I Chronicles
20
The contents of this chapter are all to be found in the
work of Samuel, but
woven in, in very different places. The cause of the first
considerable
difference of this kind is in connection with the occurrence of what
would
have seemed a mere casual detail of expression in our first verse, “But
David tarried at
Jerusalem,” at which same statement,
however, the writer
of
Samuel halts, to append all that then
happened with David in the
disastrous matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, occupying nearly two whole
chapters (II Samuel 11:2-12:25) — a history not recorded at all by
the
Chronicle compiler. Why David tarried at
legitimately and in harmony with the necessities of
government, we know
not,
but certain it is, he was tempted to make the unhappiest use of his
“tarrying at
1 “And it
came to pass, that after the year was expired, at the time that
kings go out to battle, Joab
led forth the power of the army, and
wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and
besieged Rabbah. But
David tarried at
Rabbah, and destroyed it.” The fifteenth
verse of the previous chapter stated
that the discomfited Ammonites “fled…
and entered into the city,” i.e. into
Rabbah. Hither
we now learn that, by the command of David (IISamuel
11:1),
Joab, at the “return of
the year,” i.e. probably at the return of spring
(Exodus 23:16; 34:22), brings the power of the army,
and, after
ravaging the country surrounding it, sits down to besiege Rabbah itself.
The series of feasts, beginning in spring and ending in
autumn, regulated
the year. The sacred year began with the new moon
that became full next
after the spring equinox; but the civil year at the
seventh new moon. This
one verse illustrates in four several instances at fewest
the advantage of
having two versions of the same events, even though in this
case in
comparatively immaterial respects.
Ammon… and
besieged Rabbah, in place of the less consistent
reading of II Samuel 11:1, “destroyed
the children of Ammon, and
besieged Rabbah.”
instead of the word for “angels”
(μykial;m]j), as in the parallel place.
parallel place, now shifted to II Samuel 12:27-29, tells of Joab’s
generosity (if it were this, and not fear or possibly somewhat tardy
obedience to strict commands given on his commission), in his
message
to David, to repair to the spot immediately and share the
glory of the
reduction of the city, or be its nominal captor.
destroyed it, and yet read in
the parallel place of the delay and the visit
of David (with which the very first clause of our v. 2, “And David took,”
etc., is in perfect accord) and
of David’s nominal taking of the city, we
find probably the just and inartificial explanation of all this
in II Samuel
12:26-29. There
we read more particularly that Joab sent word he had
taken the “city of
waters,” i.e. tie lower part of the city (where a stream
had its source, and no doubt supplied the city with water),
which was
very likely the key of the whole position,and
called upon David to come
up and “encamp against
the city and take it,” i.e. the city, or citadel, which
stood upon the heights north of the stream. Glimpses of this
kind may
suffice to convince us how rapidly a text, really correct, would
melt away
for us a very large proportion of the whole number of the
lesser obstacles
which often impede our path in the historical books of the Old
Testament.
At the time that
kings go out. It was no doubt the case
that, even in
Palestine, the winter was often
a period of enforced inactivity. Rabbah.
The punishment of Ammon for the treatment of David’s well-intended
embassy of condolence is now about to be completed. The familiar
root
of Rabbah signifies multitudinous
number, and, resulting thence, the
greatness of importance. It was the chief city of the Ammonites, if
not
their only city of importance enough for mention. In five
passages its
connection with Ammon is coupled with its
name (Deuteronomy 3:11;
II Samuel 12:26; 17:27; Jeremiah
49:2; Ezekiel 21:20), “Rabbah of the
children of Ammon.” It has been conjectured to be the Ham of the
Zuzim, or the Ashteroth Karnaim of the Rephaim (Genesis
14:5), of
which latter theory there is some interesting evidence of a
corroborating
tendency at all events (see Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 2:985). Rabbah
is the proper spelling of the word, except when in a
constructive state,
as in the above phrase. The relations of
are full of interest.
After the overthrow of Og,
King of Bashan
(Numbers 21:33), “Moab and Ammon still remained independent allies
south and cast of the Israelite settlements. Both fell before
David —
which made the siege and fall of its capital, Rabbah-ammon, the crowning
act of David’s conquests. The
ruins which now adorn the ‘royal city’ are
of a later Roman date; but the commanding position of the
citadel remains;
and the unusual sight of a living stream abounding in fish (II
Samuel 12:27;
Isaiah 16:2) marks the
significance of Joab’s song of victory, ‘I have fought
against Rabbah, and have
taken the city of waters’” (
One Cunning Bosom Sin (v.1)
“But David tarried at
of
any evidence from which we could justify the inference that David, in
thus “tarrying at
laying himself open to the charge of neglect of duty,
indifference to his high
responsibilities or inactivity. It is more probable that duty to his people
in
the
central seat of authority found him more in his place at
in
the field of battle. That which reads confessedly as a rather peremptory
style of summons on the part of Joab,
in the fuller account of II Samuel
12:28, cannot be relied upon as any sufficient indication
to the
disadvantage of David in such a direction. It is more naturally explainable
in
other ways. Joab’s message at the crisis which
affairs had somewhat
suddenly reached may have been either an act of obedience to strict
orders
of
imperial sort, or in yet nobler obedience to the instincts of strict loyalty.
The “tarrying at
11:1-2). The words of simplicity
in which the mere historical fact is announced,
provoke inevitably the memory of other words, where it is written
on page yet
more sacred, of the “greater Son” of David
on a certain occasion, “And the
child Jesus tarried
behind at
irresistible suggestion of the words, thought declines to go. There is
no room
for
comparison. The case is one the opposite of analogy. And even contrast
should seem too gratuitous, and to threaten dishonor to the
latter occasion,
breathing upon it with an unholy breath, and not with the breath of
the Spirit
most holy. To this interval,
anyway, belonged the greatest blots on all
the life of
David, the sorest stains on his ‘scutcheon, and wounds that
went direct
and deep to the soul. And we are taught here
something in
general of the uncertainty, the untractableness
of human
nature; but may rather
take the instruction of the passage in this more particular form — the strength
and
blinded headstrong way that “ONE CUNNING
BOSOM SIN” has with it.
that David did not stay behind at
elude the activity of duty; granted that business of government,
the
government of his city and his nation, occupied him; yet the very
change of
occupation, and the fact that it was at home, was a rest. It was very
different from camp life and military superintendence. The hand that
holds
the pen knows how great the change is, after it has been
rather holding the
sword and wielding the sword for months, ay, for years past. The greatest
warrior, the most successful general, the bravest soldier
must surely awhile
feel THE REPOSE SACRED AND DELICIOUS which permits him
to sheathe the sword, forsake the field, and do the works
of peace rather
than of war. Yet this privilege as soon
as enjoyed is abused; this interval
as soon as given becomes the mournful and miserable occasion of
INDELIBLE DISGRACE
AND SHAME!
Nothing will ever divest home of
its sacred claims. They dwell in it, they
haunt its retreats, they pervade its air. Not truer that “the heart knoweth
his own bitterness”(Proverbs 14:10), than that
home knoweth its
own
ineffable sweetness. The nursery of
purest affections, the school of sound
instruction, the point of departure
for young ambition, the beacon of good
principle to the ends of the
earth, the incentive to honorable effort and noble
exploit, and anon as age
grows, the realm and very throne of most benign
authority, — IT IS THIS HOME which the
cunning bosom sin of
passion DISCREDITS, DISHONORS, DISGRACES ( and in our age,
DEFACES – CY – 2012). David knew what
the blessing of home was.
He often shows it by the way he
speaks directly and indirectly of home and
of “father and mother.” But he knew the blessing yet more
certainly by
evidence of the too reliable aphorism that we then first best know
our
blessing WHEN IT IS TAKEN FROM US! And for years the blessing
had been a lost one to David. How he hungered and thirsted and
craved
for it! And now he has it,
fearfully to desecrate it, because HE IS LED
CAPTIVE, BLINDED BY
WHAT HE SAW, HEADSTRONG BY
WHAT HE FELT — reason and goodness and conscience ALL
DRAGGED IN CHAINS by
THE TRIUMPH OF PASSION!
(See II Samuel 11)
IS SMOTHERED BY IT. It is the metropolis of the country, but sacred
beyond the sacredness of any other metropolis, and to David
beyond what
it was to any other king. How he thought of
sang of it, with the joy that was growing brighter and brighter
to perfect
day, and long before those strains which others sang to minor
key, plaintive
wail, and exquisitely saddened memories! How much he had lately
rejoiced in
it! What honor had been his to bring to it the ark! What
glorious heart-stirring
festival of the whole kingdom had centered within its walls
thereupon! Place
has ever bad its
quantum of influence. The hardest heart and most callous
insensibility will be touched by it. The tender heart and sensitive
nature will be
responsive to it as to but a lower grade of inspiration. And now, almost
for
the first time, David
has the opportunity of surrendering himself to
the religion of the place, of giving undivided thanks and
grateful
praise in the place, and enjoying in it some earnest of the
above. BUT NO,
lust smears the sight of his eye, which sees no
longer even the
RELIGION AND HUMANITY, ARE SET AT
NOUGHT BY IT.
To the hot fire of passion these
are but as straws. They resist nothing at
all. They do serve to bystanders to increase the show of the
disastrous,
destructive fire. The pride of
imperial position and the throne stoop for
the time without a struggle, and come down from their exaltation
to do
homage to
creature-lust. So much, then, human
nature has to say of itself,
and so little! So much we are taught do we ever need
watchfulness and
prayer! The high plateau of honor, glorious opportunity,
religion,
restfulness, and home
enjoyment may be the accursed ground of
our own worst dereliction of duty, devotion, and even decency.
Unsafe when we are left to self,
we are
not more safe when we are left by
ourselves. “Let him alone” (said of Ephraim – Hosea 4:17) is the
darkest doom that even Divine judgment and justice can decree. But
when
left alone (and that our wish and petition) only for an hour,
we shall not be
safe, however secure, unless we can take back the words as
Jesus on so
signal an occasion did, and say, “And
yet I am not alone, for the Father
is with me.” (John 16:32)
2 “And
David took the crown of their king from off his head, and
found it to weigh a talent of gold,” - Two
difficulties present
themselves in this verse, viz. the reported weight of this crown, and
the
uncertainty as to what head it was from which David took it. Whatever
was
its weight, if David’s head was able to sustain it for a minute or two,
the
head of the King of the Ammonites might also occasionally have borne
it.
Yet it would scarcely be likely that the King of the Ammonites would
have so ponderous a crown (calculated at a weight of a hundred and
fourteen pounds
one
of ordinary wear, or that he would have one of extraordinary wear on
his
head precisely at such a juncture. Both of these difficulties will remove
if we suppose that the Hebrew μK;l]m", instead of meaning their king, is
the
name of the Ammonitish and Moabitish
idol (i.q. Moloch), and which
we
find (Authorized Version) in Zephaniah 1:5, and probably (though not
Authorized Version) in Jeremiah 49:1, 3,
and Amos 1:15. The Septuagint
treats the word thus. The point, however, cannot be considered
settled -
“and there were precious stones in it; and it was set upon
David’s head:
and he brought also exceeding much spoil out
of the city.”
3 “And he
brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with
saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes.
Even so dealt David
with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the
people returned to
We have here the
very doubtful (so far as regards its real
signification) Hebrew
word rc"Y;w" (and he cut)
instead of μc,Y;w"
(he put). Probably it is nowhere
else used in the sense of “cutting,” if it is here. Its ordinary sense
is to rule or
put
into subjection.
The parallel place (II Samuel 12:31) corrects, in the word
(Authorized Version) axes, our Hebrew text, which
repeats the word for
saw, though putting it in the plural, and which thereby
shows twOrgeM]b"W,
instead of twOrz]g]m"b]W. This last
word means “Axes” or “scythes,” and is
from the root r"z"g;, to cut (II Kings 6:4). It is found only in II Samuel
12:31, though it should appear here also. There is a fourth
severity of
punishment mentioned in the parallel place, that the people were “made to
pass through the
brick-kilns,” a form of torture possibly
suggested by the
own
familiar cruelty of the Ammonites in “making
their children to pass
through the fire to
Moloch.” However, in harmony with what is
above said
respecting the doubtfulness of the just signification of
the verb rc"Y;w", much
uncertainty hangs over the interpretation of this verse.
Instead of severity
and needless cruelty on the part of David, it may rather
set forth that he
subjected them to hard
tasks in connection with the cultivation of the soil
and with the making of bricks. The saws and harrows and
axes (or scythes)
were awkward and unlikely weapons to be employed for the
purpose of
inflicting torture, when the ordinary weapons of battle and
warfare were
close at hand. This view, however, is contrary to the
verdict, so far as the
above Hebrew verb is concerned, of Gesenius’s
‘Thesaurus,’ p. 1326, and
of Thenins, on this and the
parallel passage. When such punishments were
of the nature of torture, the cruelty was in some cases
extreme. “The
criminal was sometimes sawn asunder lengthwise; this was more
especially
the
practice in
death in this wise by King Manasseh, ‘Sanhedrin,’ p. 103,
c. 2; comp.
Justin’s dialogue with Trypho” (Jahn’s ‘Sacred Antiquities,’ p. 132, § 260,
7.). With saws. The word in the original is not in
the plural. It occurs again
only in the parallel place (II Samuel 12:31) and in I Kings 7:9, both
times in the singular. The teeth of Eastern saws then and
now usually
incline to the handle instead of from it. With harrows of iron.
The only
harrow known to have
been used at this time consisted of a thick block of
wood borne down by a weight, or on which a man sat, drawn
over the
ploughed land by oxen (Isaiah 28:24-25; Job 39:10; Hosea 10:11),
and
the root of the Hebrew word expresses the idea of crushing or
leveling the land. But our present word is very different, and is
found only
here and in the parallel place, with the word “iron” accompanying it, so as
to be equivalent to a compound word, and appears to mean
“sharp
instruments of iron,” or sharp threshing instruments. The
use of the former
part of this phrase (I Samuel 17:18) for cheeses is the only other
instance of its occurrence. Saws should be “axes,”
or “scythes,” as stated
above, though it is not any of the three more ordinary
words for “axe” (see
Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 1:142).
The Horrors of War (v.3)
All actions, both of nations and of individuals, should be
judged in the light
of
the prevailing standards and sentiments of the age in which they are
done. This is a most important principle, but it is a difficult one to apply
wisely; and it is one that may be easily misrepresented. Right can never be
other than right, and
wrong
can never be other than wrong. But custom
and
sentiment give a temporary character to many actions which tend to
confuse our apprehension of their essential rightness or
wrongness. Limited
knowledge also leads to the permission of things which advancing
civilization shows to be unworthy and even wrong. These points may be
illustrated from slavery, truthfulness, sense of the value of life,
ideas of
property, and war. Another important consideration, which greatly
helps to
explain Old Testament narratives, is that national judgments must
of
necessity take national character. An old divine well says, “God can punish
individuals both in this life
and in the next; but He only
punishes nations
in this.” There are distinctly personal and individual sins, and
there are as
distinctly national sins; wrong done by the rulers in the name of the
people;
or
a wrong spirit pervading the people; (“my people love to have it so”
(Jeremiah 5:31) or times when vice is permitted to run an
unrestrained and
ruinous course. And such national sin Jehovah ever regards, using
such
agencies as famine, plague, or war, for its due punishment. In this
light the
Old Testament ever regards war; the aggressive force is
always treated as the
executioner who carries out the Divine judgments. And it may be urged
that
this is still the deeper view to take of war, and that it is quite
consistent with
a
clear recognition of the fact that such an aggressive force may act in mere
wilfullness, or in furtherance of wicked schemes of
self-aggrandizement.
(Is it not a coincidence, that the Arab world, many
connected with terrorism,
just happen to be in vogue at a time of the decline of Christianity in
- CY – 2012) God makes the very “wrath of man” praise Him. (Psalm
76:10).
In treating the incidents of this chapter, it may be well
to point out the distinction
between what usually happens under the excitements of a siege, and
the deliberate
judgment that may be pronounced upon a conquered people. When a city is
taken by storm, a scene of wild and awful rioting usually
follows. Illustrate
also from the Roman siege of
— wars of races, the young and strong pushing out the old and weak;
hardy mountain races occupying the cultured plains of the over-civilized
and effeminate; dynastic
wars, occasioned by the rivalries of different
royal houses; sacred wars, such as the Crusades, to
recover possession
of the Lord’s tomb; and wars of revenge, undertaken to
clear off supposed
or real insults. Of this latter kind was the war with Ammon (see ch. 19.).
Modern ideas concerning war make
it impossible for us to approve of the
treatment to which the conquered Ammonites were subjected. Some
writers
have urged that David merely condemned the captives to severe
bodily
labors, to hewing and sawing wood, to burning of bricks, and to
working
in iron mines; but probably the more terrible translation of
the language
must be accepted, in view of the common war-law of that stern
age. And,
with its best mitigations, war must still be regarded as a
dreadful thing.
(This was written, apparently,
before the Civil War and World Wars
I and II – CY
-2012).
The whole world sighs for the day when
“the nations shall learn war no more.” (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)
4 “And it
came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with
the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai,”-
For the
Gob (bwOg),
a name not known, but which careless
transcription may have
easily made out of the former. The Syriac
Version, however, as well as the
Septuagint, has
vs.18-20), another name also easily interchangeable
in Hebrew characters with
Gezer. The “yet again” of our v. 6 would well
accord with the supposition that
the
conflict with the Philistines was at
the
three times. Gezer belonged to Ephraim, and was situated to the north
of
In the parallel place spelt Saph.
It is remarkable that, in the
Peshito Syriac,
over Psalm 143, is found the inscription,” Of David, when he slew Asaph,
the
brother of Gulyad, and thanksgiving that he had conquered.” “that
was of the children of the giant: and they were
subdued.” Of the children of
the giant. The Hebrew word for
“giant,” rapha (always in these verses spelt
with a final aleph, but in the parallel verses always with he
final), is here
(Authorized Version) translated. “The Rapha, a native of Gath,
was the
forefather of the Canaanitish Rephaim, mentioned as early as Genesis
14:5;
15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11; 3:11; Joshua 12:4; 15:8; 17:15.
The slaying of
Ishbi-benob (II Samuel 21:16) is not here given. It is also to be
observed
that the lengthy account of Samuel, respecting
Absalom and his rebellion
(II Samuel 13-21.) is not
found here.
5 “And
there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son
of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite,
whose spear
staff was like a weaver’s beam.” Elhanan the son of Jair. In Samuel Jair
appears as Jaare. This Elhanan is
probably different from him of ch.11:26. There
is a strange confusion in the reading of
this and its parallel verse. If our
present
verse is to stand corrected by accepting from its parallel “the Bethlehemite”
(II Samuel 21:19) in place of our Lamhi,
then either we have no name given
for the brother of Goliath, the Gittite;
or, if we drop the word “brother”
(changing the yja}
of Chronicles into the tae
of Samuel), and make Goliath
the Gittite the man slain by
Elhanan, then of such a Goliath we know
nothing, and it is a most unlikely coincidence of name with
the conquered
of David’s sling.. Kennicott’s seventy-eighth
dissertation is occupied, and
ably, with the pros and cons of this
question; and the curiosities of Jerome
on the passage may be found in his ‘Quaestiones
Hebraicae.’ There seems
no sufficient reason to depart from our reading here, to
which it were
preferable to adjust the reading in the parallel place,
which exhibits almost
certainly a glaring corruption of text in another respect.
6 “And yet
again there was war at
stature, whose fingers and toes were four and
twenty, six on each
hand, and six on each foot and he also was the
son of the giant.”
A man of… stature. The Hebrew text is hD;mi, as also in
ch.11:23; and
(in the plural) in
Numbers 13:32. An eccentric and probably corrupt form
appears in the parallel place (II Samuel 21:20). Pliny (‘Nat.
Hist.,’2:43)
speaks of the Sedigiti, and
places them in the family of
the
Himyarites.
7 “But
when he defied
brother slew him.”
Jonathan (see ch. 27:32; II Samuel 13:3,32; compare
ch.2:13), where it is probable that “nephew” should
be read for “uncle”).
It is to be noticed that the name of this child of the giant, of twelve fingers and
twelve toes, is not mentioned. We are not compelled, therefore,
to regard it
as
remarkable that he of the fifth verse should
not be named.
Strong in Body, and
Strong in God (vs. 6-7)
Here are introduced to us “a man of great stature,” and of abnormal
development; a striking instance of mere bodily power: and a man who
could overcome this giant, by virtue of his loyalty to God and
reliance on
His strength. It seems to be a fact that hugeness of body is usually
associated with dullness of mind. The quick-witted David is always
more
than a match for the ponderous Goliath. It seems to be the fact — at least
under our present human conditions — that the culture of the
mind tends
to
ensure the frailty of the body. It seems to be now very difficult, if it may
not
be called impossible, to gain and to keep the mens
sano (a healthy mind in a healthy body). Yet we should feel that both the body and
the
soul are sacred trusts, and that we are responsible to God for the full
and wise
and
harmonious culture of them both. The “body is to be for the Lord”
(I Corinthians 6:13), and we are to “prosper even
as our souls prosper”
(III John 1:2). There
are two principles by which our life should be toned.
We should seek to be:
Applications may be made to health,
vigor of frame, due control of
passions, and proper training of mental faculties. But it
should be
shown that there are limitations to the success which we may
reach
in these matters — limitations from constitutional
peculiarities, from
hereditary tendencies, and from disabilities of circumstance. In this
each of us can but reach his best possible.
In the culture of these there
need be no qualifications or limitations.
Due training of
these will ensure complete dominion over the bodily
powers and relations, so
that all the lower faculties take their due place
of ministry or service. (God meant for the spirit to rule the body! – CY -
2012).
And this
is the high ideal after which we all should strive —
the man, who is
like the Man Christ Jesus, STRONG IN GOD and
therefore strong in body.
8 “These
were born unto the giant in Gath;” - The parallel
place
reads, “These four,,’ etc. The first of the four
in view there is not
mentioned here. The account is given in II Samuel 21:15-17. And as
it
was
in that encounter that David himself played the chief part (though,
apparently, it was Abishai who dealt Ishbi-benob the fatal blow in
“succouring”
David), the notice of it would have seemed necessary to
complete fully the sense of the following clauses - “and they fell by the
hand of David, and by the hand of his
servants.” Still
this, it may justly
be
argued, may have been the very reason of the form of expression here chosen,
coupling David’s work and that of his servants. This brief summary
in the last verse
of
this chapter, as also in the last verse of the corresponding chapter, just
serves to
reveal to us the nexus that bound together the three or four
exploits for narration.
It consisted in the common descent of the four giant
victims.
The Wasting of the
Ammonites, and David’s Wars with the Giants.
(vs. 1-8)
The outrage inflicted on the Hebrew ambassadors was still
further to be
avenged by David. Joab was sent
out with the power of the army to waste
the country of the Ammonites. The former campaign had been
disastrous
because of the hired auxiliaries of the Ammonites. Now the
full strength of
David’s army was to be led forth to complete the ruin both
of the people
and their land. “At
the time that kings go out to battle,” i.e. spring-time,
the expedition set out. Having besieged the capital, Rabbah, and having
after a protracted siege taken the lower town, or “city of waters,” and
knowing that the royal city would soon fall, Joab invited King David to
come in person and have the honor of taking it himself (see II Samuel
12:26).
We are thus enabled to reconcile the two statements, that “David
tarried at
David’s head. This crown weighed a talent, or one hundred
and fourteen
pounds’ weight of gold. The crowns of Eastern kings were
not usually
worn on the head (and could not have been in this case),
but were
suspended by chains of gold over the throne. We again
notice the cruelties
of war and especially
of that time (v. 3). These are recorded,
not for
example, but to deepen our sense of gratitude for the
blessings which
Christianity has brought in introducing a humane mode of
warfare. It may
also make us long for the time when “nations shall learn war no more”
(Micah 4:3), and when “righteousness
shall cover the earth as the
waters cover the sea”
(Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14). We see
here David’s
victories over the giants. The “stripling” in God’s hand has
overthrown kingdoms
and
slain the giants of wickedness. In God’s hand “the worm
Jacob shall thresh
the mountains” (Isaiah 41:14-16).
As we review David’s rise from the “stripling”
of
the wilderness (I Samuel 17:56) to the highest place in the land, we may say,
“What hath God wrought!” (Numbers
23:23) - “Not by might, nor by power,
but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of
hosts” (Zechariah 4:6). To the outward eye
of
sense a man may
be a “stripling,” and in his own eyes “a
dead dog” and
“a flea” (I Samuel 24:14); but it is such instruments God ever uses to
accomplish
His mighty works and to advance His
kingdom in the world. Gideon’s “lamps and
pitchers” (Judges 7:15-22), Naaman’s “little maid” (II Kings 5:2-3), the
widow’s
“pot of oil” (I Kings
17:10-16), Jonah’s “worm” and “gourd” (Jonah 4:6-11),
and
Samson’s “jawbone of an ass,” (Judges
15:15) — these God uses for in these
He can be glorified. Man’s might and power is passed by, for there is no
room in
them for God
to be glorified. If we are only low
enough, only little enough, only
nothing before Him, He can
and will use us; and the reason He has so often to
pass by the “vessel” is, that it
is too full and not “fit for the
Master’s use”
(II Timothy 2:21). “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and the weak things of the world to confound
the
things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things
which
are
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not [too
contemptible to be named], to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh
should glory in His
presence” (I Corinthians
1:27-29).
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.