did the Lord give no answer? During what period? How typed? Of what did God's not answering convince Hengstenberg? For what did he consequently ask? How typed? What solemn affirmation did he make? How typed? 

(44) How did his proposal strike his supporters? Why? How typed? What did they not do? How typed? What moved him to make his next proposal? How typed? What was the reply to it? How typed? Thereupon what did he do? How typed? In what did the discussion and vote result? How typed? What did he then say? How typed? What did the pertinent discussion and vote then reveal? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

268 

How typed? What did he demand? How typed? What did antitypical Jonathan then do? How typed? With what did they sanction it? How typed? What did he recognize? How typed? 

(45) What did Hengstenberg then demand? How? With what expressed emphasis, if he did not see to it? How typed? What had he miscalculated? Why? Why this? Of what did they remind him? How typed? What did they, therefore, do? How typed? What did they then solemnly do? How typed? On what two things did they firmly insist? How typed? What reason did they give for their decision? How typed? What did he have to do? With what result? How typed? What was the effect of the pertinent controversy and their support of antitypical Jonathan? How typed? What did the critics do as a result? How typed? Into what were their theories developed? By what schools? By what class were these refuted during the Harvest? Especially what three men in Germany did this? Six in Britain? Three in America? Which two were the greatest of these twelve men? 

(46) How did antitypical Saul obtain the leadership in antitypical Israel? How typed? Why did they not have in it an easy time? Particularly against what five sets of enemies did they have to contend? How in each case typed? What did their great abilities enable them to do to all their enemies? How typed? What can be inferred by the properly informed by the mention of the names of their chief representative in each of the twelve denominations? Who were these twelve? What others could be mentioned here as corroborating the great ability of the crown-lost leaders? What were all of them calculated to do? What else did they do? How typed? What other kind of a successful war did they for awhile wage? How typed? What by their controversies did they effect? How typed? 

(47) What especial three groups of helpers did they have? How typed in each case? How many special powers did they have? How typed? What was the first of these? How typed? The second of these? How typed? What was their office? How typed? Who were the leaders of their warriors? How typed? How were these associated with them? How typed? How were these related to knowledge? How typed? Who were the developers of antitypical Saul? How typed? What was the quality of the knowledge that 

Samuel and Saul. 

269 

developed both antitypical Saul and Abner? How typed? Throughout the formers' denominational leadership in what hard things were they engaged? How typed? For what were they on the lookout? How typed? Finding these, what did they do with them? How typed? 

(48) What is typically described in 1 Sam. 9-14? In 1 Sam. 15? How did antitypical Samuel and Saul emerge from the second kind of the conflicts? With what typical statement does 1 Sam. 15 close? How many fulfillments, and where, have the types of 1 Sam. 9-12 had? The types of 1 Sam. 13 and 14? How are denominational adherents involved in these single antitypes? What will this study bring to an end? 

(49) What is the order of antitypical Samuel's two kinds of arousement? Of what did they remind antitypical Saul? How typed? As what did they use this fact? How typed? What does the sequel prove the exhortation to have been? What reasons did they give that the Divine exhortation should be fulfilled? How typed? Accordingly, what did God charge? How typed? What two particulars are first mentioned? How is each typed? Regardless of what eight conditions? How is each of these typed? To carry out the charge, what was first done? How typed? Secondly? How typed? What did antitypical Saul detail and show from two classes? How typed? Against what was the first effort made? How typed? In what condition did they fight? How typed? 

(50) What were not included in the order of extirpation? Why not? How typed? What did antitypical Saul do as to these? Why? How typed? What use is often made of these? How typed? Why did antitypical Saul spare these? How typed? What did antitypical Saul and Israel do with these? How typed? What did they attack? How typed? Where did they do this? How typed? What more did they do? How typed? What is the king sin? How typed? What did they do with sin's expressions? How typed? With what? How typed? What great mistake did they make? How typed? What other evil did they commit? How typed? In what five forms? How is each one typed? What did they refuse to do with these? How typed? What forms of sin only did they destroy? How typed? 

(51) What feature of God's Word opened up to antitypical Samuel? How typed? What thought did it impress

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

270 

upon them? How typed? What did God give as His reason therefore? How typed? In what particular? How typed? How did these two things first affect antitypical Samuel? How typed? Secondly? How typed? On learning that God would not change His purpose, what did they then do? How typed? When? How typed? What was on all hands being done to antitypical Saul in four particulars? How typed in each particular? From initial humility to what was antitypical Saul descending? Of what were they thus giving proof? In what crown-lost leaders do we see this deterioration exemplified? What is necessary for prominent servants of God? If these things are not exercised by them, what will result? 

(52) What two things should be expected as a matter of course at a meeting between antitypical Samuel and Saul at this juncture? How typed? What was the former quick to see and understand? In what ways? How typed? What two things did antitypical Saul seek to do? For what reason? What did they assert? How typed? What are some ways in which they compromised principle? How typed? What did they claim for these qualities? How typed? What did they claim for dispositions not useful for the Lord? How typed? What did these deceitful and untruthful answers prompt antitypical Samuel to do? How typed? What did antitypical Saul say thereto? How typed? What two questions did antitypical Samuel ask them? How typed? Of what did they remind them? How typed? Thereupon what three questions did they ask these? How typed? 

(53) What characterized antitypical Saul? To what extent? How typed? On what did they insist? How typed? Of what two things did they boast? Upon whom did they seek to shift the blame? How typed? For what? How typed? What reason did they allege as justifying this course? Even how did they describe these? How typed? In what form partly was antitypical Samuel's answer given? In what kind of language was the answer? What was the answer? How typed? What lesson, important for all God's people to learn, did they read these? Especially for which ones of them? How typed? What are the principles underlying this lesson? What is best in these matters? How are these matters typed? With what kind of people was antitypical Samuel dealing? Accordingly, what 

Samuel and Saul. 

271 

kind of language did they use? What was the language? How typed? 

(54) What did antitypical Samuel then announce? With what feelings? How typed? How did antitypical Saul react to this announcement? In what spirit? How typed? What weakness prompting to the sin did they confess? How typed? To what did this fear of loss of popularity lead them? How typed? What danger to leaders is here brought out? What lesson should present leaders learn from this? How may they overcome it? Who else are in danger of this snare? For whom in this connection do our hearts bleed? Why? For what did antitypical Saul entreat of antitypical Samuel? How typed? What other request did they make in the same spirit? How typed? How did antitypical Samuel react to the second request? Why? How typed? What did they give as the reason? In what did it result? How typed? 

(55) So saying, what did antitypical Samuel do? How typed? What in remonstrance did antitypical Saul do? Why? What was their motive therein? What is a good illustration of antitypical Samuel's remonstrance contained in vs. 17-27? How were these features typed? What did antitypical Saul's unseemly pertinent course prompt antitypical Samuel to point out? How typed? When was that leadership taken away? How typed? To whom would it be given? How did this occur in each individual rejected one and, finally, in all of them as a class succeeded by Bro. Russell? What two things did they further assert? How typed? Why would God not change? How typed? Heart-broken, what did antitypical Saul repeat? How typed? Despite their having sinned, for what did they plead? How typed? Why did they plead for this? How did antitypical Samuel finally react to this plea? What did both sets of leaders then do? How typed? 

(56) How did antitypical Samuel not, and how did they, use the occasion? What did they publicly require? How typed? What did this seem to mean to the wrongdoers? How typed? What did they miscalculate? What did they first declare? How typed? Secondly? How typed? What did they thereupon do? How, negatively and positively? What did this require of them? How were these acts typed? Under what circumstances? How typed? What did antitypical Samuel thereupon do? How typed? What 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

272 

did antitypical Saul then do? How typed? When did the twelfth general withdrawal of such fellowship occur? Through what brethren? Until what occurred? Despite their disappointment, what did antitypical Samuel do as to antitypical Saul? From what motive? How typed? What did it not effect? How typed? What two lessons should we learn from the story of Samuel and Saul?