Former Blessing No Argument For Present Compromise

The whole question of spiritual fullness is at stake. 

 

I have spoken of what might have been in the case of Jonathan. 

 

David came to the kingdom in fullness, and Jonathan might have been there at his side, his strength and support in the kingdom...

 

But no; instead of that, he passes out in this tragic way. 

 

In a sense, there is nothing wrong with Jonathan; but he has become involved in compromise with another one and another instrument and another order of things, because he did not make a clean cut. 

 

It is not for us to judge why, but it does seem that it must have been that he argued on the ground of natural reasoning about this thing. 

 

What does it all amount to? 

 

If spiritual fullness is to be reached, we have to be governed by Divine and heavenly principles, and not by human considerations. 

 

Divine principles; not...What will the consequences be? 

 

Not, What shall we lose? 

 

Not even, What will the Lord lose? - because that is a very subtle argument. 

 

The Lord does not ask us to reason this thing out on that level at all. 

 

He says, 'What is the Divine principle? Let that principle govern and guide.' 

 

You may not see at all how it is going to work out. 

 

If you are governed by Divine principles you may seem to lose a lot here; you may, for a time, have to go out with David and wait. 

 

But in the end the principles will be vindicated. 

 

You Have To Recognize That Compromise On Principle Only Brings Disaster. 

 

You see it everywhere.

The need is to seek to know what the Divine principle is in any matter. 

Has God revealed His own thought and mind?...

Then I Must Not Pursue Some Other Way on the ground that the Lord has blessed and the Lord has used that other way. 

That was true of Saul; that was true of Jonathan. 

But there came a point at which an ultimate issue was raised on principle by the revealing of God's full mind. 

Now I cannot argue that because people have been blessed and used of the Lord though they have not at given times and in given ways stood for that full mind, therefore it is not necessary for me to be abandoned to God's full thought. 

That is human argument. We must not do it.  

The Lord blesses when the heart is wholly for Him, but that does not mean that everything is there that He wants. 

The very people whom He is using He will presently bring to see something more of His will and how much more deeply His thoughts go. 

Then it is no less an issue than Amalek...

Human judgment must be utterly put away, in the light of the Divine mind then revealed.

I have no doubt you can see through what I am saying a great deal more...

If you do not grasp the whole thing, just take this as a guiding lesson in life, that where Divine fullness is concerned, the fact that the Lord blesses does not warrant us in arguing that we can stay in a certain position, that there is nothing more required. 

The point is, has the Lord revealed something more than is actually represented in the sphere where we have known His blessing? 

If so, it is for us to go on in the light of all that the Lord has revealed, and take the consequences. 

In the end it will be seen whether the principle was vindicated by God.

This story of Jonathan is, I say, a terribly pathetic and tragic story. 

No doubt he had a good argument for what he did, but he certainly did not argue from the heavenly standpoint. 

He did not say, 'God has made it perfectly clear that it is through David that His full purpose is to be realized. 

I knew from the beginning that David was the anointed, and not my father; I have had it confirmed again and again...

I told David that he was going to have the throne and the kingdom; my heart is with him...

And yet he is out there in the wilderness and I am here with my father. 

What am I doing here?

He did not argue, 'That is the direction in which the Lord's full purpose lies; it is for me to be there.' 

He doubtless had his arguments and his reasons and could probably have been very plausible as to why he was still sticking to his father and to the kingdom from which God had departed. 

He Was Compromising...

His Loyalty Was Divided...

And He Was Involved In The Tragedy.

It is a fresh call to us to act on principle with the Lord and not to argue from any other standpoint, on any other ground. 

We must say, 'What has the Lord revealed? 

It will mean this, it will cost that, it will involve me thus; but that is not the point. 

I am not going to be influenced or governed by consequences at all. 

Policy must have no place with me. 

What God has revealed - that is the only argument for me.

So Amalek became the occasion for bringing up the whole question of obedience to the Lord, involving the necessity for the setting aside of a great deal of natural judgment. 

Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

1Sa 15:22  And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 

Beyond all outward observance and profession, the LORD  looks for Full and Uncompromising Obedience to His Revealed Will.

~T. Austin Sparks~